Common Core Standards

[propswest]

I tend to agree with Yep! on the issue. Launching any type of experimental program must be clearly disclosed to and acknowledged by parents. Period.

Sorry..but this is like people screaming about how Obamacare was a surprise.  There were tons of debate on the matter and California allowed Common Care to be implemented over a number of years.

Seriously? Please show evidence of "tons of debate" and public awareness of Common Core when it was passed in Aug. 2010? This is one of the most uninformed comments I have seen on this Board.  There was virtually no Common Core debate or parental awareness when it was accepted by California in Aug. 2010 (and only accepted to get the Race to the Top grants,( that we didn't get).  The budget crises in 2010 and summer vacation obscured it.  Obamacare has had so much more press and debate.  There was a poll done showing low awareness of Common Core even this past year, 2 years after it was already accepted in California.

 

[propswest]

The biggest concern is that they want to shrink the curriculum. Like in Algebra the intent is to focus on the skills that can be applied in "the working environment".  But what is the "working environment"? Is it McDonalds or UCI? Why would you want your kid to stay focused on the knowledge of coin counting, if you aim him/her to the college degree? What is the value of the public education, if we lower standards down to non-qualified job requirements? It's just one of a few things that I am concerned about.

Most common sense parents and teachers we've talked to who learn about Common Core (beyond the PR coming from IUSD administration and Feds and state) share our concerns.  Some of the folks on this board have yet to show any evidence or proof that California is better spending $1.2B and 5-10 more years to change to Common Core and throw out 13 years of improvements (across all demographic groups) than spending that money to hire more teachers or other improvements like reducing the ridiculous 33+ kids per class we have.  They clearly have friends or family who work for IUSD or some other political interest, perhaps just blind followers, who knows.  They clearly ignore any evidence and don't present any of their own thinking, other than repeating PR. Better to spend our time talking to parents who don't have these biases and are willing to look at the facts.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

The biggest concern is that they want to shrink the curriculum. Like in Algebra the intent is to focus on the skills that can be applied in "the working environment".  But what is the "working environment"? Is it McDonalds or UCI? Why would you want your kid to stay focused on the knowledge of coin counting, if you aim him/her to the college degree? What is the value of the public education, if we lower standards down to non-qualified job requirements? It's just one of a few things that I am concerned about.

Most common sense parents and teachers we've talked to who learn about Common Core (beyond the PR coming from IUSD administration and Feds and state) share our concerns.  Some of the folks on this board have yet to show any evidence or proof that California is better spending $1.2B and 5-10 more years to change to Common Core and throw out 13 years of improvements (across all demographic groups) than spending that money to hire more teachers or other improvements like reducing the ridiculous 33+ kids per class we have.  They clearly have friends or family who work for IUSD or some other political interest, perhaps just blind followers, who knows.  They clearly ignore any evidence and don't present any of their own thinking, other than repeating PR. Better to spend our time talking to parents who don't have these biases and are willing to look at the facts.

No one is throwing out anything.  Again...just about every teacher I have ever spoken to about this issue loves Common Core.  They get more flexibility and more control over what is taught.  Many teachers thought that the old standards were outdated and impractical.

 

[furioussugar]

If you don't like what IUSD is peddling-  then vote with your feet and move on.  This isn't your only option in education.

 

[propswest]

If you don't like what IUSD is peddling-  then vote with your feet and move on.  This isn't your only option in education.

Or vote with your vote.  In the next election, vote for IUSD School Board candidates who are pro-local control of Irvine's education and who are pro-child privacy protection, vs. those who support Washington DC control of Irvine's education and are OK with handing over data on Kindergartners to longitudinal databases and outside parties.  The Great Park "balloon-doggle" seemed to be a big part of what caused the change-over in Irvine city council last year.  Perhaps Common Core will cause a similar shift in the IUSD Board in the next election.

Billions of our taxpayer dollars are being spent on the Common Core experiment, regardless of where your kids go to school.  And also get ready to pay (through state and/or city taxes or bonds) for the new $250+ million high school.  Again, one way or another, whether your kids attend public school or not, we'll all be paying for it.  And we are getting something worse than what we already had.  Spend that money on hiring more teachers!  We have 30+ kids per class in Irvine and already have world class state standards and tests. How does this make any sense?

But we agree it is not the only option in education --  And this is exactly what is likely to happen.  If the blind, political devotion to Common Core stands, we may well see the collapse of public education when tens of millions of parents in the U.S.--especially taxpayers who want a better education for their kids--pull their kids out of public schools altogether.  The problem is, it seems a large part of Irvine's entire premise (and financial stability) as a city is based on the foundation of having "good public schools."  If parents pull their kids out, why pay the premium to live in Irvine?  Might as well set aside the debate about the new high school location if this plays out the way it could -- no new high school will even be needed.

 

[propswest]

Fear and hyperbole, that's all you're posting.

Politically motivated, re-hashing of Common Core public relations nonsense.  That's all your posting. 

We're posting facts and truth.  You should try it sometime. 

Still waiting for any reasonable argument based on facts as to why California taxpayers should be OK with spending billions of dollars and 10+ years to downgrade to Common Core's lower standards, instead of keeping existing CA world-class standards using that same money to, for example, reduce class sizes?

Apparently (if you do the research), no arguments or debate on this option was even considered when CA adopted Common Core in 2010.  Therefore, do not suppose they will be forthcoming from anyone now as a rational justification for how we got into this mess does not seem to exist, beyond going after Race to the Top funds (which CA did not get).  Arnold & CA state govt. went after the funds, didn't get them, now we're stuck with the lemon that is Common Core and trying to justify this mistake after the fact.

We don't live on Talk Irvine all day, attacking every post that is contradictory to our politics.

We are simply parents in Irvine who care about our city and our children.  Parents should do their own research and make up their own minds, as we did.  If you do all the research and still love Common Core and what is being done with our kid's data, fine.  But if you argue for something without fulling understanding an issue, that's another story. 

Do ALL of your homework first vs. posting knee-jerk, fact-less attacks.  Learn how Common Core ACTUALLY came about in CA, who ACTUALLY owns the rights to it, what groups were ACTUALLY funded by Gates to "grease the skids" to get it adopted, how it ACTUALLY compares to the standards we already had in CA, how time and much money will ACTUALLY be spent to change to it, and how that money and time could have ACTUALLY been better spent, how Irvine kids may effectively be "held back a year" with math next year under Common Core (learning many of the same topics all over again), how child data (as young as 5 years old) will ACTUALLY be collected and stored and used, what federal laws were unilaterally changed, without Congress, to give more access to child data to more 3rd parties, etc.  These are all facts and there are many more if you care to look.  Parents should do their own research and not just blindly accept the PR campaign coming from Washington DC, Sacramento, the school administration or folks on this board.

 

[propswest]

The biggest concern is that they want to shrink the curriculum. Like in Algebra the intent is to focus on the skills that can be applied in "the working environment".  But what is the "working environment"? Is it McDonalds or UCI? Why would you want your kid to stay focused on the knowledge of coin counting, if you aim him/her to the college degree? What is the value of the public education, if we lower standards down to non-qualified job requirements? It's just one of a few things that I am concerned about.

Most common sense parents and teachers we've talked to who learn about Common Core (beyond the PR coming from IUSD administration and Feds and state) share our concerns.  Some of the folks on this board have yet to show any evidence or proof that California is better spending $1.2B and 5-10 more years to change to Common Core and throw out 13 years of improvements (across all demographic groups) than spending that money to hire more teachers or other improvements like reducing the ridiculous 33+ kids per class we have.  They clearly have friends or family who work for IUSD or some other political interest, perhaps just blind followers, who knows.  They clearly ignore any evidence and don't present any of their own thinking, other than repeating PR. Better to spend our time talking to parents who don't have these biases and are willing to look at the facts.

No one is throwing out anything.  Again...just about every teacher I have ever spoken to about this issue loves Common Core.  They get more flexibility and more control over what is taught.  Many teachers thought that the old standards were outdated and impractical.

Would like to see any evidence or specific examples of the current CA standards being inferior or more "outdated" as compared to Common Core.  Even pro-Common Core PR folks would not argue that Common Core standards are superior to existing CA standards.  Last year, pro-Common Core folks tried the pitch that Common Core standards are more "rigorous" and allow us to "compete internationally." This was a pitch that might fly in a state like Kentucky, but doesn't work here in CA (because it simply is not true).  So, in CA, they know CC is not more rigorous and, thus, now avoid making this argument.  They now pitch the "it gives us time to slow down" argument instead--slowing down is the complete opposite argument of it being more rigorous, by the way.  Just watch the video of the one and only IUSD public Common Core meeting from last year where the phrase "slow down" is used a bunch of times by IUSD folks in their pitch for Common Core. 

So yes, teachers get 2-3 years (effectively) to "slow down", repeat entire topics all over again, and go 2-3+ years without meaningful test results or trends.  Sounds good, doesn't it?  Doesn't mean it's the best for teachers, our schools or our kids -- the ones who will be impacted the most.

Existing CA standards are certainly not impractical as they've been used for 13 years to successfully increase performance and college-readiness across all demographic groups California-wide.  Irvine, in particular, has been very successful in practically implementing them to make our students extremely college-ready and proficient.

Actually, yes, we are throwing out 13 years of improvement trend data, all textbooks and materials (they all have to be replaced at great expense to us and great profit to publishers--publishers also love Common Core for obvious reasons).  We are also throwing out proven, state controlled standards in favor of unproven, lower standards owned by two Washington D.C. lobby groups.  We cannot change a single word in the standards and we have no control over the tests.  We could also be throwing out child and parent privacy rights in the process.  Do your teachers know what data may be collected on kids now as young as 5 years old, without parental approval?  Do they know where that data goes and specifically who has access to it?  Do parents have the right to opt-out of the data collection and use?  Do Irvine schools have the right to opt-out of the data collection and transmission?  Ask them.

"Loving" the fancy new books, materials and test formats is not the same as loving Common Core.  We could have gotten the same fancy new materials, tests, etc. with existing standards (if CA chose to), and then used the extra millions or billions to hire more teachers or pay them more.

 

[nosuchreality]

Billions of our taxpayer dollars are being spent on the Common Core experiment, regardless of where your kids go to school.  And also get ready to pay (through state and/or city taxes or bonds) for the new $250+ million high school.  Again, one way or another, whether your kids attend public school or not, we'll all be paying for it.  And we are getting something worse than what we already had.  Spend that money on hiring more teachers!  We have 30+ kids per class in Irvine and already have world class state standards and tests. How does this make any sense?

Again, local curriculum is still up to the local district within the over-all State requirements.  As for a $250 Million dollar high school, that's not a common core requirement.  BTW, still waiting on the experimental Geometry requirement.

As for State requirements. overall, the State as a 22% non-graduation rate.  Districts like LAUSD, the 2nd largest district in the nation serving nearly 655,000+ students has a 34% non-graduation rate.  Irvine has a 97% graduation rate (as of 2006, last I found and I suspect it's gone up since).

Irvine spends $8296 per student.  LAUSD spends close to $11K per student and if you look at all funds, LAUSD spent $29,780 per student in 2010.  They've spent near $20K or more  per student for the last decade if not two.  Money is not the issue in LAUSD.

BTW, Compton's graduation rate is 57%. 

Overall the State is spending $70 Billion a year on education.

Irvine's school will continue to be fine because Irvine will continue to be able to develop the curriculum that supports advanced education and will continue to have involved parents that themselves have educations.

LAUSD, Compton and other districts have failed and the existing state model doesn't work there.  Granted, I doubt any model will work in LAUSD since the problem is political pandering, graft and corruption.

 

[propswest]

Again, local curriculum is still up to the local district within the over-all State requirements. 

Again just rehashing the propaganda coming from D.C, Sacramento, special interest groups and IUSD.  IUSD, just as they did with Star and CA Standards, will teach to the Common Core tests and use Common Core textbooks and materials which are all going to be 100% Common Core.  If you read and listen to IUSD administration, Common Core is the best thing since sliced bread.  To say that the local curriculum is still up to the school is naive and just the standard deflection from the fact CA made a huge mistake in giving up control of standards, tests and materials to Arne Duncan, Washington DC lobby groups, testing companies and big publishers.  By California state law, IUSD could have actually chosen to stick with the current set of CA standards and tests and/or come up with its own.  THAT would have evidence of the local freedom and control you are implying we have.  With Common Core, we've effectively given that all up and will now live under Common Core... Washington D.C. driven public education.

 

[propswest]

As for a $250 Million dollar high school, that's not a common core requirement. 

If you read my comments carefully, if IUSD sticks blindly to Common Core, my point was that if enough parents in IUSD pull their kids out and into private or home school or leave Irvine altogether, we won't need to spend $250M on a new high school because we will need less (or no more) room.  At the same time, $250M is a ridiculous amount to spend on one school housing ~2,500 kids.  For that money, you could build an amazing Khan-Academy like online school serving millions of kids around the world.  Not just one school for one neighborhood area in one city.  This is almost as absurd as LA spending $500M for one school and millions more on iPads... more on LA in a minute...

But it does speak to the amount of money CA is wasting in schools, esp. wasting Proposition 30 funds which CA voters got duped into:http://dianeravitch.net/2013/08/31/prop-30-in-california-where-will-the-money-go/

Little of this money is going to actually go to improve actual education.  Common Core REDUCES education and sets kids back about a year, especially in math. 

 

[propswest]

Please point to specifics, where is this focus on 'working' at McDonald's.  The dumbing down?  The stripping of Irvine's ability to have advanced placement? etc.

"Professor Jason Zimba, a lead writer of the math standards, said the standards, known as Common Core, prepare students ?for the colleges most kids go to, but not for the college most parents aspire to,? and added that the standards are ?not for selective colleges.":http://pioneerinstitute.org/news/lo...core-math-fails-to-prepare-students-for-stem/

We have looked at the Common Core math standards, standard by standard, compared to California's state standards, line by line.  Have you?  If you did, you'd see that Common Core puts kids about a YEAR behind California standards in math.  California also removed Algebra from 8th grade and moved it to 9th, in preparation to downgrade to Common Core's lower standards.  In 2010, even the politically appointed, rubber stamp California review committee could not say that Common Core standards were better.  Yet for political reasons alone (and some hope that California would get Race to the Top grants, which we did not), California adopted them in a rush in August 2010.  And now, all our kids will effectively fail a grade this year to, yes, "dumb down" to Common Core.

Please do some of your own research (or not pretend not to see the research) vs. having us spoon feed you on everything.  It's clear you are just picking certain things to question, not answering the hard questions and re-posting the same politically motivated pro-Common Core propaganda.

 

[propswest]

Here's the Common Core standard for High School Geometry, please show up the experimental part?
http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/HSG/SRT


CCSS.Math.Content.HSG-SRT.A.3 Use the properties of similarity transformations to establish the AA criterion for two triangles to be similar.

Reaching for straws again.  As always, just selecting certain items to respond to and re-posting the same Common Core standards pages hoping to confuse people into believing you have thoroughly researched a topic, when it is clear you have not.  Once again, spoon feeding answers to your selective questions.  You ignored all our prior facts about how even the supporters of the 60's era Soviet educrat, Kolmogorov, said this was a bad idea, and yes, experimental, even 50 years ago in Soviet Union, to introduce this method.

Please show any data that, prior to Common Core craze, that these rigid motions standards (and there are many, not just one) have ever been used effectively in any public school district in America?  If they haven't', it's clearly experimental, isn't it?  And now it will go from NO schools in America to EVERY school in America that is following Common Core.  All simply because a few folks in Washington DC decided to add Kolmogorov's experiment.  IUSD and every school under Common Core has zero ability to take it out and must teach it. 

Prior to this, the traditional Euclidean approach using more "natural" axioms and deductive proofs has been traditionally (and successfully) used.  Ones that some parents may have been taught.  But, of course, one of the hidden goals of Common Core is to reduce parental involvement using stuff that is completely foreign to parents, even those who many be decent in math... like this one.

With rigid motions,  there is no associated actual MATH that kids need to do. Kids look busy and there is little one can expect them to show on the test because there is not much to be shown. 

One of the beauties of traditional geometry is the reliance on logical deductions and NOT RELYING on visual appearances. In fact, one of the first thing any geometry teacher might say is, "don't be misled by how objects look." A right angle is not a right angle until you show it to be so; these two lines are not parallel until you show so, as much as they seem parallel. What's left to do with rigid motions and without solid algebra is to move/rotate/flip shapes until they *seem* congruent. Which is what most students will end up doing -- using overlapping transparencies, or using software, but never actually using mathematical transformations because that part is "too difficult."  Not easy to take two shapes -- say two general triangles in a plane -- and *mathematically* show that they are congruent (or not).

How about this.  You can drive your car over the bridge designed by engineers who grew up under Common Core, moving shapes around to do math.

We'll drive our car over the bridge designed by engineers who were taught under California state math standards and who actually use MATH to do MATH -- not just move shapes around.

 

[propswest]

As for State requirements. overall, the State as a 22% non-graduation rate.  Districts like LAUSD, the 2nd largest district in the nation serving nearly 655,000+ students has a 34% non-graduation rate.  Irvine has a 97% graduation rate (as of 2006, last I found and I suspect it's gone up since).

Irvine spends $8296 per student.  LAUSD spends close to $11K per student and if you look at all funds, LAUSD spent $29,780 per student in 2010.  They've spent near $20K or more  per student for the last decade if not two.  Money is not the issue in LAUSD.

BTW, Compton's graduation rate is 57%. 

Overall the State is spending $70 Billion a year on education.

Irvine's school will continue to be fine because Irvine will continue to be able to develop the curriculum that supports advanced education and will continue to have involved parents that themselves have educations.

LAUSD, Compton and other districts have failed and the existing state model doesn't work there.  Granted, I doubt any model will work in LAUSD since the problem is political pandering, graft and corruption.

Once again, seems you are trying to imply that IUSD should switch to Common Core because that will somehow magically transform  the "politically pandering and corrupt" LA school district??  Somehow Irvine taxpayers and parents are supposed to accept Common Core to fix LA's problems??

We can agree LA school district is a mess and we might agree it is not due to any lack of funding.  They spent a half billion dollars on one school and millions more on iPads.

But what you fail to mention is that, despite LA schools mismanagement and despite HIGH levels of immigration of non-native English speaking students over the past decade, one of the highest of any states, California students, across all demographic groups, have consistently increased Star scores and college-readiness measures for the past decade under the current standards and tests.  If you factor the high immigration and diversity of California, our students look much like Massachusetts, which is the top in the nation with its existing standards and tests in place for the past decade.    Massachusetts at least got $250M of the Race to the Top money from their friends Arne Duncan and Obama to make their even dumber move to Common Core.  We made our dumb move without that money AND with spending $1.2B in CA money meant by voters of Prop 30 for other things.

Remember that the switch to Common Core was actually made by Arnold Schwarzenegger in the summer of 2010, when California state budget was a complete mess and we were desperate for ANY federal money being dangled by the feds.  We didn't get the money, yet we are stuck with the experimental, expensive, standards-reducing lemon that is Common Core.  Sounds like a really smart move by Arnold, doesn't it?

 

[nosuchreality]

No I'm not going waste any more time.  When you take five posts to attempt to make a point but still need to rely on others to do it, you're acting like a ditto head.

Your first link is to a Prof of Math ranting that Calculus isn't a high school requirement and is needed to position for STEM degrees.  That's unchanged from the previous standard.

 

[propswest]

No I'm not going waste any more time.  When you take five posts to attempt to make a point but still need to rely on others to do it, you're acting like a ditto head.

Your first link is to a Prof of Math ranting that Calculus isn't a high school requirement and is needed to position for STEM degrees.  That's unchanged from the previous standard.

Not going to waste any more time?  Guess your other 686 posts were more thoughtful.  Sort of figured you would not be able to respond.  Our posts are complete with facts, backing research and original thoughts.  Your short blurbs only show your blind support of the status quo, a lack of understanding of the topic and political ideology. 

You didn't even bother to see that it is not just a professor of math, but Dr. James Milgram, the only guy who was personally ON THE COMMON CORE REVIEW COMMITTEE with an advanced math degree, along with Dr. Sandra Stotsky, the creator of Massachusetts' best in the nation public school system, both of whom refused to be coerced into signing off on Common Core.  As always, just looking at the surface and not bothering to understand a topic fully before commenting on it.

 

[propswest]

There are many reasons to oppose common core...

Really?  You stated this almost three months ago, yet have not followed up with even ONE reason to oppose Common Core.  Perhaps you could take a minute to mention one?

You also demanded a response to the geometry question.  We provided it in detail.  But you have yet to respond to our simple question about why it is better for California to spend $1.25B and years to implement Common Core, vs. using that same amount of money to improve existing standards and/or reduce class size, hire more teachers, pay teachers more, etc?  Would love to hear your argument as to how this makes any sense.  Yet, dozens of posts later, you just re-post the same old Common Core standards web pages and complain about how LA schools are bad. 

 

[propswest]

Here we go...  we shouldn't be shocked anymore, but you have to admit this is at least dumb, if not shocking.

The creator/architect of Common Core, David Coleman, who never taught a day in K-12 (in fact, was turned down when he applied for a job as a taecher), admits he and his team was not even qualified to create the national standards, now being rolled out in K-12 schools around the country.

The woman that introduced him also says, "...he doesn?t have a single credential for [creating the standards]. He?s never taught in an elementary school..."

http://truthinamericaneducation.com/common-core-state-standards/david-coleman-2-years-ago-we-were-a-collection-of-unqualified-people/

Also, in another video....

If you want to hear more from David Coleman, and understand his true motivations, watch him practically salivating about having data on our children at his disposal (he now runs the SAT test!):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AApeR8VyxCI&noredirect=1

 

[zubs]

All I know is I can't stand reading YEPS! messages.  They are long and give me a headache.  Can someone to a TLDR on it.  Just list out common core pros/cons.

Thanks.

 

[ZeroLot]

You guys need to clarify ... Are you debating the Common Core Theory or the Common Core Reality?

The theory was really good.  Reality depends on which school and district you are in.  So I see no reason to stress over anything until the theory gets transformed into lesson plans.  Then start complaining if the lesson plans are crazy.

And even if the lesson plans are crazy, it comes down to the teacher.  A good teacher can turn any crazy lesson plan and make it educational.

 

[propswest]

The CommoreCore Movie is finally out...

Every parent of school kids in Irvine should watch this movie:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjxBClx01jc