Free Republic

In what way am I defending it? All I’m saying is that the program is not what this article and/or headline makes it out to be. Nor is the cited blog any different. Let’s criticize things on what they actually are, not what an attention grabbing headline purports them to be. We have to be better than click-bait.

Again, that is not what the article says the program is. But I guess why bother actually reading things when we can just react to a headline? It does make things a lot easier. Sorry for asking for reading comprehension, it was foolish of me to do so.

sorry about the typo, but if you actually read the website, this fellowship is for principals. They apply for the program, and are still principals. They do not become “federal agents,” nor are federal agents placed in schools.

From the website, the PAF’s are principles from the schools, not federal agents placed in the schools.

I think he means you can measure the distance to Alpha Centauri, but you couldn’t prove its light was coming from there, which is an odd thing to say

Those aren’t standards. Those are questions in a lesson that are moving towards a standard. 27x14 would be for the 4th grade common core standard:
“Multiply a whole number of up to four digits by a one-digit whole number, and multiply two two-digit numbers, using strategies based on place value and the properties of operations. Illustrate and explain the calculation by using equations, rectangular arrays, and/or area models.” (CCSS.Math.Content.4.NBT.B.5)
Standards, in education, need to be broad, not for any “multicultural” reason, but for the fact that kids learn at different rates. If the standard said on this day, you must teach this problem, where does that leave a gifted program, or a special education class, to give the two extremes?

The standards aren’t made to measure anything. They are a set of skills (multiply two digit numbers). The teachers/school/district figure out how to assess and measure them. And that’s where you get the lessons you started the thread with. Those lessons assess the broad skills of the common core in some way (or at east say they do). The lessons that offend are being chosen at the local level. Those deciders are the source of your ire, not the common core, which again has no lessons

The CC, like any standards, are vague. They say “prove and claim” or “have a discussion.” The school/district/state then makes learning outcomes or targets from those standards that are more specific. Or in most cases, what happens is one of the big educational companies make programs that the school then buys. Again the laziness.
And because of that laziness, the fed ain’t going to make lesson plans for every subject, at every grade level, for every day, and they do not police the standards. Companies do produce CC-aligned programs that can be very scripted, so maybe that’s where the conspiracy theory you referred to came from. The companies say they are CC-aligned, but there is no official DOE stamp or policing of that claim. I’ve seen lots of programs that say they are, but they are just the same old crap, just with different titles.
And the common core came from that crap, and seeing where many years of “write about your feelings” kind of lessons got the educational system. the goal is to be more rigourous, to actually expect the kids to produce things like what is produced in the real world: reading non-fiction for information, analyzing text, etc.
I think the common core is a rather neutral document, supporting good ideas. The problems you and other see in it are how it being implemented. Your point about what is supported and not on official websites and what not is a good one. I’m sure they’d say this is just an example, but official examples quickly become the standard, due again to the laziness.
The reality in the classroom is that the federal government does not come into play. What the principle or the district wants does. And we can say that those players feel pressure from those above, all the way to the top, but that’s not the way it is in reality. The government sets this big standards, but doesn’t police them. the local officials set the actual learning targets and does police it. the common core can be the basis for lessons that push any ideology or belief system you want and it is the local bosses who set them. If you don’t like what a school is teaching, those are the people to blame, (or the textbook companies) not the writers of the standards.
Last point: standards in education are less rigorous that the standards in industry. If make bottles, they have to be very exactly made so the standards are really tight. Education standards are broad by design so teachers, or whoever, can apply them to their situation. It’d be terrible (and the cc does not do this, nor could they) to have a standard like “on day 35 of 3rd grade, the math teacher will teach multiplication with the following problems...”

Standards drive testing, of course, but testing does not always drive curriculum. Teaching to a test is the laziest of all curriculum planning, which is why it happens so much. But again, the CC has no content. The CC-based tests test things like I pointed out before, supporting claims with evidence, or comparing two texts. Schools/districts/states choose the content, not the fed or the people who wrote the CC. Most people (and I bet you) would agree that schools should teach the things that the common core actually calls for. How the schools teach them are what you (and a lot of us) have a problem with, not the CC itself.

The common core is things like, “if you make an argument, you have to support it with evidence.” It has no content. There are no lesson plans. It is not a ‘common indoctrination.’ It asks teachers to teach critical thinking skills and not just write about personal stories and feelings. What content gets taught it up to the school/state/district, where ever the content decisions are made

We would if we could. Like many, many families, double income is required for our continued sheltering and feeding

A broken clock...

And even if they are required to provide space, the space may not be one you’d want to sit in half naked. My wife pumps in a shower room.

Hopefully these issues become ones people look for in employers, so there will be economic pressure to improve things like this or maternity leave

I doubt that, CharlesWayne. I guess my wife doesn’t “have” to work, but we do enjoy things like a roof and food. She would love not to, but there is little choice involved.

And breast pumps require a job with the right attitude and a place to pump, neither of which are in high enough supply these days.

We are lucky that she can pump at work, but let’s not pretend it is a universal choice/opportunity.

Orbital speed is very, very fast. If you were going at a ‘day or two to glide in’ speed, you would not be orbiting the earth. you would be a 747

closed shop doesn’t mean you have to be a member of the union, but if you are in a job represented by unions, you have to pay part of the dues

Gangs appropriate rosary beads to use as signs, like they used to with bandanas. In these cases, it has nothing to do with religion, but instead a subtle way of telling with whom you are aligned. Some kids then think this is cool and wear them as “look at me, I'm a tough guy” kind of thing. This is not an attack on Catholics. If you are going to be mad at anyone, be mad at the gangs for taking a symbol of your faith and turning it into a code for evil.

If we can’t prove it, aka provide a link, then it falls into their realm of urban legend. “I know a guy who totally saw it” doesn’t fly

those are good, but where is the one where they claim Vietnam vets weren't spit on?

can you provide the link for where they said that?

and the steriod changed how many calories her body needed to maintain.

because they are eating fewer calories! that's the point of the article. Diets work because they change our eating habits, making us think more carefully before picking up that donut. If you eat fewer calories by giving up sugars, great! you'll lose weight. If you reduce your intake by eating leaner meat, great! you'll lose weight. It is a mistake, and science-illiterate, to think that you can eat x amount of calories one way and lose weight where that same x caused you to get fat in the first place.