Common Core

[rabidTU]

To her credit, Gov Fallin rejected CC.

There were several reports on CC in the media, but what scares us is what this could mean to local schooling and local control of our kids education. Here are just a couple of the quotes I've seen that on face a lot of low information voters won't pay attention to:

"CC are standards . . . that coordinate what students should know." That sounds fine if you aren't skeptical of govt intervention in our lives. So here's what it "can" mean. Govt will be in charge of what your children "should know" and you no longer will be.

"Is an attempt to ensure consistency across the country". This might be fine if it is done in math, science, language only. But very few of us skeptical folks out there think it would stop with "just" those courses. We don't need someone in DC politically endoctrinating our kids with "their" ideology, morality in my view. Thats the parents job and the parents can speak eye to eye with their teachers at this point, but not after CC.

But the radical Obama adm is basically holding states that push back on CC, hostage with funding. That is how DC penalizes the states that don't toe their line.

And for those of you that don't think this can happen?

I found a "Map Of The Presidents" (while cleaning out the attic) that had been part of a textbook approval committees display to parents back in 1988. This was at the end of the Reagan adm. The "guide" gave a short overview of each President from GW to RR.

BTW, this was one reason that text was not approved, but does show how biased a text and the lesson plans can become. It also reveals how the govt can endoctrinate and "mold" young children to their thinking and away from their parents if they force their "standards" on the schools.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rand McNallyGuide To The Presidents 1988

Jimmy Carter - 39th President (1977-81) Jimmy was governor of Georgia, with international experience as a member of the Trilateral Commission, when he won the presidency. Carters major achievements were in foreign relations. He arranged the return of the Panama Canal Zone to Panama. He brought together the state leaders of Israel and Egypt at Camp David and got them to agree to conditions of peace. Carter extended the first White House welcomes to Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping and papal leader Pope John Paul II. But his popularity dropped when Iranians seized American hostages at the embassy in Teheran and rescue attempts failed. In technology, however, the journey of Voyager I rewarded Americans with photographs of Saturns rings nearly a billion miles away.

Carter lives in Plains, Georgia.






Ronald Reagan - 40th president (1981-88) At age 69 Ronald Reagan became the oldest man ever to be inaugurated. Previously he had served two terms as governor of California and made over 50 movies as an actor.
President Reagan resisted increases in taxes and social welfare funding. During his administration inflation decreased, while defense spending increased. In 1987, following years of sustained growth, the stock market crashed at home and the dollar declined abroad.
In foreign affairs Reagan authorized the invasion of Grenada and maintaining a peace keeping force in Beirut. He reacted to acts of international terrorism by approving the bombing of Libya. In 1986 members of the Reagan administration created a scandal by selling arms to an unfriendly regime in Iran and using the proceeds to support rebels in Nicaragua.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now is that a fair asessment of those two presidents? If you were a 6th grader in Civics class, who do you think you want to vote for?
















This post was edited on 6/6 12:23 PM by rabidTU

 

[rabidTU]

Eventually Science and English will change with the advent of CC as well.

The notion that man caused global warming-climate change is catastrophic and which has been debated on this site many times and at best is just a theory. But with CC, the idea of global warming/climate change will become a "FACT" to the kids in elementary/middle school science - no debate allowed. And then you will get the push for other languages to share equal importance with English. Multiculturalism will be pushed rather than pride in US history and american exceptionalism. After all, the USA is just another country to those that push CC.

CC will bleed into every aspect of the educational system if allowed.

Gov Fallin and most fair minded people know what the Obama administration is doing - fundamentally changing america. CC is a big part of that fundamental change.

IMO

 

[voetvoet]

I hope there is an open discussion about Global Warming in every high school science class. Give the kids a chance to review the primary literature and raw data before they're sent out into a world that bombards them with politicized versions of the facts from both sides.

One of the greatest hurdles in assessing our viable options for addressing this issue continues to be the scientific illiteracy that drives those who deny it even exists and prevent the discussion from advancing past step 1.

 

[TU Sepp]

From Wikipedia:

The Common Core State Standards Initiative is an educational initiative in the United States that details what Council of Chief State School Officers
(CCSSO) and seeks to establish consistent educational standards across
the states as well as ensure that students graduating from high school
are prepared to enter credit-bearing courses at two- or four-year
college programs or enter the workforce.

Since it was first started other subjects have been http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_core_state_standards_initiative#cite_note-1to the Common Core Standards...

Common Core actually goes into effect this coming school year 2014-2015. Before that the states were 100% responsible for their own state standards.

Here is an example of what will happen this next school year...

In the school year 2013-2014 the state of Oklahoma bought Social Studies books for all 6th graders based on Common Core, as Common Core was to take effect at the start of the 2014 school year. Common Core for 6th grade social studies focuses on Western Civilization. However, since Oklahoma did away with Common Core the state with revert back to PASS Standards. Herein lies the problem PASS Standards for 6th grade social are World Cultures...ancient Greece, Rome, China, etc.... The new books purchased last year don't contain PASS Standards.

Now what is the teacher supposed to do?

They will be evaluated based on PASS Standards, while all their teaching supplies are based on Common Core!!!

P.S, Do not be surprised to see the state of Oklahoma to use this as an excuse to adopt the Education Program being promoted by Jeb Bush's Company. We should be very cautious in dealing with Jeb, since Oklahoma students out performed Florida students all the years that Jeb was governor of Florida. To purchase this program would be a major step backwards for the education of students of Oklahoma.

This post was edited on 6/6 10:07 PM by TU Sepp

This post was edited on 6/6 10:10 PM by TU Sepp

 

[TUMe]

Originally posted by voetvoet:
I hope there is an open discussion about Global Warming in every high school science class. Give the kids a chance to review the primary literature and raw data before they're sent out into a world that bombards them with politicized versions of the facts from both sides.

One of the greatest hurdles in assessing our viable options for addressing this issue continues to be the scientific illiteracy that drives those who deny it even exists and prevent the discussion from advancing past step 1.

Your first paragraph seems balanced but your second paragraph seem to say that one side is wrong.

I understand you are a cancer researcher. Thank you, we have all lost people close to us from cancer. I assume you believe in the scientific method. Pretty much nothing is ever completely settled. Even something as basic as gravity gets revisions. If you find something promising you look at studies with control groups and do statistical analysis versus the control group. However, since we only have one Earth and one timeline we can't run a thousand trials to eliminate other variables. And we know that there are other variables besides man's activity. We know the Earth has gone through Snow Ball Earth, glaciation and reversal many times. We know that the Sun has cycles, the orbit of the Earth in both distance and angle of presentation to the Sun has varied many times. We know that there have been at least three major extinctions and some minor ones.

We all know that the greenhouse effect is solid science but we also know that a linear relationship is more trustworthy between points than it is out past the last point. While the greenhouse effect is solid science projection using computer models are not so much so because assumed parameter over 30 or 50 or 100 years with even small errors can vary wildy. We have seen from the sources you quote that factors other than CO2 emissions are simply not included. We are talking about the need to go back to pre-industrial levels of CO2 without going back to a pre-industrial lifestyle. One of the assumptions is that technology and funds for it will exist in the last half of this century. We are assuming that China, India, and other undeveloped areas of Asia, South America, and Africa will agree not to develop and have the things we do or can be bought of with financial transfers. Who will make the decisions and who will enforce them. Much of this is covered up by panic predictions. Yet, could we have saved the Wooly Mammoth?

There was a mini-ice age towards the middle of the last millennia. It came and went. Further back, the Romans thought that the British Isles were too cold to worry about. In biblical times the Middle East was apparently less arid. East Africa was once populated by people who didn't go there with the intention of starving. It took some mighty glaciers to carve the Great Lakes, yet they were gone before man even noticed coal. There has always been climate change.

To give you a very hackneyed example, the years after the little ice age were the golden years of pirates. A graph of the number of pirates shows that as pirates decreased the Earth warmed. Back to being just a bit more reasonable, man has been having an influence on nature ever since rice was farmed in Asia, rainforests were cut and burned and wood was burned for heat. But man has never been the only thing effecting climate. There is a problem with man. How many will the Earth support? 7 billion, 10, 20 billion. While we are projecting things project the population. So am I saying we should give up? Perhaps!
This post was edited on 6/6 10:45 PM by TUMe

 

[rabidTU]

My original intent wasn't to have another debate on global warming, but to show the threat of how Obama's radical philosophy can be pushed at the kids wo their parents knowing what is occurring. CC in effect, is a backdoor to liberal radicalism that can endocrinate your kids to "their" agenda wo your control. That is the fear. And they have a mechanism that gives them cover - all they have to say is "well, those are the standards". This is how they work the system and eventually - presto, after a couple of years, you have a radical in your house and it wasn't your fault - they were endoctrinated behind your back. Its happened many times in the past.

IMO

 

[eastcane]

TUME, problem is, we turned up the heat this time all by ourselves, and we don't have the will to do anything about it. Good news is guys like you and me won't have to face the worst effects of this rape of our earth, we'll be long gone. Worry about children, and their children, their futures are shaky at best on this tiny planet we've managing to destroy in quick order.

 

[TUMe]

Originally posted by eastcane:
TUME, problem is, we turned up the heat this time all by ourselves, and we don't have the will to do anything about it. Good news is guys like you and me won't have to face the worst effects of this rape of our earth, we'll be long gone. Worry about children, and their children, their futures are shaky at best on this tiny planet we've managing to destroy in quick order.

You know East, you may be right. A member of a planet can be a parasite. A smart parasite takes a little. But a parasite that isn't smart kills the host. If it isn't global warming, it may be freshwater pollution or something else, but there is a limit to how many people this planet can support. We will not destroy the planet. Life will continue in deep sea crevices at worst or with whatever but in a mere half a billion years nobody will ever know. The aggressive naked ape and his opposable thumb might be gone but our mass extinction may won't end life on the planet any more than that of the dinosaur did, the flying spaghetti monster will see to that. [this post was prepared with the aide of a jumbo margarita.]

Man takes himself all too seriously. The Earth will just hit the reset button.

 

[WATU2]

Well said. +1

Originally posted by voetvoet:
I hope there is an open discussion about Global Warming in every high school science class. Give the kids a chance to review the primary literature and raw data before they're sent out into a world that bombards them with politicized versions of the facts from both sides.

One of the greatest hurdles in assessing our viable options for addressing this issue continues to be the scientific illiteracy that drives those who deny it even exists and prevent the discussion from advancing past step 1.

 

[TUMe]

Originally posted by voetvoet:
One of the greatest hurdles in assessing our viable options for addressing this issue continues to be the scientific illiteracy that drives those who deny it even exists and prevent the discussion from advancing past step 1.



When you talk about scientific illiteracy, Voet, you weren't here during the outrage that President Bush had done nothing about a vaccine for the human form of Avian Flu. Not only has there been no outbreak, but I don't believe you can have a vaccine for a disease that does not yet exist.

 

[Tax Guy]

Originally posted by WATU2:
Well said. +1

Originally posted by voetvoet:
I hope there is an open discussion about Global Warming in every high school science class. Give the kids a chance to review the primary literature and raw data before they're sent out into a world that bombards them with politicized versions of the facts from both sides.

One of the greatest hurdles in assessing our viable options for addressing this issue continues to be the scientific illiteracy that drives those who deny it even exists and prevent the discussion from advancing past step 1.

-1 BS


Really? High School is now an institution of higher learning, where research and is open debate is conducted? We now have teenagers that have the ability to read, scrutinize, analyze primary literature and delve into raw data and draw conclusions on world issues of the day?

I will argue they are smart enough to figure out how to acquire and use a condom without a class, but really they aren't ready to resolve the world problems, nor even discuss if there is a problem. High school science class is where students are lead into looking at known solutions and figure out why that works thus learning the process. It is not where they research problems to find solutions. Heck for the most part so is the first 2-3 years of most college science courses.

 

[rabidTU]

OK, the thread is officially hijacked. Ha!

So here is a long term solution to both sides of the arguement. ------- Equal govt funding.

If you have a theory and that theory has many detractors like GW does, and the govt deems it worthy of debate, you simply divide the "grants" between the two groups equally so the discussion and the research will have an ultimate agreed upon conclusion.

Why do it this way? Because right now, the side of the debate that is primarly funded by govt dollars goes toward those that have the GW agenda only. Govt grants (billions) are basically funding any professor out there at podunk "U" that promotes the "theory". Thus the govt, by doing this, is promoting only one side and the other has to fend for themselves. No company (or companies) have the resources to "outfund" any govt research. So basically the govt has taken a side in the argument. However, if you split the funding in half and have both sides debate and research the subject to the "Nth" degree, that will at least allow all of us on both sides a chance to view the results equally and more objectively.

Voet has absolute confidence in the idea that his "accepted" research proves the theory. Others don't see it that way. But when the govt backs only one side out of political gain/ideology etc, then that brings into question the validity of the theory IMO.

Science is not infallable when there is a funding agenda that redirects the ultimate conclusions made. The fact that billions of our hard earned dollars go to the so called research over a theory that will alter our and our kids lives forever, needs to be equally debated and equally funded.

If I were a scientist who's job was dependant on keeping govt dollars coming, why would there be any incentive whatsoever for me to say the theory is false? That would end my funding and mean I'm out of a job. Thats why IMO we had East Anglia and why there is such a debate. But in the end, IMO we are just wasting billions on Junk research that someday some climatologist will just shrug his shoulders and say "Oh well, lets move on to the next theory".

 

[rabidTU]

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/08/common-core-education-standards-losing-popularity-as-more-americans-become-aware-of-them-106268.html