re: Jindal wants Louisiana out of Common Core

quote:

---

GOOD But wasn't he for it before he was against it?

---

I don't know if he was, but admitting ones made a mistake is better than doubling down on a bad decision.

I wish people that oppose CC would just look at CC standards before they make up their mind.

Homogeneity in regards to education is a fricking unicorn, but it's one that's worth pursuing. I'd be okay with LA ranking in the bottom 5 in our country if the margin was just a few points. That's not the case. Clearly something needs to be done, so what is so wrong with applying a unified, more rigorous curriculum across the country?

quote:

---

It is truly staggering, the level of how little you know about what you are defending

---

Don't post something like that without backing it up. I'd love to have this debate with you.

quote:

---

I'd love to have this debate with you.

---

2) Study after study after study has proven that retention of students does not work. If a child fails two years, they are virtually guaranteed not to graduate

Tougher standards and tougher assessments will not fix the staggering drop out rates!

quote:

---

I'd love to have this debate with you.

---

3) Half of reading requirements are now to be filled with real world examples, or non fiction and informational. Which means we are replacing literature in our schools with lessons on how to read a utility bill, or credit card statement, or a car manual, or product assembly instructions

quote:

---

Tougher standards and tougher assessments will not fix the staggering drop out rates!

---

The goal of Common Core is to ensure that our state's HS graduates are on par with not only other states, but other countries.

If a kid is struggling, the way to prevent drop outs is to give them another avenue of eduation - this is where alternative diplomas and trade education comes in.

quote:

---

1) No one. Not one person can claim that the standards are tougher, because the DAMN assessment tests haven't even been given yet. Teaching subject matter to a 1st grader that used to be introduced in 2nd grade doesn't mean the standards are tougher. It means people with zero knowledge of child development found out there is money in the testing business

---

Teaching material earlier in school allows for more complicated material to be taught later in school. Thus, yes, they will be tougher standards.

The first couple of years of any tests are not reliable nor valid. This is why you have live trials (which is occuring in some states) and why the "penalties" associated with failing PARCC exams are delayed a couple of years.

Considering all manner of child development experts were involved in this, and considering the material/grade level is on par with what is done in other developed countries, I think your comment about this being a money grab is foolish.

quote:

---

but other countries

---

What a joke

What other countries require every student to be tested at all grade levels, and to have their scores averaged against US scores?

quote:

---

1) No one. Not one person can claim that the standards are tougher, because the DAMN assessment tests haven't even been given yet. Teaching subject matter to a 1st grader that used to be introduced in 2nd grade doesn't mean the standards are tougher. It means people with zero knowledge of child development found out there is money in the testing business

---

One of my classes was part of field testing the PARCC assessment this year. I'm young. I'm not that far removed from college. I remember what the GEE looked like when I took it in high school. The tests my students took was a substantial step up in rigor from what I remember taking. IF the PARCC examinations look like that you absolutely have no leg upon which you can stand.

quote:

---

3) Half of reading requirements are now to be filled with real world examples, or non fiction and informational. Which means we are replacing literature in our schools with lessons on how to read a utility bill, or credit card statement, or a car manual, or product assembly instructions

---

You don't know what you're talking about. Is there a greater emphasis on non-fiction texts? Yes. Question -- how much literature did you read in college? How much non-fiction did you read? How much fiction do you read every day at work?

What's more practical, producing generations of learners that can read the flying frick out of Chaucer or people that can pick up a newspaper, news article, lab report, or other piece of informational text and read it, analyze it, synthesize it, and build upon it?

Is Chaucer valuable? Sure. Is it all that should be taught? Of course not. In my opinion this is a definite step in the right direction in terms of college and real world readiness.