We are getting our asses kicked in high school testing, the kind that Common Core was designed to help address by instituting standards and tests to enable better learning across the board. But there are other reasons for that than smarter students. They have a small geographies with a small, cohesive, ethnically similar population and they have small poor minority and immigrant populations--if any. They don't spend money on a global military (most rely on us for defense), some only test the best and brightest of their children, and they tax their citizens at double our rate. They use this money for better schools, teachers and better standards and testing and they enjoy the peace provided by us. But we are not getting our asses kicked in science, technology, and math as a nation. On the contrary America dominates international technology. There is a reason that Americans win most of the Nobel prizes in Science. The United States has won more Nobel prizes for physics, chemistry, medicine, and economics since World War II than any other country, by a wide margin (Forbes). There is a reason that American Universities hold the top 4 positions and 8 of the top 10 in the Best Global Universities rankings--16 of the Top-20, 33 of the Top50. That reason is that despite our low scores on standardized tests for all students (quite a few in this country) the best and the brightest of them still constitute a plethora of students and they are sufficient to power America's dominance of science, technology, mathematics, medicine, media, and economics, among other disciplines. Even better, many of the best and the brightest from those high-achieving-student nations find their ways to America for college, graduate school, and eventual employment. And the reason is obvious. The best talents want to be where the cutting edge work is being done. This is why it is erroneous to conflate high-school test scores with national competence and achievement. It was alleged earlier that the United States was not properly "poised or capable of global competition or innovation". This is simply not the case. Better education, better standards and better testing will improve our test scores and only enhance our status as the words innovator and dominant economic, technological and military power on the planet. But with our large immigrant and minority populations, we will always lag the test scores of Leichtenstein's 9,000 high school students.
Well, not really. Common core was put in place to establish clear, consistent guidelines for what every student should know and be able to do in math and English language arts from kindergarten through 12th grade. But when you have someone like Gates who invests $200M and then says, 'When the tests are aligned to the common standards, the curriculum will line up as well—and that will unleash powerful market forces in the service of better teaching", it's clear that a big part of his program was to foist his technology and software on the US education system.....and his politics as a by-product. I have found numerous instances of flat out false information in Common Core textbooks. Yes. Sheer population numbers. For instance, for Nobel Prizes in Physics, the US has a total of 15 (by my count) and Japan has 7. Germany, UK, Italy, France, Netherlands, and Belgium combine for 14. You want to talk Nobel prices and then discuss undergrad rankings by USNWR? Come on. Nobel prize winners are the elite of any society. Japan and Israel dominate in terms of population ratio, sort of like LSU in terms of players in the NFL by population ratio. Many of these prizes are collaborative in nature, with visiting scientists gaining temporary citizenship to study and work here in the US at certain graduate schools. They will often return home after and the Nobel committee awards to the country of citizenship at the time of the award. The bottom line is that certain students, certain geographic area, and certain ethnicities will continue to pursue education at certain schools and Common Core is not going to change that. Using those schools as an example is a false attribution IMO. Look at MIT. 4512 undergrads, 455 are international, 1101 are Asian, and 1648 are White. At the graduate level, 6807, 2,836 international (over 35%), 2100 White, and 731 Asian. Harvard....60% of undergrads are White, 25% are Asian, and 12% international and 30% of all of them are Social Science majors. This is tantamount to the SEC holding the top 5 of 10 spots in recruiting. I guess you missed where the public at large and scientists finally agree on one thing....while the US may win a lot of awards and create lots of innovation, our K-12 education sucks and CC isn't getting it done. 54% of adults consider U.S. scientific achievements to be either the best in the world (15%) or above average (39%) compared with other industrial countries. 92% of AAAS scientists say scientific achievements in the U.S. are the best in the world (45%) or above average (47%). But...... Only 16% of AAAS scientists and 29% of the general public rank U.S. STEM education for grades K-12 as above average or the best in the world. Fully 46% of AAAS scientists and 29% of the public rank K-12 STEM as “below average.” 75% of AAAS scientists say too little STEM education for grades K-12 is a major factor in the public’s limited knowledge about science. An overwhelming majority of scientists see the public’s limited scientific knowledge as a problem for science. Compared with five years ago, both citizens and scientists are less upbeat about the scientific enterprise. Citizens are still broadly positive about the place of U.S. scientific achievements and its impact on society, but slightly more are negative than five years ago. And, while a majority of scientists think it is a good time for science, they are less upbeat than they were five years ago. Most scientists believe that policy regulations on land use and clean air and water are not often guided by the best science. The key data: While a majority of the public sees U.S. scientific achievements in positive terms, the share saying U.S. scientific achievements are the best in the world or above average is down 11 points to 54% today, compared with 65% in 2009. 52% of AAAS scientists say this is generally a good time for science, down 24 percentage points from 76% in 2009. Similarly, the share of scientists who say this is generally a good time for their scientific specialty is down from 73% in 2009 to 62% today. And, the share of AAAS scientists saying that this is a good or very good time to begin a career in their field now stands at 59%, down from 67% in 2009.
One of the reasons the U.S. has done well in technology and science as well as technical application in industry and the economy is our immigration history. Many of the American winners were born elsewhere but came here for the opportunity. Our education system's strength was that it was relativity open to anyone interested. You didn't have to pass tests to be allowed to get more education. You could get your education when you were ready or able. Likewise performance was measured by accomplishment. We have enough people who push themselves ahead. Setting standards and goals is one thing mandating means and tools another. I'm for rigorous standards but each state and school district should be able to get there as they see best.
That concept, which I don't disagree with, setting individual standards is exactly what common core was meant to stop. Frankly I'm not sure our education system will ever see common core as it was meant. Money and politics, like most things, have perverted it's purpose and execution.....ultimately the results, too. Dr. Louisa Moats was one of those who was a contributing writer had the following comments after seeing initial results.... "Our lofty standards are appropriate for the most academically able, but what are we going to do for the huge numbers of kids that are going to "fail" the PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers) test? We need to create a wide range of educational choices and pathways to high school graduation, employment and citizenship. The Europeans got this right a long time ago. If I could take all the money going to the testing companies and reinvest it, I'd focus on the teaching profession -- recruitment, pay, work conditions, rigorous and on-going training. Many of our teachers are not qualified or prepared to teach the standards we have written. It doesn't make sense to ask kids to achieve standards that their teachers have not achieved!...... What is good for older students (e.g., the emphasis on text complexity, comprehension of difficult text, written composition, use of internet resources) is not necessarily good for younger students who need to acquire the basic skills of reading, writing, listening and speaking. Novice readers (typically through grade three) need a stronger emphasis on the foundational skills of reading, language and writing than on the "higher level" academic activities that depend on those foundations, until they are fluent readers..... Classroom teachers are confused, lacking in training and skills to implement the standards, overstressed and the victims of misinformed directives from administrators who are not well grounded in reading research. I'm beginning to get messages from very frustrated educators who threw out what was working in favor of a new "CCSS aligned" program, and now find that they don't have the tools to teach kids how to read and write. Teachers are told to use "grade level" texts, for example; if half the kids are below grade level by definition, what does the teacher do? She has to decide whether to teach "the standard" or teach the kids...... When asked the following question, "How does the CCSS impact children who turn out to need additional academic supports for learning disabilities, ADHD or other educational concerns?" Dr. Moats said, "I have not yet seen a well-informed policy directive that addresses the needs of these populations. There are absurd directives about "universal design for learning" and endless accommodations, like reading a test aloud, to kids with learning disabilities. Why would we want to do that? The test itself is inappropriate for many kids. What little time there is for professional development is being taken up by poorly designed workshops on teaching comprehension of difficult text or getting kids to compose arguments and essays. This will not be good for the kids who need a systematic, explicit form of instruction to reach basic levels of academic competence.
You know, you just agreed with me. It has always been this way and always shall be. There will be errors. There will be disagreement. I don't suppose you could offer any examples of how Common Core is any worse than the status quo on that? Well, you miss the point that your notion that America is uncompetitive and not innovative because of our high school scores is mistaken. If it were just a matter of population, then China and India would dominate, but they do not. In per capita Nobel Prizes, the leader is the Faroe Islands with a single laureate. Can you not see that Liechtenstein and the Faroe Islands are exactly zero in competition with America for dominace in STEM? Stating the obvious. The point that you keep missing is that American Education, while not the best in the world, is entirely adequate to make us the worlds leader in science, math, technology, engineering, etc, etc. Japan and Israel are do not threaten our lead and are also among the most xenophobic nations on earth. The best and the brightest do not flock there to study and to work. They go to America, which is still the land of opportunity and that is the biggest advantage US students have. Whatever knowledge they leave school with, they can apply it more effectively in America than anywhere. Look, I agree with you that American students need better educations, I disagree that the US is weak, uncompeitive, and lacks innovation because of it and I have tried to substantiate that for you. I am willing to provide more ammunition if you still cannot concede this. I don't understand why you imagine America is so weak. Common Core or something very much like it is the answer to improving education. But the Republicans are not going to allow it. They wish to get rid of the Dept. of Education, get rid of standards and testing, and put everything in the hands of state legislators, which doesn't make a lot of sense in your state or in mine, if anywhere. We cannot advance as a nation effectively, if we operate as 50 independent states. This is exactly why foreign student test scores cannot be directly compare to American ones. But it really doesn't change the fact that education will not improve if standards and goals do not. I have not disputed our test scores or that our education needs to improve, have you not seen that? But I am glad that you seem to agree that the US dominates STEM internationally for many reasons other than our average high school test scores. It's not a direct correlation.
Indeed. Why? Seriously, what logic is behind this notion? Part of our existing problem is that some school systems and districts are lazy, ineffective, politically correct, dishonest, or otherwise not up to par. What is wrong with establishing a national standard and consistent testing so that progress can be measured and funds not wasted on failing schools.
Read my post I do endorse standards and am not opposed to some testing. However telling every school how to get there is unrealistic. Each school, district, town and state has great differences in background makeup and character that a top down mandated one size fits all program would be too unwieldy to be more than a money pit and a failure. That applies to education or any program that tries to enforce a one size fits all program. Damn Red I'm beginning to wonder about your reading comprehension.
I agreed with that part, did you forget? But it has led to seriously underperforming local schools, especially in Louisiana. The states have no magic cures. Why not give better national standards a try? We can't just keep on promoting kids who can't read or do math just because the local school boards are complacent and many states are led by idiots who want to teach religion in science class. No one is taking education away from the states, they are saying that these are the goals and standards that your kids should be aiming for to break the sad cycle they are in. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. I am not as slow as you imagine.
Try again sonny. I SAID I AGREE WITH NATIONAL STANDARDS and TESTS. What I don't agree with is a national curriculum and syllabus (means and tools). Do you really think that a one size fits all solution will work the same in Connecticut as in LA, in Iowa as in Hawaii? In Santa Monica as in Plaquemines parish? In any case how do you enforce performance in a civil service environment? How are you going to get the teachers unions or the parochial schools or administrators to know tow to something they don't want? What about the schools and districts that are already performing at a very high level? Are you going to make them change? This challenge makes rocket science seem easy in comparison. There is no one size fits all answer. Maybe you out to sleep less and study reading comprehension more.
Then what is the problem with Common Core, grandpa? It's only a series of standards and tests! To quote from its Introduction . . . “The Standards set grade-specific standards but do not define the intervention methods or materials necessary to support students who are well below or well above grade-level expectations. No set of grade-specific standards can fully reflect the great variety in abilities, needs, learning rates, and achievement levels of students in any given classroom.” Well you are challenging a myth. Teachers are not against standards, they are against changing them too often. There is no "one size fit all". It is just standards and tests which you claim to approve of. Republicans were for it until Obama supported it and now they have had this knee-jerk reaction because their peculiar ideology says that everything Obama does is bad, even when it is not. A misconception which arose early in the development of the standards was that Common Core would mean a uniform and standard set of instruction that would negate the need for gifted and talent programs, which is simply not true. "The Common Core is about raising the bottom half,” says Common Core Development Team member Bauerlein. “One problem is the broader issue of trying to equalize school situations. We need to do so, but we will never equalize home situations.” The five states who have decided not to follow the standards will start falling behind. Or stay behind, as the case may be. I comprehend just fine and you know it. Why are you being a dick?
