Posted by Tina
The charge is explosive if accurate and release of a report suggests that it is indeed accurate. Our readers deserve to know what a small, wealthy group of globalists has divined for America’s youth According to Dean Kalahar of The American Thinker reports that over a four year period beginning in 1997 a group of 78 historians, half of which were not American, met at a New York University center in Florence Italy to “create a new American history.” The group was funded by wealthy liberal backers of the Rockefeller, Mellon, and Ford Foundations. The report, LaPietra offers the group’s vision and mission in fundamentally transforming American history in our schools. The following is a sample from the mission statement and vision. Please read the entire article for fuller understanding.
The Vision
[The] “approach builds upon comparative history, a method of historical inquiry that has been developed by Americanists.” (Specialists in the languages or cultures of the aboriginal inhabitants of America)
“The approach of this project is closer to and extends recent work in the study of the African diaspora, the creation of the Atlantic world, diplomatic history, the history of migration, environmental history, the study of gender, and intellectual history.”
“Boundaries are increasingly understood as being relatively permeable, more like “zones of contact” than firm lines of division.”
Create “an internationalized history” and “understand the lines of division or dimensions of otherness.”
The Mission
“The obligations of a professional discipline are substantial. College and university history departments are responsible for the creation and transmission of the new knowledges”
“Advise state education departments and textbook publishers”
“This report seeks to encourage a particular orientation to these challenges and opportunities.”
“We wish history to be more inclusive, not less. Such inclusiveness will, we think, eventually result in a substantial reframing of the basic narrative of American history. But we understand the process as incremental and ongoing, working in distinctive ways in different institutions.”
The Morons…believe “globalism” will create a world without war where love and peace reign and all people live in harmony are in denial and foolishly believe they have magical powers. They deny the basic nature of human beings each of whom has the capacity for both good and evil. They are certain that under their tutelage and leadership no one will mount a major force to become dictator of the world. They are radical socialist and environmentalists. Most likely they are also godless which is how they have come to believe they have those magical powers to create world peace.
Common core has to go! The American Thinker advises: “A selection of the papers presented in Florence was published in a book edited by Thomas Bender “Rethinking American History in a Global Age.” If you have children or grandchildren you might want to read it.
Kumbaya, anyone?
From elsewhere on the web…
http://www.barnhardt.biz/2014/10/02/important-ebola-note/
Wow, Rht447, that’s a powerful perspective and should be empowering but the Kumbaya crows is determined that it won’t be.
How many generations until America sits at the bottom of the pile due to indoctrination replacing education?
Long article here:
Literally nowhere in the AT article or this one does it explain what connection this group of historians has with Common Core–it just suggests a connection without giving any evidence that one exists.
The Common Core standards for history are online and can be viewed by anyone. There is absolutely nothing in there about race, gender, immigration, or environmentalism.
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RH/introduction/
The standards do not tell teachers what to teach. They explain what students need to be able to DO by the end of each school year. How the teachers get them there is up to them, their school sites, and their districts.
I and most teachers I have discussed this with are sick of all the misinformation being spread about Common Core. The false claims are actively making our jobs harder. Common Core is not a left/right issue, but the right wing media seem intent on making it one to exploit the fear of educators and “intellectuals” already ingrained in the Tea Party base.
Common Core is also a huge Ponzi scheme. Just follow the money from broke taxpayer’s, school district’s and state pockets to Microsoft and other large organizations.
Common Core is not the way to improve Michigan schools:
“Common Core consists of uniform American education standards created by special interest groups and federal bureaucrats that treat children as “mere human capital” rather than as unique, creative individuals. It was developed by the National Governors Association, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Council of Chief State School Officers. There was no teacher, parent, nor local school board input.
Two of the professionals on the committee, Dr. Sandra Stotsky (English language arts standard expert, University of Arkansas) and Dr. James Milgram (mathematician at Stanford), had reservations and refused to sign off on Common Core.
Dr. Stotsky said Common Core has “poor quality, empty skills sets, a de-emphasis on literature and low reading levels, such as eighth grade for 12th-grade students.”
Common Core is driven by special interest groups seeking to profit from American classrooms (“Stop Common Core,” Aug. 2, Dr. Duke Pesto, YouTube). Companies that will profit from Common Core are Pearson Education, the Bill/Melinda Gates Foundation, Microsoft, Scholastic, Marzano Research Lab, and International Center for Leadership in Education, the organization the Port Huron School District hired several years ago to provide teacher training at a cost of millions of taxpayer dollars.
There was a huge outcry from school district residents about the school board continuing to hire ICLE, but it continued to do so for several years against taxpayer wishes. These companies are making money off our children and their futures.
In fact, during a recent expose on CC, it was revealed that some companies actually engineered materials and tests so that many children will fail, and the districts will have to order more materials — adding to profits for companies.
“Common Core has not been studied. There are no benchmarks. But, our children will be studied. This makes them guinea pigs. There is great potential for harm because there is no oversight, no Internal Review Board studies.” (Dr. Kim Shmina, RN, DNP).
Cash-strapped states were incentivized to take the federal standards via federal “Race to The Top” grants. However, there is no money tied to Common Core for Michigan. Other states got money; we did not. It is not true that Michigan will lose Title 1 money or any federal money, including our “No Child Left Behind” waiver.”
http://www.thetimesherald.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/10/07/common-core-way-improve-michigan-schools/16877595/
“What is Common Core,” by Stanley Kurtz – National Review makes the connection. I will excerpt the first few paragraphs but it will require reading in full for complete understanding:
(This aligns with the open borders approach Obama has taken with immigration.)
Chris, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, you are an ignorant dupe. I doubt you will like the reality that will follow the utopian collectivist vision these radicals have in store for us. Kiss all notions of freedom, property rights, and the individual protections of the law as we’ve known it goodbye if they win.
Another good opinion piece can be read here for those who cherish big words 🙂
Read about the author of that piece here. Robin Eubanks, author of the blog “Invisible Serfs Collar,” describes education today and her goal to expose the hidden agenda:
More from Robin Eubanks here, “Journey to the Center of the Core Yields the Yoke of Citizen-Centric Governance to Force a Shared Vision.”
You and your teacher friends need to dig deeper, Chris. Of course, in many ways, you’ve been indoctrinated already by this bunch…you might have to work a bit harder to get it.
Tina, Peggy–can you point to one actual standard that you oppose? None of your links seem to explain what is wrong with the actual standards as they are written.
Have you bothered to read the standards?
Chris, you may find this of interest.
Bill Gates Must Be Worried About Common Core Survival:
“Bill Gates is heavily invested in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). However, CCSS is in trouble. Even US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is desperately trying to save them.
Forget the students and teachers. It’s The Standards that the likes of Gates and Duncan wish to rescue.
Gates/Scholastic CCSS Survey Result “Early Release”
In order to promote the image of CCSS as being embraced by teachers, Gates has partnered with Scholastic to produce the 2013 version of Gates education survey, Primary Sources. Even though the survey isn’t ready yet for release, Gates has decided to publish an “early release”, a report based upon the part of the survey focused on teachers’ views of CCSS.
Of course, this early release presents positive results:
Teachers support CCSS.
Imagine that.
Never mind that Gates’ partner in this survey project, Scholastic, has taken $4.5 million from Gates to “support teachers’ implementation of the Common Core State Standards in mathematics.”
If CCSS goes bust, Scholastic loses money.
In releasing a partial survey result, Gates is clearly attempting to rally support for CCSS. I mean, it sure does sound good to say, “We surveyed 20,000 teachers nationwide, and they know about and want CCSS.”
I do not normally write posts based upon partial survey results. Releasing a partial result bespeaks an agenda to speedily influence an issue. I like to see the entire result then write.
Nevertheless, since I know that Gates wants to sway public opinion in favor of CCSS (he has given me 173.5 million reasons to believe as much), I will offer some comments in this post to assist readers in critically digesting this slice of Gates-CCSS propaganda.
My commentary refers to this 15-page report released by Gates and Scholastic on October 4, 2013.
Concern One: Survey Sample
First, I wonder whether the 20,000 teachers surveyed excludes those who were teachers but whose jobs were cut in order for districts to scrape together money to pay for reforms– not the least of which is CCSS and its assessments. Omitting teachers who are casualties to CCSS automatically biases the survey results.
Concern Two: Category Collapsing
Next, on page 2, Gates and Scholastic note that “teachers are enthusiastic about implementation.” However, if one considers the more detailed result presented on page 7, one sees that the “strongly agree” category is small (26% for teachers overall). The largest category is “somewhat agree”– an issue I wrote about concerning the results of both the AFT CCSS survey and the NEA CCSS survey.
Teachers do not “enthusiastically support” CCSS. Most have reservations.”
http://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/bill-gates-must-be-worried-about-common-core-survival/
And this.
American Federation of Teachers: “Remediating” Duncan and Retaining the “Corrupted” Common Core:
“I’m wondering what of substance was accomplished thus far at the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) national convention in Los Angeles July 11-14, 2014.
On July 13, 2014, AFT was supposed to consider asking for U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s resignation. The National Education Association (NEA) passed a resolution on July 4, 2014, asking Duncan to resign. However, as education historian Diane Ravitch points out, Duncan is only following the orders of President Obama:
I can personally vouch for the fact that Duncan is doing exactly what Obama wants. In the fall of 2009, I had a private meeting with Secretary Duncan, just the two of us, no staff. It was very pleasant. He was charming, pleasant, and took notes. I asked him, “Why are you traveling the country to sell Race to the Top accompanied by Reverend Al Sharpton and Newt Gingrich? Why Gingrich?” His answer: “because the President asked me to.”
Thus, asking Duncan to resign– while a refreshing thought– is no solution. Obama would just fill the slot with another yes-man.
It sure would be nice if a national union would aggressively confront the pro-privatization education agenda emanating from the Oval Office.
On to another Wonderlandish AFT outcome: It is no surprise to anyone familiar with the pull of New York’s Unity Caucus (and familiar with the national-level version, the Progressive Caucus) that after 40 minutes of open floor debate on the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), AFT delegates voted by two-thirds majority to continue to support CCSS– even though now, AFT maintains CCSS has been “corrupted”:
The AFT will also consider a resolution — drafted by its executive council — asserting that the promise of the Common Core has been corrupted by political manipulation, administrative bungling, corporate profiteering and an invalid scoring system designed to ensure huge numbers of kids fail the new math and language arts exams that will be rolled out next spring.
So what is the AFT decision? Keep the corrupted CCSS and offer “grants” to pacify teachers into believing they have influence over what the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) own.
AFT has no leverage to negotiate any altering of the CCSS completed in 2010.
http://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/american-federation-of-teachers-remediating-duncan-and-retaining-the-corrupted-common-core/
More from teachers against Common Core. Chris, you may find the article from the English teacher of interest. – “Goodbye to English Department”
Common Core Education Without Representation:
http://whatiscommoncore.wordpress.com/tag/teachers-against-common-core/
And this.
Educators feeling pressure ‘from top on down’:
“Jackie Lansdale, president of Red River United in Shreveport, called education today a “forced march (that is) hyper-focused on testing.” She said the extra work and pressure is taking the joy from educators in Caddo and Bossier parishes and statewide as well as students.
“That permeates all the way from the administration through the youngest child that walks into our doors,” Lansdale said. “There’s a huge sucking sound, and that sucking sound is joy (leaving).”
http://www.thetowntalk.com/story/news/local/2014/10/04/educators-feeling-pressure-top/16739303/
Personally I would have major concern for a new educational system that was developed by private profit making organizations and with very little input and approval from educators, parents and elected local school boards.
I haven’t read all of the standards but I have sampled them. In most cases I think the standards and methods match my own early education which I thin was very good. My thing is that I want American kids to be well educated and taught to think. In many ways the standards seem to be aligned with that goal
However, I share some of the concerns expressed by critics but I’ve had those concerns for some time. so the best way to describe my interest in posting this is to point out the bias of those who developed this and in secret, apparently. I am always concerned about a concentration of power directing widespread standards in secret.
It bothers me that students are being taught that the white man, and America in particular, has exploited and destroyed the earth and oppressed other peoples. That is an extremely biased perspective. it bothers me that our schools are teaching only the global warming perspective which is also biased. it bothers me that socialism and communal living is pushed more and more as superior to capitalism and individual freedom and rights. Having had those concerns already this nationalized system is a framework that can be used for selectively choosing materials for teaching that push the leftist agenda (and essentially brain wash students)
commoncore.org
Are teachers being trained to treat the white explorer fairly or are they being trained from the black liberation theology and progressive perspective that the white man was cruel, greedy and destructive?
I ask because we have already seen this perspective in young peoples attitudes and expressed in children’s movies and literature.
common core:
Are teachers being trained to think the founders were “old white men” whose ideals don’t fit in today’s world and the Constitution, as a living document, requires altering in order to accommodate communalism?
I ask because we have already seen evidence that socialism and communal ideas have been favored in our schools.
I agree with some of the concerns expressed here:
A lot depends on how teachers have been taught and will be taught going forward. I see a lot of progressive influence already that undermines American ideals. I’ve also already seen indoctrination as regards history and the environment.
Complaints in South Carolina suggest this concern:
A NYT article says the standard now has critics on the left.
I have to go and won;t be back till later this evening.
Tina: “I haven’t read all of the standards but I have sampled them. In most cases I think the standards and methods match my own early education which I thin was very good. My thing is that I want American kids to be well educated and taught to think. In many ways the standards seem to be aligned with that goal.”
I’m glad we can find common ground here, but this really makes the rest of your response all the more puzzling:
“However, I share some of the concerns expressed by critics but I’ve had those concerns for some time. so the best way to describe my interest in posting this is to point out the bias of those who developed this and in secret, apparently. I am always concerned about a concentration of power directing widespread standards in secret.”
I can sympathize with that, but the fact is that the standards are public now, and there’s nothing sinister about them. So what’s the big deal?
“It bothers me that students are being taught that the white man, and America in particular, has exploited and destroyed the earth and oppressed other peoples. That is an extremely biased perspective.”
I agree that that’s a biased perspective, but I’ve seen very little evidence that anything like this is actually being taught–it is a common strawman argument used to disparage the social justice approach to teaching, but it’s very far off from what that approach actually teaches for the most part.
It also has nothing to do with Common Core.
“it bothers me that our schools are teaching only the global warming perspective which is also biased.”
It’s not, though.
Multiple studies have shown that at least 90% of climate scientists agree that AGW is occurring. This consensus has been reached because the plurality of evidence shows it is occurring. AGW is a huge problem that the next generation will have to deal with. Students have a right to accurate, up to date scientific information. Refusing to teach the scientific consensus due to a small yet vocal political minority would be the definition of politicizing education.
There is very little scientific controversy over global warming. Most of the controversy is political. In a political science class or a debate class, it would be appropriate to “teach both sides” of the debate. But because that debate is virtually nonexistent among scientists, “teaching the controversy” in science doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
“Having had those concerns already this nationalized system is a framework that can be used for selectively choosing materials for teaching that push the leftist agenda (and essentially brain wash students)”
No, it can’t be. Common Core does not mandate any materials, nor can it.
“commoncore.org
Reading Follow the Dream: The Story of Christopher Columbus or Exploration and Conquest will give students the essential background on one of these global pioneers. Younger students will dissect Columbus’ adventurous spirit while upper grades will weigh the effects of Europeans’ encounters with native people.”
Doesn’t this completely contradict your fears that Common Core might be used to further anti-white or anti-European views? This type of praise for Columbus shows that it’s possible to go entirely the other way and still meet the standards.
“Are teachers being trained to treat the white explorer fairly or are they being trained from the black liberation theology and progressive perspective that the white man was cruel, greedy and destructive?”
1) Depends on the teacher
2) Depends on the white explorer–surely you can fathom that some of them were cruel, greedy and destructive? (Columbus certainly was)
3) Almost no one follows black liberation theology
4) Almost no one says “the white man”
“I ask because we have already seen this perspective in young peoples attitudes and expressed in children’s movies and literature.”
Which ones, for example?
“Some of the Core’s critics are also raising the alarm that the Common Core is an intrusion of the federal government into affairs that are supposed to be handled by the state.”
Those critics are wrong; states have the option to accept the CC or not.
“We saw this when the standards for science were unveiled. Man-made global warming, which for some is fiction, was included in the curriculum. So was evolution.”
Are you actually saying that science classes should not teach evolution as the accepted theory of nearly all working scientists? Evolution is the basis of most modern science, in nearly every field; again, not teaching it, or even “teaching the controversy,” would be irresponsible. It’s even less controversial in scientific circles than climate change.
As a side note, I have never met a critic of evolution that was not religious; is it possible your views here are motivated more by religion than science? Do you see why allowing religion to dictate what is taught in science classes could be considered by many to be a form of indoctrination?
“some of their complaints are that the new guidelines don’t mention civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and question the honor and bravery of American soldiers and the founding fathers.”
This is a ridiculous critique. The standards don’t mention civil rights leaders because they don’t mention any specific historical figures; again, the standards are about expectations for what students can DO, they do not mandate curriculum.
I do not see where the standards “question the honor and bravery of American soldiers and the founding fathers.” I am pretty sure your source made that up.
“(And if teachers are trained to question the honor of our soldiers and the founders? This is already occuring in California schools)”
What is wrong with “questioning?” As long as the answer isn’t mandated, isn’t questioning the opposite of indoctrination?
“Critics said the emphasis on analysis creates a negative atmosphere about the U.S. One guideline question asks students to support, refute or change some historians’ assertions that the American Revolution was not that revolutionary because the same powerful people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson maintained their power after the U.S. gained independence.”
…Again, this is literally the opposite of indoctrination. Students may “support, refute, OR change” those assertions. That means they are free to come to their own conclusions, as long as they can support those conclusions with evidence. How is that wrong?
If you believe the evidence is so strongly in support of the founders and American exceptionalism, then you should welcome such assignments; if students follow the evidence, don’t you think they’d come to pro-American conclusions on their own?
It sounds like you are saying you would prefer if students did not have the option to question the founders or the nature of the American Revolution, but were simply taught positive-sounding facts about our country with no room for dissenting opinion. This is the sense I get from many right-wing critics of education; they simply don’t want children exposed to left-wing or dissenting ideas.
So who is trying to indoctrinate again?
I have to go and won;t be back till later this evening.
– See more at: http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2014/10/09/history-common-core-indoctrination-plan/#comment-46602
Chris: “but I’ve seen very little evidence that anything like this is actually being taught–it is a common strawman argument used to disparage the social justice approach to teaching ”
The “social justice approach to teaching” is a problem and a big one.
The white man is no more or no less prone to exploitation, spread of disease, slavery or any of the other biases that have been creeping into teaching. And please don’t tell me it hasn’t I have grand children that have experience as much at school and I also witnessed the origins of this when my own kids were still in school.
” I’ve seen very little evidence that anything like this is actually being taught”
Maybe because you grew up in a school system that was transitioning to a progressive perspective you wouldn’t notice.
“It’s not, though.” (Global warming being taught)
EPA Chief: Teach Global Warming:
I realize this is going to be another marathon so I hesitate to post anything more than a couple of links. Our climate is a system forever seeking balance…climate has always changed and always will.
In the news yesterday: Anarctic Sea Ice Level Breaks Record
In the news today: NASA Scientists Puzzled by Global Cooling on Land and Sea
This was published in January this year: “Climate Scientist Who Got It Right Predicts 20 More Years of Global Cooling.
Teaching that the science is settled or that the earth is warming or that most scientists agree is propaganda.
“There is very little scientific controversy over global warming. Most of the controversy is political. In a political science class or a debate class, it would be appropriate to “teach both sides” of the debate. But because that debate is virtually nonexistent among scientists, “teaching the controversy” in science doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.”
Amazing. You acknowledge the issue has been politicized and then pretend that politics hasn’t driven the narrative about “settled science”!
Science is not a study in consensus thinking. I know you’re familiar with the scientific method. The disrespect shown highly respected scientists who not only disagree but who explain their disagreement is political.
I would not want a child of mine in your science class!
“No, it can’t be. Common Core does not mandate any materials, nor can it.”
Of course not. It is a legal document, however and, as the lawyer who wrote the book about it says the words were carefully chosen so as to sound innocuous. What it provides is cover; a skeleton structure in which the choice of materials can be as biased as any district wishes it to be. Your own position on what should be taught in science is a great example. I can’t imagine you would teach from any of the sources I have mentioned because i your world they have all been discredited. In your world you would be covered as a propagandist by the legalese imbedded in the Common Core skeleton. Standards can be skewed and the excuse is that I picked the paper at random. We are teaching read skills as much as we are teaching science. I’m just using this as an example to teach the kids how to think. (like we do)
” The Story of Christopher Columbus or Exploration and Conquest will give students the essential background on one of these global pioneers. Younger students will dissect Columbus’ adventurous spirit while upper grades will weigh the effects of Europeans’ encounters with native people.”
Doesn’t this completely contradict your fears that Common Core might be used to further anti-white or anti-European views?”
What do the words “…upper grades will weigh the effects of Europeans’ encounters with native people mean to you?
We’ve heard your views on Columbus expressed on the pages of PS. Kids are being taught that the Europeans brought diseases that nearly wiped out the natives. Now, as one thing that happened in a big box of things that happened that would probably be fine, although it should be pointed out that Europeans were not the only people to do this. Used as a basis or as part of a platform to demonstrate that explorers set out to destroy brown people and ravage the earth is quite another…that is being taught. It is wrapped in sugar coating to go down easy but it is being taught.
"2) Depends on the white explorer–surely you can fathom that some of them were cruel, greedy and destructive? (Columbus certainly was)"
I rest my case. Columbus was no more nor less "destructive" than other people of the times. Indigenous tribes were incredibly cruel and brutal. See also here and here. Also here. Some still are.
There is a drive to depict white Europeans and Americans as somehow worse than other people…”other”…and that isn’t education. it is indoctrination.
“the standards are about expectations for what students can DO, they do not mandate curriculum.”
Wonderful. Lets teach them nothing about the significant people of the past and instead make them the center of everything…how to develop future narcissists?
What happened to the idea that if you don’t know history you’re bound to repeat it?
“Almost no one follows black liberation theology
4) Almost no one says “the white man”
You’ve spoken to everyone? Or do you just follow the PC rules! You live in a pat little world, Chris.
” I have never met a critic of evolution that was not religious; is it possible your views here are motivated more by religion than science? Do you see why allowing religion to dictate what is taught in science classes…”
There’s that teacher tone again…commingled with derision. I have not suggested religion should dictate what is taught in science. I do think that evidence of creation is being explored by scientists and that much of what is taught about evolution is bunk. There are no clear or profound indicators that humans evolved from apes or that the different species all came evolved from sea creatures. Where are the archeological bones? They should be around. Species adapt within the species but that is an entirely different thing. Much of what is taught is assumed and imagined…mostly by atheists. In a world that is mostly religious I find it odd that the minority has imposed itself so profoundly. If you want an example of tolerance you need look no further!
“This is a ridiculous critique. The standards don’t mention civil rights leaders because they don’t mention any specific historical figures…”
Since these are not my words but words quoted from a link I can’t say specifically what the complaint entailed. Is it possible that a school district, under the CC guideline skeleton, has chosen to leave out important historical figures (and to dishonor our troops?)
This is what I mean, Chris. he guidelines set the stage for activist teachers (not all teachers) to do their thing. See here and here.
“What is wrong with “questioning?” As long as the answer isn’t mandated, isn’t questioning the opposite of indoctrination?”
You miss the point. Young men are bleeding and dying in support of our nation and you think it’s okay to question their honor with young minds? Kids with parents serving in the ME have been asked not to wear T-shirts that show they have pride in the military branch their parent is in. Once again intolerance is tolerated as long as the PC rules aren’t broken and the target is on the “no” list.
Teachers are not hired, in my opinion, to be social engineers.
“if students follow the evidence, don’t you think they’d come to pro-American conclusions on their own?”
It depends on what materials are presented to them. It depends on whether a teacher has an agenda. It depends on a districts agenda.
“It sounds like you are saying you would prefer if students did not have the option to question the founders or the nature of the American Revolution, but were simply taught positive-sounding facts about our country with no room for dissenting opinion.”
And it sounds to me like you’ve been taught to question the American founding excessively in a direction to prove an anti-American position. Are you at all in favor of American kids having a sense of pride about their country and a sense of belonging and shared citizenship? Or are you a globalist seeking to diminish the amazing historical significance of our founding…particularly in terms of individual rights?
“…with no room for dissenting opinion. This is the sense I get from many right-wing critics of education; they simply don’t want children exposed to left-wing or dissenting ideas.”
Chris the political left is the side that has pushed out right wing and dissenting ideas. If we on the right are fighting for anything it is for a place in the classroom. The arrogant left has decided it knows best. And people are removing their children from your classrooms…that never used to happen in America. Something is going on. As a teacher I would think you would be at least a bit curious. But, as is usually the case you are simply dismissive. Maybe the difference is that you didn’t live through the period of radical violent activism that I did. I know the minds of the people behind much of what passes for education today. Individual freedom and democracy is not their end game.
I trust David Horowitz because he comes from the ranks of the radical left and speaks forthrightly. His focus is on college level education but his position rings true across the educational spectrum since most teachers have been trained in American colleges. I respect his opinion on the state of higher education.
The far left is aligned with all of the radical left (Marx/Fascist based movements across the globe. If you don’t think they would rob you of your freedom in a heartbeat if they could you’re not educated about the agenda.
Common Core is coming to your college (yes, college)
I don’t wish to wade through this any more. You are welcome to the last word. As I said my purpose in posting was to expose how this came about and who was behind it. By the way…I meant to put a question mark in the title. Been busy lately, I just forgot to add it at posting.
Tina, here is proof students are being taught anti-American views by far left-wing professors.
Harvard students think America is greater threat to world peace than ISIS:
“A handful of Harvard College students surveyed on the distinguished grounds believe America is a greater threat to world peace than Islamic State terrorists, according to a video posted by Campus Reform. After the interviews, which Campus Reform does to expose biases on college campuses, Bonham took to FoxNews.com to express his own opinion about the students.”
Video:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/harvard-students-america-greater-threat-world-peace-isis-article-1.1969170
And here is proof math standards are being lowered through Common Core to qualify student college placement with pre-algebra curriculum.
Common Core’s Cloudy Vision of College Readiness in Math (by Sandra Stotsky):
“When Algebra II Is Not Algebra II
The content of a traditional Algebra II course has for many years led directly in most high schools to a trigonometry/analytical geometry or pre-calculus course. Students interested in engineering or science-related careers (or students who wanted to be sure all possible options were open to them in college) were then ready for a calculus course in grade 12 or in their freshman year at a selective college. That is why a requirement to pass an Algebra II course or its equivalent for a college degree led to so many freshman remedial mathematics courses at the post-secondary level. A traditional Algebra II course is difficult and unnecessary for students who are not mathematically ambitious. (For example, see the topics for Algebra II in the 1997 California Mathematics Curriculum Framework or the 2000 Massachusetts Mathematics Curriculum Framework.) That is why Florida and Michigan have removed the Algebra II requirement for a high school diploma.
But an Algebra II course with less demanding content can be passed by much larger numbers, and that is what seems to have driven Common Core’s conception of college readiness, dubbed “Algebra II lite” or “Algebra I plus” by some mathematicians. That is why Jason Zimba, the chief mathematics standards writer for Common Core, told the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education in March 2010 that Common Core’s college-readiness level in mathematics meant readiness for a non-selective college. Similarly, this Board was told on another occasion that passing Common Core’s college-readiness test would indicate readiness for College Algebra.
While College Algebra is a course title that may sound impressive to many parents and state board members, it is a course that many mathematicians consider akin to remedial Algebra II. In other words, completion of Common Core’s Algebra II will make students ready for remedial Algebra II at the college level, but with one huge difference. Students will be entitled to college credit for it.
To be sure, many educators and state board members may see nothing amiss in this scenario for college-interested high school students oriented to the humanities or the arts. But how will a signal be sent to mathematically able students as well as to those with an interest in a mathematics-dependent field that their talents or interests may not be furthered if their teachers’ goal is restricted to getting all students to pass Common Core’s college-readiness test?”
http://pioneerinstitute.org/news/common-cores-cloudy-vision-of-college-readiness-in-math-by-sandra-stotsky/
Thanks Peggy. Lets not forget the point of the post which is that those who designed CC had a “vision” and a “mission” in doing so.
If the point is to wipe out national identity and boundaries will this group of Fascist social engineers give up making conservatives the bad guys or will they at some point be forced to round us all up to create the illusion of happy co-existence in a brave new world order?
Just as we were told we could keep our doctors and that this would be the most transparent administration ever, the promises that CC will not lead to indoctrination cannot be trusted. They tell us what the end goals are. The lawyers that conceived the skeleton “core” knew the words had to afford them flexibility.
Leftists hate our Constitution because it limits what they can do politically…but education, within the right framework, will allow control of how future generations think. Look what they have already done when textbooks contained ideals and history that worked against their vision and mission.
I enjoyed the movie, “Tora! Tora! Tora!” The makers of the movie endeavored to depict the attack on Pearl Harbor both from the American and the Japanese perspectives without making judgements. I think they accomplished what they set out to do. History told in this fashion works for me. History of America designed to make the founders and settlers out to be insensitive monsters and the native peoples loving and peaceful is a disservice to both. It’s nothing but a lie.
Tina, quoting me: ““It’s not, though.” (Global warming being taught)”
You misunderstood. I didn’t say global warming is not being taught. I said teaching global warming in science is not biased. It is based on the actual science.
“In the news yesterday: Anarctic Sea Ice Level Breaks Record”
I have a feeling you didn’t read a single word of this article, because the first line says this:
“Sea ice surrounding Antarctica is at an all-time high, even as overall averages of global temperature continue to climb.”
And later:
“Despite this trend, sea ice as a whole is decreasing on a global scale. Researchers say that just like global warming trends have different outcomes in various parts of the world, not every location with sea ice will experience ice loss.”
So this in no way challenges the theory of AGW.
“In the news today: NASA Scientists Puzzled by Global Cooling on Land and Sea”
NASA never used the phrase “global cooling;” that is Newsmax’s dishonest spin.
The article also says this:
“The findings present a new puzzle to scientists, but co-author Josh Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) said the reality of climate change is not being thrown into doubt.
“The sea level is still rising,” said Willis.
“We’re just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details.””
So this does not challenge the theory of AGW either.
“This was published in January this year: “Climate Scientist Who Got It Right Predicts 20 More Years of Global Cooling.””
Don Easterbrook certainly did not “get it right” when he claimed that the earth was entering into a cooling period. The earth has warmed slightly over the past decade.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-don-easterbrook.html
“Teaching that the science is settled or that the earth is warming or that most scientists agree is propaganda.”
No, literally all of these are established facts. The climate change deniers are a vocal minority in the scientific community. Perhaps you do not realize this because you spend so much time conversing with other climate change deniers, but your views are not well represented among actual climate scientists. Multiple studies have confirmed that at least 90% of climate scientists accept the theory of AGW; you have linked to studies attempting to discredit those studies, but you failed to disprove them because you were unwilling to engage in a discussion of the studies’ competing methodologies. This proved that you did not understand the methods used to reach the conclusions, and instead merely accepted the conclusions you wanted to hear.
“I would not want a child of mine in your science class!”
Nor would I; science is not my strong suit, and I do not have a science credential. That’s why I defer to the vast majority of climate scientists when it comes to climate science. I also make an effort to understand their methodology, something you have absolutely refused to do. I have shown you how climate deniers have misrepresented studies, and you have responded with a yawn. So I am at least more qualified to discuss issues related to science than you are.
“Of course not. It is a legal document, however and, as the lawyer who wrote the book about it says the words were carefully chosen so as to sound innocuous. What it provides is cover; a skeleton structure in which the choice of materials can be as biased as any district wishes it to be.”
This doesn’t make any sense. Before Common Core, what was stopping any district from choosing biased materials?
Do you understand that your argument doesn’t make any sense?
“Your own position on what should be taught in science is a great example. I can’t imagine you would teach from any of the sources I have mentioned because i your world they have all been discredited.”
…I’m sorry, are you suggesting that NewsMax or CNSNews should be used as sources for school assignments?
And that doesn’t seem like it would politicizing education to you?
“What do the words “…upper grades will weigh the effects of Europeans’ encounters with native people</b" mean to you?"
…Are you denying that Europeans' encounters with native people had an effect? Are you claiming that students should not be taught about this effect?
"We've heard your views on Columbus expressed on the pages of PS. Kids are being taught that the Europeans brought diseases that nearly wiped out the natives."
Yes, because that is a fact, and it is important to our understanding of history.
I am sorry that you feel that students should be shielded from any information that might paint certain figures in American history in a bad light. But students have a right to the truth. Hiding this truth in the name of inculcating blind patriotism is literally the definition of propaganda.
"I rest my case. Columbus was no more nor less "destructive" than other people of the times."
Absurd. The man started the Transatlantic Slave Trade.
"Indigenous tribes were incredibly cruel and brutal."
Some indigenous tribes were brutal. I don't see a whole lot of progressives denying that, and I believe that should be taught too. The notion that all Native Americans were peaceful and nonviolent is a subtle form of racism in and of itself.
"There is a drive to depict white Europeans and Americans as somehow worse than other people…”
I just don't see that, at all.
"Wonderful. Lets teach them nothing about the significant people of the past and instead make them the center of everything…how to develop future narcissists?"
Not only is this not even CLOSE to anything I or the standards have said, it completely contradicts your central complaint. First you complained that the standards were telling teachers what they had to teach about, and now you are complaining that the standards DON'T tell teachers which historical figures to teach about?
It's so obvious that you don't base your complaints and critiques on facts and reason–you wait for your party to tell you what to hate, and then you work backwards in a desperate attempt to find reasons to hate that thing. Whether these reasons make sense or are in any way consistent with each other is irrelevant to you: the party has spoken.
Talk about indoctrinated!
"There are no clear or profound indicators that humans evolved from apes"
Good god–you don't even understand the basics of evolution, and you fancy yourself a critic of science education? HILARIOUS!
Evolution does NOT argue that humans descended from apes! It argues that we share a common ancestor.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/humans-descended-from-apes.htm
You have no grounds to criticize the education system when you so clearly lack a basic education yourself. You don’t understand the theories you rail against; your entire perception of them is based on strawman arguments.
“You miss the point. Young men are bleeding and dying in support of our nation and you think it’s okay to question their honor with young minds?”
Once again you contradict yourself. First you say kids should not be indoctrinated into one belief system, and then you say kids should not be allowed to question basic tenets of your own belief system.
You don’t actually have a moral objection to kids being taught to believe a certain way. You have a partisan objection to kids being exposed to viewpoints which contradict your own.
That makes your claims of “indoctrination” and “propaganda” completely disingenuous. I will ask you once again, for the sake of an honest discussion, to stick to only making arguments which you actually believe.
“It depends on what materials are presented to them. It depends on whether a teacher has an agenda. It depends on a districts agenda.”
What it doesn’t depend on, apparently, is Common Core, meaning that even the title of this article was dishonest.
“Are you at all in favor of American kids having a sense of pride about their country and a sense of belonging and shared citizenship? Or are you a globalist seeking to diminish the amazing historical significance of our founding…particularly in terms of individual rights?”
My god do you not know me. I’ll have you know I lead my kids in the pledge of allegiance every day at school…they are not required to say the pledge but they are required to be respectful during it. I am proud of my country, Tina–that’s why I don’t feel the need to ignore unpleasant facts about it. I think in the long run America has been a force for good in the world, but denying the times it has done wrong doesn’t reinforce that good, it detracts from it, and makes us unable to learn from our mistakes and be better.
“Lets not forget the point of the post which is that those who designed CC had a “vision” and a “mission” in doing so.”
Except that, as I pointed out in my first comment here, neither you nor the American Thinker writer ever showed that the group discussed had any role in designing Common Core.
Chris if it’s “hockey stick” science and computer model science, which has been shown to be unreliable, then the students are not being taught; they are being indoctrinated into the global warming political mindset. They are being prepped for participation in or support of warming activism. If they are being taught that the “science is settled” and if they are not being instructed about scientists that believe the human contribution is insignificant, and why, they are being indoctrinated.
17 Scientists From 11 Countries: Research Confirms That IPCC Climate Models’ Flood Predictions Are Spectacular Failure
The Global Warming Statistical Meltdown
Mounting evidence suggests that basic assumptions about climate change are mistaken: The numbers don’t add up.
95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
Climate Science Is Not Settled We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy, writes leading scientist Steven E. Koonin:
The point about sea ice is that just a couple of years ago alarmists were pointing to the melting ice as proof of warming. They insist that warming continues, although some think we are in a (natural) cooling phase. The article stating that “…overall averages of global temperature continue to climb” isn’t at all strange since the radical opinion has gone mainstream. They have spent decades convincing everyone that we are all going to fry. They have done it by controlling the narrative and frankly promoting it like Hollywood promotes its fiction.
You continue to berate the article quoting a sentence that contains the following: “The findings present a new puzzle to scientists”
Unfortunately it doesn’t occur to you, or some journalists, not to mention scientists that are deaf, dumb and blind to opposing opinion of colleagues that these “puzzling” findings are one reason, among many, that the science isn’t settled. Continuing the myth that it the science settled is irresponsible. Teaching that it is would be irresponsible as well.
“I have shown you how climate deniers have misrepresented studies”
I have shown you how climate alarmists have lied, cheated, and exaggerated findings to deceive the public! I have shown you evidence that other natural forces are the main causes of climate change and historical patterns. I have listed scientists that disagree with the man caused warming concensus…credible scientists that YOU dismiss or berate.
“I also make an effort to understand their methodology, something you have absolutely refused to do”
I have not “absolutely refused”. I have acknowledged my limitations while you, until now, have not. In fact, you have been quite arrogant and backed down only when someone with more experience and background than I put you in your place.
You have also taken the rigid position of “settled science.” My position is that there is room for doubt which is a more open (scientific) approach.
I post articles about this to call attention to the political pressures brought by radical warming activists. They are not only scaring little kids unnecessarily but are causing real world economic harm for a lot of people in countries around the world.
This is getting very frustrating. You have not heard my concerns; you’ve interpreted them and reacted to your interpretation. For instance you quoted me and then wrote:
But what I actually wrote in total shows that you cherry picked my words just to be outraged, arrogant and offended…and to paint me as stupid. This is what I wrote:
I clearly indicated that this information should be included but not singled out as part of an agenda that does not represent whites honestly or accurately. Nothing I said suggests that I think kids should not be taught the truth.
I find your arrogance and your propensity to be snide incredibly off putting. Your need to disparage talk show hosts and various right wing websites is also off putting. It may be awhile before I respond to anything you offer. I will leave you, and our readers with one final thought:
But Chris says, “Evolution does NOT argue that humans descended from apes!”
Could have fooled me!
You once said that you liked PS because we attempt to discuss things respectfully. You have veered away from respectful disagreement in the past few years. You have come to these pages with an attitude that I refuse to indulge further. I’ll let my words above stand. I think most people can read them and understand my concerns and I think they can also see, as I do, that your purpose here is less than honorable.
You have a nice night Chris.
The hockey stick model has been very reliable; you believe otherwise because you cannot tell a reliable source from an unreliable one.
“I have shown you how climate alarmists have lied, cheated, and exaggerated findings to deceive the public!”
No, you have not. You have made false “Climategate” accusations that were proven to be bullshit years ago.
Anyway, none of this has anything to do with Common Core, and you have not once in this discussion explained how CC is “indoctrinating” anyone, making this yet another dishonest headline.
In case there is anyone remotely interested in this thread please note that I have now added the aforementioned question mark left out of the title, an oversight in the editing/posting process. Perhaps now the hall monitor will back off.
Readers might enjoy a letter to Anthony posted over at WUWT. Three little paragraphs are music to my “uneducated” ears; a excerpt:
I think it is imperative that those who write our laws consider the opinions of all serious scientists instead of limiting themselves to the select bunch pushing an obvious political green agenda. I have nothing against innovation that helps we humans to be better stewards of our planet and it’s resources. I do have a problem with drastic measures that are unnecessarily expensive and difficult to implement, eliminate jobs, cause the price of energy to rise dramatically, manipulate the energy choices we have, or impose oppressive taxes.
Just sayin…if smart scientists don’t all agree, and they don’t, then it would seem to me that those pushing alternative energies and attempting to end oil and coal are the more suspect in terms of who can be trusted.
Funny. You would think someone who just revealed that they don’t understand the first thing about the theory of human evolution would take a break from attempting to criticize scientists, and avoid such discussions for a while, realizing they have nothing to contribute. But that’s the thing about the arrogant ignorance that pervades the right these days: it is impervious to shame.
Thanks for sharing Chris.