Discussion: La. Superintendent Slams Jindal's 'Political' Anti-Common Core Plan

Discussion for article #234485

The latest example of “I’m all right, Jack,” Teabaggerism.

3 Likes

The parents in Baton Rouge want their kids taught that Jesus rode a Brontosaurus. In Shreveport parents say it was a Triceratops. How will that get resolved when it comes to which one it is that gets taught in the schools? Hmmm, hmmm??!!

5 Likes

Republicans trying anything to keep the masses uneducated and ignorant.

3 Likes

I wonder if Piyush will still be alive when someone from Louisiana sues the state for continually losing out on high-paying jobs because of a substandard education?

4 Likes

I still don’t understand what about Common Core inspires such fear and loathing. Does they think it all includes a free copy of Obama’s Little Red Book or something?

5 Likes

It seems like ‘Obama likes it’ is all the, ahem, reason they require!

3 Likes

Common Core was accepted voluntarily by the states. Common Core was developed directly by a committee setup by the states. But as soon as Obama got tied to it [somehow] it became this stupid, ridiculous hot potato that suddenly all good Republicans have to hate. What a sad country we live in.

6 Likes

Conservatives have convinced a great many people teachers are evil liberals imparting ungodly knowledge to their children. And they belong to unions (gasp, hiss, boo, boo!!). Teaching is a thankless job for many that do it. They can’t win. Parents pounce on every opportunity to let the administration know their poor Thad and Brittany have been wronged. WRONGED I TELL YOU!!! Parents want their children to become smarter for having gone to school, yet vote and cheer for politicians like Jindal and Scott Walker that slash school budgets using the reasoning they’re wasting money. More hours, less pay is Scott Walker’s motto. Lesson plans are so sanitized now to avoid offending anyone it’s a wonder kids learn at all.

3 Likes

This is not such a cut dry situation as one is led to believe from this article. Jindal’s anti-Common Core plan may not be for the same reasons as others in his similar position, but there’s no question Common Core arose out of a dysfunctional education system in this country, where the attempt to monetize and make education more marketable is at the root of the problem. These capitalist investors and hedge fund marketeers, most without much concern for what parents and teachers thought of their ideas, pressed ahead with their “standards based” curriculum. Jindal’s own rejection probably has more to do with not having students do Civil War re-enactments for history class or some such nonsense, than any of the problems most K-12 teachers have against Common Core in general however.

I refer you to Diane Ravitch’s excellent summary of how Common Core came about and who all was involved in its design. True, that it is the States that adopted these standards all on their own, and not the federal government’s devious plan to make them submit. But the people involved in choosing and outlining the Common Core curriculum were not necessarily involved much in education, either directly or indirectly from the start. Many were into monetizing and privatizing education as their primary goal.

Arne Duncan has been bad for education. Its the one thing President Obama fell down on completely over the years. He allowed Duncan, his friend of many years, to become the last word on education reform…all to the detriment of teachers around the country, who struggle day after day with the difficult dilemma of poor school districts with shrinking tax bases, along with English as a second language and special education populations trying to get a voice in how classroom material is best handled…and insisting their populations have a meaningful voice in how they are taught as well.

2 Likes

Pretty sure that’s a rhetorical question but this (sigh) controversy is a particularly pure example of hating a thing because the administration likes it. The Feds had next to nothing to do with Common Core, as far as I know, except for offering states incentives to adopt it over what they offer for any authorized system of standards. Employers and colleges have complained for decades that the kids aren’t coming out of high school well enough prepared. U.S. kids’ performance on international measures is not exceptional—it’s mediocre. Kids are taught well in rich school districts, but not all school districts are rich. (Many developed countries do a far better job than us of giving students from all SES backgrounds a quality education.) The standards movement has been trying to remedy this for about 20 years or so by setting goals for what all students should “know and be able to do.” Standards are controversial in the teaching community because they typically measure results with standardized tests, a thing teachers find problematic. They’re hard to do, frankly, as SRfromGR points out. But this Common Core thing is just an expression of Obama and Washington hatred. Could anyone be opposed, for example, to children eating right and exercising? Here’s a response to a Kathleen Parker column on that subject: “It is not well intentioned. Its progressive training for the kids. They can`t even choose what to eat. In time they will not be allowed to choose who to marry.” So there you are. If Michelle Obama encourages children to be healthy, we’ll wake up in North Korea.

If plumbing were an elected office, the best qualified Republicans would be guys who left a big dump in the morning. Guys who washed their hands afterwards would be unelectable. Too much of an “expert” for the talk radio circuit.

Our military heroes fought and died in many wars so our children would gave the right to drink Mountain Dew and eat Krispy-Kreme doughnuts for breakfast. Jesus is a Pepsi man, but he forgives doing the Dew.

Since Brontosaurus is now called Apatosaurus, this issue should resolve itself.

for all interested, a nice write up of some of the issues came out yesterday:

Be glad when this never was is out of office. His next job will be at Waste Management, not in the executive office, but on the back of a truck.

In the back of the truck is where he really belongs.