Talk:Common Core State Standards Initiative

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

New Criticism section[edit]

I have copied material from the New York City Department of Education article concerning Common Core's comparison with communism. This material does not belong in the NYCDOE article, as it has a weak nexus to that institution; however, the discussion is directed at Common Core so this article should be a good location to collect such material where the discussion pertains to the Common Core and not a state derivative.

In doing so, it would appear this article makes no effort to form a coherent analysis section. Instead, there is a Response section which appears, on the first glance (I consider myself a rather experienced Wikipedian) to be a rambling mess I would expect to hear from a crazy man (I believe the casual reader would not even try to comprehend whatever this section is saying). This "response" section should be split into obvious criticisms, obvious analysis, and other statements ("responses") that are neither analytical nor critical (and hence should possibly be in another section, like a history section). This is important because if the material is neither analytical nor critical, well, it is less important for the casual reader. With that, I have started a relevant section with material which is clearly critical. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

First, we're not allowed to copy material from anything. Secondly, we aren't allowed to write our opinions into articles or base content off a single, highly biased source. Due to these factors, I have removed the new material. However, if there is well-sourced response/criticism that already isn't present in the article, that is fair game. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 11:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
We allowed to copy anything we want from Wikipedia; that is the point of this project. What a ridiculous assertion. Secondly, every source is biased. This is a fact of life. That a source is biased is not reason to remove it. Otherwise few criticisms would be allowed on any article. And apparently you know about this source, so it is well known, and apparently it is reliable, albeit reliably disagreeable. The source has a Wikipedia article, that is enough to meet WP:RS. But that you disagree with the author of the article or its claims is irrelevant.
Given the inflammatory nature of the criticism (communism LOL), I knew there would be a significant push to censor this type of material, but I must oppose any such reversions based on silly reasons (you can't copy from Wikipedia LOL). Also, until this material is moved onto this article, it should not be removed from the NYCDOE article. Due to these factors (that your reasons for reverting do not warrant the materials removal), I have reverted your change. Begrudgingly. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
"We allowed to copy anything we want from Wikipedia" [unstated statement: from any article to another article]: Not without attribution for the copying either in the page history or on the page itself, neither of which is provided in this instance, making the transfer a copyright violation. Any readdition (which I oppose: see next paragraph) should include where the content was copied from.

The problem with your insertion is, at a minimum, it assigns inordinate WP:WEIGHT to the idea that CC is Communist or Communist-like. A single person, who is not an expert in either Communist China, nor in education, nor the intersection of education in China, reported on by questionable WP:RS, is not a valuable addition from this point of view. Lastly, the addition failed to note the qualifying factors and instead added the content as if it were a fact that there were more than one person making this comparison and that the WND is dedicated to a "Christian worldview". A more neutral addition would have been "Christian news source WND covered the story of a woman who compared CC to Communism." I also now have reverted your addition.

As for NYCDOE, the removal at that article of the content is only related to that article, and nothing restricts us from similar removal here (albeit for different reasons).

A source having an article is only indicative that we believe that source to be notable. No one would consider Glenn Beck or Donald Trump to be authoritative, trusted, reliable sources. You should re-read WP:RS apparently. --Izno (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I said "I have copied material from the New York City Department of Education article". I am not sure how this is construed as lacking attribution. I refute that such an attribution would be needed in "in the page history or on the page itself" [unstated statement: not on the talk page.] And there is no copyright violation even without the statement, either, it was submitted to Wikipedia, it is still on Wikipedia, the license is not to a specific WP article, and the attribution is on the original article's edit history. But since it is a novel enough claim, it should be taken to the appropriate forum. I look forward to finding out if this is the first time someone has made this claim before.
Yes it is possibly undue weight, but I harbour suspicions that such claims are probably widely held to be true by a significant number of people. Yes, the claim should have been better qualified, but that should not warrant a revert. This material has little to do with NYCDOE, but given the blatant censorship here, I think such viewpoints should have, and apparently are in need of, a place to develop. And yes, plenty of people would likely consider Glenn Beck or Donald Trump to be authoritative sources when it comes to political claims.
I really don't care enough about either this subject nor the claim to attempt to remedy the flaws. I will say that this smacks of censorship backed up by a litany of the silliest excuses and evidenced by a disproportionate response (e.g., reverting a claim, instead of fixing it, because the claim was not adequately qualified). It seems to me that you (plural) are just making excuses to remove claims with which you disagree, and without a good faith attempt to remedy any flaws and incorporate the claim into the article. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
There is no "censorship" here, but we're trying to run an encyclopedia. Poorly sourced opinion ordinarily doesn't stay in articles. We won't say that this, what amounts to an accusation (and one seemingly coming from a fringe), can't ever be a part of this article. But until you're prepared to write it with a neutral point-of-view, with acceptable reliable sources, it's best to keep it out. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 21:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia must provide attribution in the page or its history. Period. I won't debate your incorrectly informed opinion.

Your suspicions are irrelevant. Whether "people" consider Beck or Trump to be reliable sources is also irrelevant in that our standards do not (except in the WP:SPS case).

You are always welcome to request a 3rd opinion or start an RFC on inclusion of this woman's opinion in the article. Perhaps both I and Stevie are calibrated incorrectly in our position and could use recalibration by the community. --Izno (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Rambling response[edit]

Aside from the discussion above related to the Communism inclusion, you suggested that the currently Response section is underwhelming in its organization. From a brief review of the section yesterday, I would tend to agree. Do you have specific suggestions for a remedy? Will you work with us on it? --Izno (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Izno: I would. Just start merging sentences that are discussing essentially related things; right now it seems organized by time. E.g., throughout, many of the paragraphs are discussing facets of the nationalization aspect, or the reciprocal fragmented aspect. Some parts within that discussion, such as discussions about particular local features that are better, and/or worse, should be organized and put after more general comments. I do not think it should be a conservatives say this, followed by a paragraph about liberals say that; that would only essentially split the topical organization into liberal and conservative sections, with a resulting lack of internal (within each liberal/conservative section) comprehensiveness. In other words, just organize it by topic.
After that is done, or during that process, or even now in someone else's opinion, a different organization may become clearly better, but this mishmash of time and other organization is hard to follow, and makes integration of random points hard (when it's organized in a topical fashion, if a statement or claim does not have a section, tack it on the end where random info can be collected, where it can be further developed or thoughtfully removed over time.) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 02:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The "Response" section is definitely an incoherent mess. It should at least be broken up into two distinct sections: positive responses and criticisms. Given that many Americans seem to be vehemently opposed to "common core", and the fact that getting rid of it was a major plank in Trump's winning campaign platform, the article should at least give some hint or clue to non-Americans (like myself), as to why "common core" is loathed and despised by so many Americans. The article completely fails to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77Mike77 (talkcontribs) 22:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Update needed[edit]

The Assessment section needs updating. The first paragraph refers to the 2014-2015 school year in the future. --seberle (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Out of data for 2016 school year[edit]

Several states dropped common core so the current article is out of date.

https://www.georgiastandards.org/Georgia-Standards/Pages/default.aspx http://eagnews.org/florida-state-officials-drop-common-core-in-favor-of-florida-standards/ RonDr (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RonDr (talkcontribs) 20:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC) 

Gotcha, going to fix that no w, but already added how trump wants to get rod of CCSI with School Choice and education opportunity act. Nathanpn (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump's Replacement[edit]

Updated on how Trump wants to replace CCSI with School Choice And Education Opportunity Act. (Getting tired from typing "School Choice And Education Opportunity Act") If you have any question or suggestions, please post. Nathanpn (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

This needs more explanation. Despite being cited (verbatim) by countless news outlets, it is not clear to me what the School Choice And Education Opportunity Act actually entails. I've been trying to find more information, but I can't. Does someone have a better source? The Common Core is not a federal program. How will directing school funds to charter schools "end Common Core," a program the federal government has no control over? Does this act have some plan to somehow make the Common Core illegal? Will it give funds to states to encourage them to abandon the Common Core? Or does Trump merely mean that privatization of schools will bring an effective end to Common Core as public schools disappear? There needs to be more details for this sentence to remain in the introduction. (Also, according to the reference, the act does not "replace" the Common Core, but rather somehow "ends the Common Core," so at the very least this sentence needs editing.) --seberle (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Speculation on my part: Right now the federal government provides grants to the states for certain educational goals for certain testing levels. The DOE has said that Common Core standards meet those goals and thusly provides those grants to states participating in Common Core. I would expect the act to remove those grants, which would in effect not end Common Core itself but instead what I believe was instituted under NCLB. But I'm not sure when the grants were added... I'm pretty sure there was another act just after Obama was elected into office IIRC. --Izno (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
As Common Core is not a federal standard, it cannot be replaced via federal law.173.67.26.45 (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The erroneous sentence in the introduction has been removed. If no one can find any details on how this proposed act will "end" Common Core, should we make a note in the Adoption section that this is not clear at this time? Numerous sources before the election noted that the federal government has no way to "end" the Common Core. If Izno is correct, the act will not "end" the Common Core, it will only remove any further federal incentives to keep it. This sounds likely, but since it is unsourced speculation, we cannot yet include it. Perhaps the final sentence in the Adoption section should read, "Upon taking office, President-elect Donald Trump plans to abolish the standards and allow local communities to control their standards, which will be done with the School Choice And Education Opportunity Act (SCAEOA). However, the Common Core is not under federal control, and details of the SCAEOA have not yet been released, so it is not yet clear how the SCAEOA can end the Common core." --seberle (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

"Language"[edit]

Let us note that Common Core, as described in this article, includes no "language" requirement whatsoever. In CC guidelines, the term is used exclusively as a synonym for English literacy. The lack of any world languages component is at least as ringing a condemnation of this scheme as its dogfaced exclusion of the arts. (Particularly in view of the claim that CC will bring American students up to international standards. In this respect it's clearly a farce.) Our article on it would be much more complete if someone with expertise on the subject added a section on these extraordinary omissions. Laodah 05:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Common Core State Standards Initiative. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Biased wording[edit]

I haven't even read through the entire article, and the few excerpts that I've read show an incredible amount of bias in favor of Common Core. Even the opening line...

"The Common Core State Standards Initiative is an educational initiative from 2010 that details what K–12 students throughout the United States should know in English language arts and mathematics at the conclusion of each school grade."

...seems to indicate that what is presented in Common Core is the be-all end-all answer to everything that's wrong in the universe, instead of recognizing that Common Core is an attempt to quantify the minimum national standards for what students should know.

Additional, in the "Reception and Criticism" section, when a quotation is taken from one critical response...

The "Common Core adopts a bottom-line, pragmatic approach to education and the heart of its philosophy is, as far as we can see, that it is a waste of resources to 'over-educate' people,"[66]...

...is followed up by a clear defense/justification:

...though the Common Core set only minimum—not maximum—standards.

These are simply the first ones that I saw; I haven't read the whole thing, so it is possible that they're the only statements like this in the article, but I doubt it.

Purely anecdotally, every single person that I've heard describe the Common Core approach to mathematics has a negative view of it. And these aren't third-hand parties: these are actual parents of actual students actually trying to learn math the Common Core way.

Ghonth (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest edits.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)