9 Reasons Why Common Core is Bad for Education

[Revmitchell]

#1 The Main Arguments for Common Core are Vague and Dubious

#2 Common Core is based on a Materialistic, Egalitarian Philosophy

#3 Uniform “Standards” Themselves Will Not Improve Education in America

#4 Common Core Eliminates Local and Parental Control over Education

#5 Common Core Virtually Determines What Will be Taught in the Classroom

#6 Common Core English Harms Literature

#7 Common Core Math Will Not Prepare Students for Careers in So-Called STEM Fields

#8 Common Core Imposes a Cult of Testing

#9 Common Core is Increasingly Unpopular

#10 Common Core Collects Massive Amounts of Data on Children

Conclusion

Common Core will not improve American K-12 education. It is a socialist/progressive experiment that will impose an inflexible, one-size-fits-all, egalitarian education scheme on America’s children. It drastically harms the way both Math and English is taught, and violates the sacred right of parents to have a say in their children’s education.

http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/pol...ons-why-common-core-is-bad-for-education.html

 

[Revmitchell]

According to one of the two only academics who sat on the common core development (Dr. James <ilgram) there is absolutely no research behind common core to show that it is true, correct, or will have the desired effect. Neither of the only two academics who sat on the devcelopment were willing to sign off on its final product and are now, in fact, touring the country and speaking against it. To quote Dr. Milgram "It is not internationally nationally bench marked and indeed there is no research behind it."

 

[Sapper Woody]

#1 The Main Arguments for Common Core are Vague and Dubious

#2 Common Core is based on a Materialistic, Egalitarian Philosophy

#3 Uniform “Standards” Themselves Will Not Improve Education in America

#4 Common Core Eliminates Local and Parental Control over Education

#5 Common Core Virtually Determines What Will be Taught in the Classroom

#6 Common Core English Harms Literature

#7 Common Core Math Will Not Prepare Students for Careers in So-Called STEM Fields

#8 Common Core Imposes a Cult of Testing

#9 Common Core is Increasingly Unpopular

#10 Common Core Collects Massive Amounts of Data on Children

Conclusion

Common Core will not improve American K-12 education. It is a socialist/progressive experiment that will impose an inflexible, one-size-fits-all, egalitarian education scheme on America’s children. It drastically harms the way both Math and English is taught, and violates the sacred right of parents to have a say in their children’s education.

http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/pol...ons-why-common-core-is-bad-for-education.html

Rev, I'm in class right now, and so can't watch the video or adequately discuss those concerns. But later I'll explain how those concerns are misguided, and misunderstandings of common core.

Specifically, I'll be speaking to common core math, and not English. As I'm not an English major, but rather a physics and math major, I haven't looked into the English standards.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

[Sapper Woody]

I keep thinking I'll get a few minutes in between classes to respond further, but I'll probably have to wait until tonight to respond. But for starters, points 3 and 9 have nothing to do with anything, and are red herrings. Points 4,5, and 7 are actually completely false, and in fact are the opposite of what is being done, points 8 and 10 have nothing directly to do with common core, but public schools in general. Point 6 I will not be addressing. Point 1 is opinion. Point 2 might be the only actual argument of the bunch, but is a moot point if it is better.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

[evenifigoalone]

When I was taking a GED program a couple of years ago, Common Core was actually used. It was used in combination with other things, the materials that we used was a mix of different stuff. (And I think that helped the learning experience, because sometimes one method helps one person, while a different method helps someone else.)
I think Common Core was mainly used for history and science stuff, but I believe we did use a bit for some of the math too. It didn't seem all that bad.

Oh. Before that, I was homeschooled, and learned history through A Beka (in younger grades) and mostly a literature-based method in high school. (Literature-based meaning studying by reading biographies, first hand accounts, interviews, novels, etc. And a small amount of text-books.) I did the GED program in order to graduate in a way that would be recognized by the state.

 

[Sapper Woody]

When I was taking a GED program a couple of years ago, Common Core was actually used. It was used in combination with other things, the materials that we used was a mix of different stuff. (And I think that helped the learning experience, because sometimes one method helps one person, while a different method helps someone else.)
I think Common Core was mainly used for history and science stuff, but I believe we did use a bit for some of the math too. It didn't seem all that bad.

Whether we want to admit it or not, we all use common core math pretty much every day. I know I did every time I counted back change without a cash register. I haven't begun to teach my homeschooled girls any common core methods, but they are naturally using those methods in their math.

For instance, I asked one of my daughters what 5+6 was, and she answered, "11, because 5+5 is 10, and 1 more is 11". That's the epitome of common core math. Having many ways to solve a problem introduced to you so that you may decide which to use. It gets kids ready for algebra much earlier than the "old way".

Any math professor I've talked to (which is quite a few, since I'm a math major) has only spoken well of common core. Now I'm not talking about people with only bachelors. This is quite a few masters with a couple of doctorates thrown in.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

[evenifigoalone]

Whether we want to admit it or not, we all use common core math pretty much every day. I know I did every time I counted back change without a cash register. I haven't begun to teach my homeschooled girls any common core methods, but they are naturally using those methods in their math.

For instance, I asked one of my daughters what 5+6 was, and she answered, "11, because 5+5 is 10, and 1 more is 11". That's the epitome of common core math. Having many ways to solve a problem introduced to you so that you may decide which to use. It gets kids ready for algebra much earlier than the "old way".

Any math professor I've talked to (which is quite a few, since I'm a math major) has only spoken well of common core. Now I'm not talking about people with only bachelors. This is quite a few masters with a couple of doctorates thrown in.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

This is true. I have trouble with math, I was three years behind on it most of my time in school. (The reason I was held back a couple of years, though being homeschooled allowed me to move forward in other subjects I wasn't behind on.) That reasoning was introduced to me in the materials I used in the GED program (sources like Khan Academy, too, not just Common Core), and it did help.

 

[Revmitchell]

Less than half of Americans (49 percent) and only 40 percent of teachers now say they support Common Core State Standards (CCSS).

Public support has dropped 16 percent since 2013, when 65 percent of Americans were in favor of the Common Core standards, according to the ninth annual Education Next poll released Tuesday.

But the greatest change in opinion has been among teachers.

In 2013, 76 percent of teachers said they were in favor of the Common Core. In the new survey, only 40 percent say the favor Common Core--representing a 36-point drop in two years.

The poll, conducted in May and June by Paul Peterson and Martin West of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, asked a representative sample of 4,083 this question: "As you may know, in the last few years states have been deciding whether or not to use the Common Core, which are standards for reading and math that are the same across the states. In the states that have these standards, they will be used to hold public schools accountable for their performance. Do you support or oppose the use of the Common Core standards in your school?"

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/poll-only-40-teachers-support-common-core

 

[Don]

Whether we want to admit it or not, we all use common core math pretty much every day. I know I did every time I counted back change without a cash register. I haven't begun to teach my homeschooled girls any common core methods, but they are naturally using those methods in their math.

For instance, I asked one of my daughters what 5+6 was, and she answered, "11, because 5+5 is 10, and 1 more is 11". That's the epitome of common core math. Having many ways to solve a problem introduced to you so that you may decide which to use. It gets kids ready for algebra much earlier than the "old way".

Any math professor I've talked to (which is quite a few, since I'm a math major) has only spoken well of common core. Now I'm not talking about people with only bachelors. This is quite a few masters with a couple of doctorates thrown in.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

Woody - the misunderstanding about why common core should not be adopted centers on the common core methods; the actual problem is, as Rev points out in the previous message, using the standards to hold public schools accountable for their performance.

As a teaching method, there are aspects of common core that are acceptable, and should be encouraged; there are also aspects that should be given a wide berth. I work with educators who are on both sides of the fence on this subject.

The problem with using common core as the method for holding public schools accountable is that it's no different than existing systems, like Oklahoma's letter grade system (grading a school "D" because a certain percentage of their students didn't go to college). These systems are simply "bean-counting," with little or no regard for the factors that go into why a certain percentage of students don't reach the Department of Education's goals. It's automatically assumed that why is because the teacher didn't do enough. A teacher has a class that meets 83% or more of the goal, and is awarded "teacher of the year"; the next year, only 61% meet the goal, so the teacher is then asked to identify what he/she did wrong to cause the percentage to go down, and placed on probation.

In other words, the emphasis isn't on the student; it's on the system and the numbers. I've personally taught classes where all the students had to do was turn in the homework, and they were guaranteed to pass the class (it was a "how to use Microsoft Office" course; literally, all you had to do was follow the instructions for the assignments at the end of each chapter, and turn in the document you created by following the instructions). I've failed students in that class for one simple reason: they never turned in any of the homework. I typically will contact a student once or even twice to remind them that assignments are due. I was told I needed to do more to make sure that my failure rate was lower.

I believe in personal responsibility; so in response to the instruction to do more to ensure a lower failure rate, I quit teaching the class. From what I understand, the person who replaced me doesn't really care whether the students can use Microsoft Office at the end of the semester, and the passing rates have increased. So I guess I complied with the requirement.

 

[Revmitchell]

Woody - the misunderstanding about why common core should not be adopted centers on the common core methods; the actual problem is, as Rev points out in the previous message, using the standards to hold public schools accountable for their performance.

As a teaching method, there are aspects of common core that are acceptable, and should be encouraged; there are also aspects that should be given a wide berth. I work with educators who are on both sides of the fence on this subject.

The main problem is that the only two academics who took part in development of common core, today denounce it and are regularly speaking against it. They never signed off on it. Second there is absolutely no research behind it to show it is effective. Third, the vast majority of Americans do not like it. Fourth, many of us do not want national standards in education. Leave it as local as possible.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Ok, I've finally had a chance to read the article, and watch the video clip, all while taking notes. I'm guessing this post will be long, so please bear with me.

We'll address the video first, which has different points, or in a different order than the list in the article. If these overlap, they will be dealt with only once, and not repeated when I get to the list from the article.

Point 1: Ignores Parental Rights
This, at best, is ignorance. At worst, it's either outright lies, or teachers being dishonest. The public school system itself has long had a history of teaching what they will without parental input; but that's only because parents today take on a passive role in the education of their children. Parents who take an active role make changes. The only thing that common core dictates that parents cannot change is the minimum standards that children must be taught in order to be considered proficient (we're going to come back to the word, "minimum" later). It does not have it's own curriculum. As a secondary education college student (I'm a physics/math dual major with a sec. ed minor), I am being taught this over and over, that common core does not make teaching easier, and that I am still going to have to come up with my own lessons, my own lesson plans, and even decide which curriculum to use.
All this, parents can have a role in. It's only the passive ones who have no say.

Point 2: It Is Materialistic and Naturalistic
Even though they have a flawed premise, even what they use to reinforce this idea is flawed. Common core has as one of its goals to prepare students for college and/or the work force. This is obvious. But the goal of common core standards is critical thinking. As we will see in the next point, this is a good thing. While getting students ready for further education is a huge goal, the main goal is problem solving and critical thinking.

Point 3: It Dictates What Will Be Taught
And here they fall flat on their face. I can tell you firsthand that this is completely untrue. After all, as a secondary education student, I am learning about common core and how to design lesson plans and curriculum to fit the standards. Notice how I worded that. I am learning ... how to design lesson plans and curriculum. I, as the teacher, have to decide what curriculum to use (going back to point 1, parents can get involved here, but they usually don't). The only dictates of common core is the minimum standard that must be taught. If students go beyond that minimum, then they can and will.

Point 4: Uniformity Alone Does Not Improve Education
Can I start this out with a "duh"? This one's obvious. But it does not negate the role of uniformity in improving education. It's like saying, "I don't have to take math, because math alone will not teach me physics." No! But it's an integral part of it. If students are taught at a uniform standard, then moving schools or switching teachers does not hurt the child's education. And just for good measure, I'm going throw the sentence in here again: common core dictates a minimum standard.

Point 5: Skips Good Literature
I love how they say this, and then the very next sentence they say, "Public schools have always been against good literature." Hmmm.... sounds like they just defeated their own argument right there.

Point 6: Promotes Inferior Math Skills
At first glance, it seems they have scored major points here. After all, Professor James Milgram, a Stanford Professor who was involved in it's creation said that it actually had a lower standard than California's "pre-core" standards. But, on further inspection, we find that Professor Milgram's critique wasn't academic, and was not honest.
In his assessment, he listed 3 common core standards and compared them against California's previous standards. However, he left out the rest of the common core standards. A side-by-side reading of California's previous standards and the common core standards shows that they are identical. As a math professor, Professor Milgram should know that a number cannot be less than itself.

Point 7: Imposes a Cult of Testing
Ignoring their use of "cult" to evoke negative emotions and be sensationalistic, this again is in no way connected to common core. In fact, at my university, we are taught that testing to see if children are up to standard should be as nonintrusive as possible. In other words, students shouldn't even know they are being evaluated, unless it is an actual classroom test. Each lesson should have an evaluation, but it's not a test. And all this "high stakes" nonsense is just that: nonsense.

Point 8: It's Unpopular:
So is Jesus. Not enough? Well, how about the fact that most people are uninformed of what it actually is, and only see videos like this trash, instead of actually doing their won research into what it actually is?

Point 9: It Collects Massive Amounts of Data on Children
As with many points, this has nothing to do with common core. How could it? The databases were established in 2002, and common core wasn't brought about until 2009. The issues are unrelated.

So, these should show that the arguments people have against common core are wrong. At best, they're uninformed; at worst, they're intentionally lying.

 

[Sapper Woody]

...

I cut your post out, not out of disrespect, but because you know what you said and I didn't want a wall of text. As a teacher in training, we learn about AYG, or Average Yearly Growth (sometimes "D" for "Development"). It's a grading system that each state uses to determine school effectiveness. I don't know that each state uses the same system, but Arkansas also uses the lettering system. The master teachers we have hate the system.
Problem is, it pre-dates and is not tied to common core. It's a state system. And states adopt whatever standard they want. The only connection to common core is that most states are using that as the bench mark now.

 

[Don]

I cut your post out, not out of disrespect, but because you know what you said and I didn't want a wall of text. As a teacher in training, we learn about AYG, or Average Yearly Growth (sometimes "D" for "Development"). It's a grading system that each state uses to determine school effectiveness. I don't know that each state uses the same system, but Arkansas also uses the lettering system. The master teachers we have hate the system.
Problem is, it pre-dates and is not tied to common core. It's a state system. And states adopt whatever standard they want. The only connection to common core is that most states are using that as the bench mark now.

You're correct, of course; I was using the grading system as an example of the inherent flaw of the common core system being used as a benchmark, but shouldn't have implied that the two were linked.

 

[Sapper Woody]

You're correct, of course; I was using the grading system as an example of the inherent flaw of the common core system being used as a benchmark, but shouldn't have implied that the two were linked.

Along those lines, I am not concerned about common core being used as the standard. But I am against the system. How well students do on standardized testing can sometimes (often?) be out of the teacher's control. The current system often leads to "teaching to the test".

You might be interested to know, that my current goal in education, once I get my licensure, is to become a voice for education reform; especially in inner city and urban areas. I have been talking to several professors of different fields (and different races, income levels, etc) with the intent of finding out the current state of the education system and how I can help.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

[evenifigoalone]

most people are uninformed of what it actually is, and only see videos like this trash, instead of actually doing their won research into what it actually is?

My mother. To the point that she was against my taking the GED classes.

 

[Revmitchell]

Point 1: Ignores Parental Rights
This, at best, is ignorance. At worst, it's either outright lies, or teachers being dishonest. The public school system itself has long had a history of teaching what they will without parental input; but that's only because parents today take on a passive role in the education of their children. Parents who take an active role make changes. The only thing that common core dictates that parents cannot change is the minimum standards that children must be taught in order to be considered proficient (we're going to come back to the word, "minimum" later). It does not have it's own curriculum. As a secondary education college student (I'm a physics/math dual major with a sec. ed minor), I am being taught this over and over, that common core does not make teaching easier, and that I am still going to have to come up with my own lessons, my own lesson plans, and even decide which curriculum to use.
All this, parents can have a role in. It's only the passive ones who have no say.

Continuing to say it is a "miniimum set of standards" in no way deals with this issue. In fact it is common that parents object to content being taught which are contrary to their moral standards and according to the schools there is no opportunity to opt out.

Point 2: It Is Materialistic and Naturalistic
Even though they have a flawed premise, even what they use to reinforce this idea is flawed. Common core has as one of its goals to prepare students for college and/or the work force. This is obvious. But the goal of common core standards is critical thinking. As we will see in the next point, this is a good thing. While getting students ready for further education is a huge goal, the main goal is problem solving and critical thinking.

It is not a good thing, neither is the goal of getting them ready for college. We are trying to do too many things in the public education system. In fact home schoolers test higher than public school kids, by and large, and they are taught western civilization classics, good morals, and have little to no focus on "getting ready for college'.

Point 3: It Dictates What Will Be Taught
And here they fall flat on their face. I can tell you firsthand that this is completely untrue. After all, as a secondary education student, I am learning about common core and how to design lesson plans and curriculum to fit the standards. Notice how I worded that. I am learning ... how to design lesson plans and curriculum. I, as the teacher, have to decide what curriculum to use (going back to point 1, parents can get involved here, but they usually don't). The only dictates of common core is the minimum standard that must be taught. If students go beyond that minimum, then they can and will.

You defeated your own argument here "I am learning how to design lesson plans and curriculum to "fit the standards". Sorry your words not mine.

Point 4: Uniformity Alone Does Not Improve Education
Can I start this out with a "duh"? This one's obvious. But it does not negate the role of uniformity in improving education. It's like saying, "I don't have to take math, because math alone will not teach me physics." No! But it's an integral part of it. If students are taught at a uniform standard, then moving schools or switching teachers does not hurt the child's education. And just for good measure, I'm going throw the sentence in here again: common core dictates a minimum standard.

Yea that is the claim but the whole programs shows otherwise. When the whole of the curriculum is to meet the standards then just because you design your own curriculum does not negate that they are ruled by the standards. Sorry your words.

Point 5: Skips Good Literature
I love how they say this, and then the very next sentence they say, "Public schools have always been against good literature." Hmmm.... sounds like they just defeated their own argument right there.

The problem you are either missing or intentionally skipping is that anything, including literature, that does not provide information that gets one ready a progressive agenda. classic works of western civilization are pushed asside for progressive works like:

"The evolution of a grocery bag"
"Invasive Plant Inventory"
"recommended levels of insulation"
"Strengthening Federal, environmental, energy, and transportation management."

Common core is a boondoggle for the far left indoctrination agenda.

Point 6: Promotes Inferior Math Skills
At first glance, it seems they have scored major points here. After all, Professor James Milgram, a Stanford Professor who was involved in it's creation said that it actually had a lower standard than California's "pre-core" standards. But, on further inspection, we find that Professor Milgram's critique wasn't academic, and was not honest.
In his assessment, he listed 3 common core standards and compared them against California's previous standards. However, he left out the rest of the common core standards. A side-by-side reading of California's previous standards and the common core standards shows that they are identical. As a math professor, Professor Milgram should know that a number cannot be less than itself.

Ok for the moment let's address the three Dr. Milgram mentioned, are they not different at all, why did he say they were?

Point 7: Imposes a Cult of Testing
Ignoring their use of "cult" to evoke negative emotions and be sensationalistic, this again is in no way connected to common core. In fact, at my university, we are taught that testing to see if children are up to standard should be as nonintrusive as possible. In other words, students shouldn't even know they are being evaluated, unless it is an actual classroom test. Each lesson should have an evaluation, but it's not a test. And all this "high stakes" nonsense is just that: nonsense.

"Even liberal education scholar Diane Ravitch, who has railed against the privatization of the nation’s schools, opposes Common Core:

Such standards, I believe, should be voluntary, not imposed by the federal government; before implemented widely, they should be thoroughly tested to see how they work in real classrooms; and they should be free of any mandates that tell teachers how to teach because there are many ways to be a good teacher, not just one. I envision standards not as a demand for compliance by teachers, but as an aspiration defining what states and districts are expected to do. They should serve as a promise that schools will provide all students the opportunity and resources to learn reading and mathematics, the sciences, the arts, history, literature, civics, geography, and physical education, taught by well-qualified teachers, in schools led by experienced and competent educators.

Another reason I cannot support the Common Core standards is that I am worried that they will cause a precipitous decline in test scores, based on arbitrary cut scores, and this will have a disparate impact on students who are English language learners, students with disabilities, and students who are poor and low-performing."

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ching-war-against-tea-party-over-common-core/

Point 8: It's Unpopular:
So is Jesus. Not enough? Well, how about the fact that most people are uninformed of what it actually is, and only see videos like this trash, instead of actually doing their won research into what it actually is?

Uh, you are making an emotion laden accusation here without any real substantiation. Please prove that "most" people are uninformed, specifically those who disagree with you.

Point 9: It Collects Massive Amounts of Data on Children
As with many points, this has nothing to do with common core. How could it? The databases were established in 2002, and common core wasn't brought about until 2009. The issues are unrelated.

So, these should show that the arguments people have against common core are wrong. At best, they're uninformed; at worst, they're intentionally lying.

"The idea behind opting out is to “starve the beast,” a reference to the corporations and nonprofits that feed on the $8 billion student assessment industry. They analyze the test data, come up with recommendations on how to “remediate” the students’ weaknesses, then sell that information back to the school districts at a profit.

This type of student data mining by private contractors was made possible only after the Obama administration moved unilaterally to dilute privacy restrictions in the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act. The new rules took effect in January 2012 without congressional approval."

http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/education-no-its-about-data-mining/

Rather disappointed in your response here.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Holy. Cow. I just had an entire response typed up, and lost it because of a page refresh. I'll have to respond later. Now I'm too frustrated.

 

[carpro]

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...hensive-dumbing-down-american-education-every


Author on Common Core: ‘A Comprehensive Dumbing Down of American Education at Every Level’



(CNSNews.com) – “The Common Core is supposed to be improving state standards in education, but its bigger effect has been a comprehensive dumbing down of American education at every level, from kindergarten through graduate school,” Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, said in an interview with CNSNews.com.

Wood is a co-author of Drilling Through the Core: Why Common Core is Bad for American Education, published in September by Pioneer Press. The book includes Wood’s history of the Common Core controversy and critical essays by more than a dozen mathematicians and English scholars.

“The major criticism coming from the scholars is that it’s lowered standards in both math and English language arts, the two parts of the K-12 curriculum that the Common Core covers,” Wood told CNSNews.com.

“When the Common Core was being put in place, there was a large promise that it would be ‘internationally benchmarked’, meaning the standards would be as high or higher than the highest standards found around the world. And if you go into Common Core materials, you will still find that phrase.

“But the math standards are set way below all of the Asian nations, and the U.S. language arts standards are not matched to international standards,” Wood pointed out.

“The section on math is written by mathematicians who look upon the changes as a comprehensive lowering of standards so that students at the end of high school know a lot less math than they used to and are not prepared for college-level math,” he said.

Scholars also panned the curriculum’s major de-emphasis of English literature.



Forty-two states and the District of Columbia adopted “this breathtakingly comprehensive reform of our nation’s schools before there were any standards that people could evaluate,” he noted.

“Now we’ve got the standards and the results of the tests that go with the standards. And [National Assessment of Educational Progress] NAEP scores nationwide show that the states that most strongly endorsed the Common Core have seen some of the biggest drops. So the governors of many states are now trying to dance their way out of a situation they helped to create.”

 

[rsr]

Let's see. It lowered standards, but students were unable to meet them. So it must be that the former standards were even lower than Common Core. A major disconnect there.

I believe CNS made a typo in attributing the book to "Pioneer Press." I believe the correct reference is to "Pioneers Press," a self-publishing house. I notice that Wood doesn't list the book in his list of published works.

 

[carpro]

https://www.nas.org/articles/the_common_core_state_standards_two_views



As Tucker and colleagues worked to convert schools into workforce training academies, leftists in academia devoted their attention to ensuring that students embraced the correct beliefs. Terrorist turned education professor William Ayers and Stanford education professor Linda Darling-Hammond, among others, have labored for decades to create schools and curricula that teach “social justice” and multiculturalism.[20] Darling-Hammond is now coordinating development of the content specifications for one set of Common Core-aligned assessments.[21]

The philosophy of John Dewey underlies this theory of politicized education. Dewey discouraged the teaching of “facts” in favor of the Rousseauean vision of allowing the child to discover knowledge through his own experience, working with others as members of a self-directed learning community.[22] He emphasized “[t]he development of critical, socially engaged intelligence, which enables individuals to understand and participate effectively in the affairs of their community in a collaborative effort to achieve a common good.”[23]

Dewey also believed that children should be liberated from the “prejudices” of their parents and the strictures of religion.[24] Education should “socialize” them to accept state-approved values unencumbered by parental miseducation and superstition. Dewey’s modern followers have assumed the mantle of student socialization.[25]

So we have here two related but separate strains of thought—educating the workforce and shaping students to accept particular ideas and beliefs. Common Core represents a convergence of the two. This is especially apparent in the English language arts (ELA) standards.