Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates Still Trying To Buy Some Common Core Testing Love
theodp writes: "Bill Gates famously spent hundreds of millions of dollars to develop, implement and promote the now controversial Common Core State Standards," reports the Washington Post's Valerie Strauss. "He hasn't stopped giving." In the last seven months, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has poured more than $10 million into implementation and parent support for the Core. Strauss adds: "Gates is the leader of education philanthropy in the United States, spending a few billion dollars over more than a decade to promote school reforms that he championed, including the Common Core, a small-schools initiative in New York City that he abandoned after deciding it wasn't working, and efforts to create new teacher evaluation systems that in part use a controversial method of assessment that uses student standardized test scores to determine the 'effectiveness' of educators. Such philanthropy has sparked a debate about whether American democracy is well-served by wealthy people who pour part of their fortunes into their pet projects — regardless of whether they are grounded in research — to such a degree that public policy and funding follow." If you're still on the fence about Common Core after viewing it, the Onion just came out with a nice list of the pros and cons of standardized testing that may help you decide.
Common Core appears to have become controversial primarily because the conservative media told us it is. Apparently they were hoping that the new standard would also find a way to further reduce teachers' salaries and career opportunities, and as it did not do that it needed to be destroyed at all cost.
It's more than that. The Conservative establishment has a vested interest in promoting ignorance -- creationism, global warming denial, abstinence-only sex education, poor nutrition, failed economic ideas, American exceptionalism, whitewashing of slavery and genocide, Christian dogma, the list is long. This is referred to as "local control": whatever whackjob ideas are predominant in your backward little community take precedence over what's being taught by all of those commie liberal college professors. The sad thing is that the teachers' unions are perfectly happy to jump into a disastrous alliance with these insane ideologues out of naked self-interest and terror that a few of them might finally be outed for, you know, doing a bad job. And children suffer.
Gee why don't you give them horns and a tail you fucking twit
but thanks you're proof direct democracy is a bad idea
"Explaining that is so simple:"
Really? You have an interesting definition of simple.
"1. Parents either don't have the skills or the time to assist their kids in succeeding."
Bluntly, then they shouldn't have kids -- but I don't think that's the issue. It's very difficult for a diligent single parent to 'assist their kids in succeeding', never mind one who's more apathetic.
"2. Less resources in inner-city schools."
The problem wasn't as as terrible in the past -- when they had less resources. Maybe there was less single parent households?
"3. Poor attitudes towards learning amongst the kids (see item 1)."
Yes -- and see my response to item 1.
"4. Poor teachers: Because teachers in these inner-city areas do not get paid more than their colleagues in good districts, only the worst teachers will teach there. Also, as a teacher, where pay is determined by test results, would you work in an area where the dice are stacked against you (see items 1, 2 and 3 above)?"
Alot of it is based on union tenure in many districts. Also, some districts are just too large (LAUSD, for example) and should be broken up.
The fact is that more an more we as a society are abdicating parental responsibility. Schools have become "food" programs where kids get 2 of their meals a day. Many are open over the summer just to provide food. If the answer is to feed kids where the parents CANT then I think we're scratching the surface of what the real issue is... Maybe we need discuss taking kids away from parents who cant or wont provide for their kids vs. the alternative of raising an ever increasing population of people who cannot or will not take care of themselves and bring in to the world children whom they are not equipped to provide adequate care.