Talk:Common Core/Archive 1

'Common Core' should direct to here

Shouldn't "common core" point here, rather than to a stub? I'd change this but don't know how necessarily. What's under "common core" right now should be part of a "disambiguation" page. 70.89.73.81 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC).

I agree. This is being implemented in most states, and the topic eclipses the University of Chicago program, especially regarding what folks will be searching for. I'll cross post this on the other page, and see if there are comments. LaTeeDa (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This redirect has since been added. -- Beland (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Criticism Subsection

Is it reasonable for a user to reference his own op-ed piece? The article has little to no substance, and is primarily driven by his observance of his son's Kindergarten class, and how the teacher switched her teaching style midyear.

He appears to have not read the Common Core Standards. His reference to the Federalist Papers (which hold no legal authority, and are in themselves an op-ed piece) is a logical fallacy at best (Madison said this, therefore it's true), and an intentional misrepresentation at worst (Common Core is not federal, it is a collaboration between states). Also, since it is not federal, and there is no federal funding attached to it, there is no penalty for a state to abandon the standards, and make their own.

Common Core does not include any "educational scripts". Educational industries may attempt to develop educational scripts based off the standards, but that is neither new, nor specific to Common Core.

Common Core does not "homogenize school curriculum". At worst, it homogenizes the standards that students are expected to meet. Its actual claim is that it creates a set of standards for teachers to base their instruction, and for students to learn.

Also -- the paragraph he added is not written with an objective voice. "It is easy to make grandiose claims about what the Common Core will do; in practice, it disempowers and demoralizes teachers and students." This is pure opinion, and casually inserted into the paragraph as fact.

I would argue the paragraph be removed completely, but, at the very least, it should be rewritten completely. Nelsonheber (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

agree. You're right: people should not be citing their own work in articles. That makes this a violation of NPOV requirements. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I turned to this article after reading yet another complaint about "common core" in the popular media. These complaints have generally focused on incomprehensible math questions assigned as homework. With so much media attention, this subject (with other criticisms) should be noted in a separate "criticisms" section, rather than lumping everything into a "Response" section. Having read some of the standards, I have the impression that such bizarre homework questions are not required by the standards. My public schooling in the 1960s to 1970s probably taught all the skills encompassed by the common core standards, though I don't rememember whether the subject matter was taught in the correct grade as prescribed by the standards. Because the standards are "new" and written in extremely generalized terms, it seems some educators feel compelled to produce test questions that have never been asked before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.66.64.247 (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Next Generation Science Standards

I think it is important to create and fill an article for the Next Generation Science Standards. Probable sources are here and here. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 05:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Though it is a separate initiative, I think that it is important to show how the Next Generation Science Standards work with the Common Core. Sources would include and Matt147741 (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Good addition to the article. TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Massive Wall of Text

I reached this page (for informational purposes) and the first thing I thought was "now way I'm reading that!" The intro is four unformatted, long, essentially unreadable paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.5.130 (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I have moved all but the first two sentences to a separate section "Development". --seberle (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting new version of Criticism section

I have written a replacement for the Criticism section of this article. This section is not well developed and seems very fragmented, rather than providing a clear overview of the criticisms leveled at the initiative. I've rewritten it, keeping the current sources, adding some new ones and making it a more cohesive summary of the main criticism and critics. I've used a source published by my employer, The Heritage Foundation, so I won't add this draft into the article myself. Instead, I'd like to have other editors look over this and make the change if the draft looks ok. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

The Common Core has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum, from the liberal Brookings Institute to the libertarian Cato Institute. Conservatives, including several Republican governors, have assailed the program as a federal "top-down" takeover of state and local education systems. South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley said her state should not "relinquish control of education to the federal government, neither should we cede it to the consensus of other states."

Policy analysts have also questioned the efficacy of the Common Core. The Heritage Foundation argues that the Common Core's focus on national standards will do little to fix deeply ingrained problems and incentive structures within the education system. Similarly, the Brookings Institute issued research calling into question whether the standards would have a significant effect. According to the National Governors Association, one motivating factor for creating the Common Core standards was the United States' low ranking on international test results, but a study concluded there does not seem to be a relationship between the U.S.'s low score on these tests and its economic ranking.

Education commentators have argued the program drains initiative from teachers and enforces a "one-size-fits-all" curriculum that ignores cultural differences among classrooms and students. Additionally, education experts, including a former president of the National Council of Teachers of English, have argued that the creation of Common Core standards lacked sufficient public input and was driven by corporate interests and policy-makers, rather than experienced educators. Critics have also said that the standards emphasize rote learning and uniformity over creativity, and fail to recognize differences in learning styles. Additionally, education reform advocate Sandra Stotsky has argued that the standards will lead to students reading more nonfiction texts, rather than being exposed to challenging literature.

References

Thurmant (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The above looks good to me. What criticism I am familiar with looks accurate, but I am not an expert, so I'll wait for others to chime in here. --seberle (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes I think this is well-balanced and sure as heck better than what's there right now. Special thanks to Thurmant for handling this so well from a COI perspective, although I don't see any issues there either. If there is consensus on this, I'll be glad to integrate it into the article, or you guys can do that yourselves. This will go a long way towards making this a decent article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

More Information is needed in the "Criticism" section and that section needs to be moved higher up in the article. Check this sampling from today's google news search.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/04/08/indian-gov-pence-talks-common-core

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/04/07/principal-to-parents-dont-buy-the-bunk-about-new-common-core-tests/

http://www.wbhm.org/News/2013/CommonCore1

http://lacrossetribune.com/jacksoncochronicle/news/opinion/letter-do-homework-on-common-core-standards/article_4a1fcfb8-a1f1-11e2-9bb5-0019bb2963f4.html?comment_form=true

http://stopcommoncore.com/

http://policybot.enginez.com/results.engz?uq=Common+Core

http://truthabouteducation.wordpress.com/

http://truthinamericaneducation.com/

johncheverly 03:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The section has been incorporated into the article. @johncheverly we cannot include blogs and other non-reliable sources. The others however seem fine, so you can work them into Thurmant's material if you wish. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that this an issue that should be subjected to an ongoing review of the news. I am glad for the recent changes, but as the deadline for implementation draws near, the scrutiny by Governors and State Legislatures will increase.johncheverly 17:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Conservative US Senators are now attacking Common Core: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/ted-cruz-sets-his-sites-new-target-common-core — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs) 11:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This shouldn't have been added without giving extra weight to the proponents (if any) of CC. Right now it puts undue weight on negative criticism without attempting to explain what parties (if any) are in favor of its implementation. czar · · 04:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I was poking around for newer links for the references in that that had gone out of date (I changed them), and I ran across a book reference that also references "School Standards Pushback" (2012). Free free to include it if this criticism section ever makes it into the full article:

Wilbur C. Rich (5 March 2013). The Post-Racial Society is Here: Recognition, Critics and the Nation-State. Routledge. p. 68. ISBN 978-1-136-67659-8. (specifically, reference 3.34)

Personal observation/rant regarding Wikipedia: That's one thing I love about Talk pages - it has all the stuff that people think shouldn't be in the article, but is too 'controversial' in one way or another. Except for the stuff that is removed, but not referenced in the edit-histor - e.g. the '[his] own op-ed piece mentioned above in the 'Criticism Subsection' - I can't find the removal with WikiBlame, and I don't have time to go through 500 or so edits. Jimw338 (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Diane Ravitch

A recent post regarding Diane Ravitch and her recent criticism needs to be clarified. Diane Ravitch was also an educational policy analyst, her correct title is U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education, and Clinton first appointed her to the office, she was reappointed under Bush. Matt147741 (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

No, she was first appointed under George H. W. Bush. I do not believe she served under George W. Bush. --seberle (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see where the source says she specifically opposes the Common Core standards. Seems like we'd need a source for some of the assertions in this article regarding her views. TimidGuy (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I see no reference to the Common Core in the article cited. This sentence should be deleted, or else an appropriate reference put to support the claim that Ravitch opposes the Common Core. (I have not heard that she does, but I haven't read her new book yet.) --seberle (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I skimmed her book in Google Books. I didn't see any direct criticism other than the fact that she says several times that they haven't been field tested. Here's an excerpt that seems to summarize her view:

When the Obama administration put forward the criteria for Race to the Top grants, one of the primary requirements was that the state adopt a common set of high-quality standards, in collaboration with other states, that were internationally benchmarked and led to “college and career readiness.” These were widely understood to be the Common Core standards. In short order, almost every state agreed to adopt them, even states with clearly superior standards like Massachusetts and Indiana, despite the fact that these new standards had never been field-tested anywhere. No one can say with certainty whether the Common Core standards will improve education, whether they will reduce or increase achievement gaps among different groups, or how much it will cost to implement them. Some scholars believe they will make no difference, and some critics say they will cost billions to implement; others say they will lead to more testing.

Not sure how I'd summarize this. Maybe "In her book Diane Ravitch is wary of the Common Core standards, saying they have been field tested and that their effect is unknown.TimidGuy (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and revised the Ravitch paragraph. TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This looks accurate now. Thanks. --seberle (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Blood tests?

There are currently two claims at the end of the introductory paragraph which seem suspect at best.

The first is: "The only other country using this is China." This is not backed up with any references whatsoever, and seems to warrant immediate deletion.

The second claim states that, "As part of this program is a student information database collection, including the child's blood type," and is only referenced with a single link to a website with questionable neutrality. Only after another three links does one arrive at any mention of blood type. That mention is given in what appears to be a description of a metadata standard, and has no apparent link to Common Core aside from also being issued by the CCSSO. I've tagged it with an "Unreliable source" tag for follow-up. Jrquinlisk (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This has since been removed from the article. -- Beland (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

The introduction to the Common Core page is argumentative (as of April 1, 2013) and appears to be more appropriate for the "Criticism" section of the page. The introduction should be revised to provide a more objective, informative description of the Common Core State Standards Initiative. 76.235.188.161 (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion

It's not entirely clear what kind of opinion is being sought here, but I'll try.

I don't think the template tagging was helpful. Templates are simply notices to invite readers to help in some needed area(s).

And it sounds as if the issue behind the templating was concern that the religious right's objections against the program haven't been given equal time in this article. The WP:NPOV policy doesn't impose "equal time" be given to all sides of an issue. It says that we stress the different points of view in "proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". And to do this it's important to look to sources that are themselves fairly distanced from the controversy, not those that are deeply enmeshed in the controversy. From among those listed above, WBHM's story is the only one suitable for judging proportion. So more like that one are needed to judge what weight to give the coverage of the various criticisms. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2013(UTC)

Thanks, there has been significant revision on the article since I raised the "stink."johncheverly 17:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Images

Anyone have ideas for useful, free images to go with this article? I can do the procuring work, just need ideas. czar · · 07:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the common core's symbol copyright? That could be something to use.Cheerioswithmilk (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Point of view bias

Common Core is highly contentious. Yet, you would not realize this from this article.

Slant in section on computerized tests

In "Assessment" section there was this line. This kind of assessment would be better aligned to college and career readiness, but does pose some interesting challenges considering the limited computer and technology resources available to some schools. I removed it because it makes an opinionated claim that is not supported by research, instead it is repeating the buzzwords of the Common Core promoters.Gogue2 (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Gogue2 (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I am removing the opening line from the Assessment section as it is requesting a citation to the sentence. I have looked and found no solid evidence of states having to adopt new assessment benchmarks for their tests, only the point that is already made in the paragraph. Matt147741 (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The Kentucky example

Great article about the standards in the September 30, 2013 issue of Time. It includes a page about Kentucky being the first to adopt the standards and now, several years later is showing improvements in test scores, graduation rates, and college readiness. How about if I add a short section on Outcomes and give this Kentucky data? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Good idea as the reports come back, but I would recommend "Results" or something like "Impact" instead of "Outcomes", which connotes a variety of things in eduspeak. Also be sure to specify the body preparing and presenting the data if it isn't Time's own analysis. czar ♔ 17:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. TimidGuy (talk) 10:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

The criticism section is not exhaustive enough. You'd think from this article that Common Core is perfect other than political complaints. Nothing is perfect. Come on guys, do some research. I'm marking this article biased until you do your jobs.

• Age-inappropriate content in Common Core has been causing extra stress and emotional challenges for the youngest children. Dr. Megan Koschnick presents on Common Core at APP Conference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrQbJlmVJZo . For instance, the requirement for abstract thinking in mathematics is age-inappropriate for children in kindergarten.
• There are many stores of Common Core having negative effects on special education and ESL students, causing students with disabilities distress due to not getting the special treatment they deserve.
• Georgia and some other states consider their earlier standards prior to common core more rigorous than common core. For example, in Georgia, GPS was considered more rigourous and the governor has ordered a comparison of the two curriculums to be run.
• Some states have complained that the PARCC testing standard, a complement to common core, is too expensive and that not all schools have the equipment to take the tests
• Lower amount of textbooks makes it harder for parents to help their students (not sure why less textbooks? because of having to throw out their old ones?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.93.210 (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand this anonymous comment. The criticism section is fairly new and is already heavily negative. This anonymous person has added a POV tag because, in her or his opinion, the section is not yet negative enough. He or she may be correct (there is a lot of negativity currently in the media), and this person's comments can certainly be incorporated into the criticism section. But to me a POV tag suggests that the article is biased, not that it is not biased enough. Can we remove this tag? --seberle (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The article's still a mess, but I don't share anon's POV concern where the criticism section is also adjacent to a support section and the two are fairly balanced. The tag is for when POV is unbalanced, so it can be addressed, which is what the IP is proposing, not observing. I moved the tag to the section as anon intended but I think it can go and that the criticism/support sections should be merged into one level Response section. czar ♔ 11:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at some of the points that the IP is proposing: The first, Dr. Megan Koschnick is suggesting abstract thoughts regarding feelings of self and others. That is high level abstract thinking, at best. She admits in the video that she is not an educator. The abstract thinking that is being suggested is a lower level one. Abstract thinking at the kindergarten level is suggested here . At the very base of the idea of abstract thinking is "using a block to suggest a car". Another example can be found here . The idea of that the CCSS has a negative effect on English Language Learners (ELL) is a state based issue. This report claims that the ELL program is to be decided upon by each state and how to accommodate ELL on testing. The report suggests that the state take an in depth look at state testing of ELL.. Georgia's issue, is one for political office. The one time State Superintendent is now running for Governor and has flip-flopped on the idea of the Common Core.. The argument about the testing being more expensive is a valid point, and should be addressed. As for fewer textbooks, I haven't heard that one before. I would be willing to restructure the section as a Response section, but I can't include ideas that have little basis. Matt147741 (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with others that the criticism section is a bit of a mess right now, with a mixture of reporting on mainstream criticism and odd ideas that shouldn't be here. I do not feel I have sufficient expertise to edit this. Please feel free to clean this section up. My opinion is that it should be short, focusing on criticism that is widely echoed among many important sources, not isolated conjectures. --seberle (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I gave it a try. I tried to derive important criticism, and support and gave it a look of support, then the rebuttal. I am willing to see what others think. I hope that it can clean up the NPOV claim that has been posted in this section.Matt147741 (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on it. If you feel you've addressed the issues raised above, you can remove the NPOV tag. TimidGuy (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

A "Response" section is inadequate for a subject as controversial as Common Core. This article must include Wikipedia's usual, and ubiquitous, "Controversies" section (or, optionally, "Criticisms," as shown above, here in Talk). Otherwise, this is a biased article. Hackercraft (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Article should include coverage of indoctrination

http://watchdogwire.com/michigan/2013/10/28/common-core-indoctrinating-fourth-graders-about-white-privilege/ Nathan White 66839 (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Common Core doesn't specify particular books; rather, it articulates specific skills. Therefore, even if we had a good source for this criticism, it wouldn't really be relevant to this article. It's a local issue. TimidGuy (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Also when you view the video it is primarily addressing curricula. Curricula supports the standards. States, and local districts are the providers of the curricula, and purchase it as they deem necessary. I would agree, a local issue.Matt147741 (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Cursive Debate

I believe it is important to elaborate on the news today regarding some states re-instituting cursive in school standards.Matt147741 (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Beyond the changes you've already made? On a different topic, it seems like the header level of that section should be changed. I think I'll go ahead and do that, so that it's consistent with the others. TimidGuy (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Deep revert?

I've glanced at a few of the recent edits by Btwachiever, and he seems to have added a lot of opinionated unsourced material. It almost seems like we should revert back to an earlier version of the article. What do others think? TimidGuy (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I've sourced and clarified some of the vaguer stuff in the "Response" section, removed sentences too vague to clarify, and edited it for neutrality. I think it can be fixed without a blanket revert. Anything left in there now that you don't think is appropriate? Ruby Murray 16:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added two points regarding Mark Naison's background, found in the article cited. First Naison is a professor at Fordham University and it sates he is the co-founder of the BAT group.Matt147741 (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of External Link Claim Tag

Looking at the embedded links in the article they all appear to direct to other Wiki's and not outside of the page. I am removing the tag from the page.Matt147741 (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Updating map

I removed this map as it was significantly out of date from the current implementation situations. I'm not opposed to adding it back if someone with that skillset can update it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on parentheticals versus longer statements

Some recent changes, I believe, leave the implication that states are moving forward with full implementation when they definitely are not. I don't have an issue with most of the rewordings, but I do think putting the statements as parentheticals implies something that isn't true about the adoption of the standards. The chart should show current status. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Until a state has formally withdrawn from the standards, its status is "Adopted". Anything else is parenthetical.CFredkin (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not the problem, and my edits reflected that. My problem is with how you've created some misleading implications with your changes. Do you have an issue with going back to the commas/semicolons as opposed to the parentheticals? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you please explain how it's misleading?CFredkin (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The implication is that the delays or withdrawals are not substantial, and that the key point is not the status of the implementation but instead the simple point that they joined on a few years ago. By keeping them as part of the sentence, we're saying "they adopted, but" as opposed to your change which says "they adopted (and here's some trivia)." Truly, we should look into changing it to a "current status" detail, but that will take some more work in a long term. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. So far, the added verbiage references situations where states are 1) Considering dropping the standards, 2) Delaying implementation of the standards, 3) Developing their own tests for the standards. In all of these situations the state's status is still "Adopted". The additional information may be relevant and/or interesting, but it doesn't change the status.CFredkin (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

As I noted before, as well as with my edits, the issue is not that the status is not "adopted," but rather the implications of the parenthetical. Can you please address my point? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

One of my concerns is that by combining the additional statements with the adoption status phrase, we're implying something that isn't accurate.CFredkin (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

We'll use Illinois as an example. The current wording implies that Illinois is unequivocally in. I'd prefer we write it as "Formally adopted, implementation paused by law for one year in May 2013 and under public review,[59] with the legislature looking toward a new statewide curriculum to replace Common Core.[60]" This way, we're putting the reality that it's formally adopted in the proper context of the more current situation as opposed to a parenthetical that implies a minor detail. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This seems confusing and potentially misleading to me.CFredkin (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

What's confusing and misleading about it? If anything, pretending that Common Core is a go in Illinois is misleading, I don't see how giving direct details about the implementation status without relegating them to a parenthetical is misleading. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Do other editors have an opinion on this?CFredkin (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Answering my question can help any other editors give input. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It's confusing and potentially mis-leading because you've jammed 3 phrases together. Technically states have either adopted the standards, or they haven't. In the case of IL, they've adopted the standards. Any other info is parenthetical.CFredkin (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps we need to consider not using the words adopted as a starting point, and merely add in how they're being implemented in each state? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that would make it more confusing by obfuscating whether the states have adopted the standards or not.CFredkin (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Right now, however, you're claiming states that are withdrawing or delaying as adoptees. Isn't that more confusing, not to mention factually shaky? Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Take Obamacare as an example at the national level....Portions of the law have been delayed, and the House has voted repeatedly to repeal the law altogether. However is there any doubt that it's still the law of the land? Unless and until both the House and the Senate pass a repeal and the President signs it (or his veto is overcome), Obamacare is the law of the land. Obviously Common Core is being played out at the state level, but I think the example still stands. On another note, the question of which test gets used as the assessment for Common Core has absolutely no bearing on whether the standards are currently adopted. The standards say absolutely nothing about testing.CFredkin (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Obamacare is a poor example in this case because the law is a national law and Common Core is not. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a very relevant example. At any point in time a law is either in effect, or it's not. Likewise, an educational standard is either in effect for a state, or it's not. A state may have taken steps to change their standards; but unless and until the process runs to completion, the existing standard is still in effect.CFredkin (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If they're not part of the testing, or abandoning parts of the curricukum, is the "existing standard still in effect?" Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with the parenthetical information. It makes the status quite clear. Seems like a good solution to me. TimidGuy (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you think it's clear to say that a state that's abandoning key parts of the curriculum are fully adopted? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Common Core is a standard, not a curriculum. In any case, I think this question has been asked and answered above.CFredkin (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The question was not directed at you, but at TimidGuy. You've made your views known, but a question to you has been raised above that you could answer. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This dialog has become repetitive. I'm going to defer responding until a new line of discussion arises. ThanksCFredkin (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's in any way misleading to say that a state has a adopted it and then qualify that parenthetically. It seems like a simple and optimal solution. A reader will understand clearly that initially the state adopted it but subsequently some consideration arose. TimidGuy (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you prefer the current version instead of a more detailed one that discusses the implementation for each state? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thargor, It appears that your strategy here is to keep asking the same questions in the hopes of getting a different response. If you want more detail, why don't you create a separate article for each state?CFredkin (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, the question was not directed toward you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

To me, "formally adopted" doesn't mean "fully adopted." I don't see a contradiction between saying a state has formally adopted the standards but isn't going to implement certain facets. But maybe we could change the wording somehow, given that it's a concern to you. For example, what if we said "initially adopted" instead of "formally adopted"? Regarding the suggestion of a more detailed table, I sort of like the table as it stands. But if more detail is warranted regarding particular states, could it maybe go in the section of the article titled "Different standards, by state"? We could perhaps alter the title to make it more general in order to accommodate the material that would go in there. TimidGuy (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not against any sort of revisions. I also like the table in this case, I just feel the lack of detail and the segregating of data is doing a disservice to a more complicated situation. I'm just trying to find a good ground people can agree on . Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Per the thread below, it seems like a first step is to find an official definition of "adopted" or "formally adopted." What about my suggestion of adding more detail in the section titled "Different standards, by state"? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by segregating data. TimidGuy (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thinking more on it, I guess I'm not against that as a compromise, I just don't see why we necessarily need to have two tables when we can have all the implementation data on one. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Why two tables? It seems like the more detailed info will be presented in narrative form, right? The purpose of a table is an at-a-glance summary. TimidGuy (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

My fear is that the implementation situations are too complex in some states to be readable in prose. Certainly not against it if we can make it work, though. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems like the only way to know is to start drafting. TimidGuy (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I think, if you're going to discuss the implementation details for each state, you'll need to create a separate article for each state. Otherwise the existing Common Core article will get way too unwieldy. The content for status for each state will likely continue to grow over time.CFredkin (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how you get there, especially if you also believe that what we have right now is doable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have a couple examples of sources that discuss implementation in specific states. I'd like to see what level of detail we're discussing. TimidGuy (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The sources in the table are the place I'd look, as they detail the different ways many states are handling Common Core. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Very interesting reading. I actually think the table has it about right in terms of WP:WEIGHT. The only change I might suggest would be to use uniform phraseology with regard to those states withdrawing from the assessment consortiums. And it seems like we should somehow make it clear that adopting a particular assessment is separate from adopting the standards. At present, it doesn't seem like assessment should be part of the table. But we could maybe figure out a way to integrate it. I noticed that every source says that 45 states have adopted Common Core, so I don't see that we have any choice regarding that issue that was discussed earlier. We should go with what the sources say. I'm afraid I can't really see what detail needs to be added, except that the section on Assessment should definitely be expanded to include the developments from the past year, such as the states that are withdrawing. Good research. These are helpful sources. TimidGuy (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record, we are under no obligation to assume incorrect points as fact. Initially, 45 states adopted the standards. We now have 15 states that are at various levels of repealing/abandoning/pausing/changing them, so "45 have adopted" is quite clearly not explicitly true. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again, until any state which has adopted the standards officially withdraws from the standards, their status would be "adopted". Recent reliable sources state that "45 have adopted". CFredkin (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again, that's misleading. Adoption doesn't tell the whole story, and to assume that it's a binary position misses a lot of nuance. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

My strong impression from reading the sources is that assessment is a separate issue from whether a state has adopted the standards. It was clear that a state can formally adopt the standards but choose not to join a consortium regarding assessment. The state has the option of developing their own assessment. I don't see how it's correct to assert that a state that is developing its own assessment is somehow backtracking on having adopted Common Core. TimidGuy (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

How to fix

This conversation has gone a bit stale, so we should figure out how to improve this section that will be agreeable enough to all parties. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I think as a first step we could separate out assessment, since the impression I have from reading the sources is that it's a separate issue from adoption. And regarding the situations in some states related to adoption, it seems like the parenthetical comments cover it. Or are there instances where that's not sufficient? TimidGuy (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's not really enough detail, if anything. Looking at it nearly a month later, it reads more as trivia than actual important policy notes. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with removing comments related to assessment.CFredkin (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I fully disagree, that actually makes the section worse. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that assessment should be a separate issue. However it is related and the current section on assessment is short. I see no need to remove it as long as it is short. However comments sprinkled throughout the article about assessment should probably be removed. (I see someone is already removing them.) If a place for information on U.S. standardized assessment is needed, a link to Main article could be added to the assessment section. It could point to NCLB for now, and eventually an article on Common Core related assessment if enough material is added. --seberle (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Note that this discussion was originally specifically related to the table that lists which states have formally adopted Common Core. I was assuming we'd separate out the info on assessment, not simply delete it. I'd vote for listing the states that are members of each consortium, along with listing those states that have opted out of the consortiums. This could go in the assessment section. TimidGuy (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd be ok with that, just so long as the distinction remains clear between the Standards themselves and the assessment issue. Though closely related, the two issues should not be confused in this article. --seberle (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Will try to find the time to work on that. TimidGuy (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

State Adoption

The following statement requires a source for verifiability. I'm ok with taking it and the reference to 45 states that precedes it out altogether. But it needs a source if it's going to stay in...

"...sixteen states delaying or opting out of various parts of the Standards, or choosing not to implement the Standards altogether."CFredkin (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what you're looking for here, as the data below it backs it up with sources to the sixteen different states. If that's not good enough for you, I'd prefer us remove both. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

States may be delaying adoption or developing their own tests for assessment. But they're still adopting the standards. Regardless WP:verifiability is a core policy.CFredkin (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The information is verifiably sourced in the article as it currently stands. As I said, if it's not good enough for you, my preference is to remove both. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest a total revision of the table based on what the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) defines as "adopted". I have attached a link:http://www.mcrel.org/~/media/Files/McREL/Homepage/Products/01_99/prod17_15PercentRule.ashx of a journal showing how a state is defined as adopting the CCSSI. I believe the link would make the current table out-of-date. It also may lay to rest the discussion regarding parenthetical statements in the chart if the chart was truly an accurate representation of what the CCSSI defines as "adopted". Just my two cents. Matt147741 (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that document is statement from CCSSI. And it seems to be focused on a different issue: the 15% additional and optional standards beyond Common Core that the states themselves implement. TimidGuy (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The article pulls a PowerPoint presentation from the CCSSI website that states what the CCSSI defines as "adopted", here it is: http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Common-Core-Standards-March-2010.ppt Matt147741 (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's what it says on the slide with the heading "Adoption":

-State adopts 100% of the common core K-12 standards in ELA and mathematics (word for word), with option of adding up to an additional 15% of standards on top of the core.

-A state will have adopted when the standards authorizing body within the state has taken formal action to adopt and implement the common core.

-States are responsible for demonstrating that they have adhered to this definition of adoption.

That certainly suggests that "adoption" entails embracing the standards word for word. It's from 2010, and a bit cryptic. I wish we had more to go on. For example, the first document that you cited, which discusses the 15% option and is dated March 2012, tends to use "adoption" as we have in this article. It says that 45 states have adopted the math standards and 46 ELA. TimidGuy (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Broken link for English section

Right now the citation for most of the section about the English standards leads to a 404 error. Went on the common core site and found this page about the standards: http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy . Maybe I'm missing something, but the standards there don't really match up with what's on the wiki article. Bullets also don't seem like the best way to format the sections about the standards themselves; would it be better in paragraphs?Cheerioswithmilk (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. Feel free to work on it. Fine with me if you change the bullets. TimidGuy (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

This is the source.[1] The points in this article closely adhere to the source, from what I can see. TimidGuy (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Remove Vermont section?

It's odd to have this detail about Vermont and not any other state. In addition, it would be impossible to describe the individual implementations of every state in a single article. I propose we remove this section. TimidGuy (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I still support having separate sections for each state given the different levels of enactment, especially given the new details from New York state. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

In what way are Vermont's standards a different level of enactment? TimidGuy (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying that how we're doing Vermont is a better model for how the article should detail individual state information. I'm not sure Vermont needs the detail, since it appears they're going full-bore, but this should be what we're aiming for instead of what we currently have. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I think an article of that length wouldn't comply with the guidelines. We'd have to figure out some other way. TimidGuy (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

We could easily split to a sub-article if need be. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Why not just go ahead and create a new article? TimidGuy (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure we need it just yet. I think it can be done here, but I've faced resistance. A content fork isn't a good thing. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to propose we swap out the big table for a subarticle. I've worked on one in userspace, it can be seen at "Common Core implementation by state", although I'm not married to the article name. User:TimidGuy suggested a new article, and I didn't think we'd need to split it, but it would be unwieldy in full here. Thoughts? Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Linking to a sub-article may make sense. However I'm opposed to removing the table from the main article. I think there's a benefit to providing the info in summary form here.CFredkin (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

As the sub-article shows, though, the table is not nearly as detailed as it needs to be for the adoption and implementation information. I don't think it's a good idea to have two places saying different things. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice job on the article. I guess I'd prefer to retain the table in this article. I like the way one can get summary info at a glance. TimidGuy (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem, again, is that the summary info isn't nearly detailed enough. It's why I'm hoping we can switch it for the more detailed subarticle with a short summary here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to move forward on this, but I'd prefer not to have a disruptive incident because of the table. Is there a good justification for the table at this point given the amount of detail it leaves out? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about the table. On the one hand, it is at the end and "out of the way". On the other hand, it really only made sense to have such a table while the Common Core was being adopted and the status by state was changing weekly. A brief summary ought to be sufficient now. --seberle (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Updating

I've moved the mockup above into a subarticle and linked here, but I'd still like to resolve the table issue, which is in direct conflict with what's known about adoption and implementation at this time, both in terms of detail as well as real-world implications. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

selection of commentary for "response" section

The selection of organizational and political commentary in the first paragraphs ranges from "centrist" to "deeply conservative", with Brookings, Cato, "some conservatives", Nikki Haley, and the Fordham Institute; and a bit later, the Heritage Foundation; contrasted with ... umm ... crickets? The individual commentators express a diversity of opinion, which accords with what I see expressed in the world, but the voices of the conservative organs are rather over-represented. I'm agnostic as to whether it's better to find additional voices to balance, delete some of the political think tanks, or appropriately characterize other commentors. --Lquilter (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The criticism sections should definitely be balanced, especially for a subject such as the Common Core which is receiving diverse criticism and defense from both ends of the political spectrum. Please feel free to add and delete to bring the section into balance. --seberle (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I came to the Talk page specifically to see if anyone else felt that the Response section was mashed strangely - and here I find information about a criticism section which apparently disappeared in the last few months, in favor of a Response section, that almost implies there is little legitimate criticism.

The way that section is woven together, it would seem there are a few incongruent opinions against it, and most opinions on Common Core are ambiguous rather than negative. But when you read the resources, that is not the case. Yes, it's important to put common points together - if two dissenting opinions exist, about the effect of additional testing on students, they should be in the same section. But when you run them together, as they are in the article now, you sometimes have to stop and separate who said what, and what side of the argument they're on. Obviously that's not acceptable.

I'm still struggling to learn all the facets of Common Core, but I know there is a lot of information missing here, on the negative impacts of these standards, both projected and already realized. CleverTitania (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree there should be a clearly marked and thorough criticism section. In particular, the criticism of erroneous or nonsensical questions (see www.naturalnews.com/044338_Common_Core_math_education_Americas_children.html Natural News] and Daily Caller articles. Please do not dive into a rant about XYZ reliability of these sources. They post some things I think are silly--even the Natural News article makes some wild conclusions about what's going on behind the scenes--but just look at their main points. They quote clearly erroneous and nonsensical questions. Looking at the WP article, my only guess if I were to defend the strange questions, would be that they're purposely nonsensical in order to get the child thinking critically, or to analyze their thought processes (in the way of an ink blot test). Maybe having to ask the teacher if the textbook is correct is supposed to teach thinking outside the box? (E.g. "Ah, everyone, see, Timmy has pointed out that the textbook is wrong, and he's right!") This is just my guess, and I'm hoping there's information to support it, such as that a teacher's manual instructs the teacher that there's an error/etc in the book. If not, then the people in these articles may have a major point that they may be meant to confuse and dumb down.

Here are the strange problems for reference.

Juanita wants to give bags of stickers to her friends. She wants to give the same number of stickers to each friend. She's not sure if she needs 4 bags or 6 bags of stickers. How many stickers could she buy so there are no stickers left over?

Match the picture with the fraction that names the shaded part. (In www.naturalnews.com/gallery/articles/Common-Core-Shaded-Part.jpg a picture] with geometric shapes in which there are NO shaded parts, and its clear that there would have to be in order to match up the various fractions.)

In each cube stick, color some cubes blue and the rest of the cubes red. Draw the cubes you colored in the number bond. Show the hidden partners on your fingers to an adult. Color the fingers you showed. (There are squares, not cubes, but more importantly, the rest is so nonsensical to www.naturalnews.com/gallery/articles/Common-Core-Number-Bond.jpg the picture] that an adult has to struggle for awhile to figure out what the problem wants the kid to do. I kind of get it after spending half an hour looking at the thing, but if there's no teacher's manual to explain the purpose of the exercise, then this problem is nuts.)

In any scenario, there is serious grounds for criticism here. It's reasonable that math problems should not be purposely erroneous or nonsensical. No, I personally have no idea how to re-structure the article or locate especially reliable reports of how many parents and teachers are confused about this, but if such can't be found, these sources should be quoted or the balance of the article seriously addressed. Squish7 (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying about erroneous questions. The Common Core doesn't have any questions. Are you suggesting there should be criticism in this article about how independent publishers are implementing the Common Core? I know such arguments are popular on Facebook and YouTube, but such posts are usually confused about what is and is not Common Core. --seberle (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the "Response" section lacks structure and is hard to follow. It needs some sort of logical progression. Most Wikipedia articles on controversial issues have Criticism and Response sections describing opposing viewpoints. I agree it is possible to merge the two, but there still needs to be some kind of argument-response structure or thematic structure rather than the current mixed list of random statements. --seberle (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Science, etc

There seems to be no discussion in the article of why fields like Science were not included in the "core" curriculum.

It is clear that lack of science training in the US is often evoked as a great failing of American education and American competition internationally.

The absence of this subject, (note that almost all the arguments about "core curriculum" apply to science education), reads as biased advertising for the present "core curriculum" program.

82.224.103.123 (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

See Next Generation Science Standards. TimidGuy (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

TimidGuy's response is correct. My understanding is that Math and Language Arts were chosen as a beginning only. The plan has always been to expand common standards to other subjects. If someone knows a suitable reference, this would be a good thing to mention in the article. At the very least, there should be a mention of the Next Generation Science Standards. --seberle (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It's listed at the end in the See Also section. Is that sufficient? TimidGuy (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no plan to make Common Core standards for science or other subjects. NGSS and other sets of standards are their own processes. See this link, which is the FAQ. If it doesn't load correctly, it's near the bottom of the list. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 18:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Eligibility of other standards for funding incentives

This claim in the article may be important:

"Though states could adopt other college and career ready standards and still be eligible, the Common Core standards automatically met the requirement, providing an incentive for states to adopt the standards."

But the cited source only supports the general idea that Race to the Top offered an incentive for states to adopt the standards. Indeed, that's the only claim it was being used to support until this edit was made:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_Core_State_Standards_Initiative&diff=589814653&oldid=589237883

The extra details added in that edit are of interest, but need their own support. 128.210.3.44 (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I adjusted the wording and added a source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Response Section Appears Biased

I've just read this article, and feel that the "Response" section is extraordinarily biased in favour of Common Core. Criticisms of the curriculum are not given adequate prominence. Could this perhaps be rectified by some well-informed editors? I'm aware that this is a politically sensitive topic, but reading this from the other side of the Atlantic as a relatively disinterested editor the presentation of this article seems to me remarkably slanted. Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• I concur with RomanSpa, but don't have the energy to join the debate. Ezratrumpet (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you look back through the Talk Page, you will see several sections of lengthy debate as this article has fluctuated in being biased first one way and then the other. Please feel free to jump in and help make it objective. --seberle (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Conservatives, Good Luck Wid Dat

The liberals that completely CONTROL what is allowed into wikipedia will NEVER allow this article to be fair. The reality is that Common Core is HUGELY unpopular in many circles, but this article has been sanitized from the majority of those LEGITIMATE criticisms by the Wikipedia Liberal Hegemony (WLH). If you try to bring balance and fairness to this article they will revert your edits, game the system and ultimately BAN you from wikipedia. Not-so-ironically the educators pushing common core often recommend Wiki to their students as a solid reference source. It'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Think I'm joking? Go ahead and try to bring in some solid critiques of Common Core. The WLH will use every trick in the book to stop you and then make YOU look like the disruptive editor. Remember, many members of the WLH are also members of the mainstream media. So, their dishonest bent towards propagandizing is well documented and established. 99.185.56.93 (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Please propose some text here that you'd like to add, along with a source or sources for that information. TimidGuy (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Nuke of external links

I nuked the list of External links, there's no justification for having that many links. Any content that those links have that's necessary should be merged into the article. I couldn't see any reason to have so many, and subsections for each of the 'oppose' and 'support'. Tutelary (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I support this removal. TimidGuy (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Long overdue, thank you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggest should be doing discussion first on what to have. To my eye it just seems like it went a bit too far too fast. Markbassett (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

We're more than happy to discuss any external links which you think may have an encylopedic benefits. Though as I can see, some users were too happy to see them go. I'm not opposed to adding more, but they should have unique benefits. Tutelary (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Add categories

This is Talk per note on reversion .... I have added the article to categories "2009 in education" and "Standards-based education" and edit remarks said "Add to category ..." apparently was not enough as someone reverted adding categories with "Undo edits made without explanation" ???? ???? Okayyyyy ... reentering the categories and here is the explanation: this is an education initiative begun in 2009 so fits the category "2009 in education", and Comomon Core State Standards is standards about education so fits the category "Standards-based education" ???? I am not seeing why this needed explanation other than what was there in edit note, so if this was not what was wanted please clarify the area needing explanation here. Markbassett (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hammer and sickle?

Does Common Core really use hammer and sickle in their logo like Two Tune edited all instances of the name to include, or is this vandalism? It seems unlikely that something American would use a Communist logo. Someone edited out the first instance of the symbol but left all the rest.

--81.175.157.76 (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2014

As of September 28, 2014, Pennsylvania and Indiana have dropped out of CCSS. Please update.

24.185.135.43 (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

ExxonMobile?

I'm confused, why is ExxonMobile quoted here? How is the view of an oil company relevant here? It'd be one thing if that quote came from an educational institution... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.43.182 (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It may not be appropriate to quote ExxonMobile, but the general point the source makes is worth including: that CEOs think Common Core is a good idea. Of course they're interested in a well educated work force, and they see Common Core as giving young people the skills they need to be productive in the workplace. TimidGuy (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, finally found the discussion section (I am on mobile). I see your point in the relevancy of CEO and business opinion in general @timidguy, but as a CEO of an oil company does that not make it a biased opinion? Cosiepenrose (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Basic sources

• http://www.vox.com/cards/commoncore/what-is-the-common-core
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/01/18/everything-you-need-to-know-about-common-core-ravitch/

czar ⨹ 01:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

missing issue

This article needs a section discussing the 2015 media articles about the states that are doing so badly at meeting common core -- which they adopted Georgia being an example -- that there's discussion (or decision, not sure which) on a different way of assessing their progress. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Feedback on David Coleman Common Core-related edit

@Heatherer is looking for feedback on a proposed edit to David Coleman (education)'s The Common Core section, if you have a moment: Talk:David_Coleman_(education)#Proposing_a_new_draft_for_The_Common_Core – czar 17:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004230129/http://www.nga.org/cms/home/news-room/news-releases/page_2009/col2-content/main-content-list/title_forty-nine-states-and-territories-join-common-core-standards-initiative.html to http://www.nga.org/cms/home/news-room/news-releases/page_2009/col2-content/main-content-list/title_forty-nine-states-and-territories-join-common-core-standards-initiative.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202233810/http://www.whiteboardadvisors.com/research/education-insider-common-core-standards-and-assessment-coalitions to http://www.whiteboardadvisors.com/research/education-insider-common-core-standards-and-assessment-coalitions
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017154221/http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/jeb-bush-to-common-core-opponents-conspiracy-theories-are-easy-attention/2147666 to http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/jeb-bush-to-common-core-opponents-conspiracy-theories-are-easy-attention/2147666

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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)