You have to wonder who at the National Science Foundation thought funding a website that makes fake voicemails from the future and games that have people running around looking for fictional fallen “chronofacts” (artistic plastic disks named “chronofalls” that apparently fall out of time) was a good idea? Yes, you can hear voicemails from the future about “Arctic Corn” and “Hurricane Simulator Booths”. Your tax dollars at work.
Eric Worrall writes:
Columbia University’s Climate Center has received $5.7 million from the National Science Foundation for the university’s “PoLAR Climate Change Education Partnership,” to “engage adult learners and inform public understanding and response to climate change.”
The funding was used to create climate change “games”, including fake voicemails from the future, one of which bizarrely warns that in 2035 neo-luddites would kill scientists, anyone who “knows anything”, and other oddities such as advertisements for Tsunami insurance.
http://futurecoast.org/voicemail/93594-38625955/
This cloud has one silver lining – next time anyone you know suggests that the government spends your money wisely, on your behalf, send them a link to the Future Coast project.
================================================================
Note from Anthony.
When I saw this story submitted I thought surely this must be some sort of mistake, but the deeper I went, the more bizarre it got. And it is true, the website is set up by Columbia on a grant from NSF: See http://www.futurevoices.net/the-fine-print/
Strangely, and perhaps illegally (since this is publicly funded), the ownership of the website is secret: http://whois.net/whois/futurecoast.org
Here are some voicemail topics: http://futurecoast.org/voicemail/93594-38625955/
And a video they produced, which looks like a bad version of the “Blair Witch Project”:
Actually, ten of them: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCa0iSEwmopVXf2Y8x1NnbSg
And of course, anyone can play. You can call this number and make a “voicemail from the future” about climate. From http://www.futurevoices.net/
Here are the people and rationale behind it, something called “The Polar Hub”, they say:
Mission and Vision
The world’s polar regions are changing rapidly. What implications do these changes have for polar ecosystems and communities? How do they compare to changes of the past? Do changes in the Arctic and Antarctic regions affect life outside of the poles? The Polar Learning and Responding Climate Change Education Partnership (PoLAR CCEP) seeks to inform public understanding of and response to climate change through the creation of novel educational approaches that utilize fascination with shifting polar environments and are geared towards today’s adult learners.
Supported by a five year grant from the National Science Foundation, the PoLAR Partnership is developing a suite of interactive and game-like tools that capitalize on the iconic imagery of the Arctic and Antarctic, areas of the globe that are experiencing the most dramatic shifts in climate. Games and game-like activities are increasingly used to engage diverse participants in problem solving. Focusing on the poles also leads to discussion of broader impacts, especially as the changes taking place in the polar regions are increasingly linked to concerns about rising sea levels and extreme weather around the globe. Adult learners, be they community leaders, the general public, pre- and in-service teachers, or college students, are today’s decision makers and are more likely to make informed decisions if they understand the scientific evidence of climate change and its social, economic, and environmental consequences.
The PoLAR Hub is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number DUE-1239783. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
![PoLAR_ProjectMatrix_10-25[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/polar_projectmatrix_10-251.jpg?quality=83)
http://thepolarhub.org/content/mission-and-vision
The next time somebody complains about a climate skeptic getting a tiny scrap of funding for a study or a project, show them this.
Wait a minute. So growing corn above the Arctic Circle is a … bad thing? So all these “Buy Locally” types don’t want to extend that option to the Inuit? What a bunch of racists. /sarc
We purchase work books on all the subjects at a local school curricula store. It may be merely anecdotal evidence, but recently many of the books disappeared from the store. The text and work book publishers may have been given incentives to remake their books to conform to Common Core, whether they were going to be used in public schools or not. More research is needed to see if this is the case. But we have saved all of the books we used in order to archive the good old 3 Rs as they were taught.
The science books do have a large dose of renewables discussions, and environmental messaging. I tell my kids to answer the question from the text, as an exercise in reading comprehension and retention, not a matter of agreement or disagreement. I think that will prepare them for a lot of situations. Or we just skip the lesson.
We should not be surprised at the grotesque waste given how much the federal and several state governments have totally wasted trying to get ObamaCare(tm) web sites running.
One of the main roots of such utter foolishness is the ease with which government can create almost unlimited amounts of money out of thin air. Near-infinite money buys near-infinite government, and a bureaucracy that is generously can entertain its fantasy dreams about how it can expand its power and control over its realm.
Every day more people are coming to the judgment that a carefully organized effort to repair the constitution via the States’ power to propose and ratify amendments has less risk to our liberty and prosperity than the present trajectory of the federal government and especially the federal bureaucracy.
The first order of business must be to limit government’s ability to spend and create near-infinite amounts of money.
Attorney, you had best do some reading, especially on acronyms.
inre: Robin
Our Science books for Grade 4 say, “#1 Teacher Recommended for Common Core State Standards.” This seems to indicate that Common Core (by any other name) has already begun to usurp the science standards. One has to wonder why the nationalized program Common Core went to the trouble to appear to revise only math and lit.
Why do people assume that because it is adopted by so many states sight unseen and without trial that it will work? Why should it be centralized, nationalized, and amenable to change by its developers and funders at any time?
The Common Core States Standards Initiative has done its job. The standards developed under the initiative sponsored by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officer (CCSSO), are licensed by those two organizations to the states that adopt them. The Race to the Top grant did not specify CCSS as a necessary part of winning a grant or getting the waiver from No Child Left Behind, but states were given extra points towards winning a grant if they adopted CCSS by 2010. That was a no brainer since no other state standards at that point in time were internationally linked and set to world class standards. To receive federal money for federally mandated programs a state must adopt internationally set standards. That means that some will keep their own standards with adjustments to their content and rigor and will be fine in terms of federal program money.
It should be noted that throughout the development of both the standards and the separate organization developing assessments that are linked to the standards, college and business associations are pushing mighty hard for better standards in order to solve a very big problem: incoming freshman were not able to handle standard freshman classes in language arts or math, or in classes that depended on adequate skills in these areas. That included trade school leaders from the like of farming and repair trade schools, beauty and barber schools, medical trade schools, and advanced computer repair trade schools.
Take it or leave it. But at least read it. Then kick the standards to the curb and go back to the old ones if you like low performing US students. Or kick your state’s butt to work harder if you prefer your students compete head to head on a world class basis. The rest is just scare tactics and propaganda that has fallen to the level of global warming catastrophists. Which is quite embarrassing to see it here, really. And especially when it is linked to global warming issues. Utter stupidity and rank scare tactics with no basis in fact. Shame.
Zeke, do you think the publisher of that science book is stating a fact, opinion, or a conclusion and on what evidence? Good evidence or the other kind? To go through that process is an ELA standard. Based on your writing so far, you do not meet the standard at the 11th grade level. Sounds to me like you should go back to school now that we have better standards. And maybe your kids should get another teacher.
“Thanks for the laughs- it is amazing just how gullible and foolish you oldsters became with your CO2 obsession.”
Pam,
here is free education for you in factual history and how America was formed and from what information . . no charge from the Patriots of Article V.
Please enjoy and share . .
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/the-basic-library.html
When you have read it all [I have more than once] then come back and we can debate ; > )
“The good news is that these new standards are still in the beginning stages. The National Sexuality Education Standards remain in draft form, and the Next Generation Science Standards have been adopted by only 11 states plus the District of Columbia. There is still time to take action before these reforms reach your state. HSLDA urges you to contact your local and state representatives, as well as the representatives on the House Education and Labor Committee, and tell them to resist nationalized standards and curricula.”
And in Tennessee:
“Senate Bill 1682: Prohibits Adopting Common Core-Aligned Standards for Social Studies or Science
Sponsors:
Senator Gresham
Summary: This is a companion bill to House Bill 2253. It would prohibit the State Board of Education from joining a consortium or initiative that requires the adoption of common core standards in social studies or science.
HSLDA’s Position:
Support.”
Well maybe only time will tell if the goal of Common Core is a total, comprehensive, nationalized curriculum including science, social studies and national sex ed standards, and not limited to math and English. Pamela Gray seems confident enough that it does not include the Science standards to tell me that I am an eleventh grader in understanding and analysis, and to share her professional, teachers’ union opinion that I should let the experts raise my kids for me. I think she has not thought through what the nationalized/centralized/global standards really represent for our country.
Next up: “If you like your kids, you can keep your kids.”
Debate what? I am a staunchly fiscal conservative and property rights advocate. But I believe the topic was about issues with CCSS having anything to do with globull warming and the nonsense game funded by tax payers?
Pam,
You miss the fact that the Constitution Article I section 8 enumerated powers does not permit a Federal Department of Education, it does not authorize the NSF, nor the DOE and not even the funding of any item not specifically authorized, All current funding for welfare, school lunches, GRANT RESEARCH [except for defense] is just prohibited.
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – Annals of Congress (1794-01-10) James Madison
And he wrote most of the document.
profitup10 says:
May 27, 2014 at 2:07 pm
Pam,
You miss the fact that the Constitution Article I section 8 enumerated powers does not permit a Federal Department of Education, it does not authorize the NSF, nor the DOE and not even the funding of any item not specifically authorized, All current funding for welfare, school lunches, GRANT RESEARCH [except for defense] is just prohibited.
=======================
It seems to me this is the nub of it.
The abuse of the “commerce clause” has been taken so far that it has usurped the intent of the constitution — imagine giving the federal government the authority to tax us for NOT buying something. By that, there is no limit to what the federal government can do — strictly not the design that powered the USA to the wealthiest, most powerful nation ever.
It seems to me very hard to understand the imperative of running education from the federal level. It has been a disaster for decades, and I think it a big leap of faith to think that some supposed “standards” are going to make a huge difference.
I’d be willing to accept “common core” if it was apparent that, through it, we were going to cut the cost by 75% for the same crappy outcome we’ve been getting for years. What I think is inevitable is that the price of “education” is going to continue to rise and the quality will stagnate or drop into more precipitous decline.
Where has “common core” been successful? On what scale? At what cost? What alternatives were considered? Why were they rejected?
NB: I don’t think the status quo is acceptable. Taxpayers and their children are getting the shaft in a very discouraging way. Common Core is lipstick on the vicious, voracious pig that the whole “education” industry has become. It doesn’t address the problem, it just distracts attention from it.
The real problem with education in America is the snuffing out of innovation (and no, Central Committee-developed “common core” isn’t innovation, but distinctly the opposite) and the ascent of mediocrity through unionization.
I say abolish the D of Ed, not because I am anti-education, but because I am pro-education and it’s clear the D of Ed. isn’t delivering; not because I am “anti-children” but because I want children to have the best education possible. The D of Ed. has been tragically retrogressive, but the cost of it keeps going up. It is a failed experiment. Terminate it forthwith.
Kate and Pam,
The LIMITS of the constitution are not modified by CLAUSES as clauses go to the limits of Article I section 8. The Use of the Commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause were usurpation created by Chief Justice Marshall – first in the Marbury V Madison case and then when the court used power without a foundation in the Constitution therefore it is null void [there is not Constitutional item called IMPLIED POWERS]. Then the same court used a dicta as precedent in the Case of McCulloch V Maryland to introduce Hamilton’s paper on Manufacturing to create IMPLIED POWERS as Necessary and proper.
In both cases the court had no Constitutional foundation to make such a decision = see article III and share with us the authorization. NO the Federal government was not given these powers in the Constitution.
*The Constitution is a LIMITING DOCUMENT.
It does not pass any rights to anyone!
* Rights are from the CREATOR.
All unstated rights go to the States and to the people.
So, we are all citizens of our Home State – I was born in (edit), but I am a citizen of (edit).
Keep in mind that all case law precedent on the Federal Level are usurped as Article III does not allow British case law theory nor does it allow for Judicial review.
(1807-1815) The Writings of Thomas Jefferson_Part 1 Beginning on Pg 53.
“DEAR SIR, While Burr’s case is depending before the court, I will trouble you, from time to time, with what occurs to me. I observe that the case of Marbury v. Madison has been cited, and I think it material to stop at the threshold the citing that case as authority, and to have it denied to be law.”
“I have long wished for a proper occasion to have the gratuitous opinion in Marbury v. Madison brought before the public, & denounced as not law; &: I think the present a fortunate one. because it occupies such a place in the public attention. I should be glad therefore. if, in noticing that case.you could take occasion to express the determination of the executive, that the doctrines of that case were given extra judicially & against law, and that their reverse will be the rule of action with the executive.”
USURPED POWERS AND HAMILTON
Now maybe all will understand the importance of restoring the ORIGINAL Constitution and it’s intents and meanings as of the time it was adopted. None of the laws passed or the Precedent case law created using the usurped powers has any effect in law. They by the nature of the usurpation are null and viod because the usurpers did not have Constitutional power to change alter or create new rights or find new meaning to the various sections, clauses and amendments.
Any violation of oath of office by way of usurpation of power is the gravest of civic offenses. It is “treasonable usurpation upon the power and majesty of the people,” as Alexander Hamilton correctly characterized any flouting of the people’s fundamental law. (“letters of Phocion,” 1784: regarding violation of the New York Constitution.)
Any usurpation “is criminal and odious” as declared by President John Quincy Adams in his first annual Message to Congress 1825. Such condemnation of usurpation-either by misusing granted power, or by grasping power which has not been granted – is in keeping with the Federalist’s denunciation of this most heinous offense by any public official as a defaulting public trustee, including especially any and ever Judge because especially charged with the particular duty of enforcing respect in practice of this basic law. (all from a book by Hamilton Abert Long).
Pam-I don’t really appreciate your telling me I need to read some more and get to know acronyms. Excuse me? I give very specific info with cites and documents and your answer is to simply call me attorney?
I am not quite sure why you are so determined to spread either misinformation or irrelevant info on this topic, but it is not helpful to childrens’ futures. People broadsided by the complete lack of content in their children’s classes will not thank you, especially if they could have lined up a tutor depending on the age of their child.
Do you even know what STEM actually refers to? It’s not science, technology, engineering and math as content work. It’s the idea of real world problem solving. The term was created by Judith Ramalay when she was at NSF around 2001 to cover up the determined shift away from content knowledge that the Common Core has taken into overdrive.
I am not speculating on any of this apart from my book with 381 footnotes and more than 2 years of posts on my blog that are completely independent of the book. Because I was familiar with Common Core back before there was a controversy I was able to get on all sorts of insider distribution lists laying out the intentions. I also have a copy of the report prepared for the 2012 AERA conference laying out, with their cooperation, the story of how former NC governor Jim Hunt and former WV governor Bob Wise, decided to bring back what was called Outcomes based education and School to Work in the 90s and use the state trade groups to give cover from the previous outcry over federalizing education.
Under your theory if documents are created that are not binding and ones are created that are, we must still only pay attention to the PR con job even if we can prove it is a con job. Interesting view of being a property rights conservative.
The Department of Education’s official mission: to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
Its authority comes from the Article 1, section 8, clause 3 dealing with interstate commerce. It also comes from the last clause in that section:
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Early in our history, it became apparent that lack of consistency in educational standards from state to state was harming our ability to compete globally. Our students were not prepared for a rapidly changing and industrialized competitive global market. So eventually the cabinet level department of education (ED) was established to ensure our workforce would be competitive. My great-grandmother came out West to help rural schools develop the standard graded system of education (k-8). She was one of the first Principals of a Wallowa County High School in 1900.
While I agree that a federal department of education has at times been less than helpful, without it we would likely still be in the dark ages in terms of equal access to rigorous primary and secondary education as a nation, and thus not in the running in terms of being a top player on the world’s commerce stage.
With all that said, I continue to state that there is a lack of causality between the above stupid gaming site and CCSS content and adoption. Having read the standards, helped a school district implement them, and taught them myself, teaching via gaming is just not in there folks. And no standard can even be partly realized by sitting in front of a computer playing a game.
You said you were an attorney, yes? If you are one, and I have no reason to doubt that, I don’t think you have a very good case. Do you plan on suing the federal government to end the Department of Ed? Or maybe go after the nonprofit associations that license the CCSS? Maybe you should go after the state you are in for adopting a set of standards they themselves did not develop. If you are I don’t think you are prepared as well as you think. Especially if you see connections around every corner. State your case strongly by stating it simply. Your convoluted tome is diluting the power of your pen in my opinion.
Oregon put together their own standards years ago. If you do a comparison of Oregon’s old standards with international standards (such as those in the CCSS) in equally developed countries, our own standards don’t stack up very well.
As for the issue with content knowledge, the CCSS are filled with them so I have no idea where that is coming from, unless people here just haven’t read the standards for themselves. And really, is it enough to memorize multiplication tables? Really? Good grief you know that is not enough. Hell, the 1912 8th grade exit exam has story problems in it that many high school students would not be able to pass. Why? They haven’t been taught how to work on a real life problem that takes a few days to figure out and solve.
But back to the issue. Again, I have yet to see a well-reasoned robust connection between this silly game and CCSS.
Yet again, none of the commenters in opposition to my initial issue, have yet to tell me in a defensible way why the CCSS is connected to this silly game. However, as I wait for that seminal offering I will say this:
We have a Republic, not a Democratic constitution. And no individual state who is a member of the Union can pass a law or act in such a way that prevents an individual US citizen from exercising his/her right, within the state they live in, to individual freedom in the pursuit of their constitutional rights. In the past, the highly discriminatory behavior of state education systems were in many ways violating our constitution. Shall we reverse to that time? Are some of you saying it is all right to reinstitute discrimination in terms of who gets and who does not get a decent globally relevant education? And would you not agree that such a hodge podge mix of educational discriminatory opportunities harms our ability as a United States organization to compete on the global stage?
You’re arguing against a point not made. I didn’t read any opposition to public education: that’s a straw man of the type commonly deployed by progressives: “If you’re against my proposal, you’re against the children”. Really?
Where is the evidence that “common core” is an improvement for every (or even any) student? What evidence is there that another policy imposed by a so-far disastrous D of Ed. will do anything but accelerate the race to the bottom? Under the D of Ed, school segregation is increasing, if you want to talk “discrimination” — if you want to argue that the D of Ed stands strong against discrimination, then chalk up yet another failure. How does common core address that? In fact, how does it address any so-called “discrimination”? There’s no evidence it does, that it can, or that it will, so it’s not clear why you bring up “discrimination” other than to try to play the “race card”.
Even if the apparently unproven educational principles of the one-size-fits-all, dreamed-up-by-academics, common core have some value, it’s hardly a credible proposition that they won’t be corrupted and used as a channel of propaganda by a captive federal apparatus. That’s the link to this nonsense NSF website, and that of which the founding fathers were acutely aware: centralization leads to capture and abuse. We owe our existence as a nation to that insight.
There’s no structural mechanism in “common core” to prevent it being perverted into a vector of all kinds of twisted, perverted messaging (even if it is arguably not now so), for the only mechanism that can defeat propagandization and act as a bulwark against systematic corruption and vulgar looting is decentralization. Now, before the straw-man that “decentralization doesn’t guarantee no corruption” raises his hideous face, let me state explicitly that’s not what I said or implied. But devolution of power and the money that flows around it to authorities closer to the PEOPLE, rather than concentration of it in some remote capitol, make wholesale capture much, much more difficult, and empowers the people blighted by localized corruption to disinfect their institutions The founding fathers saw that. So do I, among many, many others.
This is likely to start a fire storm, but I have read many biographies of our founding fathers. Few were against public education. And for good reason. John Adams was one of the most fervent advocates of a public education. These folks were hot after world trade. And to get there they knew that without an educated citizenry, world domination in terms of trade would not happen.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED503799.pdf
Everyone seems to be assuming (That AGW is real and we’re all doomed anyway) there will be some power source to connect all the devices together so that one can hear a voice mail (I am assuming digital PSTN). It’s clear these people haven’t thought it through properly. We’d be better off making a recording on a wax/metal tube and then played back on a suitable mechanical device driven by hand. Put it all in a sealed box and burying it in the ground like a time capsule.
Discrimination comes in many forms. And has had to be taken to court to rectify, so stubborn has its defendants been. Race is just the one most people think of. It was not the one that came to my mind. Gender and disability discrimination still finds its way into review boards and courts. But even more so, the wholesale discrimination of low standards states interfering with US efforts to compete with other countries on the world’s market pulls all of us down, regardless of what state you live in. If it is okay with you that your state, or any other state, is churning out ill-prepared students because they passed a low bar test to get their diploma then say so. And then tell me how that won’t interfere with interstate and international commerce and is not the business of our constitution.
When the constitution was fashioned, competing for global markets was a HUGE concern under the umbrella of the United States, which was why it was penned into its constitution. A prepared workforce is a national concern and is tied directly to commerce. If you think you have a case against that, that there is no connection between state education standards leading to a prepared workforce and international commerce, be my guest to bring suit in a court of law in order to strike down this national interest and constitutional authority to be involved in education. As I said earlier, I don’t think you have a case strong enough to make it through.
Pamela,
You have viewed and presented a false narrative on the Constitution and individual rights. Please re read my post above – THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS TO INDIVIDUAL OR STATES – IT IS A LIMIT ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S POWERS. no, the Federal central government is not SUPREME except in those powers granted in Article I section 8 – the use of clauses has no foundation in the original limits or permits of the Constitution. As, you Lawyers all know – no foundation then the argument is a false premise and must fail.
See the tenth amendment –
Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People
<>
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 9/25/1789
Ratified 12/15/1791
I hate to butt in, but…
>> And has had to be taken to court to rectify, so stubborn has its defendants been.
Not always, and, in fact, where the locals have been left to sort it out themselves, the result can often be much better than any court could impose. I know this from personal experience. You have such a jaded view of people, which, in my opinion, is unjustified in the general case.
>>And then tell me how that won’t interfere with interstate and international commerce and is not the business of our constitution.
I don’t think you have a firm grasp of the purpose of the “Commerce Clause” ; it arguably wasn’t intended to allow the federal government to do anything it wanted in the name of *furthering* commerce (general police power in the words of one Supreme), it was to *regulate* commerce.
>>the wholesale discrimination of low standards states
You seem to be making Ms. Forney’s case that centralization, even at the state level, fails.
Still, while we may agree that education standards are a good thing, you don’t seem to make the case that it is a good idea to leave it in the hands of an agency whose hallmark is very expensive failure. How long until hundreds of millions have to be spent on “messaging” the common core because it’s the “messaging” that’s blamed for its failure, not incompetence? How long until billions have to be spent on “consultants” to force it down the throats of school districts that don’t want it? Does the federal government have a good track record of dircting such funds to politically disintrested parties (see the NSF website example, above)?
If it’s so good, school districts will adopt it voluntarily, and there’s no need for them to be coerced through laws or bribes, wouldn’t you agree? Even if some number don’t, if the common core is that good, that shouldn’t matter, as it’s the aggregate that counts, right?
In general, you seem to be missing the point of the objections, and arguing something else. I used to employ salesmen. That’s how they fail.
So Wayne it seems you have agreed with me that if its good, it will be adopted (don’t ya hate it when people respond to something you said in opposition that way?). States were and are within their rights to adopt whatever standards they choose. A few are upgrading their own (not an inexpensive task) and changing the way they assess (again not an inexpensive task). Why? Because their own businesses are demanding a better product at graduation and their own colleges are bemoaning the issue of having to provide remedial college classes. Most states decided not to reinvent the wheel and adopted the CCSS. Had they worked on their own, their own internationalized standards would have looked very similar.
Look folks, my original issue had to do with the CCSS and its non-connection with that stupid game. Others brought up the constitutional issue of federal interests in education, as well as ascribing scary components to the CCSS just are not there. Whether you think it right or wrong, a case against the ED constitutionality or the CCSS boogyman will be very hard to prove. At least as hard as demonstrating a robust connection between the CCSS and that silly game.
Pamela Gray says:
May 28, 2014 at 8:25 am
So Wayne it seems you have agreed with me that if its good, it will be adopted (don’t ya hate it when people respond to something you said in opposition that way?).
=========================
I didn’t say I either supported it or opposed it — I don’t know why you’re so defensive.
What I did say is that you seemed to be failing to answer the objections raised by Ms. Forney and others, and I still maintain that you have not demonstrated, or even provided evidence that: a) these standards will be an improvement ; b) we can trust the D of Ed to implement them without turning them into an expensive boondoggle; c) that centralization of authority in the hands of a small cabal of academics in what is for most people a far-away place (both geographically and culturally) is better than what those folks can do locally (i.e. at the individual school-district level) and d) there can be no perversion of the “standards” by political parties intent on advancing certain agendas that are not wanted by parents of the students.
NB: “Opinion”, no matter whose it is, doesn’t rise to the level of “evidence”.
I’m not saying you CAN’T demonstrate those things, only that you HAVE NOT YET. You argue against points not raised, and it’s difficult to understand why you do that unless you have no rational answer to the objections that were raised. In my experience, people see through that, and so by doing it, you damage your own credibility (again, my observation from years of managing sales people, both good and bad). You can accept that or not; I have no dog in that particular hunt, as they say.