Reform of the Common Core

RESOLUTION INTERPRETATION:In the comments, this is the resolution stipulated to by both Pro and Con:"Resolved: The Common Core State Standards Initiative should be reformed significantly."Changing it to "Does the Common Core system needs to be reformed?"is unfair to me. These two resolutions are vastly different. Pro's failure to bring up this new resolution in round 2 is grounds for conduct violation. In my round 2 argument, I am arguing against the resolution stipulated to by both sides in the comments, not the new one mentioned in round 3 by Pro. Changing it in round 3 is also unfair and is, once again, grounds for conduct violation. With that, I'll refute Con's harms.1) CCSSI does not pay attention to the arts.The purpose of CCSSI, to remind Pro, is to "set nation-wide standards for reading and mathematics levels (1)." Note, CCSSI's purpose is not for setting nation-wide standards for completely subjective subjects such as the ones mentioned by Pro (art, music, etc.). Reading and mathematics are measurable. A person can't be right and wrong to two different people when he states that 5+5=10. But on the other hand, it would unfair to deny funding to a school who's music or art program didn't impress a representative from CCSSI. The fact comes down to this: it is unfair for a subjective subject to be used to determine a school's funding. Unless, of course, Pro disagrees, and states that funding ought to be completely subjective. 2) Tests are poorly designed and are subject to mechanical failure.CCSSI tests don't "reduce [a student's] educational value," it gives them a grade. It states how many questions they got correct. How is this demeaning of students?So you acknowledge that standardized tests are effective ways of determining one's knowledge in a certain subject. You're objection (if I have it correctly) is not that they are subject to mechanical failure. You completely dropped that argument. No, your objection is that there aren't enough free-response sections on the CCSSI tests, right?Tell me, what "free-response" sections would be necessary to test mathematics and English? That is CCSSI's purpose, so let's keep it limited to that.3) Tests incorporate useless questions into them.So what you are saying is that the CCSSI tests are too difficult? It is too challenging to prepare for? Let's actually look at the problems again and see if we can and should expect a rising 2nd grader to be able to solve the problems.The first problem gives a part: 5 coins. Then, it shows how many coins altogether are in the cup (labeled whole): 6. The student is asked to find how many coin(s) are still in the cup. In other words, the child is askedWhat is 6-5 (2)?Most students would have come to the conclusion that the problem had an answer, and that it was 1. A rising 2nd grader would be expected to know subtraction, at least rudimentary problems about it. How is this "non-sensical" or "ridiculous?"Also, my opponent states that expecting elementary school students to understand what this question means without guidance is ridiculous. He is absolutely right. It would be completely unfair to not allow teachers to teach the students how to subtract parts from wholes before the test. But this is the point of CCSSI! The teachers prepare the student by teaching them until they know the standards provided for their grade. There aren't "surprise" questions about, say, algebraic notation. No, the teacher knows exactly what the children will need to know in order to pass the test (subtraction, addition, word problems, etc.). If Pro thinks that there are any more "ridiculous" and "non-sensical" questions from the test in question, he may bring it up next round.4) Negative influence on curriculumI never stated that CCSSI does not influence teacher's curriculum. I stated, actually, that it did. "That’s because the Common Core State Standards are just that — standards and not a prescribed curriculum. They may tell educators what students should be able to do by the end of a grade or course, but it’s up to the educators to figure out how to deliver the instruction (3)."It influences the curriculum by telling a teacher to make sure that his students know such and such in math and such and such in English. However, CCSSI does not give the teacher a curriculum, or force the way of teaching. That leaves the teacher in complete control of his own curriculum, making sure that it meets the standards presented by CCSSI. I would ask Pro how this is negatively impactful on teaching.You also bring up how testing should rely on subjective subjects, and therefore, funding should too. How is this a good idea? To have a teachers funding be determined on whether or not a student is "creative enough" or "has enough writing skills?" What would be the standard of measurement for grading? How would it even be graded?We are talking about a standard, universal testing system. In order to be fair, that test would need to be botha) the same for everyone, andb) clear cut.When I say "clear cut," I mean that 200 graders should all come to the same verdict on whether or not a problem is correct or false. With mathematics and English, both of the prerequisites are fufiled. A machine can grade (making it impartial and standard), and 200 machines would all come to the same conclusion that 2+2=5, or that the word "and" is a conjunction. But with subjective subjects such as music, art, or argument structure? These do not fulfil either of the prerequisites. The score is completely dependent upon whether or not the grader is impressed enough, making the standards subjective. Also, it is not clear cut, as 200 graders would probably not all agree whether or not a student's answer to "compose a measure of music" is sufficient for his/her grade level. These subjective subjects should definitely cannot and should not be universally tested, let alone determine a school's funding.5) CCSSI does not give improved preparation to carriers in STEM.Quite the opposite. CCSSI and STEM are a perfect fit. They can make the students a) college ready, and b) integrate STEM research into their curriculum. "One reason STEM non fiction is an excellent fit for meeting the Common Core English Language Arts requirements is that those requirements are based on comprehension, not merely recitation. Combine the facts learned when reading non fiction books on STEM topics with experiments and activities fueled by those facts—e.g., students read about condensation, then do a condensation lab—and students are sure to more completely comprehend what they have read, as they have seen it in action (4)."This is what I have been talking about. CCSSI doesn't force your curriculum. You can have a curriculum specifically in STEM research and still meet all the requirements and standards.6) CCSSI increases the number of standardized tests that students take.Note: a standard test's job is not to test "knowledge." However, a student's proficiency in a certain subject can be evaluated by a standard test, and then compare it to other scores. That is the point of a standardized test. How is this a negative?7) Teachers and parents are not confident about CCSSI.Quite the opposite. This is due to assumption, rather than negative experiences. Your own source confirms this: "But [the teachers that have implemented CCSSI] are more likely than public school teachers overall to say they feel confident about the initiative and are somewhat more likely to feel hopeful and enthusiastic about it (5)." Your source also states that you are sadly mistaken when it comes to a large disparity between supporters and reformers: " 41% of all public school teachers view the program positively and 44% negatively (5)." Also, a poll done by AFT (The American Federation of Teachers) finds that an astounding 3/4ths of teachers support CCSSI (6)!Plan/Advantages:I think Pro was confused by me stating that he must give a plan to support his resolution. To be clear, the reason why Pro must give a plan that has significant advantages is because if there is no better program we could implement, Con can make the argument that we ought to keep it this way because there is no better solution. That in mind, Pro's plan is toa) decrease its power in determining state funding,b) Add a essay portion to the test, andc) Set universal standards for grading these tests. Points b and c are contradictory. How good of a writer a student is cannot be assigned a universal standard for grading. One grader may give it 10 points, the other 15, another may give it all the points. Adding a subjective portion to the test opens it up to interpretation by the grader, making it impossible to "set universal standards for grading these tests."To your point a, I'd assume you are talking about federal funding. In this case, I respond that federal funding only accounts for about 9% of school funds (7). If you are meaning different funding types, please specify.In the end, Pro has failed to prove that CCSSI is in need of significant reform, thereby failing to meet his burden of proof as Pro.Sources:(1) http://www.corestandards.org...(2) https://roundtheinkwell.files.wordpress.com...(3) http://neatoday.org...(4) https://sallyridescience.com...(5) http://www.gallup.com...(6) http://www.aft.org...(7) http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org...