Page 4
The Technician April 29, 2014
National Common Core Standards: Are They Necessary?
by Jackson Coloske, Editor in Chief
As many people know, public school systems across the nation have started adopting new “Common Core” standards of teaching. The move has been dominated by the fact that school systems receive their funding based on the number of students attending, and the performance of those students on standardized tests. The Common Core standards are written based on extensive research for promoting student growth and preparation for college, life, and career. As explained in the promotional video, the core standards are equivalent to steps on a staircase, with landings provided to make sure that student development is on pace. The new standards aim to provide a uniform educational experience across the nation, with local and state practices still in effect. So in other words, a fourth-grade student from Idaho and one from Florida are expected to have mastered the same skill sets and basic functions. This is a farfetched expectation, because the two areas have different local culture, family backgrounds, and career prospects. The explanation of the creation of the standards was based on input from teachers, researchers, and independent sources, and is
supposedly similar to international standards, such as France, China, and India. On the myths/ facts page, it lists one myth that “The standards are not internationally benchmarked” with the response, “standards from top-performing countries played a significant role in the development of the math and English language arts/literacy standards”, which clearly states that they are not, in fact, internationally bench-marked. The standards are presented as such:
• Research and evidence-based • Clear, understandable, and consistent • Aligned with college and career expectations • Based on rigorous content and application of knowledge through higher-order thinking skills • Built upon the strengths and lessons of current state standards • Informed by other top performing countries in order to prepare all students for success in our global economy and society With Mathematics and English/Language Arts and literacy (ELA) being the main focus of the revisions, other core subjects are left out. Social and physical sciences are left out of these changes. One concern I have about
these new standards pertains to the adaptation of physical sciences and mathematics. Physics and chemistry are heavily reliant on strong math skills. Now, competent problem solving strategies rely on the ‘base standard’ provided by the changes. These standards are cut and dry. There is no room for individual education plans, 504 Plans, or alternative education. For the general populace, the standards will prove to be beneficial for students, but without providing individualized plans it will bring down the overall ability of the up and coming workforce to take on challenges and personalize their capacity to take charge and solve problems. I believe that the overall outcome of the first generation to see Common Core the entire way through their education is dim. Students will be taught to listen and regurgitate information in a concise and accurate presentation. They will see things as they have been taught, basic arithmetic and comprehension skills will be the the most deteriorated; along with exposure to ideas that may cause a change in ideals or thinking process. The end result will be a manufactured, cookiecutter student that is basically a walking USA campaign poster. Someone who does what is asked, the way it’s asked, and when it’s asked. A drone. The Common Core standards will take away individual thought, and thereby reduce the American educational system to a haphazard pile of documented processes that continually churn out a single product. Source: www.corestandards.org education.vermont.gov
courtesy of: http://education.penelopetrunk.com/2013/07/01/the-common-core-will-be-the-tipping-point-for-homeschoolers/
The Technician
Page 5
April 29, 2014
Regional
Opinion Head to Head: Welfare and Drug Testing
Con: Is it Really Worth it?
by Melissa Mikolowski, Assistant Editor
One of the latest great American issues is about welfare drug testing. At first glance, the idea seems sound— give the money to those who need it, not those who will just use it for drugs. However, in practicality, the overall cost to employ this system and maintain it far outweighs the benefits. The idea that drug testing would save money on welfare is a myth. The cost to employ this system is extensive. We’d need to pay for the testing, the overseeing of all individuals who participate in the system, and synchronizing this information with all other major government systems. Even if we could do this practically, the issue of executing the testing arises. The main conflict is transportation of recipients. Typically, those on welfare for short and long term situations are those with low mobility or courtesy of www.ampathkenya.org those living in rural areas1. Getting a drug test will only hassle the people who truly need it, rather than hinder those who we think don’t. One of the most significant issues is what happens to the people after they are declined welfare. If we put the drug testing into effect and those who are users no longer receive help, then what? The people who have a problem lose their means of survival and then, we assume, are forced to get a job to provide for themselves? Most jobs test for drugs too. If they can’t get a job, do we assume that they will finally just straighten up their lives and stop using? It would be great if it was that easy, but it often isn’t. Drugs are painfully addictive; withdrawals can kill a person. So we need to put them in a rehab facility to have the medical treatment and support to clean up. If these people don’t have their welfare money or jobs, who has to pay for their rehab? The exact same people who were paying taxes that provided for welfare would be paying for rehab. In the end, we wouldn’t be saving any money. In fact, we may end up spending more. The pool that once had been for welfare will now have to be split between those who need it and those declined for welfare and in need of drug rehab. This will detract from the ability to provide for those who use it as it was intended, making it even less efficient at its purpose than is thought to be currently. To employ this system would be a step in the wrong direction in regards to decreasing costs and increasing efficiency. 1
theconcordian.org/2014/01/17/drug-testing-for-welfare-recipients-con
Pro: Why it Keeps the System Clean
by Jackson Coloske, Editor in Chief
Without a doubt, the welfare program in America is often abused, but it can also be very beneficial when used to support impoverished families. The main purpose of social welfare is to give aid to those who are not able to support themselves or their families, but are actively seeking ways to better their situation. For the most part, drug testing is not needed to apply for aid; demographically speaking, 4.1% of Americans receive aid in food stamps, unemployment insurance, or general welfare. This is a significant number of people. If you think about the number of people who fall within this group, there might be a correlation between drug abuse and being below the poverty line. With this possible connection, the welfare system needs a new standard of accepting and continuing its support. When applying for for aid, several criteria need to be taken into account: why the applicant is filing; how long they anticipate needing aid; are they actively seeking employment; do they have to support children; do they pass a drug screening? The drug screening is important because if an individual fails, the individual should lose their aid. Straight and simple. The idea behind receiving aid is that it is beneficial, and not supplying money for an ongoing addiction. With denying drug users monetary support, it may seem that I’m being very critical and neglecting a true problem, but the truth of the matter is that if someone has a diagnosed condition, like substance abuse, medical treatment is needed. It should not be up to the tax-payers to be responsible for the financial burden of supporting drugrehab programs, but it should be taken seriously.
source: http://www.statisticbrain. com/welfare-statistics/