Cape Girardeau official: Those who oppose Common Core Standards haven't read them

I am beginning to see a sameness with all of the statements that have been issued by those who are in favor of Common Core Standards.

-We can't get rid of Common Core because we have spent so much implementing it in our schools

-The people who are criticizing Common Core are ignorant and have not actually read the standards (the implication being, of course, that once you read them, you will love them).

-We are setting our own curriculum. No one else is doing it for us.

-If you are opposed to Common Core, you are one of those paranoid people who think the government is out to get you.

That same attitude is obvious in comments from Cape Girardeau's assistant superintendent in an article in today's Southeast Missourian:

Formative assessments are administered on a frequent basis -- such as daily or weekly -- to ensure students are on track in their learning.

Summative assessments are for the end of a unit, end of a semester or end of a year to make sure students learned what they needed to during those time frames.

(Assistant Superintendent Sherry) Copeland said students are doing much better on the assessments than they have in the past.

"We determine curriculum; we decide what textbooks, if any, we use, [and] what resources we use," Copeland said. Many of those resources are online with the advent of the district's 1:1 initiative at Central High School, where students were given laptops that could be converted into tablets.

That initiative will be moving down to Central Middle School in the fall.

"People who don't understand Common Core and are posting on Facebook and Twitter and really haven't read the standards," Copeland said. "That's concerning to me."

"We are constantly changing and improving as a society and education has to keep up with that. Missouri was right: We want our students to be college and career ready," she said.

It would be hard to fit in any more educational buzzwords in a passage. Districts are spending millions on 1:1 initiatives because Common Core requires that standardized tests be taken online. Even more technology has to be purchased because the tests begin in the lower elementary grades well before keyboarding instruction normally begins. And with the addition of the now-necessary keyboarding classes for elementary students, we are eliminating other instruction that would be far more valuable to them at that age.

The buzz words "college and career ready" are thrown around. Perhaps all of these computers will make it easy to step into the workplace, though I have my doubts, but please stop the nonsense about them making the students college ready. How many colleges and universities do we see that are providing the same kind of technology to all of their students? Not only is it not being done, but for most institutions of higher learning it is not even on the agenda for the distant future.

Cape Girardeau, Joplin, and other schools that have completely immersed themselves in the 1:1 philosophy and are totally changing teaching styles in order to make every lesson about the machines are not preparing the students for college where many of the classes will be done by lecture, a style that is considered disgraceful by the proponents of 21st Century education.

When the Cape Girardeau official talks about constant assessments, she is hitting on another of the problems with Common Core. While it is true that teachers are making assessments all the time and did even in the days before Common Core, this is not what is meant by assessments nowadays.

When it comes to today's educational landscape, everything is about the standardized tests and the testing companies are making a killing off Common Core. The students are being forced to take boring practice standardized tests that not only take away from valuable instructional time and destroy the joy of learning, but they have little educational value. Standardized tests were always meant be just one weapon in the educational arsenal. When everything revolves around them, education suffers. The Joplin R-8 School District, for example, has used McGraw-Hill's Acuity practice tests for years, taking them eight times a year to give the district an idea of where the students are when it comes to preparing for the end-of-the-year tests.

Even worse, I sat in on meetings in which we prepared curriculum based on the Acuity tests. Joplin is not the only school that thought it could game the system by buying practice tests from the company that prepared the annual MAP tests.

Now the entire state is being forced to do this since DESE (the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education) has signed an $18 million contract with McGraw-Hill to not only provide the Common Core annual tests, but also to provide its practice Acuity tests to the entire state.

In other words, we will have all state schools building their curriculum around the tests and the practice tests. Missouri's schools will soon follow Joplin's example and not only have practice tests for the standardized tests, but also practice tests for the practice tests (yes, it happens on a regular basis).

With the Obama Administration's Department of Education basing the awarding of millions of dollars on whether states are implementing Common Core and whether evaluation of teachers is being based on standardized tests, you will not only see a sameness in the curriculum of all schools, despite the protests by Common Core supporters who know so much more than the rest of us, but you will also see more and more teaching to the test because the jobs of teachers and administrators are going to depend on it.

History does not look with kindness on Common Core supporters' argument that it would be horrible to eliminate Common Core because so much money has already been spent to implement it.

Suppose the same thing had been said about the integration of America's schools.

In fact, it was. Those who wanted to maintain the separation of the races in southern schools often cited how much money it was going to cost to change things and how much money had already been spent to build the system they had.

When something is wrong, keeping it because you have already spent so much money doing it, is not an intelligent argument.

Cape Girardeau Republican: I am proud to fight Obama for our gun rights

In his latest report, Sen. Wayne Wallingford, R-Cape Girardeau, reveals that he has convinced himself that he and his fellow GOP legislators can actually pass a bill that says federal gun laws are illegal and it will make it so. If Wallingford and friends spent as much time trying to bring jobs to Missouri instead of foolishly fighting the federal government, this state would be in great shape.

Over the last year and a half, citizens have watched both the federal government and states attempt to dismantle the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

 The constitutional rights of U.S. citizens are under attack by the very institutions charged with protecting them. In recent months, numerous states have pushed for more restrictive gun laws. 

Even the United Nations is attempting by treaty to remove our right to bear arms. Worse of all, though, are the federal government’s attempts, specifically the executive branch, to limit and abolish the right to bear arms enshrined in our Constitution. Congress has so far refused. In response, the president’s pledged, “If Congress won’t act, I will.” It’s not a bluff.

Cape Girardeau parent group opposed to Common Core Standards

The battle against Common Core Standards continues to spread across the state.

Today's Cape Girardeau Southeast Missourian has a story about a new parent group forming to battle Common Core Standards and to restore local control of schools.

The effort is also expanding into Sikeston and Chaffee, according to the article.

Cape Girardeau Republican: My bill will improve safety, not limit abortions

In his latest report, Sen. Wayne Wallingford, R-Cape Girardeau, says SB 655, which he is sponsoring, will not have any effect on women's ability to get abortions, but will make it safer.

Let me start by saying I’m pro-life. I oppose all forms of abortion and firmly believe that life begins at conception. This is a very personal stance.

 Abortion touches upon some of our most basic ideas about life and faith. In turn, each person must decide for themselves where they stand on this issue. Under current law, abortion is legal in the United States. 

Barring any unforeseeable events, this is unlikely to change any time soon. There is nothing preventing us, however, from ensuring that these procedures are done safely and adhere to the same strict laws and guidelines to which we hold every medical procedure. I understand abortion is a polarizing topic, but to automatically view every measure addressing it is as an attack or an attempt to outlaw it is inaccurate. This prevents us from examining some very real problems with how these medical procedures are carried out and the right of alternatives to abortion agencies to express their opinions. For example, various states have enacted local ordinances in recent years that apply unfair regulations to alternatives to abortion agencies. 

These groups are often faith-based and offer free services to women considering an abortion. These establishments give women a choice when they may not have otherwise seen one. Cities and political subdivisions across the country have begun forcing these groups to follow burdensome and frivolous requirements, such as mandating them to advertise they don’t perform abortions, or limiting the amount of information they’re allowed to provide. This would be the same as requiring fast food establishments to advertise they don’t have wait staff, or that car dealerships don’t sell boats. These are underhanded attempts to limit organizations that have a First Amendment right to offer counsel to the public, the same as any other organization or institution.

Federal judges across the nation are throwing out these ordinances as they’re challenged in court. Good public policy should be preemptive, though, which is why I’ve filed Senate Bill 658 this year, which would protect the rights of alternatives to abortion agencies to freely engage in religious practice and offer their services, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

 In the same vein, I’ve filed legislation this year that would make sure the clinics where abortions are performed are held to the highest safety protocols. 

In 2011, a Pennsylvania physician, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, was charged with eight counts of murder resulting from gross medical malpractice while performing abortions. One patient died under his care. Seven newborns were killed after being born alive following botched abortions. And all of these horrific crimes happened under the nose of state authorities, who hadn’t inspected his clinic in years. A single visit by a state inspector might have prevented this terrible crime. Regardless of where you stand on abortion, this is a horrifying and sickening incident. We must not allow this to happen in Missouri. 

Senate Bill 770 requires clinics where abortions are performed to be inspected four times a year. We already require similar inspections for other medical facilities. There’s no justifiable reason we shouldn’t apply the same stringent requirements for places where these surgical procedures are performed. The legislation also offers more support to women who seek abortions due to medical emergencies, specifically because of psychological or emotional conditions.

 A woman undergoing a medical emergency because of psychological or emotional trauma should not be forced to make an irreversible decision without at least talking to a qualified mental health professional, such as a suicide prevention counselor. This bill would offer these women that help. Once again, neither of these bills restricts the right of women to have abortions in Missouri. What they do is guarantee the safety of the women who choose to have them performed, and protect the right of religious organizations to offer guidance and alternatives to women considering an abortion.