Governor Markell defends Common Core curriculum in Washington Post
Governor Markell has a published piece in The WASHINGTON POST defending Common Core state standards against the critics.
The headline: "The Tea party is wrong on the Common Core curriculum".
One problem, at least from my perspective: Governor Markell basically argues against the Tea Party movement - which may provide a convenient straw man - given the Tea Party's relatively unpopularity in northern Delaware and presumably among the bulk of The WASHINGTON POST's readership.
The governor conveniently ignores that some liberals/progressives ALSO oppose Common Core, albeit for somewhat different reasons. Common Core also creates a rather unusual alliance between some non-establishment conservatives and unionized teachers - both opposed to standardized test mandates - again for somewhat different reasons.
You have the old arguments over the merits of teaching for tests; whether such rigorous standardization might actually undermine the learning experience, and might even turn gifted students against the academic experience; whether individual states should not be "laboratories" for different approaches; etc.
The state has been trying to impose standards on Delaware students since the administration of Dr. Pat Forgione in the 1990s. This is the same old effort, just called by a different name, Common Core.
Mon, Jun 10, 2013 11:17am
Allan Loudell continues to be obsessed with political intrigue. He ignores the obvious. Markell helped draft these standards and now he defends an idea he had a role in forming. He mentions the tea party as an opponent of this idea but that is not the thrust of the article, as Allan Loudell wants to suggest.
But I have to agree with teatime. Common Core shares the same basic flaw as all the other top down, one-size-fits-all education remedies. Somebody presumes to decide what's best for everybody and then wants to enforce it. These nostrums don't improve education for kids in poor districts; they just make it uniformly mediocre for everyone - dragging down good districts so everyone is equally unhappy. Making everyone equally unhappy is what passes for problem-solving in the public sector.
Cut off all federal money and all state money for education and let districts do their own things. If local residents aren't happy with what they get from their schools, let them deal with it. If students aren't getting prepared, let accreditation associations and colleges deal with it.
Mon, Jun 10, 2013 11:32am
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, I think Markell would prefer to characterize the main opposition as right-wing, because he doesn't want to acknowledge that other people have serious philosophical & practical problems with Common Core, as you describe. He doesn't want to directly attack some of the very people who put him into office.
Mon, Jun 10, 2013 11:56am
I think Mr. Loudell is 100% correct as to why Markell blamed opposition to CC on the Tea Party.
Truth is both the Left and Right are against Common Core in schools...Markell knows he will never get the Tea Party types to vote for him and hopes the left believes his claims about CC.
Mon, Jun 10, 2013 11:59am
...if Markell really wants the Left to love Common Core he should say that Sarah Palin has officially said she is against it. Nothing else could get the Left more in Markell's court than that ;)
Mike from Delaware
Mon, Jun 10, 2013 1:32pm
I believe Allan's point about why Markell only attacked the Right makes sense and is very political.
EarlGrey, is Sarah Palin still out there? Haven't heard much from the Grizzly Barbie in quite some time, oh that's right, she ONLY will talk to Fox News reporters and I don't watch Fox News so I've missed her fascinating repartee. No real loss in my opinion.
Billsmith wrote: "But I have to agree with teatime. Common Core shares the same basic flaw as all the other top down, one-size-fits-all education remedies. Somebody presumes to decide what's best for everybody and then wants to enforce it. These nostrums don't improve education for kids in poor districts; they just make it uniformly mediocre for everyone - dragging down good districts so everyone is equally unhappy. Making everyone equally unhappy is what passes for problem-solving in the public sector."
Amen Billsmith and Teatime.
Mon, Jun 10, 2013 7:35pm
Markell is an Obama politboro member who's doing the dictator's bidding for the I-95 corridor.
MFD: I'm proud to say that I watch Fox News, as I prefer media outlets that tell me the truth as opposed to bald-face lies.
Mike from Delaware
Mon, Jun 10, 2013 7:51pm
Mrpizza: I also don't watch MSNBC for the same reason as its is as biased in favor of the left as Fox is towards the right. If a commentary that's fine, but for NEWS, it shouldn't be slanted. I prefer NPR, PBS, CBS, as their REPORTING seems to be far more balanced where both sides get a fair airing. In reporting news that is important. The difference between you & me on this is you come across like you only want to hear anti- Dem/Obama news. I want to know the truth, so when Obama is correct that should be reported, not ignored, just as when he screws up, that doesn't happen on either Fox or MSNBC, in my opinion.
Mon, Jun 10, 2013 8:09pm
MFD: If I need total objectivity, I just listen to good ole Allan Loudell.
Mon, Jun 10, 2013 9:41pm
Mike: Truth is, I don't watch very much TV and even less TV news...my point about Palin is that even though she's out of most front page politics she is still despised by the Left and she is still well-liked by Tea drinkers.
If she backed Common Core...Liberals would fllee from it simply because anything Sarah likes they hate and anything she hates they love.
Mike from Delaware
Mon, Jun 10, 2013 10:22pm
EarlGrey: I too do not watch much TV. I get all my local news from WDEL and sometimes from WHYY-FM. The national/international news most times from CBS Radio, NPR, drudge, & Huff post. Once in a while PBS Newshour, then less frequently CBS-TV news. I haven't watch Philly-TV news in a long time.
Mike from Delaware
Mon, Jun 10, 2013 10:32pm
EarlGrey: Even though I'm not a liberal, If Sarah Palin said the sun rose in the east, set in the west I'd go & check just to be sure. She has no credibility as far as I'm concerned. I feel the same about Bill Maher. Both are loud obnoxious blowhards, who have too much media exposure, in my opinion.
Mrpizza: to each his/her own.
Tue, Jun 11, 2013 7:07am
Pizza sez: "If I need total objectivity, I just listen to good ole Allan Loudell."
That proves Allan Loudell's right-wing bias. At least Fox (good ol' "fair and balanced") is open and upfront about where they are coming from.
MikeFromDelaware assumes news on Fox (surrounded by right-wing talkers) has a conservative slant and news on MSNBC (with some liberal talkers) has a liberal slant. By whom is Allan Loudell surrounded? When he was picking hosts, he surrounded himself with virulent wing-nuts like Rush, Gallagher, and Watson.
What's ironic is the more the media claim objectivity, the less trusted they are. People trusted newspapers more and liked them better when they were partisan. Same for radio "commentators" with a point-of-view like Paul Harvey, Edward P. Morgan, Fulton Lewis, Walter Winchell ... Notice that when supposedly objective Walter Cronkite died and they ran documentaries on his life and career, what people remembered most and praised him for where the times he dropped the pretense of objectivity and showed some real passion, reaction and personal judgement.
Maybe the current crop of "anchors" would have more credibility out of the closet.
Mike from Delaware
Tue, Jun 11, 2013 8:27am
Billsmith: Defending Allan as a past Program Director back in the day [my understanding is he's not in management at all now at WDEL]; picking those hosts were programming decisions, not news decisions. News-type decisions Allan made were airing Radio Deutsche Welle and the Commonwealth Club broadcasts. Our local newscasts weren't slanted; at least I never detected any slanting of our newscasts.
With Fox News, when I've watched [via cable] or listened to their news via Fox News Radio broadcasts, I've not once heard any news story that was positive for Obama. If it was a good thing, somehow the wording didn't reflect that, so YES, at least to my ear, Fox News IS biased. The few times I've watched MSNBC their news came across just the opposite, negative slanting was aimed towards Republicans.
NPR's political slant IS left, but their newscasts and long-form newsprogramming like ATC, ME, seem to make a real effort to look at both sides of the issue. The left-leaning slant is only noticed, by me, during their commentaries and talk programs which is as it should be.
Like Drudge vs. Huff Post: The headlines read very differently as the slant by both is different, Drudge towards the right and Huff towards the left.
Tue, Jun 11, 2013 10:27am
MikeFromDelaware: NPR has published research from outside firms showing the NPR audience is about equally divided between those who say they are liberal and those who say they are conservative (with some who say independent or something else). Human nature being what it is, conservatives complain of liberal bias and liberals complain of conservative bias. The latter is attributed to NPR trying to placate corporate sponsors, which provide the the largest share of NPR's money. Journalistic nature being what it, NPR seems to figure if they are getting complaints from all sides, it must mean they're "objective."
Pardon me if I take issue with your "IS," especially since you say they make a real effort to look at both sides.
If Allan Loudell was a program director, as you say, then would it not have been his decision to pick Rush, Gallagher and Watson and no progressive voices? Off the top of my head, when he was in management, he covered "support the troops" rallies but not anti-war events; he broadcast Dubya's speeches as a candidate but did not give equal time as required by law; he aired regular pieces from a local Zionist group but nothing from those sympathetic to Palestinians; he broadcast statements from cops and DAs but nothing from the defense; he aired sympathetic puff pieces for banks, DuPont and other chemical companies and ignored investigations into their activities reported elsewhere; he was fawning in coverage of Biden and other incumbents.
Mike from Delaware
Tue, Jun 11, 2013 11:09am
Billsmith: What you say about NPR getting complaints from both sides makes sense, as I said, in their news coverage they try to present both or all sides to an issue, especially in the ME/ATC broadcasts, so yes I can see where both sides would chaff at the other side's views getting equal treatment, which is unfortunate, and is why I like NPR's coverage. So yes, I Agree.
As far as what Allan chose to cover and not and those specific things you cite, I don't remember any of what your referring to, so I guess Allan will have to talk about those concerns.
My experience both working for Allan and listening to him for years is he's the newsman's newsman. He loves the news and seems to have a passion for going beyond what a "local" reporter or local PD/Manager or whatever his title was back then would do for such a low budget 1Kw station in a medium sized market. Frankly in my opinion, that station wouldn't have been anything without those things that Allan brought to that station. It lost all that when he moved to WDEL and the result is that station is a mere shell of what it was, that's sad, in my opinion.
You and I just see this differently, it is what it is.
Tue, Jun 11, 2013 1:20pm
"As far as what Allan chose to cover and not and those specific things you cite, I don't remember any of what your referring to..."
MikeFromDelaware: Like the despicable Watson, you seem to be saying that if you don't know it, it must not have happened. As I recall, you have also posted that you were not there much.
Mike from Delaware
Tue, Jun 11, 2013 3:19pm
Billsmith: I didn't say it didn't happen as you claim, I said that I didn't remember that, and referred you to Allan for futher clarification. Granted I only was there on the weekends, but I listened to the station during the week at my "regular" non-radio job.
John Watson was a nice guy. He'd be in some weekends doing prep stuff for his show and we had some great discussions. John had a lot of experience including running a station in a small market. Don't underestimate Watson. His style wasn't my style, but John was a pro and he knows the radio business inside and out, he's nobody's fool. John has filled in for Al, on WDEL, a couple of times last year and it was good to hear his gravely voice back on the air. I didn't always agree with John or how he liked to interrupt many of his callers, but Watson's a good guy and its ashame that he's still not on the air in a regular situation, in my opinion. Watson wasn't afraid to say it as he believed it to be.
Tue, Jun 11, 2013 5:57pm
MikeFromDelaware: As I said, Watson supported the Patriot Act and shut down callers who warned about the secretive and over-reaching powers it gave the government. If the government is tracking your phone calls, you can thank Watson (and others).
Add your comment: Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal
responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of
the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members
Only Group username and password are required to process your post.
You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please
Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.