You would assume that English Language Arts for first graders involves spelling, grammatical rules, sentence structure and things of that nature. Very foundational learning tools that will support future learning.

Here are a couple videos showing how ELA is actually not teaching those skills, but, in fact, playing on emotions and manipulating a young child’s mind.

If this doesn’t turn your stomach and churn up outrage on behalf of your child or, really, any innocent child, I don’t know what does.

In case that doesn’t explain it well for you, here is the message from a Clinical Mental Health Therapist on the danger this brings to a child’s emotional well being.

Thanks to the ladies in Utah at Common Core: Education Without Representation for sharing this on FB.

And again I end up at the same question: WHY. Why do they want to do this to our children? Ask yourself. Ask your legislators. Ask. I believe I know the answer but it’s important for you to come to your own conclusion.

If it was honestly about the foundations of ELA…it would be simple stories, not complex emotional manipulation designed to tap into your child’s parasympathetic system.

This is abuse. Plain and simple.

Reblogged from Twitchy:

Benedict Cumberbatch is facing criticism. The man beneath Sherlock Holmes’ hat on the BBC series Sherlock and the villain in the new Star Trek movie, Into Darkness, Cumberbatch offered his commentary on the social message behind the film. I see nothing wrong with that, and I’ll tell you why, but first let’s look at what he said.

“In the film there’s a debate among Starfleet personnel over how best to extract an enemy in a distant part of the galaxy,” said Tom Brooks, a writer for BBC America, “and whether that enemy should be subjected to due process.”

Cumberbatch concurred. “It’s no spoiler I think to say that there’s a huge backbone in this film that’s a comment on recent U.S. interventionist overseas policy from the Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld era,” he told BBC America in an interview. Criticism of the Bush administration is not at all uncommon in Hollywood and in media as a whole, but many are tired of hearing it.

Breitbart.com’s article on the statement offered clean-cut reporting and little commentary. The comment section, on the other hand, wasn’t as reserved.

“Oh Benedict, shut up and act. You are a pretty young guy, you are great in Sherlock but seriously man, just be Khan and don’t ruin the movie for me.”

“Thanks for the warning, Benedict. I know not to waste my money now.”

“Let’s blame Bush again. I’m so over this. Come up with something new, Hollywood.”

Now this article isn’t a commentary on what Cumberbatch said. Clearly, the same charges of interventionist policy can be leveled at our current President and his aggressive use of unmanned drones to kill overseas targets. This, of course, doesn’t absolve former President Bush of any guilt whatsoever. We’ve had a bad run of presidents.

However, Star Trek has always been cutting edge with social commentary, putting controversial issues in a science fiction setting, an effective strategy that Cumberbatch acknowledges the new movie is continuing.

Does everything hollyWEIRD produces have to send a flippin’ message?

I’m honestly not quite sure why you like Star Trek if you’re so against Hollywood using media to send a message.

When actors make left-leaning statements, generally conservatives respond by lamenting how actors have such a strong cultural influence, calling the actor’s intelligence into question, or responding with the pervasive “shut up and act.” You would think that the overwhelming consensus in the conservative community is that actors shouldn’t talk about politics. However, we’re then faced with the exception of Clint Eastwood.

Eastwood is an actor, yet he is also a conservative. His “empty chair” speech at the RNC was met with mixed feelings from conservatives, ranging from approval and emulation via “empty chair day” to concern that Eastwood has “lost it” and an uneasy feeling from his quirky onstage performance.

But almost nowhere were calls for actor Eastwood to “sit down and shut up” due to his place in Hollywood.

So why the double standard? Why do conservatives disdain liberal actors while lionizing conservative ones? I think the answer is pretty clear. It’s the same immature mentality of “if you disagree with me, shut up!” that conservatives hate when it’s coming from the left.

Can the opinions of actors be valid? Clearly the opinions conservative actors like Clint Eastwood, Adam Baldwin, and Ronald Reagan are valued by conservatives, but in the culture at large, many people take Hollywood opinions with a grain of salt. One of the most common arguments I hear against actors is that “they’re experts at acting, not politics. They should stick with what they know.”

Fair enough, they’re not political experts.

But then, couldn’t the same statement be leveled at many of us?

“You’re a bank teller, not a political expert. Stay out of politics and stick with what you know.”

“You work in a marketing department, not the military. What gives you any right to opine about Benghazi?”

“You’re not an economist, so shut up about the economy.”

When we start demanding that people are experts, we put the nails in our own coffins. I do a lot of research about the subjects I report, but I’m not a credentialed “expert.” Many of us aren’t experts, either, we’re just concerned citizens trying to spread a message. We can tell Hollywood to sit down and shut up, but sooner or later the same thing is going to be said to each of us.

Embrace the 1st Amendment. Be a loud talker.

PS.
Also, stop freaking bashing Hollywood and start encouraging your kids to follow their dreams, especially if they want to be filmmakers or actors. This hostile attitude towards Hollywood is what is keeping it so liberal.

State Schools Superintendent John Barge is coming to Cobb County on Saturday to address concerns about the controversial Common Core standards.

The announcement of Barge’s visit to Cobb comes on the heels of a 4-3 vote by the Cobb Board of Education last week to reject the purchase of $7.5 million in math textbooks aligned with Common Core. This rejection at the local level came after the state had already committed to implementing the nationwide standards under the past two governors, Sonny Perdue and Nathan Deal, even though the Legislature has never voted on the issue.

That Barge would come to Cobb to face what is likely to be a room full of fellow Republicans with deep-seated suspicions about a federal program is a sign that worry is building in Atlanta about the possibility of a grassroots revolt against Common Core.

Barge is scheduled to address the Cobb Republican Party Breakfast at 8:15 a.m. Saturday at the GOP’s Roswell Street headquarters.

Meanwhile, Republican office-holders in Cobb, along with those hoping to be elected to offices here, continue to line up against Common Core.

Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal – Schools chief to visit Cobb weigh in on Common Core

Here is SKSD’s response to a question about Common Core Standards in SKSD:

With the adoption of Common Core State Standards, we have an unprecedented opportunity to access instructional materials and innovative practices on a national level. Many of these resources are open source, meaning anyone can access the materials.

The primary responsibility of Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment program assistants is to take current and innovative research and practices from the field and determine how well it aligns to and supports instruction of Common Core State Standards and promotes college and career readiness in our district. The program assistants also participate in the national and state committees for Smarter Balance, Achieve, Next Generation, South Metro to Salem STEM Hub and national language arts consortium where they are able to provide input to the development of national and state instructional and assessment materials as well learn about innovations relative to CCSS.

We currently are working with both Stanford University and University of Colorado Boulder on development and implementation of instructional practices and materials for K-12 ELL students.

Additionally, the district applies for US Department of Education grants to support expansion through pilots of innovative practices developed by teachers in the field.

Source: http://www.salkeiz.k12.or.us/inside24j/inside24j-april-24-2013/ask-24j-22-questions-answered

Sociopaths very rarely have cohesive thoughts which can be used in debate or discussion. They simply attack you if you disagree with them. It’s kind of their deal, and forms the core of why people tend to steer clear of, make no eye contact with, or interact with insane or unstable individuals. Most of these poor souls don’t know they’re lacking in the critical thinking department and often react viscerally and intimidatingly, or even physically as a conflict resolution.

Which brings me to the contemporary Liberal: They attack you if you disagree with them as well, but there’s a distinct difference in most cases. They know a reasoned discussion will result in their position being exposed as myopic, loaded with unintended consequences, or even insane when the “repeating the same behavior and expecting different results” adage is applied. I say “most cases” because Liberals are known to use extreme intimidation, threats and even physical violence as conflict resolution as well.

I’m not going to bore you with examples, but Google the names, Kenneth Gladney, Allee Bautsch or Congressman Bob Etheridge for fodder. If that doesn’t get your blood running, try Christopher Dorner, Shawn R. Christy, or Theodore Kaczynski if you need your Liberals a little more extreme.

Liberals are paranoid, deceitful, insecure, vile, and delusional for sure, but the problem now is the sheer number of them in leadership positions in politics, the media and academia. While the rest of us were busy working hard, raising families, and generally just kicking ass, Liberals were slithering their way into power. The result is political correctness now being wielded like a sword against reasoned thought, and a scary growth of collectivism in America. When conservatives see policies put into place that are not working, the left attacks us personally. Let’s put the Left vs. the Right in proper context:

1) We see our immigration policy doesn’t work, you call us racist

2) We see America is over regulated; you say we want dirty air and water

3) We see the welfare system perpetuates misery, and you say we hate the poor

4) We see gay marriage as hurting the family, you call us homophobes

5) We see Al Gore getting rich off a hoax, you say we hate science.

6) We believe in all the Bill of Rights, you call us violent extremists

7) We believe American culture is exceptional; you say we’re imperialist

8) We believe in personal responsibility, you say we’re cruel

9) We want to protect unborn babies; you say we want a War on Women

10) We believe in God and liberty, you use a gay slur and call us teabaggers

When confronted with the facts or even doubt, Liberals will vilify or assault anyone they consider to be an adversary. Their opponents are not just someone who disagrees – they are the enemy who needs to be destroyed personally, professionally and even physically. Conservatives attack the issues, you attack us. You belittle, you use hate, you fear monger, you go after our kids and families without regard or remorse. It is a strategy outlined very plainly in a number of publications, with three of them standing out as primers for today’s American Left: Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, the Cloward-Piven strategy blueprint, and the Communist Manifesto.

Google them.

Check out Joe the Plumber’s blog!