I'm sorry, but if this woman has a PhD, it's in I'm a Moron.
Here's one of the questions she's whinging on about like a total piker:
You have learned about electricity by reading two articles, “Energy Story” and “Conducting Solutions,” and viewing a video clip titled “Hands-On Science with Squishy Circuits.” In an essay, compare the purpose of the three sources. Then analyze how each source uses explanations, demonstrations, or descriptions of experiments to help accomplish its purpose. Be sure to discuss important differences and similarities between the information gained from the video and the information provided in the articles. Support your response with evidence from each source.
And here's her little bitch-whine about it:
Eva’s comment on this question: “It’s impossible, and there’s like 15 parts.” Just as I feared, she exaggerated. There are only four parts. But take a close look at those parts. Can you figure out what you’re supposed to be doing here, President Obama? And could you have done it in seventh grade?
Evidently her child is just as much of a moron, because there is no way that anyone other than a moron would say "there’s like 15 parts."
Can I figure out what I'm supposed to be doing here? Yup. Yep. Sure can. Apparently I'm brighter than a PhD in English even though I don't even have a PhD at all.
What am I supposed to do? I'm supposed to take two texts and a video clip that I've already read or watched
and I'm supposed to summarize them with emphasis on using details from the sources rather than simply paraphrasing everything.
What's the purpose of each source? A PhD in English cannot figure that out? Almost everything written is written with a purpose - i.e., why the person who wrote it actually wrote it. In this case, clearly the purpose of each source is explaining some aspect of electricity to its readers. The first source, "Energy Story," is most likely a broad view of what energy is, in particular that electricity is a form of energy. Oooh, that was hard, and I haven't even read the thing myself.
The second source, "Conducting Solutions," is most likely a discussion of how electricity is conducted - how it travels through things and from one thing to another, and probably includes a description of how electricity can travel across copper wires, just like the ones in the walls of your home. Oooh, that was hard, and I haven't even read the thing myself.
The third source, a video clip called "Hands-On Science with Squishy Circuits" sounds rather interesting, but it's purpose is almost certainly an explanation/discussion of a few types of electrical circuits - you know, like the circuit you make when you take a battery, two lengths of copper wire, and a light bulb, connect one piece of wire to the positive terminal on the battery and the bottom of the light bulb, and connect the second piece of wire to the negative terminal on the battery and the side of the light bulb. Guess what happens - the light bulb lights up! My further guess - see how good I am even though I haven't seen the clip - is that this was a hands-on thing - there were probably kids in the video playing with various kinds of circuits, maybe some made out of things like potatoes (which you can do, a potato can be used as a very weak battery). Oooh, that was hard, and I haven't even seen the thing myself.
Next, we have to pull some details from each source to show/explain how that source uses explanations, demonstrations, or descriptions of experiments to accomplish its purpose. Here's my guess: the first source probably relies mostly on explanations to describe some basic facts about energy and electricity, such as the fact that electricity is made up of subatomic particles called electrons which carry a negative charge and so flow from the negative terminal to the positive terminal. It might even have described a simple experiment you could do to see this.
The second source probably relied more on descriptions of experiments that could be done to see and understand some facts about how electricity moves - is conducted - through and across various items. Maybe it described an experiment you could do to show that electricity will flow through metal, but it won't flow through glass.
The third source probably relied on demonstrations to show the various things it was trying to teach its viewers about electricity. Maybe it had a couple of kids in it who put together a circuit consisting of a battery, some wire, and a light bulb, and we all get to see how the bulb lights up and glows when the circuit is completed.Are you seriously telling me that a PhD in English couldn't even accomplish that level of analysis of a fairly simple question written in plain English and in pretty correct sentences as well? Really? Really really?
If this is what counts as critical analysis of common core, then the primary conclusion to be drawn here is that a lot of parents are bitching and moaning because they're too stupid to understand fairly simple English.
Come on people, stop getting lost in the weeds and start focusing on the things in Common Core that are worth criticising, such as the way some states and school districts are simply dumping the entire thing on kids midstream without allowing either them or their teachers to get familiar with the materials gradually.
Apparently it is possible for morons to get PhDs.