We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I wholeheartedly agree that mastery over subjects is a better approach than the shallow repetition that currently exists.
However, it's disengenuous to claim that the CCSS are such an improvement, especially when the lead writer argues that the specifics to such an approach are beyond the scope of CCCS, and he refers to them as policy, which is an incorrectly used term, yet one that opens the door to more gov't intrusion.
Additionally, we see support coming from college educators, who are the very ones who created the mess they're criticizing and addressing.
Finally, whatever was intended by the authors of the CCSS, we've seen from the video that the implementers will undermine any benefits by NOT holding to rigor, and NOT requiring mastery of the material.
Finally, we've seen that whatever the authors, and their
I can see the need if the goal is provide a suggested course of study prior to appointment to one of the service academies, civil service or local major employer. But this should be a local school board decision.
Whether common core is such, can't say, reading professional educators causes brain shutdown.
Sorry I'm late with a comment, but I have to disagree.
I think that having a nation-wide curriculum would be a great idea. We should create a minimum standard for what an educated person should be. We should be able to build a standard for measuring reading comprehension or illiteracy. Beyond the minimums, I would like to see a "platinum plan," a knowledge base for gifted students or exceptional schools to shoot for.
The goals of these standards would be:
1. To serve as a model so that students who move from place to place know what to expect.
2. To serve as a model for people who are thinking about home schooling.
3. To serve as a high, perhaps impossibly high, standard for schools to try to achieve.
4. To start a dialog at the state level for states to set standards. This is very important for students who move around, but it also provides a way for testing and measuring progress.
5. To provide a starting point or a vocabulary for comparing achievement. For example, Detroit schools are a disaster because they have a 47% illiteracy rate. That's a number that could have a precise definition, and we should be able to use that number to compare with Chicago's schools. Without measurable standards, it's hard to compare school programs.
Now, do I favor the Federal government enforcing these standards on local schools? No. They have no business doing that. In my core standard in Civics, students are required to know what the Tenth Amendment is about.
Do I favor watered-down standards the way the Clinton and Obama Administrations propose? Hell NO. To be effective, we should be setting high standards and talking about a high level of achievement.