Some may say it is a false premise that implementation of common core standards will only negatively impact families of children who were "receiving too much" (from their school) "in comparison to the other kids in the first place."

Originally Posted By: binip
The only reason that a school would need to divert resources from existing accelerated programs to fund Common Core standards, would be if it were not currently meeting Common Core standards.

...

If your child, at the same time as around 80% of the population is being abjectly failed by the public school system, is receiving enriched college prep, I would say that he or she is receiving a disproportionate piece of the pie.

It's public school, for everyone.

Re: standards: Okay, pardon me, I was speaking in terms of education. Definitely, ph balance would be somewhere you wouldn't want to go to far from the standard either way. I live in a bubble, apparently, because here it would be unheard of to take a national standard and claim that we ought not exceed it. People try very hard to exceed standards.

...

While I like the idea of cluster grouping, it only works for some students, and it is naive to think that there are no budgetary issues with changing teaching methods.

...

Regarding the wording of CCSS, I am willing to bet they don't put that it is a floor explicitly because they do not want to highlight the existing inequality and insufficient effort among certain school districts. They have put the floors of the highest-achieving districts and international OECD benchmarks into the standards. That's all--whether these are taken as a minimum for now or as a goal (in the case of districts which are far from meeting them) is beside the point. The point is, we need to get everyone up to speed.

Do you really think your district is looking at these and thinking, "Hah. We knew it. Children should be banned from Calculus in high school." Ours certainly isn't.


Some may say the explanation quoted above is filled with the myths which families of gifted students and institutions advocating for the gifted have tried to overcome for several decades by raising awareness of the legitimate educational needs of gifted children. Rather than marginalizing gifted children, consider the following...

Students entering a grade knowing most (or all) of the material for the year still need to be learning something new every day. Some would say this does not indicate giving them a bigger share of the pie.


Being a "public school, for everyone" indicates that it ought to also be a learning environment for kids who are gifted/ahead. The opposite of that would be presuming that gifted/ahead kids come from families who could easily afford private educational options. Some may say that forcing gifted/ahead students out of public schools in droves would present another set of victimization issues.

Students not meeting standards is not necessarily indicative of schools failing them; Other threads have discussed familial issues including the neuro benefits of simply talking to babies from birth.

Flexible, multi-age cluster grouping by readiness and ability is not a "teaching method" per se, it is a means to populate a classroom with a less-stratified group of students essentially requiring less differentiation: Some may say it represents a cost efficiency.

Might some schools forsake high school calculus while diverting funds to implementing common core standards? While you challenge the notion here "Do you really think your district is looking at these and thinking, "Hah. We knew it. Children should be banned from Calculus in high school." Ours certainly isn't.", you seem to support it here: "If your child, at the same time as around 80% of the population is being abjectly failed by the public school system, is receiving enriched college prep, I would say that he or she is receiving a disproportionate piece of the pie."

By means of analogy, do schools tell their varsity teams they are receiving a disproportionate piece of the pie? That the varsity team will be benched until the JV team performs better? Specifically until every kid on the JV team performs at varsity level? Not every kid is able to do that; ALL kids... varsity, JV, and non-athletic kids... deserve acceptance, encouragement, and assistance to explore options which are available to them as they sacrifice, sweat, and improve their skills, talents, and abilities. If we can see that in regard to sports/athletics, why not in regard to academics?