Maybe I should ask, in whose agenda is this student a pawn, and why?
This student citing his own authentic experience which leads him to form a viewpoint which you many not share does not make him a "pawn". While participants on gifted forums often decry labels, and other practices which may seem to judge an individual as "less than", seeking instead to raise awareness and serve needs which others may not see... let us also carefully consider the needs each person takes time to share with us, rather than claim these needs do not exist or do not create vulnerability for negative impact.
If you would like to share your own personal anecdote and experiences which lead you to draw a different conclusion, that would be received open-mindedly.
Well, okay-- but--
my OWN authentic experience suggests many, many things to me personally.
Many of my conclusions are subjective and have changed as I have become older, more sophisticated, more
wise (at least I hope) and less naive and self-centered.
I've run into this
precise impassioned hubris many times before. It's endemic in the population at 12-26 years old, honestly. The problem is that they can't know what they don't know.
I'll also add that a great many of my daughter's academic peers have NO idea how to authentically identify propogandized materials, how to do critical vetting of sources, etc. Not. a. clue.
So they're perfectly capable of placing a primary source from a named author and official agency on equal footing with an anecdote from a radicalized blogger or a corporate marketing ploy.
Like Val, I've spent significant time delving into the science (and math) standards in CC-- and there is a
ton to love in there. Will parents and kids love it? Probably not, is my guess. It's distinctly devoid of fluff and edutainment opportunities, instead focused on developing the skills to
acquire understanding by using a series of "big ideas" in order to generate DEEPER understanding rather than taking a hydroplane ride around the world. So to speak.
Is it fair to drop kids INTO CC when they've not experienced this kind of strategy before? No, probably not. I get why those families are feeling shellshocked and complaining. But like Val, I disagree with their conclusions about CC on that basis. It's essentially anecdata, not necessarily meaningful.
If I were going to ask for a better-designed curriculum, the subject-teams that worked on CC would be on my wishlist.
Do I agree with continued testing-frenzy? No, I don't. Frankly, I would have liked:
a) extensive teacher training for several YEARS prior to rollout,
b) non-copyrighted material so that publishers could actually USE the standards to create different types of materials to support them,
c) phased implementation-- starting with kids in K and 1. Modified implementation at grades 3-8, and phased modifications over the next four years for grades 9-12 (the same cohort currently in 8).
