Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion The goals of Common Core

22B the problem, I think, is that we loathe the idea of creating standards and then suggesting that not everyone will be able to meet them.

It's viewed as non-egalitarian and toxic-- to parse people as though some of them are more "worthy" than others.

On the one hand, I understand why that is. We don't want to be labeling people unjustly, nor are labels destiny-- or they shouldn't be, anyway.

But on the other, a single one-size-fits-all set of "goals" is breathtaking hubris when one considers the range of individuals who are supposed to be subjected to those standards.

No way is Common Core a good set of standards for kids with severe learning limitations. It's also not a good set of standards for kids at the other end of the ability curve. So right there, you've set up one group for failure-- by denying them vocational/technical training and the certification of basic literacy and numeracy that used to be associated with a high school diploma.

I say, bring back Vo-Tech coursework/paths in high schools, and bring back tracking... and (and this one is NEVER popular or particularly PC, I realize) at the high school level, FADE some supports for learning disabilities. That period of time ought to be doing a better job preparing students for the challenges that their real lives are going to present them with. By all means teach them effective coping strategies, but that needs to be more realistic, too-- the hand-holding part of things is about to go away, and too many of those students are not at all prepared for that.

We really can't all be rocket scientists-- or anything else, for that matter-- and why on earth would anyone think that was a good idea anyway?? We need plumbers, teachers, architects, carpenters and editors as well as neurosurgeons and aerospace engineers. The trick is finding something that you as a unique individual are both WELL-SUITED FOR and sparks some degree of passion for excellence within you. We've focused a lot on the latter, but far too little as of late on the former, quite frankly.

Of course, as most of us here have observed, setting 'standards' also seems to throw away the highest potential students, too-- because they lose that spark for excellence long before they are able to actually exercise it at anything.

Mediocrity (meets-or-exceeds standard, CHECK) is rewarded, and divergent or excellent performance is too frequently punished.

We've built a machine to process students, not a thoughtful process to educate them, I fear.