Would you please kindly explain what you mean by this?

I mean, every child in the public school system is entitled to resources that help him or her achieve, theoretically, his or her potential to contribute to society. Whether or not this is possible, is up for debate, but certainly, we cannot say that your entering talent level should keep you from getting an education, even if you're in the boring 50th%. Right now, our public schools on average do not do that. So they established higher standards.

The Common Core is set such that all students are prepared to contribute to society by joining the workforce, a trade school, a college, or university upon graduation.

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 it were not currently meeting Common Core standards (or higher), that suggests it was failing the majority of students passing through.

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.

Multi-age flexible cluster grouping has been discussed on several threads over time as providing a means of acceleration without incurring additional cost. Many believe it is not a budgetary issue, but an issue of attitude toward gifted pupils.

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.

Some may say the result is patching words together to Frankenstein a new meaning?

Sorry about that-- I did get words switched around while copying and pasting.

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.

Last edited by binip; 03/20/14 12:24 PM.