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

The authors point out that the Common Core goal to make every student ready for college is unrealistic. Hacker previously wrote a widely-discussed (including here) essay "Is Algebra Necessary?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/opinion/sunday/the-common-core-whos-minding-the-schools.html
Who’s Minding the Schools?
By ANDREW HACKER and CLAUDIA DREIFUS
New York Times
June 8, 2013

What's wrong with having a clearly articulated set of standards? That doesn't mean everyone should be expected to reach the same level.

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.

I've never been able to figure out that one myself.

I'm generally good at ending up doing things for which I am neither well-suited nor have any passion for.

The problem is that you have to pick *something* and then you are locked in, even though the only reason that you picked anything is because you had to choose *something*.

It's okay to have instruments like rulers and scales to measure height and weight. You just want to have them callibrated well. That in no way implies that everyone is expected to be the same height and weight.

It's good to have a clearly articulated set of standards. You can use it to say whether a person has mastered a certain level of algebra. You can use it to say whether a person is ready for calculus.

I'm all for tracking and vocational training. I don't see how having a set of standards contradicts any of that.

Here's a guy who thinks that it's a "technocratic" approach.

"I think there are some humanists who sincerely support the common core as an ideal, and I can understand their thinking, but it is naive support. The common core is a creature of the neoliberal technocratic mindset, and it will be used as one tool among many now being deployed to further dehumanize the education provided in our public schools, whatever propaganda is spewn to deny such an intent."

http://afterthefuture.typepad.com/afterthefuture/page/2/

Generally speaking, our public school system doesn't see it that way. The trend among educators and especially those involved in education policy is that the "achievement gap" between different SES groups MUST be closed. Ability grouping of any kind exacerbates the gap and therefore must not be allowed.

This means that we force the slower learners to take algebra and we force the faster ones to move at a pace that's glacial for them. And then the educrats pretend that this is a good thing. The kids at the bottom of the gap arencloser to the kids at the top. Never mind that it happened because we watered down the algebra course and because we created a ceiling to stop the faster learners! And we will conveniently ignore the kids who dropped out because they couldn't pass algebra and the kids who did pass but fail the placement test in college next year and end up in remedial math.

The entire approach is driven in large part by the idea that relative wealth is the sole factor in the achievement gap and that apparent differences in ability are not due biology in any way.

I think that people have become very uncomfortable with the idea that some people are just smarter than other people. I can understand that this is an uncomfortable thing; I certainly feel uneasy when someone remarks that I'm very intelligent. But when we let the unease drive policy, we create a disaster.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Brilliantly summed up and maddening beyond belief.

I'm sure you're right that some people "think" like that. But it should be made clear that there are more than two sides to this debate. I'm all for standards that can be used for measuring achievement, but am vehemently opposed to the goal of equal achievement for all.

I agree with you completely. But the problem is that the people in charge of the schools and a lot of the teachers really believe this stuff. It's an ideology. And you can't debate rationally. I've tried many times. They get angry or ignore the facts or dismiss them or something else or a combination of these things. They see the higher achievers as being "already proficient" and the concept that they could learn more is seen as widening the achievement gap. I haven't just debated this locally; I've been in discussions at national conferences and during grant review for a federal agency. It sucks.