A recent NYT article highlights the pockets of Common Core opposition while framing the CCLS in a positive light
“The standards, which were written by a panel of experts convened by governors and state superintendents, focus on critical thinking and analysis rather than memorization and formulas.The idea is to help ensure that students generally learn the same things in public schools across the country.”
In an absolute vacuum of a country where access to healthcare , prenatal care, parenting practices and funding of school districts is equally distributed, yes it would be a positive ideological position to take. But in an increasingly segregated country, pressuring states to hop on the bandwagon leaving them alone to play the implementation and the resourcing game is another story. Teachers expressed to me in Newark Public Schools that they cannot possibly go through a certain unit in the alloted time when many of their students are 3-4 years below grade level.
It’s like manufacturing a size small t-shirt, branding it as a “one-size fits all” design and expecting all the people in between to fit- join or die?
Not only does this not set a foundation for a sustainable model its seems like a slippery loopholed slope, afterall the federal government may not regulate curriculum, but influencing states decision through RTTT funds doesn’t violate this law and is perfectly constitutional. The General Education Provisions Act- GEPA” bans federal departments and agencies from directing, supervising, or controlling elementary and secondary school curriculum, programs of instruction, and instructional materials.1 ” Hopefully, national policy can push back against CCLS, in the Road to a National Curriculum, Engage Volume 13, Eitel & Talbert eloquently profess :
“Left unchallenged by Congress, these standards and assessments will ultimately direct the course of elementary and secondary study in most states across the nation, running the risk that states will become little more than administrative agents for a nationalized K-12 program of instruction and raising a fundamental question about whether the Department is exceeding its statutory boundaries. This road to a national curriculum has been winding and highly nuanced—and, as we will see below, full of irony.”