Common Core: “Obtuse Mumbo Jumbo”   2 comments

Yesterday, Cato Institute published a great article that exposes some serious problems about Common Core “education.”

Here’s my favorite part.

Neal McClusky writes:  “I sure hope the Common Core doesn’t have lessons on ambiguity, because I don’t think the crafters grasp the concept. This explanation couldn’t be much more ambiguous, stating that English classes must focus on literature “as well as” nonfiction. Sure sounds like a 70-30 or 50-50 split could be mandated under that. This is, of course, exactly the kind of obtuse mumbo-jumbo one should expect from a document — and overall effort — that tries to simultaneously be revolutionary and innocuous. And wouldn’t it have been wonderful if this sort of thing had been hashed out before states were cajoled into adopting the standards? But then there would have been public disagreements, and all the silliness of people holding different opinions is exactly what destroyed past efforts to impose uniform standards on the country.”


2 responses to “Common Core: “Obtuse Mumbo Jumbo”

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. So what’s the answer for city’s with 40% plus mobility and/or military kids who move every 2 years? Continue to allow everyone to have their own lofty standards and then complain about “teaching to the test” rather than mastery of skills making them ready for work or ready for college?

  2. Thanks for your comment, Jo. The word you used, “allow” is a key to your answer. Who has the right to disallow that local freedom, to set our own standards, state by state or district by district, under the Constitution and G.E.P.A. law? It’s not the Dept. of Education. It’s not the U.N. Nobody can or should ever tell independent localities what to teach. Because what if that entity who has the power to “allow” or “disallow” is unwise? What if they push an agenda you don’t like on your children, or remove classic literature, or use fuzzy math, for example? Where is your voice to fix those problems if you have given that right away to a federal or international entity that wants to solve mobility problems? Free entities can choose to work together, to innovate and to learn from one another, and that’s great! But a top down, lockstep system is not the answer. We need to remain a free nation in every sense of that word, especially in education. We can then aspire to the best examples among us, which we should have done before. For example, Massachusetts was a world leader before they dumbed down to common core. Some states may have raised a standard for a grade or two, but many have dumbed many grades down in order to all be the same under Common Core. Besides that, the federal government hijacked privacy with the data collection on the common tests (see the “Cooperative Agreement” which I’ve written a lot about here. It’s a violation of student/citizen privacy, of individual (not governmentally guided) career planning, of local educational decision making, and so much more. The oft-used line that the Dept. of Education has spouted about Common Core “solving mobility problems,” is about as relevant as saying that because people move, everyone should build their homes the same so that when a new family moves into town, they don’t have to worry about how their furniture will work in different architecture. We don’t all want the exact same thing when we move. We make adjustments because life is varied, as it should be.

Comments are welcome here.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: