Common Core: More crud
More evidence that top-down, one-size-fits-all Common Core school standards lower the academic bar, especially in math, is provided by two educators who served on Common Core's Validation Committee but refused to sign off on the national standards.
Why? Because with the exception of a few standards in trigonometry, the math component ends after Algebra II and includes no precalculus or calculus, says James Milgram, a professor of mathematics emeritus at Stanford University.
And based on the government's own data, students who went no further than Algebra II have less than a 40 percent chance of earning a four-year college degree, according to the Pioneer Institute, a public policy think tank.
So it comes as no surprise that William McCallum, a lead writer for Common Core's math standards, told a meeting of mathematicians, “The overall standards would not be too high, certainly not in comparison to other nations, including East Asia, where math education excels,” according to Sandra Stotsky, Ph.D., a professor emerita at the University of Arkansas, who also served on the Validation Committee.
Nevertheless, 46 state boards of education, including Pennsylvania's, signed off on the Common Core standards. It's doubtful any asked faculty at their own high schools, or higher-education institutions, to analyze the program's definition of college readiness, writes Stotsky.
Those who so blindly endorsed this dreck all deserve dunce caps.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The regulatory state: EPA picks a fight
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- A manger’s light
- Ford City’s solution: Good side to cop cuts
- Holiday Gift Club: The spirit of the season
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- An NLRB ambush
- Union ‘fairness’: The dues racket
- Pension reform should not be linked to a natural gas extraction tax
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- The Kathleen Kane chronicles: New and serious questions are being raised about the Pa. attorney general