Common core: Common crud
An unapologetic defender of top-down Common Core school standards says the federal government's latest fix for public education is no overreach; it's the government's right.
After all, reasons Paul Reville, a Harvard professor and former education secretary for Massachusetts, “Why should some towns and cities and states have no (academic) standards and others have extremely high standards when the children belong to all of us and would move (to different states in their educational lives)?”
Of course, Mr. Reville wasn't appealing to common sensibilities. He was addressing the liberal Center for American Progress, whose founder, former President Clinton lefty John Podesta, now advises President Obama.
Reville was responding to growing public criticism of Common Core, which takes the government's long-failed one-size-fits-all approach to education and locks it down through fiscal coercion. States are free to choose to accept Common Core — if they want to retain their federal funding.
And make no mistake: The primary beneficiaries of this common crud aren't children — not when some standards are lowered to the point of absurdity, critics charge. No, the reward goes to various enterprises and educrats who will prosper within Common Core's food chain.
Common Core should be the last straw. And contrary to Reville's reasoning, our children don't belong to the government. They belong to their parents.
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.
- Saving RadioShack: Innovation vs. focus
- A chilly reception
- Sunday pops
- The truth about the VA: Rank dereliction of duty
- The Scottish vote: Defeat as victory