Unclear on Common Core
I hope one of the things that comes out of Gov. Corbett's request for clarification on Pennsylvania's adoption of national Common Core standards (“Corbett wants clarification on education standards,” May 23 and TribLIVE.com) is a public document clearly outlining what Pennsylvania has added to them.
The Pennsylvania Department of Education keeps insisting the state version of these K-12 requirements is different, but since Pennsylvania and every adopting state agreed they would not change Common Core itself and would add only up to 15 percent, what the department means is currently unknown to those outside it. That's not transparent governance.
Taxpayers, parents and teachers deserve to know, just like the governor, what exactly Pennsylvania kids will be learning and what the state Department of Education felt was necessary to add. It would also be nice if the department would release what research and evidence backs up its changes and which contributed to its decision to trade state standards for Common Core in the first place.
It's crazy how the people who pay for these things have to beg to know what they paid for and what it will mean for them.
The writer is an education research fellow at The Heartland Institute (heartland.org).
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.
- PETA & its tactics II
- Uncaring toward soldiers
- Being a volunteer firefighter
- PETA & its tactics I
- Bad cartoon
- New Kensington block party thanks
- Comprehensible failures
- Biased? Guilty as charged
- More than one hero
- Gas industry obfuscates the truth