William J. Bennett on The Conservative Case for Common Core

 We've all heard so much against CC, I felt it past time to see what the case is for it. TD


 "Federal intrusion and misleading rumors do a disservice to an effort that started in the states."

Wall Street Journal
. . . "When I was chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities in the 1980s, I asked 250 people across the political spectrum what 10 books every student should be familiar with by the time they finish high school. Almost every person agreed on five vital sources: the Bible, Shakespeare, America's founding documents, the great American novel "Huckleberry Finn" and classical works of mythology and poetry, like the Iliad and the Odyssey.

 

"The same goes for math. Certain abilities—the grasp of fractions, decimals, percentages, ratios and the like—should be the common knowledge of all.

"That's the fundamental idea behind a core curriculum: preserving and emphasizing what's essential, in fields like literature and math, to a worthwhile education. It is also, by the way, a conservative idea.

. . . "Forty-five states signed up originally. But the process was contaminated by politics, and that brings us to the debate we have now."

 Conservatives have reason to be upset by this federal overreach. The Obama administration has run roughshod over individual rights and state sovereignty, on issues ranging from health care to climate change. But the federal intrusion into Common Core, however unwelcome and unhelpful, does not change a basic truth: Common, voluntary standards are a good, conservative policy.

We have associated CC in our minds with Obama's social engineering, but apparently it is not.

. . . " Why then is Common Core drawing such heavy fire? Some of the criticism is legitimate, but much of it is based on myths. For example, a myth persists that Common Core involves a required reading list. Not so. Other than four seminal historical documents—the Declaration of Independence, the preamble to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address—there is no required reading list. Textbook companies have marketed their books disingenuously, leading many parents to believe that under Common Core the government mandates particular textbooks. Also not true." . . . Emphases mine, TD

The standards are designed to invite states to take control and to build upon them further. The standards do not prescribe what is taught in our classrooms or how it's taught. That decision should always rest with local school districts and school boards.
The principles behind the Common Core affirm a great intellectual tradition and inheritance. We should not allow them to be hijacked by the federal government or misguided bureaucrats and politicos.

Henceforward I will not reject a candidate just because he or she likes Common Core. TD

 Seven facts you should know about new Common Core tests

 The problem(s) with the Common Core standards 

 "Our schools will not improve if we continue to focus only on reading and mathematics while ignoring the other studies that are essential elements of a good education... Our schools will not improve if we value only what tests measure... Not everything that matters can be quantified."

. . . "If the organizations that were so gung-ho to produce the national standards don’t see that their job has just begun, and that the next, even larger, effort is to secure equitable resources for schools, then the document being released today will have little meaning." . . .

Good debate on education here: The Common Core will be the tipping point for homeschoolers