(Guest post by Greg Forster)
The Foundation for Excellence in Education has recently been blasting out a series of emails denouncing “myths” about Common Core. Guess it’s not so inevitable after all!
Ironically, the email that just came over the transom proves the point I was making Friday. Then, I wrote that Common Core is bad for school choice where single-state movements for high standards were not because the drive to create common standards across many states implies a one-size-fits-all mentality that’s hostile to parental control. I wrote:
Consistently, CC advocates have used adjectives like “national” and “common” as if they were synonyms for “better.”
And sure enough, here comes FEE cheerleading for Common Core with an email under the subject heading:
Support for High Academic Standards Builds Across the Nation
You see the presupposition behind this? Support for national standards is identical with support for high standards; those who oppose nationalization are for low standards.
Remember, kids: Diversity is weakness!
As I wrote this week, there are two worldviews at war here – one that wants to see more diversity in education because children have unique needs, parents know best, and parents can be trusted more than experts and bureaucrats; and one that wants to see less diversity because there’s one best way, we know what it is, we can get the bureaucracy to do it and we won’t be corrupted.
Jay P. Greene's Blog 
Greg, sorry, but these are not two worldviews clashing, they are two ships passing in the night. You fail to consider that we already have a public education system, that it is largely controlled by the states, and that it is failing huge swaths of students, thus failing miserably to put the public’s money to responsible use. A market-based system of schools (with back-pack financing) may indeed be the best means of organizing public education, but attempting to conflate a common core and a nationalized curriculum is absurd and no amount of repetition of the absurdity will make it right. Push for the free-market, but not by denying legions of American children their 14th amendment right to an equal (or even a moderately competent) education. The two ships need to run in the same direction.
Peter Meyer, please…stop…please….ROFL…OMG…woo hoo!…
You’re killing me here! Are you actually TRYING to be hilarious with this bit of twisted satire here, or are you so truly obtuse that you’re believing your own BS?
First moronic sentence: “You fail to consider that we already have a public education system, that it is largely controlled by the states, and that it is failing huge swaths of students, thus failing miserably to put the public’s money to responsible use.”
How is any of this relevant to what Jay has written? Your dubious remarks—replete with discredited cliches and false assertions—seem to be more an attempt to confuse readers and shift attention from the obvious than anything else.
Second moronic sentence: “A market-based system of schools (with back-pack financing) may indeed be the best means of organizing public education, but attempting to conflate a common core and a nationalized curriculum is absurd and no amount of repetition of the absurdity will make it right.”
On the contrary, you make the truly bizarre claim that “attempting to conflate a common core and a nationalized curriculum is absurd”. And why is that? Are you actually trying to make some tortured, Orwellian “argument” that by branding it a “COMMON CORE” it somehow isn’t a national curriculum?!?!
Please. Don’t embarrass yourself more than you already have.
Also, “Back-Pack Financing”? How cute. Does this mean we should stuff a check in our little one’s backpack or will you accept the proceeds of their broken piggy bank?
Also, I trust that every “voucher” will be for the exact same amount of money for ALL children—and that ALL schools will charge no more than the amount of said voucher? Yes? Or, that no family will be allowed to spend any personal funds above and beyond the voucher. Because otherwise this is known as “A Tuition Supplement For The Already Wealthy”, and voters won’t buy it—even in the most conservative backwaters of Kansas and Kentucky. It’s wrong and no amount of repetition of the absurdity will make it right.
Dear Frank, having served time on a board of education and played rugby (not at the same time), I know how to take a hit. But as student of education policy, I can assure you that making a fool of ones self goes with the territory. However, in this case, as a fan of Orwell myself, I do believe that words mean something and the last time I checked “common” does not mean “nationalized.” And “standards” are not a “curriculum.” To paraphrase David Coleman (from the CUNY Institute launch event (http://roosevelthouse.hunter.cuny.edu/ciep/), one can misread anything. Hopefully, I can get to some of your other statements later.
cheers,
peter
When you quote David Coleman, you give away your progressive bent….Coleman is aligned with several Type2 Philosophy progressive groups: Bill Ayers, Obama, Bill Gates, Grow Networks, Student Achievement Partners, The Annenberg Fdn, Carnegie Corp., and sad to say, is now president of the College Baord, where he is aligning the SAT with CCSS.
When asked at a news conference “What if CCSS fails?” He replied: “Blame the teachers.”
Coleman was never a teacher.
Frank-
Just the other day I was worrying about our little Mos Eisley cantina lacking representation from the utterly ignorant but completely smug brainwashed by teacher union propaganda community. Imagine my relief when you decided to drop in!
We like to look at the actual school choice programs around here, but every now and then its great to have someone come by and dream up programs and problems that don’t actually exist in the real world. We’re very tolerant of that sort of thing as long as you don’t mistake self-serving paranoid fantasy for reality.