The new requirements are meant to provide a consistent scale to evaluate the preparedness of students. Really in one sense this may hurt some schools, but with the increases in private and charter schools it may also to be a way to evaluate the quality of education children are getting across systems and state lines.
They are mandating that 70% of literature be nonfiction. That has lit teachers in an uproar as it should considering that nonfiction is also known as history.
I saw some stuff that indicated that Common Core was meant to better prepare people for trade vocations than promote reading and learning. What else am I missing?
Also someone was saying that it was 30% tougher so I was wondering if it was not just another cog in the wheel of education privatization. Although that is my soap box I do not know if that is a/the motive of common core.
Calling it "tougher" would be relative to what your school already teaches, but I can tell you this. I teach at the flagship of my district which is in the top 3-5 of every category and one of the best performing districts in the state, and this stuff is going to be a lot tougher for my kids. It just goes to show you how education can't be left to the states anymore. What does it matter to be at a good school if that school is in a shitty state education wise?
states rights on education. 2 plus 2 is the same in South Carolina as it is in Wisconsin.