OK, so every state basically had the same standards already, and they were basically already the same as the Common Core standards, except for the ones that weren't.

So, which kindergarten standards are a mess? And why would it cost "all that money" to switch to the Common Core standards that were basically already the same as the states' standards (that were all basically already the same) except for the kindergarten standards?

Anonymous wrote:

Also, if a state's standards were basically already the same as the Common Core standards, why would it cost "all that money" to switch to the Common Core standards?

Oh, I don't think all are essentially the same. The K standards are a mess.

Also, if a state's standards were basically already the same as the Common Core standards, why would it cost "all that money" to switch to the Common Core standards?

Anonymous wrote:

No, that was on another thread, and you are misquoting. Look again.

Well, I've read this thread. No positive outcomes of Common Core on this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

If the difference in standards from state to state isn't so huge then why all the pretense that so much control needs to be in the states, and why all the objections about just going ahead and making them uniform across the board? It's far more cost-effective to develop and maintain one standard, rather than independently developing and maintaining 50 different standards for each state. It's also pointless to have 50 different standards, given the needs from one state to the next really aren't different.

Why spend all that money when they already have standards they chose?

There's something about dealing with people you can see and talk to that makes the process just a wee bit more manageable and workable.

why all the objections about just going ahead and making them uniform across the board?

If the difference in standards from state to state isn't so huge then why all the pretense that so much control needs to be in the states, and why all the objections about just going ahead and making them uniform across the board? It's far more cost-effective to develop and maintain one standard, rather than independently developing and maintaining 50 different standards for each state. It's also pointless to have 50 different standards, given the needs from one state to the next really aren't different.

If the difference in standards from state to state isn't so huge then why all the pretense that so much control needs to be in the states, and why all the objections about just going ahead and making them uniform across the board? It's far more cost-effective to develop and maintain one standard, rather than independently developing and maintaining 50 different standards for each state. It's also pointless to have 50 different standards, given the needs from one state to the next really aren't different.

If the difference in standards from state to state isn't so huge then why all the pretense that so much control needs to be in the states, and why all the objections about just going ahead and making them uniform across the board? It's far more cost-effective to develop and maintain one standard, rather than independently developing and maintaining 50 different standards for each state. It's also pointless to have 50 different standards, given the needs from one state to the next really aren't different.

Anonymous wrote:

How does it make sense for Alabama to have different math standards from Wyoming or Rhode Island?

I would bet that the difference between the math standards in those states is not wildly huge. Also, the residents of those states can and should lobby for higher standards if they are dissatisfied. And, furthermore, the state standards do not completely drive the course offerings in the schools. If they did, we would not have anything beyond Algebra 2 here in Virginia (because that's the most the state requires for graduation). The truth is that the requirements to get into college are driving people's choices, especially at the high school level. The parents probably need to be educated on the entrance requirements for a national university if that is what the child wants. The good news is that students can take courses at NOVA and NOVA will help them get up to four year national college level if, for some reason, that didn't happen in high school (lack of maturity is a big reason). People under age 18 are still children (and even those over 18) in many ways.

No, that was on another thread, and you are misquoting. Look again.

Anonymous wrote:

There have been various posts on this page and the previous page of this thread, answering that very question.

Oh, you mean the post that said: because they are "common" and because they are "good". Sorry. That won't fly.

There have been various posts on this page and the previous page of this thread, answering that very question.