> Why exactly is it that you aren’t taught courses like math, or history or language according to your ability instead of your age?
That's exactly the question. Under Equitable Math, all children must always be at the same level up until the senior year, and Algebra will not be offered in middle school. Some children are ready for Algebra in middle school, and some aren't.
This is the most critical point of contention, and why the debate is not over whether the Common Core, which already emphasizes "deep" comprehension over rote memorization, ought be reformed to go even "deeper".
> I’m honestly no interested enough to read the 800 page document this article is about.
It's notable that the entire Common Core specification for math can be read in a single day. It is meant to be a coordinating document for many parties, and not just metaphorical lawyers.
> Under Equitable Math, all children must always be at the same level up until the senior year
Are they really advocating putting all kids in the same math class regardless of ability? That seems completely insane to me. For some fraction of the class, literally handing them a textbook and telling them to go nuts would be better in every way. At the other end, some of those kids feel awful for holding the class back.
Could someone help me understand what the big picture is here? How does this actually help the under-privileged students in any way? Are they expecting that this will level the playing field for college admissions and the job market?
> How does this actually help the under-privileged students in any way? Are they expecting that this will level the playing field for college admissions and the job market?
It allows them to become teachers and school social workers and school admins and ... without requiring knowledge or capabilities they don't have?
School standards are about teachers and school management, not about students. Or, more to the point, they're about letting schools hire cheaper teachers, having simpler schedules, less hours, ... It massively simplifies the business that is a school.
At great cost to the kids and society as a whole, yes, but hey, savings! (goes on tv) "This is NOT about savings, this is about FAIRNESS. What are you, racist?"
You did not. Common core teaches some very weird methods of addition and multiplication, and has a "process over product" mentality - getting the wrong answer is fine with the right method, and getting the right answer with the "wrong" method is bad.
> Interpret a multiplication equation as a comparison, e.g., interpret 35 = 5 × 7 as a statement that 35 is 5 times as many as 7 and 7 times as many as 5. Represent verbal statements of multiplicative comparisons as multiplication equations.
That's exactly the question. Under Equitable Math, all children must always be at the same level up until the senior year, and Algebra will not be offered in middle school. Some children are ready for Algebra in middle school, and some aren't.
This is the most critical point of contention, and why the debate is not over whether the Common Core, which already emphasizes "deep" comprehension over rote memorization, ought be reformed to go even "deeper".
> I’m honestly no interested enough to read the 800 page document this article is about.
It's notable that the entire Common Core specification for math can be read in a single day. It is meant to be a coordinating document for many parties, and not just metaphorical lawyers.