Recent articles about the Common Core standards reviewed political disagreements on the Republican side, but left untouched any substantive criticism of a one-size-fits-all approach to educating our students. One recent article cited a fairly mundane third-grade requirement, understanding perimeter, as if it were typical of the Common Core approach.

I am certainly willing to accept the notion that we can find a reasonable set of goals for most of our elementary students, although I doubt that all third graders will be able to reason in the following way: “Knowing that 8 x 5 = 40 and 8 x 2 = 16, one can find 8 x 7 as 8 x (5 + 2) = (8 x 5) + (8 x 2) = 40 + 16 = 56.” (CCSS.Math.Content.3.OA.B.5)

At the secondary level, I think the hope of finding a single set of standards that meets the wide-ranging abilities and interests of the population is a fool’s dream. If we want to engage our 14- to 18-year-olds, we have to show them relevance and encourage them to find a way to be interested. We should acknowledge that there are many pathways to success and provide access to several.

If a 23-year-old left high school, then got a GED, attended a community college training program, and then got work repairing computers or cars, did she fail?

If we accept a set of standards that under-educates those who need math and mis-educates those who don’t, have we failed?

Jim PerkinsWayne

Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.