Haphazardly Written
The intro is nearly entirely very poorly written. An example:
| “ | According to The Washington Post, Singapore’s standards were used to develop the Common Core. A ridiculous Common Core test for first graders The Washington Post - October 31, 2013 In Singapore, students begin Grade 1 at age 7 after two years of kindergarten. This is not an argument for starting school at a later age. Canadian students also begin first-grade at age 6. | ” |
Why the unrelated link in the middle of a section on Singapore? Why talk about when certain nations begin, when this has nothing at all to do with the Common Core, which neither changes nor is affected by this?
| “ | But we must recognize, especially given that | ” |
Why the unended sentence?
| “ | There are numerous objections to Common Core from across the political spectrum. Criticisms include:
it is untested, and there is no evidence that it will improve learning or educational results it adds more costs, which requires more taxes to support it it imposes a massive federal tracking system for students, like Big Brother on steroids it establishes more federal (national) control over curriculum, which infringes on local and parental control it has been imposed without approval by many state legislatures, and without adequate discussion or debate |
” |
This section, which makes many authoritative statements, has no citations whatsoever. An authoritative rebuttal of CCSS must have authoritative sources.
| “ | While common core makes fairly detailed recommendations for mathematics teaching in grades K-8, it does not attempt to set curricula for high school, grades 9-12. Instead, it lists general "categories": Number/quantity, Algebra, Functions, Geometry, Modeling, and Probability/statistics. The document on the subject, here lists the sorts of things that could be expected to be covered in those categories: conics, vectors, matrices, functions in general, exponentials and logarithms, complex numbers, polynomials, and trig functions. These are the usual things that comprise pre-calculus.
The mathematics part of Common Core pays particular attention to the use of proofs in the teaching of geometry, and the need for a uniform presentation of proof concepts between junior-high level and high-school level teaching. See here for an excruciatingly detailed analysis of some proofs about parallelograms and triangles in sections G.CO.10 and G.CO.11 of the Common Core. Also, see here: "The geometry standards in the CCSS deviate from the usual geometry standards in at least two respects, one big and one small. The small one is that, for the first time, special attention is paid to the need of a proof for the area formula for rectangles when the side lengths are fractions." |
” |
Why the random digression into mathematics? This could go in a detailed mathematics-related section of the CCSS, but it's pointless here, especially because it adds nothing to the discussion of the positives or negatives of CCSS. Additionally, the third "here" (http://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/Progressions_Geometry.pdf) is 404'd.
| “ | Common Core deprives parents and local authorities of their control over education, and instead transfers control to unaccountable organizations and bureaucrats at the national level.
In spring 2013, grassroots and Tea Party opposition has arisen in many locations nationwide to Common Core. |
” |
Why a lack of discussion of HOW the CCSS deprives people, or WHY the Tea Party opposed it? Deliberating on both of these could only help inform a reader and make them more likely to oppose. In addition, this section, like the much of the rest of the intro, suffers from a lack of references.JSchwartz 18:12, 26 February 2014 (EST)