Absolutely agree that rote memorization of facts and figures is precisely what kills passion among students (and their teachers). But, that’s also exactly what the standards are trying to work against. That’s why the math standards place so much emphasis on numeracy as opposed to the time tables that I experienced, and why the ELA standards focus on textual analysis as opposed to learning about “theme” and “metaphor” as abstract ideas.
You are right: let’s have a debate about the effectiveness of the standards and entertain all “thoughtful reasons”. But, let’s be very clear with what we are debating. We’re not debating textbooks produced by Pearson, which are marketed as “Common Core-aligned”. We’re also not debating the worksheets you see on Facebook about your local third-grade teacher’s interpretation of the math standards in a confusing worksheet. The standards are listed on this website – that’s what we should be debating.
I’m not convinced with your comment:
I think the one thing we know for certain is that different kids learn different things in different ways at different times.
Yes, certainly there are third graders that aren’t ready for third grade math, and the reason we know that is because we’ve been able to assess them against commonly agreed upon benchmarks of what a third grader should be able to understand. But, the notion that developmentally third graders aren’t able to grasp the standards set out in the Common Core is not “certain” and does not comport with development science and the science of learning. Neither does “learning styles”, which I think you suggest with your comment about “different ways”. That’s largely been debunked – even by their original proponent.
