Quote Originally Posted by MrDenton View Post
Well, Dylan came home with an A+ on his math test today. If it wasn't for his mother sitting down and figuring it out with him he would've failed.
From what I just read above I took this away from it. CC is not to help the kids but more to balance the teachers. A great teacher is held back and a bad teacher can maintain the minimum requirements. Sounds like a teachers union thing to not have to do performance evaluations.


Oath Keeper
First and foremost, congratulate both of them on a job well done.

The union thing is the something for everyone part of it. The dumbing down of America isn't the goal, but could very easily become the effect. The intent was to give everyone a fair chance at learning by standardizing the way things are taught and establishing a minimum criteria for what constitutes a high school education. By doing this the poor school districts would in theory provide the same opportunity for their students to excel as a rich school district. While in the land of warm and fuzzy this is a great concept, holding some kids back so others can catch up is not even a near miss to an argument for promoting education. Most schools are so overrun with below standard kids that they don't have the resources to work with them and bring them up to the standard while also working with the talented and gifted kids. Guess who loses when there is a minimum which must be achieved? The average student's will be least affected by CC and the lower learners will be helped the most. The high learners will most likely be left to fend for themselves and not reach their maximum potential. Because, nobody is working to make every student the best they can be. Just meet the standard and the job is done. After all, who hangs around work and does extra work for no extra pay after the job is finished?