Knot,
I try to write on here fairly short answers. There is no good way to convey thought about a complex subject on a MB, and no point in writing well constructed posts that are not read.
It was not my intent to defend CC, or to argue its merit or its effectiveness, and I never did.
It was my intent to speak out against the madness in the original post. That led to refuting Dell's inaccurate - or dishonest - whichever they were, claims.
I said that Dell's original post, and his later statements, were full of BS, dishonest, lacking in truth and facts, and nothing more than the low information ravings of a fear monger selling ad time by telling scared little men what they want to hear. Essentially, Mommy Roth confirming the little boys' fears. All for $$$.
( More or less... And it was and is, and they were and are...)
There is not one fact in his original post. It is all, at best, conjecture, or what the writer thinks or is afraid, might, happen. At worst it is nothing more than opportunistic fear mongering and hate for sale. The few "facts" in the entire article are historically incorrect, and have been disproven by simple reference to actual history, repeatedly. Still... They keep getting repeated by the extreme right "media", and regurgitated by their followers.
Shades of Goehring.
I flat out said that I was not qualified to judge the effectiveness of CC, but you accuse me of doing so. Read, for comprehension, much?
Two degrees and 35 yrs. of experience in a wide range of aviation jobs/functions, including doing a ton of training here, too. Big deal. Doesn't make me an expert on everything, or on anything else. I happen to think that the teachers using this stuff are more qualified to judge it's worth than I am, as I am more qualified to comment on an airline's pilot training program than they are.
Being a parent, or having a kid in school, makes me no more qualified to judge CC's value than the typical passenger is qualified to judge whether a flight is operated as safely and efficiently as possible, or whether or not the airplane was well designed or is well maintained.
That is not the same as not caring, or as not having an opinion.
Reading the standards and program itself, about the principles of K-12 education, and about history of and the of the effectiveness of various previous methods and programs, etc., absolutely would improve a parent's ability to make that judgement. Reading the Canada Free Press, or Dell's posts, not so much...
I did say that I think it is an honest attempt by good people to improve education.
Are you qualified to judge that it isn't, or won't.
Can anyone make that judgement, so soon after it's introduction?
Objectively, I think not.
Have an opinion, yea, sure. Make an objective valuation? How? There is no data, or even a significant body of anecdotal "evidence", to be evaluated.
Yet you claim that it "is a failure".
"It may eventually prove to be..." I would have to agree with. "Is..." is impossible to substantiate, at this point in time.
Relevant to the decision to implement CC, or anything else, someone has to make a judgement whether it is likely to be an improvement, considered against the options of either doing nothing or implementing some other standards/program. The states are free to make that choice. If they choose some "local" standards and/or program, they may have to pay for it with local $$$. That seems exactly in agreement with the traditional conservative position.
Dellusional asked if I read. I answered that I did, with some examples. Always have, voraciously, everything from the bible and Dr. Seuss and the Encyclopedia as a kid, to Clancy, tons of history, to (some of...) the classics as an adult. I was just answering his question, not claiming that it alone made me educated, or "smart". I will maintain that reading the sorts of stuff I mentioned is more enlightening and educational than the Canada Free Press, or any of the hyper-political material found on the "partisan" sites. For current affairs, the W$J, NYT, the Economist, CSM are reliable, if you take their bias into account. Otherwise, I look for well written and well researched articles, and turn up the BS/bias filter. None of us have the time to thoroughly research everything from the source materials, but we don't have to waste our time with sources that are openly, and hostilely ideological.
IMO, it is also worth remembering that when our historical figures and heroes "read the law", or " studied mathematics", it meant just that. They read, or studied. They didn't sit in a classroom and have it spoon fed to them. Being educated, or learned, didn't mean that they had "been educated", or "attended university", or "graduated with degrees". It meant that they read, and thought. Obviously they thought critically, and didn't just accept the establishment version of order, or appropriate thinking.
Lastly, I would have assumed that someone as educated as yourself, especially with your expressed appreciation for this country's history and the people that created it, would know that The Age of Reason is a bit more than just a blog by some self appointed expert or unknown bigmouth. It is the culmination of Thomas Paine's lifetime of keen observation and critical thinking. The Age of Reason is widely praised as the masterpiece of a widely respected patriot, thinker, writer, scholar and supporter/catalyst for the the American Revolution.
Dismiss it as a blog?
Seriously?
I think this is reasonably clearly written. If you have trouble with it, perhaps slow down and see if you can understand it. Unless, of course, your real intent is not to understand, but rather just to criticize.
If you have trouble with this, I can certainly understand your not being able to "get" Paine, or even Twain. I am not in any way comparing myself to them, just saying that sometimes comprehension, and thought, requires effort.
Sncerely,