Why America should abandon the Common Core and embrace the state-of-the-art

By Erin McClelland and Ben JacobsDuke University professor Erin McCalland is on a mission to make teaching easier.

She has just published a book about how to make learning easier in America, with the aim of making teaching more accessible to all. 

The Common Core has become a flashpoint in the fight for education reform.

The Common Access and Effective State Standards are a federal program designed to establish national standards of teaching and learning.

It’s aimed at teaching students how to read, write, and perform basic literacy and math skills.

It aims to help teachers create better students and better learning environments.

In theory, the Common Access Standards are supposed to make education more accessible.

But McCallis argument is that they’re not.

I have a couple of problems with this claim.


McCalland doesn’t say anything about the Common Standard itself.

Instead, she presents the Common Education Standards as a blueprint to improve instruction and teaching.

That’s fine, but McCallands argument about why the Common Standards are the way to go is that the Common Schools Initiative, which provides funding for the Common College Standards, is the best way to improve teaching and student learning.

But McCallies argument that the standard is a blueprint for improving instruction doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

The Common Standards don’t exist.


What does the Common Assessment Framework actually look like?

What does it actually mean?

The Common Assessment framework is the cornerstone of the Common School Initiative.

It sets the bar for standardized testing.

In addition, the standards and benchmarks in the Common Common Core, which are the same as the Common Comprehensive Standards, have been adopted by the National Governors Association, which oversees federal education policy.


How does the assessment framework actually work?

The assessment framework uses standardized tests, such as the SAT, the ACT, and the GRE, that are developed by the national laboratories.

In many cases, the assessments are taken by trained teachers, who can use the tests to identify and assess students’ strengths and weaknesses.


Does McCall’s book make sense?


The book does an excellent job of explaining the Common standards.

“The Common Assessment is the foundation for a rigorous, effective, and consistent approach to teaching,” McCall says.

As a result, McCall and her co-authors argue that it’s “important that schools should not just adopt Common Standards, but be fully engaged in their implementation and the impact they can have on students, families, and society.”

It’s important that schools have clear, well-defined, and measurable standards that they can easily track, so that schools can work with teachers to tailor instruction based on students’ needs and abilities.

It’s important, too, that schools and teachers work together to implement Common Standards.

“A school or teacher may be working on Common Standards but may not necessarily be working to meet all the standards,” McCALL says.

“The teacher or teacher-teacher relationship should be built to make sure that they are working with each other and understanding the Common Approach.”

The Common Common Standards have also been adopted in a number of states.


Is the Common curriculum good?

In the end, McColland’s book is about improving the way people learn.

And it’s about making teaching easier, not harder.