Opt-Out of Common Core? Great! But Let's Opt-Out of All Government Programs
http://reason.com/blog/2013/10/04/op...at-but-lets-op

In response to my piece criticizing Common Core standards for threatening education choice by binding publicly funded schools to lock-step pacing and goals, Michael Petrilli, Executive VP of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and editor of Education Next, concedes the risk and suggests some schools should be able to opt out. Let schools opposed to rigid standards prove their mettle some other way, he says. Making Common Core standards voluntary down to the grassroots is a great idea, I think. But why stop there? We should be able to opt out of so many other government programs.

In his response to me, Petrilli points to an article in which he proposed that "there might be, say, 10 percent of the schools for whom the Common Core, or any state standards, may not be a good fit." Among those schools, he suggests, are high-achievers and schools that are philosophically at odds with standardized measures.

Which schools belong in this 10 percent? First, some schools of choice (including charter schools and magnet schools)—particularly those on the far progressive end of the spectrum—fundamentally don’t believe in testing as a great measure of what kids need to know and be able to do. Their educational approach that is not a good fit with standards-based reform...

Another group of schools that should be eligible for the opt-out are uniformly high-achieving schools—those where virtually all the kids are high achieving and for whom the Common Core standards (or any other state standards) are actually well below where they’re already achieving. These are largely going to be schools in our affluent suburbs or exam schools in our big cities.
Part of his argument is that many of these schools are really a lousy fit with standardized measures—often intentionally so—and need to be judged by different criteria. He also argues, though, that "the limited use of an opt-out will release some steam from the political backlash to standards and testing." That's because people tend to stop objecting to programs when they're not dragooned into them.
The rest of it covers all of the other govt programs he (and I) would like to opt out of.

Related: The Harm of Teaching by the Numbers
http://www.theamericanconservative.c...y-the-numbers/

In a Thursday debate at Cato Institute on the Common Core Standards Initiative, a fundamental question seemed to drive the discussion: How should we measure students’ educational proficiency—at the state or national level? Few (if any) seemed to question the benefits and harms of proficiency measurement itself.

Those espousing the Common Core, Thomas B. Fordham Institute President Chester Finn and Executive Vice President Michael Petrilli, said the Common Core would not dictate content taught in a classroom. It provides curricular suggestions, but primarily focuses on setting higher skills-testing standards. One audience commentator likened it to a bike-riding test: the standards would insure students are properly riding their bikes, but would not tell teachers how or what teaching methodologies to implement in teaching them to ride bikes. If parents and teachers want a better measuring mechanism with which to determine their students’ educational progress, then Common Core could be the perfect tool. It will (supposedly) measure student skills, and tender the quantifiable numbers associated with those skillsets.

The Common Core opposition, represented by Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom Associate Director Neal McCluskey and Preserve Innocence Project Executive Director Emmett McGroarty, advocated long and hard for a federalism-minded education system. They said that an educational curriculum should be accountable to parents—and the nationalized nature of Common Core would hamper parent’s ability to make changes or suggestions. As to determining the skillsets and progress of students, they argued competitive and differentiated state standards would be the best methodology to truly measure how students are doing. Rather than all states being accountable to one inflexible standard, a wide swath of competing standards would foster true growth. Texas would compare its standards with Massachusetts, for instance, and see how it measures up. States who fall short would mimic those who are excelling.

Talk of competing states ensuring student growth, the mention by Finn of completely machine-graded national tests, the emphasis on skills development rather than actual content: it makes one wonder how beneficial a quantifiable education actually is to students themselves. Of course, when it comes time to apply to colleges and universities, an ACT or SAT score comes in handy. But up to that point, what good does testing do for the student? Will nationalized standards, enforced through a nationalized testing system, actually foster students’ love of learning? Or will it become a sluggish treadmill for students, who must focus on practice sheets and exams just to ensure an A or B on tests? Will it become a frightening prospect for teachers, who increasingly fear their jobs will be on the line if their students don’t get good grades?

Numbers are inflexible. They are also non-specific. Yet people are incredibly diverse—academically, emotionally, and socially. And all of these multitudinous facets inform the student. What of the student who is incredibly smart, but doesn’t test well? I have met such individuals at the high school and college level. They speak brilliantly in personal conversation and overflow with information, but always perform poorly on multiple-choice tests. Such tests simply are not their forte. What of the student who has been transferred from school to school due to an unstable home life? Even the smartest students have trouble keeping up in such a changeful environment. To use the bike analogy: Is it fair to administer the same bike-riding test to one student barely 3 feet tall, and another student whose father is a professional biker?

This is not to say we should throw out tests or standards. But they can be rather inhuman principles to found an entire national education system upon. Education should not become a nationwide skill set competition. Education, in its oldest and truest sense, is about learning for its own sake. It is about fostering a true love for knowledge itself. That is something that cannot really be measured. A student who develops a love for math should be encouraged and applauded—even if they receive a C on their standardized math test. The student who prefers science experiments to spitting out science definitions on a test should, in my mind, be encouraged. They have their priorities straight. They love the thing itself, not the grade behind it...