Dodgy beginnings

In legal argument, every assertion cites authority: when lawyers know they are losing, they attempt to cloak weak arguments in language such as ``it is clear that’’, glossing over the insufficient basis for why; strong assertions cite controlling authority, such as a prior ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court.  The same citation requirements hold true for judicial opinions.  The American common law system is grounded in its constitutions and legislation, but also on the principle of stare decisis, which means a strong legal opinion will cite another, preferably higher, controlling authority for coming down on one side or another.  In the absence of binding authority, non-binding or persuasive authority is relied on: someone made an argument that won a case in another jurisdiction, the judge cites that decision and the law expands to a new jurisdiction.  Opponents of such decisions with weak legal precedent may deride them as ``judicial activism’’, but judge-made law is a fundamental component of how our system works, and indeed, how the legal system has managed to survive.  Of course, a judge may instead reject another non-controlling decision and cite an alternative argument for ruling differently.  Thus, competing legal doctrines scatter like leaves in the wind until a higher court decides to consolidate and resolve contradictory rulings.  It is often possible (and enlightening) to trace a winning argument in a high court ruling down through various lower court decisions and ultimately arrive at the original language source, which can be the unprecedented argument of a jurist publishing research (and personal opinions) in some obscure law journal.  Thus judge-made law, sometimes with questionable origins, becomes the law of the land and not always for the better.

Reaching higher? or grasping at straws?

In June 2010, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, the two organizations that jointly produced CCSSI, issued Reaching Higher, a laudatory report co-signed by many influential people comprising ``The Common Core State Standards Validation Committee’’.

The report states, ``The NGA Center and CCSSO, as part of the CCSSI, convened a 25-member Validation Committee (VC) composed of leading figures in the education standards community.  The committee was charged with providing independent, expert validation of the process of identifying the Common Core State Standards as part of the CCSSI.’’ (p.1)

Common Core's lack of humility

If nothing else, the statements in and around the standards are self-serving and self-aggrandizing.  Why is this necessary?  Let the standards speak for themselves.

To wit:

``The standards...are clear, understandable and consistent.''

``To deliver on the promise of common standards, the standards must address the problem of a curriculum that is 'a mile wide and an inch deep.' These Standards are a substantial answer to that challenge.'' (emphasis added)

``What is important to keep in mind is that the progression in the Common Core State Standards is mathematically coherent and leads to college and career readiness at an internationally competitive level.''

Oh, really?  No one knows what the outcome of CCSSI will be.  Fast forward 12 years for a reality check when the first students graduate high school who had a lifetime of Common Core, and the people who made these highfalutin claims are already collecting their pensions.