2016: Battle of the Dynasties?

You evidently didn't read my post since I specifically said that I'm sure you wouldn't support that.

If you just said "I don't believe in common core because studies show it is less effective than locally developed curriculum" or "I don't want centrally directed education because it forces children into a one size fits all model that doesn't work in the modern world" or one of many different similar arguments, then that would be different. There could be a proper back and forth where you might actually change some minds.

Instead you describe your reasoning as "GOVERNMENT BAD! GOVERNMENT NO TELL PARENTS WHAT THEIR CHILDREN SHOULD LEARN!". All we are doing is pointing out that justification is a flawed one, since you yourself aren't even sticking to it. It's fine to arbitrarily draw a line in the sand and set that as your position, but don't try to pretend it is anything but that unless you are going to back it up with solid reasoning.

Except I did make those arguments in several posts in this thread, you simply ignored them and instead focused on child labor laws instead.

Change for the sake of change just is not a valid argument. Just like its not 1789 anymore is not valid. No shit it's not 1789, so what? The nature of our constitution and our federal government doesn't change just because it's 2015.

No, actually, it isn't. It encompasses the two objections that you said you would engage with, in fact. But, oh, Gods forbid anybody speak ill of your god Government.

So you do or don't agree with the government setting standards on education?

I'm not American, I don't know much about your education system other than the fact that your tertiary education system seems purposefully designed to drain as much money from students as possible (and I know that only because our government is plunging headfirst into the same model) I don't have an opinion on if common core is good or bad.

What I do know is that the government setting standards on education is a good thing. What those standards should be is up for debate, and it's quite possible that they over over-reached, but there is nothing at all wrong with the concept of minimum standards for education being laid down.

@Bailey : most of the complaints about Common Core amungst those with double digit IQs isn't the idea so much as execution. The examples of math (which I can't quite pull up on the phone) look like nothing like the way I was taught and was confusing to understand. Basically, they tell the kids to solve problems using only one new way that parents can't figure out and help out with in many cases.

But as far as a unifying corriculum, it's long overdue IMO. I regard CC the way liberals regard ACA...a clunky step in the right direction.

Where have I argued otherwise? I have no problem with people opposing Common Core, I'm skeptical myself. I have a big problem with idiots like you and FF arguing against it based on fantasies. Dumb arguments only help proponents. Stop being dumb, bring something better than lies about Federal encroachment.

Well, it's clear you lack the mental capacity to actually discuss something on the merits, so you might just as well go back to pan handling. Leave the policy debates to people with triple digit IQs.

Sounds as if it's not the spirit, but the execution - which each individual state's board of ed is able to tinker with to some extent. Something else FF is incapable of understanding.

Then again, if the math you're talking about is a retread of the so-called "New Math" that Tom Lehrer immortalized in 1965, in which case I understand the anger:

I don't have any problem with the way math is now taught. It's much easier to solve problems in your head with the technique. Just because plenty of parents don't understand it, doesn't make it a bad approach. This is the same sort of thing that cause the US not to have the metric system.