Rhetorical Analysis

I appreciate the metaphor that Tienken uses about the Emperor with no clothes. It gives profoundness to common core that “the rhetoric [is] based on bankrupt ideology” (155). It is literally bankrupt in the sense that common core is lacking in empirical evidence, and it is also framed without children’s needs in mind. The lack of methodological practices behind CCSS it is just as ridiculous as metaphorically walking around with no clothes on.
One thing I found formidable is the, “assumption that college professors should have the final say on what gets taught in third grade” (153). This way of thinking is fallacious because kids are kids, they don’t think like adults. This is a flawed sentiment for CCSS, trying to mold children into adults. It means that CCSS doesn’t take into account who they’re teaching to or who their audience is. You can’t conduct research without proper variables to measure. To me, it sounds like they want to see how adult like children can be. It makes no sense, you can’t compare

I think it would make a job as an educator that much more difficult because I think students would despise school. I believe we would witness more dropout rates, and an unmotivated and undereducated workforce from CCSS. Like the article states how can “tens-of-thousands of other possible careers – some of which have not even been invented yet- require mastery of the same one-size-fits-all curriculum?” (155). The logic of the CCSS is filled with fallacies, but it’s not a horrible idea. Why not make children career and college ready, instead of narrowing the paths, why not broaden them? I would’ve loved to learn about life: taxes, sewing, how to change your oil, how to apply for jobs, while attending school. Why can’t we prepare students for life/careers as well as give them a formal