Calls for common or shared curriculum for the common standards have prompted a bit of controversy about "national," "mandated," and "imposed" curriculum.
U.S. Senator Patty Murray reintroduces a comprehensive literacy bill.
The White House hosts a poetry workshop and reading.
A group led by critics of the common standards sparks debate around the blogosphere by attacking common curriculum and tests.
Conservatives issue a manifesto arguing against a shared curriculum for the common standards.
A leader of a group working on common assessments joins the U.S. Department of Education.
South Carolina and Minnesota are considering bills to nullify or ward off adoption of the common standards.
"This is an educational solution that has been hiding in plain sight," the executive director of the report says of arts education.
New Hampshire is weighing a measure to require the legislature's approval of academic standards.
Last week's announcement that the Gates and Pearson foundations are teaming up to provide online curriculum for the common standards has prompted interesting new rounds of dialogue. We reported some folks' reservations in our story, but more are still ricocheting around the blogosphere. Take, for instance, a post by EdWeek opinion blogger Diane Ravitch, who cites the Gates-Pearson deal as the "outrage of the week." The comments section of Ravitch's post neatly captures key strains in the debate about developing curriculum for the common standards: resentment about the roles of corporations, big foundations, or the federal government; worry about too ...