RE: Question 1: Attracting and Retaining Teachers

I completely agree with Charles Ratliff's "I think the state should say clearly that we have a common expectation of what students should be taught in public schools and at what level students should demonstrate mastery and then leave the details about how to achieve this expectation to the education professionals who work directly with students and parents."

The various caveats added by others -- "developmentally appropriate" or "can lead to ... rigor mortis" -- sound as if the authors dislike the idea, but are afraid to say so directly. 

Obviously our expectations (Calif. Standards in our case) have to be developmentally appropriate. They are, as attested by professional and renowned psychologists. But methink the "caveatrix" really meant "developmentally appropriate as *I* decide", which clearly makes the idea somewhat ridiculous.

Regarding the "rigor mortis", the caveat makes sense. But I think it presumes that the state might try to prescribe 100% of the curriculum. I do not think that what Charles Ratliff had in mind, nor it is what Calif. Standards prescribe. State expectations cover the majority of the curriculum, but not all of it. Schools and teachers should have 10-30% of teaching time adjusted to community needs and interests, but the remainder should easily suffice to teach the parts that are required by the state.