The same can be said of any set of standards. What, after all, is a standard other than a single, objective benchmark against which everyone is measured? In academics in order for all children to meet a given standard they must be taught the same stuff; you can't teach one child exclusively math and a second exclusively English, then test them both on math and expect them to get the same grade.

Furthermore, Common Core is just precisely a set of standards - i.e., the minimum level of academic achievement a child should be able to meet - and not some sort of cap that prevents any school from exceeding those standards in one or more areas.

Consider this: in the "old days" there were the three "R"s - readin', (w)ritin', and (a)rithmetic - which were standards - i.e., each child was expected to know how to read, to write, and to do arithmetic - but those weren't limits beyond which no child could stray, they were minimums; meet the minimums and after that the sky's the limit.

Also, there seems to be some consternation that Common Core exchanges breadth of exposure in various subjects for depth of exposure - i.e., instead of briefly touching on a large number of aspects of a given subject, students are expected to spend a lot more time developing competence in a more limited number of aspects of each subject. But isn't that precisely what the old Three "R"s were all about? focusing deeply on just a few subjects for minimum competency, and then being free to pursue other subjects as time and energy permit? Wasn't the old-school way of learning things - e.g., memorizing multiplication tables - more about depth than about breadth? In other words, Common Core is in some ways a return to the older ways of doing things.