"Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects" is the official title of the document discussed in the previous post. Given my overall enthusiasm, you might well ask whether there's a single key stroke I don't like. The answer is yes. I despise that slash mark between history and social studies.
I want my punctuation marks to flow smoothly into speech. Commas and periods and question marks all adjust how words are pronounced, without needing to be named. The written ampersand easily becomes the spoken "and." A slash mark doesn't work that way. To read it out loud, a person has to say "slash."
More than that, the slash mark is a dodge. It fails to explain how the words on either side go together. Are they a pair that belong together? Are they alternatives that should be used separately? Writers who use slash marks look to me like thinkers who have not yet finished thinking.
Here, I suspect a compromise. Some advocates push for making history the lead subject, with civics, economics, and geography as back-up singers. Others insist that social studies is an effective way of combining multiple fields that deserve equal standing. The slash mark looks like splitting the difference between the two approaches, perhaps avoiding a huge battle and a long delay.
Even so, it's ugly writing, incomplete thinking, and an approach to language unlikely to be used outside of quotation marks on this blog.