My Two Cents on the Common Core Controversies

People have a lot of negative things to say about the Common Core. Here's what I think of those arguments: 

Goldstein writes in The Atlantic a cutting analysis of the motivations of David Coleman, a leading creator of the Common Core Standards.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/10/the-schoolmaster/309091/

First, Goldstein points out that Coleman has never been a classroom teacher, nor does he hold a degree in education. Opponents question his knowledge of students and the challenges of public education. This analysis is not paired with any examples as to how the Common Core is developmentally or otherwise inappropriate for students or schools. Although it is concerning that the primary developer has no experience in the classroom, this argument is difficult to analyze or give any credence without any actual evidence supplied to validate the claim.

Goldstein also warns, “Any K-12 curriculum whose goal is to prepare all students for four-year colleges is ‘one size fits all’…and will leave behind the majority of students who don’t feel particularly engaged by academics, or whose socioeconomic disadvantages make success in the liberal arts unlikely.” On the surface these arguments seem to contain a true concern for the whole-being of students suggesting they are not widgets in a factory line on the way to liberal arts college. Every student will not attend a four year college – but that does not mean that our schools shouldn’t prepare all students to think critically about the world, no matter their path following K-12 education. Further, the implication that socioeconomically disadvantaged students will not benefit from a curriculum that asks for increased intellectual thought and discourse seems patronizing and assumes these students do not have the ability to achieve greater.Indeed, education may not be a societal equalizer; however, this does not mean we should not strive for greatness and equity in education. Goldstein goes on to say we should introduce occupationally focused programs to these failing schools instead. This solution seems to perpetuate the cycle of socioeconomic inequity by failing to try to prepare needy students for a liberal arts degree. The Common Core attempts to elevate the level of thoughtfulness in K-12 education to prepare a more educated society. Further, with more students attending college, our education system needs to prepare these students to be successful in their endeavors no matter their social backgrounds.

Finally, the article ends by questioning the motives of the politicians supporting the Common Core initiative. Goldstein describes Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s view of school reform: “Bush believes that many children, teachers, and schools may have to be declared “failing” before the public understand the urgency of school reform.” Goldstein implies the purposes of the Common Core may be more sinister than the superficial idealistic aims of improving education. Goldstein implies that the aim of politicians and the creators may be to dismantle public education and discredit teachers. Considering the current political climate towards schools and teachers unions, this argument plays into the fears of many public educators. The more cynical side of myself worries that I will be blamed for the failure of my students in the first years of the Common Core assessments. I do not pretend to imagine that my instruction will meet the lofty aspirations and instructional shifts that the Common Core imagines in the first years, even as I work to shift my practice. A thorough analysis of the Common Core leaves me concerned that none of our schools will not be adept enough to adjust instructional practices quickly enough to avoid public blame. Goldstein’s argument does nothing to educate the public about the increasing demands and even gives the public permission to attack rather than support schools and the change.

Lawrence summarizes the controversies of the Common Core in a blog on Education News.

 http://www.educationnews.org/education-policy-and-politics/controversy-over-common-core-shows-no-signs-of-subsiding/

Lawrence points out that much of the resistance surrounding the Core involves the questions of state and federal rights concerning education. Traditionally, states have had control over their own schools. The Common Core changes this trend by introducing national standards. Further, some argue that, “With billions in funding and NCLB waivers tied to their adoption, Common Core is a de facto national curriculum.” That is, states cannot effectively make an independent choice about whether or not to adopt the Core. Personally, I think that a standardized curriculum for our country would be a positive development (the standards are not a curriculum). Why should students in Florida receive a different education in math and literacy than students in Vermont? It seems reasonable that the same framework of education should guide the entire country. Families can easily move from one state to another and students attend the same colleges from all over the country. A set of standards will ensure that students all over the country have access to similar educational opportunities. I see the national adoption of the Core as a strength of the program rather than a detractor.

Wood doubts that the Common Core increases the expectations of students. http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/the-core-between-the-states/29511 ood writes, “The concern for Massachusetts—as for a number of other states, including Texas, Virginia, and Minnesota, is that to adopt the Common Core would mean lowering existing standards.” I cannot imagine that these states are already teaching to the depth of knowledge that the Common Core dictates. Based on my knowledge of the Core, these new standards require several shifts in our practice as teachers. As I was reading Wood’s article, I was hoping he would share with me how these states were already surpassing the lofty aspirations of the Core. He did not provide any examples of the differences. When I searched his other writing for answers, all that I could find were articles about too many students pursuing college. I have trouble giving weight to Wood’s allegations without any proof, and I have to wonder whether he believes we should really be preparing more students for college since he seems to believe that college does not have value to many students (see http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/too-many-college-students-yes-unfortunately/33855). In all, I am not concerned that the Common Core is lowering expectations for students, as it seems clear to me that the standards are doing the opposite.

Finally, Loveless provides some critique of the Core based on actual data.

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/dec12/vol70/num04/The-Common-Core-Initiative@-What-Are-the-Chances-of-Success%C2%A2.aspx

Loveless looked at the correlation between state standards and NAEP scores. The study found no correlation between strong standards and expectations and NAEP scores. Additionally, standards did not seem to eliminate within state variation; therefore, Loveless argues that national standards will not eliminate variations in achievement between states. He also questions the efficacy of professional development. Loveless concludes, “The most reasonable prediction is that the Common Core initiative will have little to no effect on student achievement” (p.61). The switch to the CCSS will involve a lot of work and effort on the part of teachers, schools, and students. I think it is natural to worry that all of our hard work will have no effect on learning outcomes. I worry that CCSS will not overcome the challenges of socioeconomic disadvantage that many of my students face. On the other hand, I wonder if the switch to the current state standards truly dictated a significant shift in teaching at all or if the standards reflected current practice at the time. This could explain the lack of improved outcomes for states with stronger standards. The CCSS seem to dictate a significant shift in how we think about and approach education. I am optimistic that the standards will improve my own teaching practice and the practice of my colleagues. I am not sure of the benefit of approaching the standards thinking otherwise. I am also skeptical that our failure to improve in the past limits our ability to improve in the future. Under this study, improvement seems impossible. I have to hope that the CCSS will lead to greater student success. 

Finally, Loveless wonders how curriculum will be created around the new standards. Loveless cites a study that found wide variance in four math curriculums, all of which tout their alignment to the common core. He writes, “How will educators make curricular decisions?” (p.63). I think this is a valid concern. If the curriculum that is produced in reaction to the CCSS does not rise to the given challenge, our education system will not be improved.

The concerns raised by many about the Common Core reflect a level of skepticism about the ability to transform American education. I think it is important to debate the questions of implementation, especially as concerns the curriculum that will be crafted based on the standards. I find the other arguments regarding the origins, motivations, and rigor are pessimistic and do not support the efforts of teachers or those trying to improve the system.