Common Core

Should We “Embrace The Common Core”?

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

That was the question being debated on the most recent episode on the Intelligence Squared podcast.

Moderated by ABC News’ John Donvan, the debate featured Carmel Marin (American Progress) and Michael Petrilli (Fordham Institute) who argued for the motion; and Carol Burris (South Side High School Principal) and Frederick Hess (American Enterprise Institute), who argued against the motion.

Here is description of the debate:

In K-12 education, there is nothing more controversial than the Common Core State Standards, national academic standards in English and math. Adopted by more than 40 states, they were developed, in part, to address concerns that American students were falling behind their foreign counterparts and graduating high school without the necessary skills for college and the workforce. But is this the reform we’ve been looking for? Has the federal government overreached and saddled our schools with standards that have been flawed from the start? Or will the Common Core raise the bar and improve the quality of our children’s education?

Common Core Experiencing Delays

/ Gregory Clark / Leave a comment

The big discussion recently, among those who follow education policy around the United States, surrounds the “Common Core”. Dating back to 2010, the Common Core State Standards is a plan adopted by almost every state (there are five holdouts) which creates a common set of standards in the core areas of K-12 education; math, english, social studies, and science.

Here is a brief history of the motivations most won’t take the time to fill you in on the background information: No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the federal education policy which enforces strict accountability measures on schools that “underperform,” does not actually set the standards schools/districts/states have to meet. That’s right, states set the standards for their schools. As long as those standards are ‘reasonable’ the federal government is satisfied and accountability measures function as written. As you can imagine, states began to develop different standards to make it appear their students were “proficient.” Well, when funding is tied to proficiency, you better believe proficiency increases. But did proficiency actually increase? Probably not. In states like Texas where STATE “proficiency” increased, those same students did not improve on NATIONAL tests (which did not change meaningfully, if at all.) If you ever heard the phrase “Race to the Bottom,” it is likely this was the situation they were talking about. There was an incentive to feign improvement.

Common Core standards were developed by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers to “ensure that students graduating from high school are prepared to enter credit bearing entry courses in two or four year college programs or enter the workforce.” Sounds pretty good, right? Especially considering how everything was devolving at the state level. But now, everyone is up in arms about Common Core. Teachers unions are upset. Those on the Religious Right are upset. And states and governors have become upset about Common Core. All of this right when Common Core is finally being implemented (for reasons about the delay, see my note below). Why?

If you follow any of those links, you’ll find out what the stated complaints are. The teacher unions are upset they weren’t prepared properly. Conservatives think the federal government is just trying to take over more of public education. And states? State say they need time to evaluate, so they’re delaying implementation left and right.

I have a different theory about the reasons for the revolt about Common Core; the standards are too rigorous! Teachers and states have a lot to lose once they commit to higher standards, because NCLB still has strict accountability measures tied to performance on standardized tests. Everyone approves of accountability in principle (AFT- yes, the national teachers union– publicly endorses accountability and standards and testing). When asked, of course no public servant would say they don’t want to raise standards to ensure the children are educated properly. But those same people despise accountability in practice. (Conservatives hate it simply because it takes away power from states.)

Two things are going on which I think help explain the revolt against Common Core. First, everyone who endorsed it is finally getting to see the fruit of their labor. Second, NCLB hasn’t changed, so that same fruit has caught them with their pants down; in fact, there were new (and increased) financial incentives to adopt common standards. Now they’re all stuck with this new set of standards which they believe are too difficult to meet. Because NCLB has such strict punitive measures for those who cannot meet “proficiency” levels, there is a strong incentive to reject any standard of proficiency which is difficult, resource intensive, and (most importantly) takes a long time to reach.

I don’t blame the teachers, or the governors, or Obama, or even NCLB specifically. The entire idea of school accountability based upon standardized testing has “problem” written all over it. This is not to say public education cannot be improved through government policy. But I think it’s been just about long enough that we can call standardized testing a failed metric of keeping schools accountable.

Those familiar with the topics will recognize that I’ve just made some pretty bold claims. Those less familiar can still probably see some strong assumptions. Please let me know your thoughts in the comments!

Note: So if the Common Core was developed two years ago, why are we talking about it now? Well, it takes a long time to develop what will actually go into the Common Core, and even longer to create a standardized test to measure achievement of the new standards.