Concerns over inadequate educational accomplishments led to the bipartisan creation of the Common Core educational program. But the fears of parents and others that Common Core serves as an excuse for Washington topoliticize the American public school system have been heightened by recent disclosures that related textual material introduced partisan statements into English lessons.
Further objections have been raised about what some believe are bizarre common core assignments, including one report from Arkansas that sixth-graders were tasked to revise the Bill of Rights by removing two Amendments and adding two new ones. Education Secretary Arne Duncan added fuel to the fire when he described those expressing their dismay as “White suburban mothers.”
The NEW YORK ANALYSIS will examine the program and the concerns surrounding it. This week, we will outline how Common Core began, and what it is meant to accomplish. We will then present the views of both its advocates and its opponents.
HOW DID THE COMMON CORE EFFORT BEGIN?
The creation of national standards had been a topic of discussion for many years. Dismay about the failure of U.S. public schools to produce students adequately prepared for college or the workforce prompted discussions on how to resolve the issue.
The Common Core approach to this problem arguably dates back to November of 2007, according to Education Week,when state education leaders at a Council of Chief State School Officers policy meeting agreed on the need for common academic standards. The following December (2008) a report urging states to create a common set of internationally benchmarked standardswas issued. The concept received considerable financial support from President Obama’s stimulus program, along with technical and logistical support from the U.S. Education Department. The assistance was part of the federal “Race To The Top” program.
In 2009, Governors and school chiefs subsequently met in Chicago where a call to support the concept of shared standards was issued. Writing panels were issued shortly thereafter, and public comment was invited. A final draft was released in June of 2010.
The program, a product of cooperation between the Council of Chief State Schools Officers and the National Governors Association, applies to the annual standards in math and English that students from kindergarten through high school should meet.
__________________
RACE TO THE TOP SUMMARY
(US Dept. of Education)
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) … legislation … The ARRA lays the foundation for education reform by supporting investments in… strategies that are most likely to lead to improved results for students, long-term gains in school and school system capacity, and increased productivity and effectiveness.
The ARRA provides $4.35 billion for the Race to the Top Fund, a competitive grant program designed to encourage and reward States that are creating the conditions for education innovation and reform; achieving significant improvement in student outcomes, including making substantial gains in student achievement, closing achievement gaps, improving high school graduation rates, and ensuring student preparation for success in college and careers; and implementing ambitious plans in four core education reform areas:
Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy;
Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction;
Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; and
Turning around [the] lowest-achieving schools.
Race to the Top will reward States that have demonstrated success in raising student achievement and have the best plans to accelerate their reforms in the future. These States will offer models for others to follow and will spread the best reform ideas across their States, and across the country.
___________________
WHAT IS COMMON CORE?
The National Governors Association/Council of Chief State School describeCommon Core as follows:
What is the Common Core State Standards Initiative?
“The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a state-led effort that established a single set of clear educational standards for kindergarten through 12th grade in English language arts and mathematics that states voluntarily adopt. The standards are designed 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. The standards are clear and concise to ensure that parents, teachers, and students have a clear understanding of the expectations in reading, writing, speaking and listening, language and mathematics in school.
Why is the Common Core State Standards Initiative important?
“High standards that are consistent across states provide teachers, parents, and students with a set of clear expectations that are aligned to the expectations in college and careers. The standards promote equity by ensuring all students, no matter where they live, are well prepared with the skills and knowledge necessary to collaborate and compete with their peers in the United States and abroad.. Unlike previous state standards, which were unique to every state in the country, the Common Core State Standards enable collaboration between states on a range of tools and policies, including:
- the development of textbooks, digital media, and other teaching materials aligned to the standards;
- and the development and implementation of common comprehensive assessment systems to measure student performance annually that will replace existing state testing systems; and
- changes needed to help support educators and schools in teaching to the new standards.
Bile acids corrode the walls of the bile ducts, gallbladder, sphincter of Oddi, duodenum; beginning of purchase cialis online https://pdxcommercial.com/property/brewery-pub-sale/bottline-pic-768×579/ the small intestine causing inflammation, spasms, bile reflux, and ulcers. Now they are more than willing lowest price viagra to accept the problems at hand and seek solutions for it. Many of the women around find cialis generika this medicine quite helpful. Would you love to be able to tell your check this site out line uk viagra friends and family acknowledge the help they have to battle their mental issues.
What guidance do the Common Core State Standards
provide to teachers?
“The Common Core State Standards are a clear set of shared goals and expectations for the knowledge and skills students need in English language arts and mathematics at each grade level to ultimately be prepared to graduate college and career ready. The standards establish what students need to learn, but they do not dictate how teachers should teach. Teachers will continue to devise lesson plans and tailor instruction to the individual needs of the students in their classrooms.
How do the Common Core State Standards
compare to previous state standards?
“The Common Core State Standards were written by building on the best and highest state standards in existence in the U.S., examining the expectations of other high performing countries around the world, and careful study of the research and literature available on what students need to know and be able to do to be successful in college and careers. No state in the country was asked to lower their expectations for their students in adopting the Common Core. The standards are evidence-based, aligned with college and work expectations, include rigorous content and skills, and are informed by other top performing countries. They were developed in consultation with teachers and parents from across the country so they are also realistic and practical for the classroom.”
_________________________________
The concern that these common standards could lead to a nationalization of education is denied by the NGA/CCSSO group. They insist that this will remain a state-led effort.
Currently, all states other than Alaska, Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia have adopted the curriculum. Minnesota has adopted only a portion of it.
U.S. EDUCATION SECRETARY ARNE DUNCAN
U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan is one of Common Core’s most enthusiastic backers. In June, he addressed the need for the program:
“You may have heard President Obama say that America used to be number one in the world in college completion just one generation ago. Sadly, today, we have dropped to number 12 among young adults. That’s reality and that’s unacceptable.
“We’re not going to pave a path to the middle class with the cheapest labor. We’re not going to reverse the polarization of wealth in this country through unskilled jobs. The only way that we can promise all of our young people a genuine opportunity is through a world-class education…
“The problem is a lot of children, in a lot of places in America, have not been getting a world-class education. But rather than recognize that, for far too long, our school systems lied to kids, to families, and to communities. They said the kids were all right-that they were on track to being successful-when in reality they were not even close…
“What made those soothing lies possible were low standards for learning. Low standards are the equivalent of setting up for a track-and-field event with hurdles only one foot tall. That’s what happened in education in a lot of places, and everyone came out looking good-educators, administrators and especially politicians.
“The truth-the brutal truth-was that we had thousands of schools where as few as 10 percent of students were reading or doing math at grade level, and where less than half were graduating…
“Today a fourth grade teacher in New Mexico can develop a lesson plan at night and, the very next day, a fourth grade teacher in New York can use it and share it with others if she wants to.
“Today, the child of a Marine officer, who is transferred from Camp Pendleton in California to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, will be able to make that academic transition without a hitch, instead of having to start over in a widely different place academically…
“When these standards are fully implemented, a student who graduates from a high school in any one of these states-who is performing at standard-will be ready to attend and succeed in his or her state university without remedial education. Historically, in far too many communities, more than half of those who actually graduated from high school needed remedial help in college…
“When the Obama administration came into office in 2009, the Common Core standards were in development, and gaining momentum. We set out to support states and districts in changing the conditions that were limiting educational opportunity, and raising standards was a vital part of that.
“With governors and state leaders making major progress on standards, we gave them all the support we could, within the bounds of what’s appropriate for the limited federal role in education.
“Our big competitive reform fund, Race to the Top, awarded points-40 points out of 500-to states that were collaborating to create common college- and career-ready standards.
“It was voluntary-we didn’t mandate it-but we absolutely encouraged this state-led work because it is good for kids and good for the country…
“Did the points, and the dollars, matter to the states? Absolutely. But it’s not the only reason or even the most important reason why states adopted the Common Core. To be clear, total Race to the Top dollars were less than one percent of what we spent on K-12 education every single year.
“States signed on to the Common Core because it was the right thing to do. They knew that their children were being cheated and they refused to continue to be a part of it-and for that they deserve our deepest praise and gratitude. In fact, dozens of states that didn’t get a nickel of Race to the Top money are committed to those higher standards-and American education will be better because of it…
“The Common Core standards mark a sea-change in education. Not only do they set the bar high, they give teachers the space and opportunity to go deep, emphasizing problem-solving, analysis, and critical thinking, as well as creativity and teamwork. They give teachers room to innovate.
“And, all across the country, teachers have responded. Three out of four say the Common Core standards will help them teach better…”
THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
The National Education Association (NEA) is a strong proponent. They note that:
“Examination of the education systems of high performing countries such as Singapore and New Zealand indicates that those countries have common standards or curriculum that articulate broad, high goals for students, provide adequate preparation and support to teachers, allow teachers to exercise professional judgment, and involve teachers in all aspects of the education enterprise including curriculum, standards, and assessments as well as instruction.
“The Common Core State Standards Initiative has the potential to begin to move education in the U.S. along this path.
- 1. NEA supports the Common Core State Standards Initiative as a potential means of providing access to a complete and challenging education to all children. Currently, some states are not providing sufficient resources for students to meet standards and acquire a quality education.
- 2. The initiative is promising also because it will involve input from states and a wide range of stakeholders. Most importantly, the standards will be voluntary. NEA has consistently opposed mandatory national standards developed through a top down process. The Common Core Standards Initiative has the potential to encourage states to participate, but not be coercive or rigid.
- 3. The effort to construct the common core of standards so that it is a manageable list of broad goals rather than an exhaustive list of bits of learning is another aspect of the initiative that NEA applauds. This new notion of how standards should be articulated can allow for high goals while providing for instructional flexibility in reaching those goals.
- 4. The development of a bank of sample assessment items has the potential to provide states with flexibility and control while establishing concrete ways to determine student achievement.
- 5. The initiative has provided educators, parents, and a wide range of stakeholders and experts the opportunity to provide input.
- 6. Our current notion of content standards has been corrupted to be almost completely dominated by what can be tested rather than by the deep understandings and 21st century skills that students need. The initiative is attempting to bring the focus back to the components of a quality education…”
THE VIEW FROM STATE LEGISLATURES
The National Council of State Legislatures endorsed the concept of common standards but remains concerns about the potential abuse of the program:
“State legislators support the voluntary state standards initiatives so long as the initiatives remain voluntary, state-led and state-administered, and so long as the federal government does not overstep its role, and the U.S. Department of Education complies with its statutory authority and programs and does not condition the receipt of federal dollars on state participation in common standards efforts.
“Past federal attempts to create national standards or a national test have proven partisan, divisive and unsuccessful. Federal legislation creating the U.S. Department of Education prohibits direct federal involvement in a national test. Similar language in NCLB prohibits federal involvement in standards, assessments and curricula. These protections against federal involvement in state issues should be adhered to and continued. It is the position of the National Conference of State Legislatures that there is no authorized role for federal mandates regarding national academic standards or a unified national test.
“State legislators support the need to improve elementary and secondary education so that all students have access to a challenging and rewarding public education. Students in our schools need rigorous state standards that are anchored in real world demands students will face after high school, that are aligned to K-12 curriculum, assessments, high school graduation requirements, college placement standards and other related policy tools and practices. This can be most readily accomplished through individual state refinement of standards or the voluntary participation of states in joint efforts like the Common Core Initiative led by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. The Common Core and other consortiums have worked diligently to develop a set of standards in Math and English that will enhance the standards set by many states. It is critical that such standards not represent a step backward for some states…”
Is the Common Core approach to improving standards in America’s schools an answer to the problem, or is it a threat to local and parental control? Can the abuse of the system by those seeking to insert their political views be prevented?
In Part One, THE NEW YORK ANALYSIS described Common Core. In Part Two, the views of those supporting Common Core were described. In our final installment, we present the concerns of those opposing it.
The National Council of State Legislatures while endorsing the Common Core concept, has significant concerns:
“…federal actions have contributed to our concerns that this effort may have as its ultimate result a nationalized K-12 system that will not remain voluntary and may have already been compromised by actions of both the state-led consortia and the federal government. Specifically:
- The federal government required a state commitment to adopt the common standards as an eligibility criterion for federal Race to the Top funds even before the common standards were fully developed, released or endorsed.
- The federal government has committed $350 million to develop the common assessments that match up to the common standards and the Common Core Initiative has acknowledged the need for on-going public support for its activities.
- The current administration’s blueprint for reauthorization of ESEA suggested that Title I funds for disadvantaged children be contingent upon each states’ acceptance of a set of voluntary common standards.
- The federal government has a history of co-opting successful state policy initiatives by effectively making them mandatory through the ‘condition of grant’ process.
“The preceding actions raise concerns that this voluntary, state-led effort will prove too attractive for federal officials to ignore. Therefore, state legislators assert that the U.S. Department of Education should refrain from the actions described above that are in conflict with its statutory authority, and specifically that it does not condition the receipt of federal dollars on state participation in common standard efforts.”
Senators Chuck Grassley, Mike Lee, Tom Coburn, James Inhofe, Deb Fischer, Rand Paul, Pat Roberts, Jeff Sessions, and Ted Cruz have expressed their concern that the U.S. Department of Education has made adoption of Common Core standards requirements for states obtaining waivers and funds. They want to restrict this from occurring.
In a statement earlier this year, Senator Grassley stated that:
“What’s happening violates the structure of our education system, where academic content decisions are made at the state level giving parents a direct line of accountability to those making decisions. The federal government should not be allowed to coerce state education decision makers…
“The first principle of education, and therefore of education policymaking, is that parents are the primary educators of their children. And because responsibility for children’s education lies primarily with parents, to the greatest extent possible so should decision-making authority over Pre-K to secondary education. While the Common Core Standard Initiative was initially promoted as an effort to move in this direction, it has become polluted with federal guidelines and mandates that interfere with the ability of parents, teachers and principals to deliver the education our children deserve.”
A joint study by the Pioneer Institute, the American Principles Project, the Pacific Research Institute, and Civitas warns:
“By signing on to national standards and the assessments that will accompany them, participating states have ceded their autonomy to design and oversee the implementation of their own standards and tests. The implications of ceding this autonomy are varied. Not only do some states risk sacrificing high quality standards for national standards that may be less rigorous, all states are sacrificing their ability to inform what students learn. Moreover, the act of adopting national standards has and will continue to disrupt legal and other processes upon which states rely to ensure the adequate and equitable delivery of educational materials and resources. Finally and, perhaps, most distressing, the predicted cost to states of implementing the Common Core is in the billions of dollars, a number that only stands to grow if implementation ramps up.”
In his 2011 testimony before the House of Representatives Education and Workforce Committee’s subcommittee on Early Childhood, Jay P. Greene, a 21st Century Professor of Education Reform, stated:
“I believe this centralized approach is mistaken. The best way to produce high academic standards and better student learning is by decentralizing the process of determining standards, curriculum, and assessments. When we have choice and competition among different sets of standards, curricula, and assessments, they tend to improve in quality to better suit student needs and result in better outcomes.
“One thing that should be understood with respect to nationalized approaches is that there is no evidence that countries that have nationalized systems get better results. Advocates for nationalization will point to other countries, such as Singapore, with higher achievement that also have a nationalized system as proof that we should do the same. But they fail to acknowledge that many countries that do worse than the United States on international tests also have nationalized systems. Conversely, many of the countries that do better than the United States, such as Canada, Australia, and Belgium, have decentralized systems. The research shows little or no relationship between nationalized approaches and student achievement.
“In addition, there is no evidence that the Common Core standards are rigorous or will help produce better results. The only evidence in support of Common Core consists of projects funded directly or indirectly by the Gates Foundation in which panels of selected experts are asked to offer their opinion on the quality of Common Core standards. Not surprisingly, panels organized by the backers of Common Core believe that Common Core is good. This is not research; this is just advocates of Common Core re-stating their support. The few independent evaluations of Common Core that exist suggest that its standards are mediocre and represent little change from what most states already have.
“If that’s true, what’s the harm in pursuing a nationalized approach? First, nationalized approaches lack a mechanism for continual improvement. Given how difficult it is to agree upon them, once we set national standards, curriculum, and assessments, they are nearly impossible to change. If we discover a mistake or wish to try a new and possibly better approach, we can’t switch. We are stuck with whatever national choices we make for a very long time. And if we make a mistake we will impose it on the entire country.
“Second, to the extent that there will be change in a nationalized system of standards, curriculum, and assessments, it will be directed by the most powerful organized interests in education, and probably not by reformers. Making standards more rigorous and setting cut scores on assessments higher would show the education system in a more negative light, so teachers unions and other organized interests in education may attempt to steer the nationalized system in a less rigorous direction. In general, it is unwise to build a national church if you are a minority religion. Reformers should recognize that they are the political minority and should avoid building a nationalized system that the unions and other forces of the status quo will likely control.
“Third, we are a large and diverse country. Teaching everyone the same material at the same time and in the same way may work in small homogenous countries, like Finland, but it cannot work in the United States. There is no single best way that would be appropriate for all students in all circumstances.
I do not mean to suggest that math is different in one place than it is in another, but the way in which we can best approach math, the age and sequence in which we introduce material, may vary significantly. As a concrete example, California currently introduces algebra in 8th grade but Common Core calls for this to be done in 9th grade. We don’t really know the best way for all students and it is dangerous to decide this at the national level and impose it on everyone.”
In a published article, the Heartland Institute notes that:
“For four and a half decades, the federal role in education has been growing. Costly in terms of taxpayer dollars spent and local control education lost, this expanding federal control has failed to outcomes for America’s children. National standards will further expand Washington’s role-and will remove parents from decisions about content taught in our children’s schools. Yet the Obama Administration is intent on nationalizing the content taught in every public school across America. Without Congressional approval, the Administration has used a combination of carrots and sticks to spur states to sign on to the Common Core standards initiative. Common Core includes costly and questionable national standards for English and math, and federally funded national assessments have been crafted to align with the standards. State leaders who believe in limited government and liberty should resist the imposition of national standards and tests in their states.”
CONCLUSION
The poor performance of many public schools in the United States is a serious issue, and the establishment of common standards was a bipartisan attempt to remedy this.
However, there is little evidence that doing this on a national level will be effective. Further, concerns about the creeping politicization of our educational system are valid.