Common Core Conundrum

It appears large swaths of the right are in the process of abandoning the accountability and choice movement that Bush brought to fruition with NCLB (Washington Monthly). If not the entire program of privatization, testing and back to basics education, the idea that has come to be known as “Common Core.” Common Core is an attempt by the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers to normalize standards across states (who have their own independent standards at present), following the principles of standards-based educational reform. Once known as a “national curriculum,” the advocates have recognized that framing the issue in terms of a “common” core of standards was apt to gain broader support – and it has so far. But the right has apparently decided that this is more overreach by a federal government that they are too busy bottlenecking to allow it to actually accomplish anything.

The interesting thing about a national curriculum, with standardized tests that would be taken by all students across the country to test the mastery of those standards, is that this was originally a progressive idea, ransomed by conservatives under Bush and his followers as the way to improve schools. Given that the constitution is clear that education is a state issue (at least as regards the 10^th amendment), many attack common core from a federalist perspective as unconstitutional, just as one could argue NCLB and the U.S. Department of Education are as well. In any case, here I want to briefly consider the pros and cons of a national curriculum with national standardized tests:

1.     A positive is that a national set of standards for all states ensures that kids all receive the same basic education and can move from state to state without worrying about being far ahead, or far behind (ceteris paribus, of course).

2.     While many progressive educators and educational theorists are implicitly against standards-based educational reform, there is something to be said for having a guide for what students should learn and what skills they should master from one grade to the next. Teachers can arguably still have relative autonomy in HOW they teach those standards, but it is important to have a core set of knowledge and skills that all students at a particular grade are expected to have.

3.     On the other hand, too strict adherence to a national curriculum could take autonomy away from states, school districts and teachers – trying to create engaging lesson plans and teach knowledge and skills relevant to their particular student populations. It is plausible that some states with relatively high standards, like New York, might be held to a lower standard by accepting and implementing common core. On the other side of the equation, some states might feel that the curriculum is too advanced or irrelevant to their students, undermining the learning process.

4.     A central ideological question is who creates the national curriculum and what voices are heard and excluded? Will the voices of marginalized and repressed groups be heard and incorporated into the core standards? Will they become a right-wing attack on all progressive education? As with adoption boards and textbooks, will safe choices win out over substantive debate on controversial topics like evolution and global warming? And will we create such a proscribed notion of what students should learn, that critical thinking and creativity are largely ignored (as is already happening)? What about civics education?

5.     Will one standard national test really solve the problems in schools today? We are so focused on the outputs of education and not taking enough stock of the inputs. Sure common core at least sets standards and a road map for all public schools in America, but does it address the key issues of pedagogy for ELL learners and special needs students, funding differentials, teacher training, expectations, etc.? Does it address the fact that different students learn in different ways – often based on cultural differences (the answer here is a clear no)? And will it allow for the empowerment of teachers and schools that has been shown in diverse experiments to be a key attribute of successful schools?

Common core deserves an honest and substantive debate regarding the nation’s values and beliefs about the roles and aims of public schooling and the role of the federal government in ensuring a quality education for all students. But as with most issues in the public sphere, it appears we will again simply resort to a politics of reactionary zeal and no substance, led by the grand ole party of fools and buffoons … elephants must be embarrassed to be associated with this group these days.