Common Core: Truths, Falsehoods, and Why They are Good for our Children… Falsehoods (Part2)

If you are current on your news, you know then that there are some people, including several Kansas legislators, who would like our state to back out of the implementation of the Common Core (CC) Standards. Similarly, some people across the country have become active in their opposition to the CC.  Their reasons are varied but there seems to be some common themes.  Below you will find a few of these themes with correct information provided.

• The Common Core is a federal attempt to take the control of education out of the hands of the state and local governments.  If you read Part 1 of this series, you will find that the federal government has been involved in promoting and “controlling” public education for a long time.  From the first decree to establish a system of public schools to “No Child Left Behind,” there has been federal involvement in public education for over 200 years.  Here is the irony: Common Core is a state initiative.  CC came about because a group of governors decided to proactively address what had become a national concern.  There seemed to be little opposition to this initiative until the current Department of Education began requiring participation as part of the Race to the Top grant program. In regards to federal requirements, CC is not an accountability system.  The federal No Child Left Behind Act is still the federal accountability system that districts across the county have to follow.  No Child Left Behind was implemented in 2002 and with it came substantial intrusion into state and local control.  Concerns linking CC to intrusion by the federal government are misguided and should actually be aimed at No Child Left Behind.
   
• The costs of the standards and related assessments are too high.  In the vast majority of school districts, the costs to implement most of the CC are expenses districts have to make anyway.  For example, USD 417 has a multi-year plan for the replacement of curricular materials and supplies.  Whether we purchase these materials to support the CC or another curriculum, this money will be spent anyway.  The same can be said for the training of teachers to help them successfully implement the CC.  The one area where an expense might well be incurred is on the state assessment program.  Currently the state pays for the state assessment system.  There may well be an increase in the costs for new state assessments tied to the CC Standards.  But like everything else these days, the state will likely pass these costs onto districts rather than continue to pay for an assessment program that has increased costs.
   
• The new assessment system will collect and share too much information about individual students.  Any new state assessment system, to my knowledge, will not collect any information that is not already being collected, or share information that is not already being shared.  Again, the regulations of No Child Left Behind required the collection of student data and the linking of this data to assessment results.  Since this mandate went into effect, the state has been developing a database system for collecting student and employee information.  Ultimately this system will be able to tie the assessment results of each child to specific teachers.  There is absolutely nothing in the CC standards that requires the collection of data other than assessment results.  The school district does not or will not collect information regarding political affiliation, sexual orientation, parent income (other than what we do for free/reduced meal applications), or any of the other items being claimed by those opposing CC implementation.
   
• There is no real evidence that the standard and testing movement has improved education.  Let me say that the term “improved” is relative to what people want from their educational system.  If the argument is that student assessment results in international comparisons are no different or worse, this is debatable.  In fact, there are many states where students are performing very well, at all levels, since the standards movement began.  Unfortunately there are other states where improvement has not been made.  In the just released comparison of international scores for the TIMMS (Third International Measure of Math and Science) assessment and the NAEP (National Assessment of Education Progress), Kansas 8^th grade students in math were ranked 16^th in the U.S. and 23^rd in the world (only 7 countries and 15 U.S. states scored better) and in science were ranked 27^th in the U.S. and 36^th in the world.  OK, so we have some growth that needs to occur in science.  The point here is that while continued growth is something we must strive for, students in Kansas are performing pretty well but can improve.
   
• The Common Core will perpetuate “teaching to the test”.  Look, the rhetoric from business leaders and government officials over the past twenty plus years has mostly been about how American students perform compared to other countries on assessments.  So if the standard by which we are to be judged is how well our students do on tests then it is only logical that we focus on how we perform on tests.  To reinforce this emphasis on testing, we are about to move into a period of time where teachers’ performance will be partially linked to how students perform on assessments.  What do people expect schools to do if this is the measure of how they are judged?
   
• The new standards will cause more students, teachers, and schools to be unfairly labeled as failing.  This is a really complex statement; one that takes more time to address than what I can do here.  The term “unfairly” is open to interpretation.  People want their schools to provide an education that is world class.  They want our children to be successful in what is becoming a truly global economy.  More and more it seems people want an accountability system that clearly defines how well a school is educating children.  But we can’t have this system unless we are prepared to see that perhaps our schools are not educating students to a level that meets these goals.  Americans have a peculiar tendency to think that their school system is wonderful and that it is other school systems that need to be improved. The real issue here, it seems to me, is how to design a system that takes into account the socio/economic issues of the student population and the unique needs of some of these students so it is fair.  The system has to focus on growth as a process and not just success and failure.  We need to invest in training for our teachers so they can be successful at the work we are asking them to do.  However, we also need to be accountable to make sure our students are moving on the success continuum in the direction we expect of them.

It seems to me that many people are confusing the requirements of the No Child Left Behind law and the move to CC Standards.  These are not one and the same.  It is unfortunate that our society is increasingly open to allowing people to make misleading and false claims in an effort to sway others to their personal opinion or political persuasion.  Take some time to read more about CC and you will find that there are many false claims being made.