Common Misconceptions Around Common Core
5 min read
There's no getting around it. The Common Core standards bring out the crazy.
Benjamin Reilly does a good job of collecting the crazy in one place, but his "alert" highlights a real issue: the amount of disinformation about Common Core has the potential to derail any rational discussion about the standards.
So, for those following along at home, here is a high level breakdown of the elements of this discussion. At the outset, I want to stress that this is a summary, and that there are certainly things I am missing and/or getting wrong. Please, point out these myriad shortcomings in the comments.
The best place to start is with the Common Core standards - these are learning standards, plain and simple. There are things to like and dislike about them in their own right, but the standards are just that: standards. My preferred starting point for analysis of the standards and their implications is Tom Hoffman.
Of course, new standards require new curriculum aligned to those standards. Thank goodness, some of the people that participated in writing the standards are ready with products to sell that make sure districts meet those standards.
- Pearson:
- McGraw Hill:
- Scholastic:
- Houghton Mifflin:
- Harper Collins:
The Federal Race to the Top program (and it's worth noting that there are different strands of Race to the Top) emphasized adoption of Common Core standards and the implementation of student data systems. In Race to the Top, when you see language around "college and career ready standards" that is generally a stand in for Common Core. Whenever you see language around personalized learning, bringing data-driven decisions to the classroom, and/or identifying teachers with a track record of success, the means to achieve these goals are generally understood to include a comprehensive data system.
A representative sample of what this language looks like in the Race to the Top documentation is included below:
Under Proposed Priority 1, applicants must design a personalized learning environment that uses collaborative, data-based strategies and 21st century tools such as online learning platforms, computers, mobile devices, and learning algorithms, to deliver instruction and supports tailored to the needs and goals of each student
The federal data standard is at CEDS; inBloom is implementing the CEDS standard in its datastore.
When the Obama administration allowed states to get waivers for NCLB, the conditions for getting waivers reinforced some of the incentives in Race to the Top, including Common Core adoption and using student test scores as part of teacher evaluations - which, in turn, reinforced the need for a comprehensive data system.
Another facet related to - but separate from - Common Core are the new tests that accompany Common Core adoption. These tests have been referred to as the Next Generation of Assessments, and have been discussed in many places; this speech from Secretary Duncan in 2010 provides a good introduction to the concept. A recent flare-up over some of the new tests - in this case, written by Pearson - sparked an Opt-out movement in New York. Gotham Schools looks at some of the good things in the new tests.
So, a short version - we have:
- Common Core standards;
- New curriculum, aligned to the Common Core standards;
- New standardized tests, aligned to the Common Core;
- Centralized data systems to collect information on students and teachers;
- Race to the Top, which gave money to states and districts that prioritized implementing the above components;
- Waivers for NCLB, which reinforce some of the incentives for Race to the Top.
And, of course, this is happening against a political and social backdrop that includes heated debates about the worth of teachers unions, intense and well funded efforts to privatize public education, the agressive expansion of both for-profit and non-profit charters, cheating scandals, a narrative about how our school system is failing, and an increased reliance on standardized tests as a measure for both teacher effectiveness and school success. All of these elements are related - but ultimately distinct - strands in the conversation.
This web of related-but-separate elements makes it simultaneously honest but disingenuous when advocates for Common Core say things like, "The new standards don't mandate what teachers teach." This is honest because the standards, with some glaring exceptions, attempt to stay out of implemetation. It's a disingenuous statement, though, because the implementation of Common Core is embedded in these other elements that do place constraints on educators.
But, when you have Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin adding their misshapen four cents to the conversation, one thing is nearly certain: the progressive left will support whatever they argue against. This is a lost opportunity, because the educational system in the entire United States would benefit from a clear discussion of Common Core. The present direction of the conversation makes that increasingly unlikely.
