This is a golden oldie from Peter Greene that remains relevant today. Actually, it is only a year old. In this post, Peter takes apart an article by Charles Upton Sahm (yes, the same person who wrote a glowing article about Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy charter chain).

 

Peter takes apart the standard reformer narrative: the Common Core was written by experts (not); the tests are more rigorous, which is a good thing (not); the Common Core was handicapped by Obama’s support for it.

 

“These days The Test never leaves the house without “more difficult” by its side. The implication is always that these new tests are more difficult, more challenging and that’s why they bother people. “More difficult” is a useful weasel phrase because everybody assumes that it’s a legitimate “more difficult.” It’s more difficult to go into the boxing ring against an opponent who’s bigger and stronger than you are. Of course, it’s also more difficult to go into the boxing ring with ferrets crazy-glued to your eyebrows and a dozen angry hamsters in your shorts, but people don’t think along those lines because we wouldn’t actually describe the ferret-and-hamster option as “more difficult” but would instead call it “crazy unreasonable stupid.” By constantly describing the new tests as more difficult, writers keep directing peoples’ attention away from the ferrets and hamsters.

 

“Sahm says that “unfortunately” the debate about the Core is more about politics than education. Well, duh. The Core has been more about politics than education from day one. Why would today be any different. If the Core were about education, the conversation about it would have included educators. But it was created by politicians and businessmen for politicians and businessmen. Honest to Stallone, Charles– teachers have been trying to make the debate about education for several years now, but nobody in power seems to want to do …..

 

“Sahm does a quick recap of the Standard Issue History of CCSS, starting with “A Nation at Risk” and moving through the governors getting “curriculum experts” and as always I’m amazed at these folks who are unfamiliar with how the internet works. So click here to watch David Coleman explain that the Core was written by a “collection of unqualified people.” So, not curriculum experts. (Also– why do we need curriculum experts to create something that isn’t a curriculum?)

 

“This is also the CCSS story that notes retrospectively that President Obama’s support in 2009 was a Bad Thing that created a political liability with people on the Right. This part of the narrative is intriguing; I am wondering how, in a non-federalized CCSS alternate universe, the CCSS ever is adopted. First, in that universe, what mysterious force makes the corporate backers/writers of the Core sit back and say, “Yeah, we probably shouldn’t use every tool at our disposal to get every state to adopt these. If just a few adopt them, that will be good enough for us.” Second, in that universe, why do states adopt the CCSS? I mean– who would be selling it? Who would be going state to state saying, “Yes, it will make your schools awesome and only cost you a gazillion dollars to implement, and it’s totally voluntary!”

 

“CCSS supporters can complain about the damage done to their cause by federal push for CCSS adoption, but without that federal bribery (RTTT) and extortion (NCLB waivers), CCSS would be sitting in a dusty binder somewhere. This is why it’s a political debate, Charles– because it was politically created and politically pushed into states. CCSS has depended on political power for every breath it has taken in its short, wasteful life.

 

“Sahm goes on to tell us what the standards are supposed to do in math and English (he does not bother to say how we know that the standards will accomplish these things, but it’s a short article). He points out that they are not a national curriculum, just an outline of what students should learn. So, totally different things. And he grabs the low-hanging fruit of debunking the complaint about non-fiction vs. fiction…..

 

“For the finish, lets’ quote David Brooks’ lamebrained NYT piece and insist that people who don’t love the Core are misinformed and opposing a perfectly sensible program because of hysterical– oh, that word again. Let’s throw in an appeal to the sensible center, and return to our Rocky image of the Core being battered and bruised but still game.

 

“You know what everybody always forgets about the first Rocky movie? At the end of the big climactic boxing match, Rocky loses.”