Johaan Neem is a historian of education at Western Washington University. He has written two articles about Common Core, setting the standards in historical context.
The linked article appears in The Hedgehog Review. The other is published in Teaching American History, a publication of the Organization of American Historians, which is online here. I will briefly summarize both.
Neem is concerned that the CCSS reduces education to college and career readiness, ignoring the civic, aesthetic, and humanistic goals of education. He notes that academics and practitioners were left out of the standard-setting process and replaced by people from business and the testing industry. The overwhelming emphasis on the economic purposes of education is documented in David Coleman’s various statement.
Neem explores how CCSS is likely to affect history teaching. He notes that there will be more reading of informational text, which might benefit history. But he sees the danger of “close reading,” which requires reading without context. This is antithetical to historical thinking, because no chunk of text can be understood without context. The historian insiders the times in which text is written, why the text was written, its audience, its impact. None of this is possible without context.
Neem neither praises not condemns the standards, but he is clearly concerned about their narrow utilitarian focus.

I would certainly agree with Neem’s conclusions as described here. See my 2013 report for AEI: https://www.aei.org/publication/the-history-of-history-standards-the-prospects-for-common-core-standards-for-social-studies/. The problems for history date back to the invention of “social studies” in the early 20th century. The CCSS only add to history’s dimunition.
LikeLike
Neem is leaving it to the psychologists and philosophers to explain the harmful effect the CCSS and its aligned testing has on our children. The psychologists lament the pressure to move children through developmental stages they are not ready for and the destructive effect CCSS has on children’s self-image when they can’t learn at the same rate and same approach being enforced.
The philosophers explain the poor pedagogical approach of CCSS. They not only deplore “closed reading” but emphasize the importance of contextualizing all learning going beyond just facts but developing the imagination, the arts, and everything that makes man human.
LikeLike
Today, I had the good fortune to hear directly from two parents of young children. These were chance meetings and outcomes.
Both parents told me about their children’s anxieties over testing. One child told the parent that the teacher won’t like the answers, because s/he won’t be able to remember anything. Before and during testing days, this parent told me that his/her child cannot sleep, because of test anxiety. This parent told me that all this testing and standards is’t good.
I informed the parent sbout OPTing OUT.
FYI: In this response, there is no reference to sex and other identifying information, on purpose. This is for privacy.
Today was a small victory day.
LikeLike
He is of course correct to worry. The International Baccalaureate (IB) teaches students to read historical texts through the lens of OPVL, which stands for Origins, Purpose, Value and Limitations. That is critical thinking…. Who wrote this? What was their agenda? What is its value (quality) and what are its limitations as a source?
Close reading does not promote critical thinking.
Close reading is prep for standardized test reading passages.
LikeLike
Perhaps we should all do an OPVL on the Common Core 🙂
LikeLike