As readers know, I often post comments that I find interesting. Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I disagree, sometimes they raise questions that are sure to provoke discussion, which is healthy. I like this comment. One of the reasons I like it is that the writer recognizes that American education is not in crisis, that the overwhelming majority of public schools are successful, and that we must be temperate in grabbing at quick fixes or sweeping changes.

The reader writes:

Well, I must admit I did not read all the posts [about the Common Core]. I lost interest when I felt the conversation was becoming a list of advocates for their favorite methodology. To go back to Doctor Ravitch’s initial post, I see the issue as implementing an untested curriculum across many different environments with many different needs and various levels of teacher skills. Experience and research tell me that there is no single, best practice for education. Districts, schools, teachers, and most importantly children are each unique. What works in Ann Arbor, Michigan may not be successful 50 miles away in Detroit. Add to this the lack of fidelity when implementing initiatives and you must question anyone’s hope for a “program” or a “curriculum” that will “fix” public education.

I can not even agree that public education needs to be “fixed”. We have significant issues addressing the needs of large subgroups, but I still have faith that the majority of our children today are receiving a quality education. Millions of children are doing amazing things in our public schools. Thousands of educators are working effectively and in many cases heroically. However, we still have far too many children not being given the instruction and support they need. For these children the Common Core may not be the answer and in fact may be an additional barrier to their success. For these children Montessori classrooms may not be enough. For these children additional testing has definitely not led to improvement.

I do not know the answer for all the challenges facing education, but I believe it rests somewhere withing the affective domain. I think we need to focus less on finger-pointing and more support. Teachers and students must have HOPE. They must believe that what they do is important, valued work. We need to stop allowing public school educators to be convenient whipping boys for any politician looking for a platform or business looking to sell a commodity or service.

Education remains our best hope for the future not in the collection and recitation of facts. The future of our world depends on an education that instills hope, a sense of purpose, a willingness to take risks, the belief that one’s efforts and perseverance lead to success.

Since I wrote that I could not support the Common Core, several readers have written to say that I criticized the process of its creation and implementation, not its content. My response to more than one reader was that means and ends both matter. You can’t do the right thing in the wrong way. You can’t suspend democratic process for what you think is the good of the people. Good things imposed by force tend not to stick. (See my thoughts–written in March 2014–about “The Fatal Flaw of the Common Core Standards“, which demonstrates that they violated every protocol of standard-setting and ignored due process, transparency, the right of appeal, etc.)

This reader explains her objections to the process:

My thoughts on the CC:

Subtexts: Close Reading of the Common Core

As ridiculous as it sounds, my resistance to the common core standards is disconnected from its content. The document, itself, is of far less concern to me than its genesis and its prospects. This past-future duality is where the perils of the common core lie; therefore, it is critical to consider where they emerged from and where they are leading.

The common core materialized as a tool of the political elite and the private sector. The common core was neither sought nor developed by educators or those who care about students or the future of the common good. The common core is meant for political gain and economic profit. This matters because the origin of a movement affects its implementation. Despite elevated rhetoric surrounding the common core, its underlying assumptions about what counts as knowledge, literacy, and culture will exacerbate – not ameliorate – inequality.

Although necessarily speculative, the future of the common core is also suspect. It is certain, however, that national assessments will follow this attempt to realize a national curriculum. While assessment is an essential component of the teaching-learning process, standardized assessments have limited utility and vast, destructive defects. The common core, as the basis for creating a national, profitable system of assessments that purport to measure student learning and teacher effectiveness, is revolting.

And, perhaps, this initiative will provoke a revolution among those with expertise about education. The common core is simply a tool. On paper, it is neither good nor evil. However, like any tool, it requires critical analysis before it is used. With respect to its creation, educators must ask: Who made this tool and why? Who paid for its design, construction, and distribution? How was it made (under conditions of brutality and oppression, or in a collaborative, participatory environment)? Looking forward, we must reflect on the negative effects of standardized assessments, particularly on marginalized students, and ensure that the common core does not fulfill its potential to do further damage to future generations of students.

I love to write, but I don’t want to use a pen that was made by imprisoned children. And, despite its sharp point, I do not intend to puncture someone’s eyeball with my pen. Like my pen, the common core is a tool. And, like my pen, its origins and its prospects matter.

Julie Gorlewski
State University of New York at New Paltz

Carol Burris, principal of South Side High School in Rockville Center, New York, explains her concerns about the Common Core. She previously wrote a book about how to implement the standards and now wishes she could retract it.

She writes here:

Diane,

I am coming to the same conclusion regarding the CCSS despite the fact that I have advocated college readiness for students during my entire professional career. The CCSS, as they are being implemented, are not about college readiness for all–they are about a testing system that will sort students into different pathways. When I first saw the standards, I thought that they were full of promise. I thought that they could be used to gently guide instruction in a supportive and equitable way, as described in the book that I co-authored–Opening the Common Core. I now wish that I could rip that title off the book. The CCSS have morphed into a punitive testing system that has a narrow definition of what a student should demonstrate on a test in order to claim they are college ready. But college readiness is not, nor has it ever been, about testing. It is about giving students rich, challenging learning experiences. See Adelman’s Answers in the Toolbox (1999) to see the research that supports what true readiness is.

There are five skills in the CC ELA standards–reading, writing, speaking, listening and collaboration. All are important for college and career readiness. Yet, only the first two will be tested, and tested at a level so rigorous that no teacher will have time to spend on the other three. This does not have to be. The IB, for example, assesses all five. The difference is that the IB trusts teachers to score their students’ performance during the year and so those skills can be assessed. The tests of the CCSS are inextricably linked to evaluating teachers by test scores so they cannot trust teachers to assess students’ speaking skills or collaborative skills. I do not think this is coincidence. I think the architects of this reform realized that the tests were going to be so difficult that unless they tied teacher job security to test results, they would not get the narrow curriculum and the drill that would be needed to get the desired scores. This does a terrible disservice to all of our students.

I have looked closely at the 8th grade math test sampler for NYS. The questions on topics are more difficult than the questions on the same topics on the Algebra Regents given in high school for the graduation standard. Last year only 73% of NY’s students passed that Regents. This disjointed, out of sync testing program that is based on the ideals of David Coleman and others, rather than on the reality of developmental learning for a diverse body of NY students is wrongheaded and destructive.
Mr Coleman earned considerable fees for his consultation to the New York State Education Department ( over 60K in a few months). Last year, he went to the College Board for a starting package of 750K. The College Board is now selling CCSS prep curriculum through Springboard, and former employees are Regents Fellows developing the tests. Clearly the Common Core has been quite profitable for Mr. Coleman and others. However, that profit is being made at the expense of our students.

It is all very tragic, and it did not need to be this way at all.

Susan Ohanian hates the Common Core standards. She hates the way they were created and marketed. She thinks they are a great con job. She fears what this mad rush to standardization will do to children. She would oppose them, she says, even if all the recommended readings were her choices. Ohanian lives in Vermont, where she has taught English for many years. She has long been an outspoken opponent of standardized testing and No Child Left Behind.