Common Core was created in 2009 and is meant to give every state a collective set of standards to measure learning, thereby essentially leveling the playing field for all students. These standards are designed to increase the comprehension levels of students so that they transform from learners who simply memorize information into students who can discuss their problem- solving methods and grasp a deeper meaning of context. Advocates of the standards state that they are designed to make all high school graduates ready for college and the rigors of their post high school careers. While participation is voluntary in this adoption process, the current administration is applying pressure to states to adopt rigorous content standards that will be used as an indicator of readiness for each student. Title I aid and other funding can be withheld from schools if they choose not to adopt the Common Core policy or standards that are comparable to the Common Core.
As one might imagine, there is a bit of power for the creators of these standards as they hold the purse strings for many schools. Logically, apprehensive teachers and parents want to know who made the standards and what makes them qualified to do so. Despite the standards being created by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), many question the standards because they have not been field tested. Whereas teachers, parents, school administrators, and experts from across the country, together with state leaders, provided input into the development of the standards, skepticism is still attached to this “one-size fits all” solution to college and career readiness.
As Allie Bidwell (2014) stated in her article for US News and World Report, opponents have criticized the quality of the standards because they aren't grounded in research. It is also unclear if they have been appropriately benchmarked against international standards. Bidwell furthers her discussion of the uncertainty that surrounds the topic of Common Core Standards by stating that some states that have historically high academic standards (i.e. Massachusetts) are concerned with the lack of rigor that might accompany a national standards-based system, while other states that have a much lower set of state learning standards might be concerned that too much is being asked of their students in too short of a time.
In the Bidwell (2014) article, former director of the NGA's Educational Policy Division, addresses the high/low conundrum by stating that Common Core Standards with high academic rigor are a must. She says "What's more important? To tell the truth to parents about where their kids are really performing? Or to continue to make them believe they're doing really well, only until they get into the workforce or they go to college and they're finding out they need to be put in a remedial English class ” (p. 2)? While most parents and teachers would agree with Linn’s statement, many take issue with the government’s role in keeping their child out of that aforementioned remedial English class.
Regardless of where one stands on the issues of the sufficiency of research conducted in establishing the standards, the academic rigor associated with the standards, the perceived “strong-arming” of the government to persuade states to adopt Common Core Standards or the notion of teachers being forced to “teach to a test”, an area that most can agree on is the fact that whatever Common Core issues that a student struggles with will more than likely be magnified if that student is an English Language Learner (ELL).
Mathis (2010) states that while many education practitioner organizations have endorsed the new Common Core Standards initiative, they also realize that proper support for our neediest children as well as for professional development is necessary if the effort is to be meaningful. With the No Child Left Behind initiative being underfunded, schools simply don’t have the funding to partake in either of these necessities. While the National Governors Association believes that all students should be held to the same high standards, the organization also admits that ELL students may require additional time and instructional support to master the standards.
Diane August (2011), a member of The Center of Applied Linguistics, in her presentation titled English-language Learners and the Common Core Standards, noted “Development of native-like proficiency in English takes many years and ELLS that start schooling in the US in later grades will need additional time to meet the standards” (p. 6). She states that ELLs are a heterogeneous group and effectively educating them requires diagnosing each student instructionally, adjusting instruction to meet their needs and strengths, and monitoring their progress. Teachers and personnel at the school and district levels who are well prepared and qualified to support ELLs and take advantage of the strengths and skills they bring to the classroom are needed but finding such qualified people to fill positions all over the country may not be possible due to scarcity and/or lack of funding.
Mathis (2010) adds to this facet of the Common Core debate by stating that studies have shown that there is no evidence that the simple act of raising standards or making them uniform across states will, in fact, cause increased student learning. If the country continues down its current path, America is in danger of focusing on ineffective standards while ignoring the fundamental inequities that exist in our educational system. He thinks that the real focus should be on closing these gaps (i.e. gaps between whites and minorities, native English-speakers and our educational system.
While there are many positives associated with the Common Core, below are some of the most popularized issues that opponents have regarding the policy. The table lists a handful of ways in which the policy affects teachers, students, and education in general.
Teachers
Teachers must “teach to a test.”
All student progress is graded equally (regardless of starting point) and used as a measuring stick to indicate the effectiveness of each teacher.
Education professionals need to be trained in teaching certain types of students. Many students require alternate methods of instruction.
Monetary resources may be redirected towards materials designed to help teach the standards.
Many teachers don’t agree with the standardized tests and/or test questions being used to determine appropriate readiness.
Instructors may be forced to ignore their own (proven) teaching strategies to fall in line with the Common Core way of teaching.
Increased demands to make all students the same opens the door to further test scandals and accusations of cheating.
Students
Students must engage in a singular method of learning (for example, new math problems ask student’s to explain their answers instead of simply answering a problem. So in theory, students can know the answer on a test yet have the answer counted as incorrect.
Increased pressure and text anxiety will occur due to the magnitude and implications of one test.
Innovation may suffer because projects that don’t align directly with the standards may be taken out of the curriculum.
Disadvantaged students must engage in accelerated learning in an attempt to “catch up” to the mainstream. This is regardless of poverty, transiency, native language, or mental abilities.
Education
There is not enough focus on assisting underachieving or ELL students. The gap between mainstream students and disadvantaged students may widen as students break under the pressure of unrealistic expectations.
Increased pressure to perform has already lead to cheating and corruption.
Government assumes that higher standards=higher test scores. This is not always the case.
If this plan has any chance of being successful, additional funding must be found to hire instructors to help under-served students. These funds will more than likely be taken out of the funding for other much needed areas.
Since there is currently no way of testing non-verbal learning on the standardized tests and no way of avoiding cultural bias, the test results can’t be used as an indicator of success. With educational funding being allocated in a manner that rewards high performing schools, the schools with a high minority student population will receive less funding and fall further behind.
Though the idea of increasing the education levels of our student population as a whole is a noble one, the method in which it is being attempted has many cynics and detractors (see Libbie Nelson's [2015)] video below entitled Why Common Core Math Problems Look So Weird). In my own classroom, I personally enjoy the commonality associated with teachers providing instruction in a similar manner because it is less confusing for students, but I think that each school should system be able to choose the method that leads their students to success. In my opinion, while standardized testing is a great place to start, it simply can’t be the end all-be all indicator of a student’s academic or career readiness. Until people can make a legitimate career out of being professional test takers, I believe that a test shouldn’t determine whether you are adequately prepared for a career. With that being said, Common Core will undoubtedly undergo many alterations over the course of its lifetime and, though it may not be a perfect system, it at least provides some type of accountability for teachers and students and sets a goal for each state. It is a good first step in the right direction, but one that needs to be revisited often and tweaked in the future.
Getting to the CORE Issue
Common Core was created in 2009 and is meant to give every state a collective set of standards to measure learning, thereby essentially leveling the playing field for all students. These standards are designed to increase the comprehension levels of students so that they transform from learners who simply memorize information into students who can discuss their problem- solving methods and grasp a deeper meaning of context. Advocates of the standards state that they are designed to make all high school graduates ready for college and the rigors of their post high school careers. While participation is voluntary in this adoption process, the current administration is applying pressure to states to adopt rigorous content standards that will be used as an indicator of readiness for each student. Title I aid and other funding can be withheld from schools if they choose not to adopt the Common Core policy or standards that are comparable to the Common Core.
As one might imagine, there is a bit of power for the creators of these standards as they hold the purse strings for many schools. Logically, apprehensive teachers and parents want to know who made the standards and what makes them qualified to do so. Despite the standards being created by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), many question the standards because they have not been field tested. Whereas teachers, parents, school administrators, and experts from across the country, together with state leaders, provided input into the development of the standards, skepticism is still attached to this “one-size fits all” solution to college and career readiness.
As Allie Bidwell (2014) stated in her article for US News and World Report, opponents have criticized the quality of the standards because they aren't grounded in research. It is also unclear if they have been appropriately benchmarked against international standards. Bidwell furthers her discussion of the uncertainty that surrounds the topic of Common Core Standards by stating that some states that have historically high academic standards (i.e. Massachusetts) are concerned with the lack of rigor that might accompany a national standards-based system, while other states that have a much lower set of state learning standards might be concerned that too much is being asked of their students in too short of a time.
In the Bidwell (2014) article, former director of the NGA's Educational Policy Division, addresses the high/low conundrum by stating that Common Core Standards with high academic rigor are a must. She says "What's more important? To tell the truth to parents about where their kids are really performing? Or to continue to make them believe they're doing really well, only until they get into the workforce or they go to college and they're finding out they need to be put in a remedial English class ” (p. 2)? While most parents and teachers would agree with Linn’s statement, many take issue with the government’s role in keeping their child out of that aforementioned remedial English class.
Regardless of where one stands on the issues of the sufficiency of research conducted in establishing the standards, the academic rigor associated with the standards, the perceived “strong-arming” of the government to persuade states to adopt Common Core Standards or the notion of teachers being forced to “teach to a test”, an area that most can agree on is the fact that whatever Common Core issues that a student struggles with will more than likely be magnified if that student is an English Language Learner (ELL).
Mathis (2010) states that while many education practitioner organizations have endorsed the new Common Core Standards initiative, they also realize that proper support for our neediest children as well as for professional development is necessary if the effort is to be meaningful. With the No Child Left Behind initiative being underfunded, schools simply don’t have the funding to partake in either of these necessities. While the National Governors Association believes that all students should be held to the same high standards, the organization also admits that ELL students may require additional time and instructional support to master the standards.
Diane August (2011), a member of The Center of Applied Linguistics, in her presentation titled English-language Learners and the Common Core Standards, noted “Development of native-like proficiency in English takes many years and ELLS that start schooling in the US in later grades will need additional time to meet the standards” (p. 6). She states that ELLs are a heterogeneous group and effectively educating them requires diagnosing each student instructionally, adjusting instruction to meet their needs and strengths, and monitoring their progress. Teachers and personnel at the school and district levels who are well prepared and qualified to support ELLs and take advantage of the strengths and skills they bring to the classroom are needed but finding such qualified people to fill positions all over the country may not be possible due to scarcity and/or lack of funding.
Mathis (2010) adds to this facet of the Common Core debate by stating that studies have shown that there is no evidence that the simple act of raising standards or making them uniform across states will, in fact, cause increased student learning. If the country continues down its current path, America is in danger of focusing on ineffective standards while ignoring the fundamental inequities that exist in our educational system. He thinks that the real focus should be on closing these gaps (i.e. gaps between whites and minorities, native English-speakers and our educational system.
While there are many positives associated with the Common Core, below are some of the most popularized issues that opponents have regarding the policy. The table lists a handful of ways in which the policy affects teachers, students, and education in general.
Though the idea of increasing the education levels of our student population as a whole is a noble one, the method in which it is being attempted has many cynics and detractors (see Libbie Nelson's [2015)] video below entitled Why Common Core Math Problems Look So Weird). In my own classroom, I personally enjoy the commonality associated with teachers providing instruction in a similar manner because it is less confusing for students, but I think that each school should system be able to choose the method that leads their students to success. In my opinion, while standardized testing is a great place to start, it simply can’t be the end all-be all indicator of a student’s academic or career readiness. Until people can make a legitimate career out of being professional test takers, I believe that a test shouldn’t determine whether you are adequately prepared for a career. With that being said, Common Core will undoubtedly undergo many alterations over the course of its lifetime and, though it may not be a perfect system, it at least provides some type of accountability for teachers and students and sets a goal for each state. It is a good first step in the right direction, but one that needs to be revisited often and tweaked in the future.
References
August, D, (2011) English Language Learners and the Common Core Standards
[PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://flesolcobbcentral.typepad.com/files/augustccss.pdf
Bidwell, A. (2014). The History of Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from
http://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/articles/2014/02/27/the-history-of-common-core-state- standards?page=3
Mathis, W. J. (2010). The “Common Core” Standards Initiative: An Effective Reform Tool? Retrieved from
http://epicpolicy.org/publication/common-core-standards
Nelson, L. [Vox]. (2015, April 9). Why Common Core Math Problems Look So Weird [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBkQAxt1JXA
The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (2012). Application of Common Core State StaStandards for ELL. Retrieved from
http://flesolcobbcentral.typepad.com/files/application-for-english-learners-1.pdf
Artwork Credit:
DePaun,B. (24, July 2014) Deeper Learning Digest. [Cartoon] Alliance for Excellent Education.
Retrieved from http://all4ed.org/deeper-learning-digest-common-core-watch-and-new-tech-network-spotlight/