A little history follows: Common Core began as an
effort to establish uniform national standards and tests, and was incentivized
by billions in federal funding and waivers from the onerous provisions of No
Child Left Behind. The program was then promoted by the Obama administration,
in the midst of a recession. To aid the implementation process, the federal
government created two national tests aligned with the standards. But as the
deadline for implementation loomed closer, states began to realize the costs of
adopting Common Core, both financial and in terms of their educational
decision-making autonomy required either a complete opt-out or in the least a
re-look.
Why not consider full repeal of the Common Core
standards? Why have the states not
develop their own standards that are better, higher and cleaner than Common
Core. Essentially, each state should have the right to define their education
standards. Why not craft a set of standards exclusively for a given state’s
student population, by borrowing from rigorous standards that have profited
another state’s student population, but also retaining solid standards of their
own?
Based on
research, practical classroom experience, and prior knowledge of education
testing methods, one would think that the practice of competitive federalism in
educational testing would serve state school systems well. For those who are
unfamiliar with the term competitive federalism in educational testing, it is
the process of a given state evaluating their current standards, keeping what
is good, discarding what is bad, and using what has worked in other states.
Competitive federalism is the opposite of one-size-fits-all approaches like
Common Core. This is why Opposition to Common Core continues to build across
the nation, driven largely by parents. Even the most ardent of educrats should have realized that quality
education is best supported and fostered by those closest to the children—local
leadership, teachers and parents—who are best equipped to craft an education
system that fosters upward mobility and opportunity for children in their
state.
As has been
well documented, there is a growing apprehension across the country about the
bias and censorship that is seeping into the curriculum of American schools.
The alluded to predisposition and expurgation of American history is but one
example about context that matches the objective. Is history just about what
happened or why it happened as well? Is it about learning what happened it its
historical environment or attempting to apply today’s social and cultural
standards to critique past events and actions out of their context? What is the
objective of teaching American history? That, in essence is what much of the Common
Core controversy is about. In my opinion, both good and criminal of any
historical event as well as subsequences should be taught, with balance being
the objective. To do otherwise just makes American history an exercise in rote
memorization. This very example reinforces why local leadership, teachers and
parents are best to craft an education system’s curriculum and resulting
standardized tests.
And for
those who have yet to form an opinion as to where this blogger stands
reference; Common Core, read between the lines. For those who support federal Common Core
standards as they are, you are part of the educational problem not the
solution.