Common Core is Worth it or Worthless

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.