For Common Core to work — that is, for it to be more than a bunch of vague words in a document and to actually change what teachers do in their classrooms — it has to be aligned with new tests that impose meaningful consequences on individual teachers for complying with the New Educational Order. As I’ve been expecting, teachers and their unions have no desire to be controlled by the Common Core standards-testing-accountability machine and are starting to rebel against it in earnest. Randi Weingarten has called for a halt to efforts to link Common Core to high stakes assessments and Diane Ravitch and her army of angry teachers are mobilizing against this intrusion on their authority.
I have to admit that I am sympathetic with this resistance by teachers to having their classrooms controlled by a system of national standards, testing, and consequences. If a giant machine controlled our nation’s schools it might become self-aware, obtain the launch codes, and then…. But I digress. I don’t want a centrally planned education system, just as I don’t want a centrally planned economy. It wouldn’t work and it would be incredibly oppressive. So, I support teacher opposition to being controlled by the central planning of Common Core. I understand that teachers don’t want to be ruled by the Petty Little Dictators behind Common Core.
The problem is that I also don’t want to be ruled by the Petty Little Dictators of teacher unions and localized public school monopolies. The fight between teachers and Common Core backers is really a clash of the Petty Little Dictators. Common Core wants to dictate what teachers do to make sure they are “doing it right.” And teacher unions resist this because they want to be in charge.
I don’t think we have to choose between these Petty Little Dictators. I favor a third way. Why don’t we not have any dictators and just let families choose the education that they think is appropriate for their children? No one has to tell them what a good education is. They don’t need Common Core to restrict their choices and they don’t need teachers unions to confine them to public school monopolies. I oppose both efforts at dictatorship and favor liberty.
Now it’s time to release the Kraken.
Jay P. Greene's Blog 
There is a very good reason why teachers don’t want to teach to a one size fits all test. The reason is that it forces teachers to spend the vast majority of their time trying to get the bottom of the academic curve up to a mediocre level of proficiency. The idea that this will result in 21st century global competitiveness is based on total ignorance. We didn’t follow this approach for most of our more than 200 years of history. The idea that all students can or need to succeed in abstract mathematics is built on the politics of equity (equal outcomes not equal opportunity) not sound educational principles. It will not result in raising the bar in education…. it does the exact opposite…but those who don’t face kids everyday don’t get it and probably never will. As long as we continue on the path of folly we will see nothing but
mediocrity and a continuing demise of our education system.
Your point about spending all our time on the lowest-performing students suggests the deeper flaw in CCSS – it’s “raise the floor” thinking rather than “raise the ceiling” thinking. If we focus on removing barriers to higher performance, we get higher performance all around. If we focus on dragging the bottom up, inevitably we also drag the top down.
Well said…. I agree completely. Too bad this is not understood by all the people who insist on a one size fits all solution to our problems.
Outstanding graphic on this post. The title should have been “Clash of the Non-Titans” or “Clash of the Petty Little Titans.”
Paul the Psychic Octopus loves the kraken line so much, he is now threatening not to renew the contract for the use of his likeness on this blog if I don’t agree to use that line in every post with him in it. I think I will comply with his wishes!
Let’s get back to first principles here. School is mandatory. That is no small governmental intrusion. Mandatory schooling is a state matter. Doesn’t it make sense that the public has a stake in what is taught? As Klein and Stern point out, the CCSS were developed by the states and there are no sanctions (by the feds) for not adopting them. But at the state level can you think of anything more silly (and wasteful) than mandatory public schooling without mandatory curriculum? Can you imagine the Defense Department being told they can’t buy bullets? But that’s our current public education system: everyone has to go to school and here’s the money for the buildings, but teach whatever you want. Why don’t we hand our soldiers unloaded weapons? It’s not for nothing that our public education system has been called a national security risk.
Government financing of a service does not require government control over how it is used. Social security pays for retirement but we rightly do not dictate to seniors how their use those funds. Similarly the government can help pay for education without controlling its content. We do this for higher ed.
To the extent that regulation is necessary it matters which level of government is making those regulations. Education is traditionally a local matter and constitutionally a state matter. The level of federal involvement in common core is unprecedented. And the continued insistence that CC is completely voluntary by states is disingenuous given that the Feds offered financial rewards and relief from NCLB requirements for those who played ball.
Jay, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Just because the feds endorse an idea — the sun rises in the east — doesn’t mean it is their idea. The evidence is incontrovertible (sp?) that the CCSS were devised by the states and their agencies. And there is no federal penalty or sanction for not adopting the standards. (It is a serious twist of logic to pretend that a federal incentive is the same as a federal mandate.) Five states have opted out; they are not in jail, nor are they fined. Where is the federal mandate? You are mistaking a real national consensus, expressed by 45 state governments, with a federal mandate. And that dog just won’t hunt. Sorry, but they ain’t the same.
Peter, the Common Core Standards were not developed by the states. They were developed by the NGO and the CCSSO which are private organizations not subject to the control of voters or other taxpayers. This process was funded by Bill Gates and the public was purposely kept in the dark during the process. Many state legislatures approved the adoption of the CCSS before they were even written……Indicating this is all about politics not about sound educational principles. There was only one k-12 educator involved in writing the standards. Numerous experts would not sign off on the CCSS. The CCSS will cost billions but they were never tested in a classroom and there is not one shred of evidence that they will bring one iota of improvement. Everything about the Common Core standards is rotten to the core. They ultimately will and should be soundly rejected.
Bob, I’m sorry, but you’re grasping at straws here. The NGO is the National Governors Association and the CCSSO is the Council of Chief State School Officers. This being a representative democracy, we have to give some credence to these organizations acting on behalf of state government — and thus to “the people” who vote their state govenrment officials into office. I don’t know how the NGO and CCSSO became “private organizations.” If state legislatures signed off on the CCSS before they were written, that is their problem; it surely doesn’t invalidate the democratic process — nor suggest a better way of getting quality public education for students who deserve it. As to the cost of the CCSS — a red herring. What does the current failed system cost? And there is plenty of evidence — Catholics, KIPP, Uncommon, etc. — to suggest that a rigorous, aligned, content-based curriculum does in fact work. Since doing nothing is costing us billions, the Common Core, with sound evidence of success, should welcomed with open arms.
Peter,
I’m not defending the status quo and you are the one grasping at straws. There is no evidence that standards have any impact on student achievement. It is well documented that some states with so called weaker standards have out performed states with so called higher standards. Show me the evidence where higher states standards have led to higher student performance. You are basing your arguments on assumptions and myth.
As someone who has both authored and studied standards during the last two decades, it is my opinion that the Common Core standards are among the most poorly written standards that I have observed. The proof in that is the massive professional development necessary for teachers to even understand the standards. Good standards are written in a manner that can be understood by all stakeholders; that includes students, parents, teachers, administrators and the public. The CCSS are about as far from that as you can get.
Even if you forget that issue, you will find that all across the nation reformers are ignoring the content of the CCSS in favor of following the “Standards of Mathematical Practice”. This is the preamble to the standards and they are the guiding light to reformers. They are nothing more than a continuation of the fuzzy math reform that has left many of our kids mathematically illiterate during the last two decades.
If you want to know the true story about the CCSS then listen to this expert explain where they come from.
Great graphics, especially considering the recent passing of Ray Harryhausen (who I will remember for bring the pre Doctor Tom Baker to a wider audience.)
Anyway, with regards to “Why don’t we….let families choose the education that they think is appropriate for their children? “
They can’t?
Bob, my “grasping at straws” comment referred only to your assertion that the NGO and NCSSO were private organizations. We’ll probably have to disagree about whether CCSS are better or worse than what has preceded them (several groups, including Thomas Fordham Institute, have concluded that they are better than what most states now have), but the CCSS folks have no illusions about the limitations of the standards, saying quite explicitly that they must be accompanied by a good curriculum. Even supporters of the CCSS, myself included, know there is much work to be done. See Linda Bevilacqua’s “Six Traps” essay: http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2013/02/28/six-traps-that-could-snare-the-common-core-standards/. All the best,
Thanks for the discussion Peter. My prediction: the CCSS will have no positive impact and will continue to cause controversy and uproar by parents and citizens until they are thrown on the scrap pile of unproven educational fads.
I think this clash between teachers unions and Common Core will follow the same path as comprehensive immigration reform.
Wherein the unions got together with the US Chamber of Commerce to hammer out a deal that even a Mark Zuckerberg can love?
I assume the levers of power in Common Core will be captured completely by union interests. Thud.
I have just caught up with this “conversation.” Come on, now, Peter.
If the states had developed Common Core’s standards, they couldn’t have been copyrighted by the CCSSO and the NGA. I was on the Validation Committee, as you know. The standards writers were selected mainly by the Gates Foundation. What state would have selected David Coleman as the chief architect of the ELA standards, someone who has never taught in K-12 and has no experience with standards. Ditto for his friend, Jason. Bright young men, to be sure, but people who would never have been chosen through a public process that would have had to be in place if “states” were going to write national standards. We still don’t know why CCSSI chose the people it did, to write the grade level standards. Nor do we know why CCSSI chose the people it did, for the standards development committee. Would any state have selected Andreas Schleicher for the Validation Committee?
The WSJ has made itself look very silly. Two mathematicians telling us how rigorous Common Core’s ELA standards are. A journalist and a lawyer telling us how substantive the ELA standards are. Apparently, the WSJ hasn’t been able to find one literary scholar or expert to say a kind word about the ELA standards. Sandra
Thanks Sandra…. It seems that some want national standards and curricula so bad they are willing to set all logic aside.
Hi Sandra (and Bob, indirectly :))
I don’t mean to quibble here, but I must since we seem to be in the weeds on this point.
The NGA according to its website: “Founded in 1908, the National Governors Association (NGA) is the collective voice of the nation’s governors and one of Washington, D.C.’s most respected public policy organizations. Its members are the governors of the 55 states, territories and commonwealths.”
And the CCSSO: “is a nationwide, nonpartisan, and nonprofit membership organization. The only one of its kind to bring together the top education leaders from every state in the nation.”
We can fault these organizations – as you have done – for doing a lousy job (I personally think they’ve done a pretty good job) or for taking money from the wrong people (the red herring in your Gates criticism is that lots of organizations, including teacher unions, hand out money to policymaking organizations all the time), but let’s at least not pretend that the NGA and CCSSO are not creatures of our state governments. Let’s at least drop the nationalization canard and start paying attention to the standards themselves; the more voices the better (including those of lawyers and journalists).
Finally, if there is a governance issue here, it might very well be whether states should have authority over public education. They seem to have done a fairly lousy job of it the last 50-plus years, which is why the country has exploded with reform efforts, some better than others. But we certainly can’t afford the status quo ante that some are proposing.
I very much appreciate this discussion.
Peter,
I agree we are a little out in the weeds when talking about the proper role of the CCSSO and NGA but in my opinion they have crossed a line when they start getting involved in the governing process. It is one thing for governors to come together in order to compare ideas and policies and it is quite another for that organization to start involving itself in policies on a national level. Especially, when those policies result in doing an end run around the constitution (10th amendment), and laws purposely passed to limit or even prohibit any type of national education system such as those regulating the DOE. Based on your previous arguments about democracy, I would assume you would have no objections to citizens demanding that their state withdraw from any such agreements and might even applaud those who exercise those rights (Bravo Indiana).
“Finally, if there is a governance issue here, it might very well be whether states should have authority over public education”
Certainly the states do have governance over education and many resent the intrusion of billionaire bullies using Washington power brokers in an attempt to wrestle that authority away from the people. Our democracy has a history of local control of education and it has served this nation well for most of its’ history. The erosion of that control up to the state level has led to no improvement in our system and there certainly is no evidence to make one believe that bumping that control up to the national level would have any positive effect on our system.
Peter,
I am rather amused by your request that I pay more attention to the standards themselves. What would you like me to talk about in Common Core’s ELA standards that I haven’t already? Perhaps it’s time for others, including you, to respond to the specific criticisms I have made. If lawyers, journalists, and mathematicians are unable to, then maybe there’s a reading comprehension problem at the professonal level that needs attention.
Not only have most states (not all) not done as well as they might in K-12, the federal government has probably done worse than all of them. As I’ve pointed out, the feds have enacted no effective policies for increasing academic achievement since the Merrill Land Grant Acts of the 19th century. Time to focus on the education schools and get the feds and state DoEs out of K-12. Sandra
Thank you, Jay, for allowing us to have this conversation. And I’m sorry, Sandra, that you took my recommendation that we pay more attention to the standards themselves personally; you are the Queen of standards and your track record in Massachusetts is the gold standard. You of all people do not need my advice on standards. Also, of course, the report you and Mark Bauerlein produced for the Pioneer Institute is a must-read. Your skeptical voice here is essential. And your suggestion that we “get the feds and state DOEs out of K-12” may be the best long-term strategy, but in the short-term, I’m afraid both entities will have their paws on education policy and I do believe that, under these circumstances the Common Core, as written, does deliver to states and districts a challenge that can improve student achievement. Are the standards perfect? No. Do they need effective implementation — and a good curriculum! — to work? Yes. Are they better than what (most of us) have? Yes. Let’s take advantage of this attempt to expand educational opportunities for our children, especially the poor, and encourage schools to read and implement — and improve on! — the Common Core .. And Bob, just one thing about “billionaire bullies” wrestling school authority away from “the people”: you disregard the incredible influence of the unions over school policy. The People have not had control over their schools for several decades.
Thank you again for the opportunity to join this important discussion.
Thanks, Peter, for helping advance the discussion.
The entire structure of public education should be re-examined. Why do we still have ‘school districts’ based on geography and local property taxes? That made sense in the early agrarian days of the country when property ownership was more equally distributed and most folks lived on farms and small towns. Today, this structure leads to inequality from varying property values and high income variations among districts. All funding should come through vouchers with all schools competing for the funds through quality instruction. Some will survive; some won’t. After a period of restructuring, the quality schools will stand out without government setting standards.