As students throughout Washington settle into the new school year, they might or might not recognize differences in the educational demands that are being placed upon them. And that might or might not be beneficial — which points out the teeth-gnashing that has accompanied implementation of Common Core educational standards. Formulated by a business-driven coalition that enlisted support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Common Core is designed to produce consistently higher education standards across states and to better prepare American students to compete in a global economy.
Of course, no good deed goes unpunished. Common Core has become a lightning rod for criticism, particularly from conservatives who fear overreaching government intrusion into education. There are, indeed, legitimate questions about the standards, but there also are an abundance of myths. The facts:
• Common Core was not developed by the federal government, although the feds have embraced the idea and have used leverage such as funding to urge states to adopt it. But the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act forbids the federal government from intervening in curriculum development.
• Common Core will not reduce state standards to the lowest common denominator. Mark Bauerlein, a professor at Emory University and member of the Common Core Development team, said, “The Common Core is about raising the bottom half.”
• And Common Core will not turn your child gay, although Charles Van Zant, a Republican state representative in Florida, claimed the standards in his state will “attract every one of your children to become as homosexual as they possibly can.”
Which points out the gutter levels to which the debate has descended. Rather than discuss the new standards based upon their merit, naysayers all too often have resorted to fear-mongering that obfuscates the issue. As Chris Minnich, executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers, told U.S. News: “(It) began with the idea that math in Massachusetts is not any different from math in Maryland, and now politics are involved.”
Thoughtful criticisms, however, are available. As Washington Post columnist George Will said: “This is a thin end of an enormous wedge of federal power that will be wielded for the constant progressive purpose of concentrating power in Washington. The advocates of Common Core say, ‘If you like local control of your schools, you can keep it, period. If you like your local curriculum, you can keep it, period.’ And people don’t believe them for very good reasons.”
Will voices a reasonable concern, as local control of curriculum is an essential part of the American system. Because of that, vigilance will be required to ensure that Common Core does, indeed, focus solely on the results while leaving the process to local jurisdictions. In the state of Washington, students in the Class of 2019 will be required to pass new tests in language arts and math in order to earn a diploma; how they attain that proficiency must remain up to the individual school districts.
While a critical examination of Common Core is necessary, the very loud complaints from some circles have ignored the real issue: The fact that the U.S. educational system is in need of improvement. A 2012 study by the Program for International Student Assessment showed that American students ranked below average in math and about average in science and reading among the world’s most-developed countries. Critics should be complaining about that instead of throwing a fit over Common Core.
