The Common Core of the Apple of Discord

Few issues in education have been as divisive as the Common Core. Contrary to its name, it became a point of contention rather than the unifying force it was meant to be. Innumerable articles have been written on the topic, speeches have been delivered, and conversations and debates are still rumbling in the hallways of policymaking institutions, teacher lounges, and students’ homes. The Common Core became that perceived enemy we blame for virtually anything that’s wrong with our education, our jobs, and even the way we parent when in fact it presents an opportunity to streamline curriculum, increase accountability, and establish uniform standards.

Most immigrants arriving in the United States find it shocking to find out that there isn’t a single national curriculum in the country. Really, before the introduction of the Common Core there weren’t even common guidelines and standards for schools to follow.  American education was and still is a hodgepodge of philosophies, approaches, and curricula impossible to navigate even for those who grew up with them. It really becomes a nightmare for families who have to change schools, especially if they have to do it more than once. Such a move does not guarantee any kind of continuity for the child, which might result in serious gaps in a child’s education. In one school they might teach phonics and in the other one whole language, in one school they will promote technology in K5 and in the other one computers will be banned from elementary classrooms, in one school kids will read by the end of kindergarten and in the other one it would be considered age-inappropriate.  This prevents parents from making informed decisions and discourages parent participation because eventually any parent would have no choice but trust “the system” when in fact there is no system.

The apathy and confusion result in mediocre schools, which is unfortunate since we have well-documented examples of countries implementing strong national curricula or guidelines and turning their education around in a very short amount of time. Singapore and Finland did just that rising from nowhere and turning their countries into internationally renowned hubs of highly skilled labor forces. These countries approached their reforms differently with Singapore adopting a unified curriculum and Finland opting for general national guidelines. Even though the Common Core is not a curriculum, as many mistakenly believe, it is a step in the right direction.

In addition to academic uniformity, common standards can improve accountability whether it concerns teachers answering to their principals or schools answering to parents. With common standards, all parties involved would know what the expectations are. The main point of contention here is the assessment of progress, of course, with many teachers, teacher unions, and even parents rallying against standardized testing. Teachers and unions see testing as a problem because the results are increasingly used for teacher and school evaluation with punitive consequences to follow if the results are dismal. Parents claim there is too much testing but are mainly concerned about plummeting test scores and their impact on their children’s future. These issues aside, is there anything inherently wrong with demonstrating one’s knowledge? No, there is not. Perhaps the implementation of the Common Core testing has been bumpy, but it is reasonable and fair for parents and schools to ask for accountability. As we know, children often think that they mastered the material because of its familiarity when they actually didn’t. Test preparation is a good opportunity for self-examination and reflection for both teachers and students, but instead of the negativity and stress, tests should become a way for teachers and students to be rewarded for their hard work with incentives such as bonuses for excellent teacher performance and letters of distinction for students.

Some members of the public interpret the Common Core as a government takeover of education, which is a valid concern because schools have been used as propaganda machines for centuries, including in the US. This distrust of the government involvement is deeply rooted in American history going all the way back to colonial times. The public’s fear of the government machine is fueled by the numerous examples of government inefficiency, overregulation, and costliness. Considering the long tradition of local control over education, the states are not willing to give up their right to determine what is being taught at their schools.  However, currently the Common Core standards consist only of general guidelines that do not prescribe the use of particular curricula, textbooks, etc. They leave a lot of room for schools and teachers to determine what materials they want to use to cover the concepts and benchmarks outlined in the standards.

What is more important is that these standards reflect our current understanding of child development and suggest developmentally appropriate benchmarks. These standards ensure that children are not pushed too hard to handle concepts before they develop proper cognitive tools. On the other hand, these standards also ensure that children are not lagging behind and are adequately prepared for college. Continuity and a well thought-through sequence of education are also important advantages supported by research and reflected in the Common Core standards. As we know, children build their knowledge by assimilation and accommodation, constructing new knowledge based on existing schema that they already possess. Having gaps in schema due to the patchy curriculum, especially when switching schools, will have a crippling effect on students’ academics and self-esteem.

There is no doubt that the implementation of the Common Core has had a rough start so far, but the idea behind the whole process is solid. Complaining about the snags along the way is not going to solve the issues, but patience and initiative will. Bill Gates, the engine behind this initiative, is aware that some changes need to be made and is working actively with policy makers, teachers, and members of the public to streamline the process and make sure the initiative doesn’t get buried under the weight of government bureaucracy. In his commendation of the Common Core published by USA Today, Bill Gates explains some of the key features underpinning his initiative and briefly explains the myths and misunderstandings surrounding the issue¹.

He points out that 80% of students expect to go to college, but only 40% of adults have an associate's degree or higher, which seems to indicate that the old standards used by individual states didn't help them achieve their goals. Bill Gates also responds to the critics who accuse him of using his fortune to push through his reforms singlehandedly without consulting the main stakeholders. He points out that the Common Core standards were developed in close collaboration with state governments, school officials, teachers, and members of the public. He states that “more than 10,000 members of the general public commented on the standards during drafting”. Money alone cannot buy such sweeping changes unless there is a certain level of readiness for reform amongst all parties involved.

Perhaps educating the public about the initiative should have been the first step in the process of the Common Core implementation because people naturally resist what they do not understand. Educating parents, students, and teachers and removing the negative pressure associated with Common Core tests would improve outcomes, increase buy-in, and speed up the reform.  

¹http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/02/11/bill-melinda-gates-common-core-education-column/5404469/