Efforts to Change the "Common Core" Name Will Perhaps Doom Them Even More

It seems that in an effort to curtail criticism and the growing backlash against the "Common Core," states are simply changing the name of them, hoping to "rebrand" them. (See this article entitled "Some States Customize Education Overhaul, Ditch Common Core Label.")

I would say this tactic is deceptive and ethically wrong. While it might certainly help with "marketing" the standards in the short term, it does not address the deeper concerns about the standards themselves. Nor does it address concerns that people have that the whole purpose of these standards that seems to drive commercial opportunity.

In education and in life, we have no business trying to "disguise" things in order to make them acceptable. There's something in that strategy that makes me cringe with nausea at the unethical nature of such a solution. Besides it simply will not work. Educators and the public are too smart to buy these stupid marketing strategies.

The name of the standards is not the problem. People have concerns about them, from the way they were developed, adopted and implemented to their structure and content. Instead of ignoring those concerns, those who support them are ethically obligated to address them. Here's just a few of the concerns as I seem them.

• First of all, the Common Core Standards were "coerced." While supporters point out out that many states chose to "adopt" them, some states simply adopted them to get federal money under Race to the Top. Arne Duncan's use of bribery to get states to adopt them instead of truly presenting the standards and encouraging debate about them was wrong-headed and now it's time to pay the devil his due. Instead of taking the time to argue and support their adoption, states had to adopt to get funding. Perhaps that at heart is Duncan's misconceptions about educators. He believes is salesmanship not rationally engaging educators in fruitful debate about his policy. That seems to be same problem demonstrated by politicians and policymakers trying to change the name to disguise them.
• Secondly, as Diane Ravitch has pointed out everywhere I've read, "the Common Core Standards were never tested before being implemented." We don't know whether and how they work. There's plenty of boasting out there about their ability to take our students into the 21st century, but no evidence to back it up. We don't know whether they are developmentally appropriate either. There may be standards that don't match kids because we've never tested them. They were rushed to implementation without anyone taking any kind of lengthy critical look as to what they might look like in classroom practice. Now that they are being used in the classroom, it is no wonder educators and parents are seeing problems with them. That was mistake number two about these standards. You can't rush something as important as national standards into implementation.
• Thirdly, there's no one in charge of revision and adjusting problems with the standards. They're just out there. The problem is, because those pushing these standards rushed their implementation, they didn't take the time for the entire educational establishment to take ownership of them. We know enough about "top-down" initiatives in this country in education to realize that would not work. With something as important as standards, it is important to take time work on them with the people who will be teaching them. If you want these standards to work, you have to get educators to take ownership of them.

All the marketing schemes in the world won't save the Common Core Standards if the process to develop, adopt, and implement them wasn't sound and convincing to educators. Efforts to use bribery by the federal government did not help. If the Common Core Standards are that great, then let's focus on those aspects and let's work to address the concerns that educators and others express about them and make them better. Let's be open and honest about them. Let's allow the debate to happen about both their adoption and their substance that did not happen because states were too busy trying to fulfill federal mandates. Trying to deceive the public and educators by changing their name will not be successful in the long term.

What Are the Real Motives Behind the Common Core State Standards? Let's Be Honest with Ourselves!

Today,  there was this post on the Public School Forum of North Carolina website defending the Common Core. That post, entitled "Common Core Standards Will Help NC Meet Its Challenges," was written by Caroline McCullen, the director of education initiatives at SAS which already has a multi-million dollar contract with North Carolina to provide value-added teacher data analysis software for teacher and principal evaluations.

Let me say up front in the interest of disclosure. I am a skeptic about the Common Core, not because I do not believe in the need to have higher standards. Also, who knows, the scheme might ultimately bring about some positive change in education. But, as a skeptic and admitted cynic about the reasons the Common Core were developed, my cynicism says that perhaps these standards were developed as a commercial opportunity for corporations like Pearson and other test companies to make more money off the public school systems. After all, as Diane Ravitch points out, those tasked for developing these standards "contained few educators, but a significant number of representatives of the testing industry." (See "Everything Your Need to Know Know about the Common Core.") Now, Ravitch has made it clear that she doesn't support the Common Core either. However, I will set aside my own skepticism and cynicism and look carefully at the arguments used to defend the Common Core the post.

• The Common Core is "more rigorous than North Carolina's previous standards."
• The Common Core is "benchmarked against college and career readiness measures.."
• The Common Core is "endorsed by governors of both parties across the country."
• The Common Core will "assure North Carolina citizens and business community that our students and future employees are challenged in the classroom and prepared to meet to compete in the global economy."
• Because North Carolina NAEP scores declined in 2009, the state's standards "were lower" there the Common Core standards are needed.
• The Common Core is needed because we need more rigorous tests so that we can compare students across the state and across the country.

Let's examine each of these points/

Are the Common Core standards more rigorous than North Carolina's previous standards?Probably, but neither McCullen nor our own state provide any extensive evidence to support this claim. They ask us to accept it as a fact. Certainly, if I look at the CCSS and the previous standards, I can see for myself that they are parts that are more rigorous, but when making claims, it is the responsibility of the one making the claims to support it, not me. In a document entitled "13 Things to Know about the Common Core State Standards in North Carolina" (See document here), makes the assertion that CCSS are more rigorous but doesn't provide any kind of analysis to support their claim either, nor is there a citation to any evidence. In fact, I could not find any detailed analysis that compares North Carolina's previous standards with the CCSS to determine which was more rigorous. If anyone knows such a detailed analysis I would like to see it. But what if they are more rigrous? Does it directly mean they are somehow better? What if in their rigorousness they aren't developmentally appropriate? What if what is assigned to one grade level is above the cognitive ability level of the students in that grade level? Then there's that whole argument that grade level assignments are bogus and arbitrary to begin with.We Americans seem to have a fetish for this word "rigorous" as if magically more rigorous always means better and more appropriate.

McCullen next argues that the "Common Core is bench-marked against college and career readiness measures." Those supporting the Common Core have been making this claim from the beginning. What does benchmarked really mean? According to one definition, it is a verb which means "to evaluate and check (something) by comparison with a standard." Does this really mean anything? Educators are notorious, especially testing and standards experts, for using words like to this to provide some kind of legitimacy to whatever they are arguing for. Still, if those who support these Common Core Standards argue that they are "benchmarked" then I suppose we have to take their word for it.

Next, McCullen argues that we should accept these standards because they are "endorsed by the governors of both parties across the country." This point really adds nothing to the argument as to why these standards are legitimate. In using an "argument from authority" McCullen tries to somehow make these standards valid simply because the governors accept them. Governor McCrory accepts the practice of school vouchers but that doesn't mean I agree with him. Just because the "authorities" accept the Common Core does make them any more legitimate. Using the fact the National Governor's Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers is simply arguing that because these individuals are in positions of authority, then the standards are worthy of being accepted or adopted. Arguments from authority do not really support why they should be implemented.

McCullen then argues is that the Common Core will somehow "assure the citizens of North Carolina and business community that our students and future employees are challenged in the classroom and prepared to meet the global economy." McCullen's claim here has no scientific or otherwise any evidence to support it at all. These standards will only assure the citizens of North Carolina that students are challenged, if those citizens see them as valid and challenging. There is simply no evidence to support this claim because the standards haven't been in place long enough to assure anyone of anything. They were not tested, just implemented.  The Common Core standards by themselves aren't evidence that anyone would be assured of anything until they have been implemented, tested and tried.. It's their effective implementation that will attest to how challenging they are, and we want know that for years, if they last that long.

Next, McCulen uses the decline in NAEP scores to claim that North Carolina standards were low. This claim also can't be made either. A decline in standardized test scores can be caused by anything, and was most likely caused by many, many factors. McCullen provides only a general statement without any supporting statistics to support her assertion.

The final assertion McCullen makes is that CCSS are needed because we need more rigorous tests in order to compare students nationally. This claim betrays what I am afraid the real motivation behind the Common Core is: the development and implementation of a nation-wide testing system that is a sure to be bonanza of companies like Pearson, College Board, and the ACT. The ACT has already announced an initiative to develop their own "Common Core" tests to be peddled to the states. Then there are companies like SAS waiting in the wings to sell data analysis software to all 50 states. The Common Core is all about testing and reforming education so that tests work better. Does any else see anything wrong with forcing our education system to fit testing so that it works rather than reforming our education so that it better serves students?

It is time for those peddling the Common Core to stop using vague generalities and marketing statements to sell it. Let's just be honest about it and what the motives are for implementing them. Ultimately, it might prove to be more rigorous and better prepare our students to complete globally. They might even assure our communities that classrooms are in fact more challenging. But until they have been implemented, making such claims do not make them true. Also, be honest about motives. The Common Core was implemented in order to provide standards that could be tested nationally so policy makers and education leaders can compare how students are doing nationally. For example,  being able to say in your role as State Superintendent that my state was "number one" on the National Achievement test after all is a good trophy to have. Then of course, there's the commercial bonanza to boot where all manner of companies can now make a bundle too. Who does it harm? Let's hope not the kids and our educational system.

Common Core: Sound Education Practice or Bad Gamble?

Now that 45 states (and 3 territories) have adopted the Common Core Standards, edu-preneurs and opportunists have gone into overdrive, churning out tons of materials, programs, and trainings to help schools and school districts implement these standards. Not a day goes by that I don't receive 15 or so emails from companies and individuals offering their wares and promising successful and complete implementation of the Common Core Standards.

 By all this hype, one would be tempted to think that the whole idea of having national standards was more about providing enterprising individuals and other entrepreneurs another opportunity to make millions from the public coffers.  Is the Common Core just another opportunity for making money, or is it a 21st century policy decision? Or, is it a continuation of a outdated education paradigm that refuses to die? Could it be that the Common Core adoption is nothing more than a "wrong bet" as education researcher and author Yong Zhao calls it?

In his latest book, World Class Learners: Educating Creative and Entrepreneurial Students, Zhao writes:

"The traditional education paradigm may have worked before but it is no longer adequate for the changed world. The efforts to develop a common curriculum, nationally and internationally, are simply working to perfect an outdated paradigm. The outcomes are precisely the opposite of the talents we need for the new era. It is the wrong bet for our children's future."

The thought that "If we just have the right standards, the right tests, then our students will achieve still blindly sees students as products to be developed. As long as we continue to view education as a process by which we bring students up to "standard" and not to their true potential, we are doomed to remain in the same cycle of education reform we've been in since the 1950s. Over and over, the political mantra has been, "We've got to raise educational standards!" Yet, little really every changes in our American education system. We are, in a word, hung up on a core assumption that education is something done to students rather than something they engage in.

I would like to hope that somehow the Common Core is an answer to our educational problems, but my own experience and knowledge tells me that it very well could be the "wrong bet" as Zhao calls it. Here's where some of my own skepticism lies:

• There is no research that says having common standards is going to somehow better meet the needs of 21st century students.Some will say "Common sense tells you that having common standards will raise the achievement of all," but then again, "It was common sense that told us the world was flat too."
• Common standards by its very nature assumes students have common capabilities, abilities and talents to some degree. Reality tells us something much different. Students have all manner of abilities and talents, and being able capitalize on individual talents and abilities rather than trying to standardize each child is what education should be about which is not what the Common Standards movement is about.
• The Common Core Standards movement is at its core more about having "standards for comparison purposes" than it is about truly meeting the individual needs of students. When politicians, policy-makers, and education leaders are more interested in developing a system that allows them to say "Our education system is better than yours," the needs of individual students suffer. The assumption that "we need to be able to compare students" is perhaps faulty to begin with. Students, and human beings, are different, and can't be considered cogs in a system.
• We are truly deceived if we think having the bragging rights of saying "US students lead the world in test scores" is going cause companies to suddenly relocate jobs and businesses in the states. Businesses move to other countries for economic reasons: they move to where labor is cheapest, period. To argue that "test-score bragging rights" will suddenly turn around our economy ignores the reality that businesses want cheaper employees, not necessarily more educated ones.

I know those who developed and have been trying to sell the Common Core mean well. Educators in the US have meant well all the way back to Sputnik and beyond. Still, I think it is important for us to remain skeptical as well, especially of initiatives like the Common Core implementation. A great deal of money and effort is being put into this education reform, and I can only hope it is more about the kids we teach every day, than business opportunity and professional advancement and political bragging rights. I just hope we haven't made the wrong bet.