Common Core Rant

Inspired by my classmate Jody on his blog, (thanks for being grumpy, Jody! ☺) I've decided it's my turn to rant. My Grandpa sent me an article a month or so ago from the Columbus Dispatch in Ohio. I just got around to reading it, and was relatively annoyed. The article, entitled "Students need challenge of Common Core standards", was written by Jeb Bush, chairman of the Foundation for Excellence in Education. 

The former governor described the standards as "state-driven, voluntary, and truly bipartisan" (Bush, 2013). Nevermind the fact that it was penned by the National Governers Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), both of which consist of education heads and not necessarily people with any classroom experience. Nevermind the fact that grants such as Race to the Top require "adoption of standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy"(Federalregister.gov, April 16, 2013) with little wiggle room for adoption of eligible standards outside of the Common Core. Nevermind the complex interrelatedness between education, (questionably sound) corporations, and (questionably sound) politics charged by many of the donors and members of the Foundation for Excellence in Education, the CCSSO, the NGA, and the Fordham Institute. (Yes, I’m talking to you, McGraw-Hill, Cisco, Pearson Education, Microsoft, Gates Foundation, etc.) Nevermind the strange occurrence that Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are both donors to the Foundation for Excellence in Education as well as the Fordham Institute...

Bush further states that the Thomas B. Fordham Institute compared previous ELA and mathematics standards to Core Standards and found that these standards were more "rigorous, clear, streamlined, and relevant" (Bush, 2013). Oh boy, here we go. 

Rigorous: Well, I can agree with that. No argument here. They definitely are more rigorous than previous standards. However, I do argue that the standards are not developmentally appropriate. According to Piaget, and now widely accepted by many, children working at the preoperational stage lack the ability to view something from alternate perspectives and have difficulty working at an abstract level. Many of the standards, conversely, require abstract generalizations students may or may not be developmentally ready to comprehend. 

Clear: Now, this one REALLY irks me. NONE of my colleagues, retired educators in and outside of my family, friends, classmates, students, or students’ parents would agree that each and every Common Core standard is clear. While some of the standards are certainly cut-and-dry, standards as low as the third grade level are verbose and full of content-specific jargon that certainly don’t lend themselves to understanding by all stakeholders. You'll see concrete examples of this argument in a minute. 

Streamlined: Um, what? There are numerous examples of great areas of disconnect in a particular concept or strand. Students first learn about 3-D shapes in Kindergarten, where they must analyze and compare different 3-D shapes. In first grade, students are required to compose 3-D shapes “to create a composite shape, and compose new shapes from the composite shapes” (Common Core Standards, 2013, Standard 1.G.A). Students don’t see anything about 3-D shapes again until sixth grade. 

Relevant: Yeah, right. Which of the following is more relevant to elementary-age students, in your opinion? Option one: students learn about money beginning in kindergarten. They work with money yearly until reaching grade 5, at which time they transition to learning about fiscal responsibility, money management, and economics. Option two: students learn about money beginning in grade 2. They do not work with money again until grade four, at which time they are expected to
 “Use the four operations to solve word problems involving…money, including problems involving simple fractions or decimals, and problems that require expressing measurements given in a larger unit in terms of a smaller unit”(Common Core Standards, 2013, Standard 4.MD.A.2). If you chose option 1, you're probably a sound judge of relevant knowledge and critical life skills for primary students. If you chose option 2, you're probably a fan of the Common Core. 


Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m definitely a fan of standards to promote “rigorous, clear, streamlined, relevant”(Bush, 2013) learning. Having lived in five states growing up, I even like the idea of using a widely accepted set of standards that meet the aforementioned expectations. However, I'm NOT a fan of flowery-written standards created by people that do not work directly work todays' diverse 21st century learners. I'm NOT a fan of politically-driven agendas that undermine teaching as a profession and do not have childrens' true needs at heart. And I’m CERTAINLY NOT a fan of the feelings of guilt and failure I and many other teachers probably experience in knowing that the things we HAVE TO TEACH aren’t the things that we know our students NEED TO LEARN. 


And don’t worry; I’m not quite that grumpy! My next blog post will include ideas for what can be done to fix the current system flaws. ☺

Question of the day: what are your opinions on the core standards, especially in relation to being “rigorous, clear, streamlined, and relevant”?