Scholarly Writing & Styles

Issues in K-12 Education Case Study Document 5

Letter to the Editor: Issues with the Common Core

This is a simulated editorial from a high school principal. The letter aims to address concerns with Common Core State Standards implementation.

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Initiative is a recent effort to establish a single set of clear educational standards for K-12 in English language arts and mathematics. It is a reform movement that will greatly affect education on a local, state, and federal level.

The standards were created by three entities: a board of state governors, a council of school officers, and a private consulting firm. States had the option to adopt this set of standards or not, with the incentive that they would be eligible for more federal funding for their schools if they did. The federal government has been vocally supportive of the standards. The goal of the standards is to prepare students who graduate from high school to enter a higher education program, or to enter the workforce. The standards emphasize problem solving, critical thinking, and written communication as the most valuable skills.

The CCSS standards have generated criticism from school administrators, parents, teachers, students, and the community as a whole. Much of the frustration is directed at the implementation of the standards as opposed to their explicit goal. I have summarized some of my main concerns as succinctly as possible. As someone personally and professionally affected by these standards, I have a strong opinion about the effect that they will have in our school.

I encourage those of you with interest in our community’s education to conduct your own research and formulate your own opinions. I plan to hold a forum during the coming school year to allow an outlet for people to express their opinions.

• Federal Imposition on States’ Rights

The federal government has no jurisdiction over individual state education curricula. Admittedly, the United States Department of Education was not directly responsible for creating the CCSS, but it has tied federal funding to adoption as a way to compel states to implement the standards. Some states have opted not to implement the standards, but they are few and far between. Many cash-strapped state governments didn’t really have a choice on whether to adopt the standards or not. Attaching federal funding to the standards moved the issue of a common set of standards to the political sphere.

• Trial Period for Effectiveness

There was no trial period to measure the effectiveness of the CCSS, nor any time to determine the ability of schools to make this significant change. There is no evidence to see what effect, or how big an effect, these standards will have. I cannot recall such a monumental shift in education policy taking place without due consideration and review

© 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 1 of 3

prior to implementation. How do we know that teaching these standards will actually help with future college and career success?

• High-Stakes Testing and Teacher Professional Development

In the past, states have spent a great deal of money developing state-specific assessments. The states adopting the CCSS must use assessments that will test the standards. There are two national consortia that are using different assessment tools. Old assessments were discarded in favor of the CCSS-aligned assessments. States were given the ability to choose either consortium, but assessments were a mandated part of the CCSS, linked to the funding available from the federal government. The tests were rapidly developed before the standards could be fully implemented. Our school is struggling to implement these standards, and anxiety is high amongst teachers and students. The truth is that many students will fail these tests, damaging student confidence and enthusiasm for learning in the process. Not only will students suffer, but teacher evaluations are being tied to student performance. Teacher advocacy groups are increasingly skeptical of high-stakes testing; the whole process has completely politicized the field of education. If the standards are implemented, a slow, calculated rollout of the standards, followed by eventual inclusion of student (and indirectly teacher) assessment would be the best method. Resources are wasted on a fast rollout of the CCSS. Funds would be better allocated on teachers’ professional development related to the interpretation and application of the new standards.

• Financial Cost

The CCSS will have enormous financial repercussions. Teachers have to be trained, expensive standardized assessments need to be created, curricula will have to be re- designed, and textbooks and ancillaries will have to be replaced, or significantly revised.

• Larger Issues Regarding Education Reform

Most importantly, the standards movement does not address some of the larger educational issues that are affecting our nation. We need high-quality preschools, expanded summer and after-school programs, improved instructional resources, better ways of attracting and retaining the best teachers, and a reduction in class sizes. It seems to me that the intense focus of resources spent on the CCSS might take resources away from some of the other issues that we face in education. Perhaps fixing some of these issues, decreasing class size for example, would improve our educational system better than standards reform.

Two purposes of the CCSS are to better prepare students for the future, and to present clear, accessible goals for students, teachers, and parents. These are great ideals that are championed across the board. My reservations are not with the idea of improving our students’ education, but with how this particular brand of reform is being carried out.

Kieren Hale, MEd

© 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 2 of 3

Principal of Monit High School

References

Apache County Superintendent of Schools. (2013). ADE response to issues raised about Arizona’s Common Core Standards. Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jPdYoRr-ZxUJ:www.azed.gov/special- education/files/2013/05/issues-responses-regarding-arizonas-common-core- standards.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Baker, A. (2014, February 16). Common Core curriculum now has critics on the left. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/nyregion/new-york-early- champion-of-common-core-standards-joins-critics.html?_r=0

Cohen, R. (2013, December 3). Understanding the pros and cons of the Common Core State Standards. Nonprofit Quarterly. Retrieved from http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/policysocial- context/23329-understanding-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-common-core-state-standards.html

Dornfield, A. (2013, January 17). Seattle high school’s teacher toss district’s test. National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/2013/01/17/169620124/seattle-high-schools- teachers-toss-districts-test

Karp, S. (2013). The problems with the Common Core. Rethinking Schools. Retrieved from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/28_02/28_02_karp.shtml

New York State Senate. (2013, December 20). Ranzenhofer co-sponsors four bills to address issues concerning Common Core Learning Standards. Retrieved from http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/ranzenhofer-co-sponsors-four-bills-address-issues- concerning-common-core-learning-stan

© 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 3 of 3