Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Conflicted on Common Core
Recently, Troy Senik suggested that Common Core has the potential to be the sleeper issue in the 2016 Republican presidential primary race. Common Core, which effectively establishes uniform educational standards for English and math on a national level, is deeply unpopular among elements of the Right and it certainly has the potential to be a major factor in the selection of the next Republican presidential candidate.
Honestly, I haven’t paid a great deal of attention to the issue until now. I don’t have children, my own education was largely private, and is, in any case, completed. That said, Common Core is going to be a major issue facing our nation as a matter of both politics and policy. Consequently, I’ve been trying to determine my own position on the matter.
I have to say I’m conflicted. I have serious principled concerns about the extension of federal involvement in the education, but at the same time I have to say that I find it hard to believe that a program which is both opposed by the NEA and supported by education reformers such as Michelle Rhee is an unambiguously bad idea.
As a matter of general principle I’m skeptical Common Core on grounds of both limited government and federalism. I don’t really think the state should be providing education at all, but if it’s going to do so it seems to me to be a matter constitutionally left to the states. Since Reagan, the GOP has fantasized about doing away with the Department of Education and the establishment of a national curriculum via Common Core is certainly a step away from the realization of that goal. On a more practical level I’m concerned the Common Core will lead to less accountability on the part of educators, as it will inevitably entail greater layers of bureaucracy and less responsiveness to the concerns of local constituencies and parents. I also disapprove of the way Common Core is being used as a Trojan horse to achieve a national curriculum when there is no political mandate for one.
As far as the substantive elements of Common Core go, I’m not sure where I stand. Criticism of the Common Core standards has come from both directions. Some critics claim that Common Core standards are not stringent enough and that will lead to a dumbing down of American public education. Others assert, just as strenuously, that the standards are unreasonably high, placing impossible expectations upon already overburdened students. Based upon my own cursory research it seems as though neither criticism is wholly valid or wholly without merit. The expectations set by Common Core appear to be less stringent than those found in our high-performing public schools, but dramatically more demanding than those found in low-performing schools.
This brings me to where I see the potentially positive arguments for Common Core. Setting aside my principled objections to public education in general and and federal involvement in education specifically, there is a very practical question of how we best educate our nation’s children.
America’s public education system is nowhere near as good as it should be, but neither is it the unmitigated disaster that many people claim to be. We don’t stand atop the PISA rankings, but we’re not at the bottom either. Compared to his peers in comparable countries the average American student is mediocre.
However, evaluating American education based on average PISA scores masks the true problem with our educational system. The problem is not that the average American student is mediocre when compared to his peers around the world. It is that our lowest-performing students fare much worse than their international peers. American education isn’t uniformly bad, it’s just that where it is bad it is spectacularly so. It is in its potential to improve the education of our poorest performing students that I think Common Core has merit.
Two of the most frequent criticisms of Common Core which I have encountered are 1) that it eliminates the ability of local school boards to tailor their educational approaches to best fit their students’ needs, forcing them instead to “teach to the test”; and 2) that it diminishes teachers’ accountability to the parents of the students they are educating. I don’t find either of these criticisms particularly compelling.
I simply do not see why locally-established curricula are necessarily preferable to national standards on a practical level. As I see it, the more relevant question is whether the standards applied are appropriate and the curricula effective. One of the major reasons so many of our schools, particularly in the Democratically-controlled inner-cities, perform so poorly is that the standards set in place by the local school boards are simply too low. Imposing the higher standards established by Common Core would seem to me to be an improvement.
I also don’t find much merit in claims that local educational authorities need flexibility to tailor their curricula to their particular student bodies in order to educate them effectively. It’s undeniably true that we live in a vast and diverse country, but the techniques needed to successfully teach children to read, write, and do sums should not vary dramatically based on locality. (There is not a particularly Southern Californian method of long division.) Furthermore, I have genuinely never understood the objection to “teaching to a test.” If the goal is to teach children to read, write, and do sums what is wrong with teaching to a test of a student’s ability to read, write, and do sums?
I am more sympathetic to concerns that Common Core will reduce accountability to parents. Parental involvement is crucial to the successful education of children. That said one of the main problems with our low-performing schools is that they are in impoverished communities where the level of parental involvement is low and teachers face little accountability in practice. In such cases, federal accountability, though by no means ideal, is preferable to no accountability at all.
As you may have noticed, most of my analysis of Common Core has been focused on its effects on low-performing schools. This is because I think the practical effects of Common Core will largely be on low-performing schools. In middle-class and affluent communities with comparatively high quality public schools I do not think the effect of Common Core will be particularly significant.
It’s true that the standards established by Common Core will often be lower than those currently in practice at quality public schools, but that will not necessarily lead to a lowering of the caliber of the education those schools provide. As things currently stand, high-performing schools provide an education which exceeds the standards established by state and local authorities. I think it likely that where Common Core standards fall below those currently in place they will have little effect, much the way the minimum wage has little effect on the income of doctors or lawyers.
Similarly, I think Common Core will have little effect on teacher accountability to parents in high-performing schools. Accountability is largely a factor of parental involvement and I don’t think parents who currently taking an active role in their children’s education will cease to do so as a result of Common Core.
So here’s where I’m at:
I think the Common Core is likely to improve the education of students in our lower performing schools while not having much effect on their peers in better performing schools. I’m rather ambivalent about the practical merits of local control of education, but I have a strong principled inclination to favor it and I strongly disapprove of the extra-democratic means by which Common Core is being implemented. I’m still not sure where I ultimately come down on the issue.
Can anyone on Ricochet help me out?
Published in General
I completely agree that music, art, and PE are important parts of a complete education, but they are of secondary importance to literacy and numeracy. I don’t think that it should be a question of choosing between music and literacy, but if it is there can be only one correct choice. Musical, physically-fit artists end up on the dole if they cannot read or write.
Agreed. But let me add that I don’t think there has to be a choice. Mismanagement of school funds and, in my opinion, too much high-stakes testing have pushed many schools into a corner where they are forced to choose.
I agree both that it doesn’t have to be a choice and that mismanagement of funds has been a problem. I still don’t understand what is so pernicious about high-stakes testing. Compared to other developed countries our testing is not high stakes at all. Somehow they manage to teach well rounded curricula despite having genuinely high stakes testing.
Check out Peggy Noonan’s column on CC today on Realclearpolitics.
http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2014/05/07/the-trouble-with-common-core/
What a great post. I hope I can add somewhat to the conversation.
I’m on record as opposing Common Core, and I’m opposed to it for several reasons:
The manner in which it was adopted. The Illinois State Board of Education adopted CC 2 weeks after the final standards were adopted, with no public or legislative input and with no field-testing of the standards. Something that’s going to have such broad ranging impact on our entire education system demands a public hearing.
It violates everything I know about the doctrine of Federalism. Standards are necessary, but as George Will made plain on Special Report the other night, the chances of true innovation in education are more likely to come from the states trying their own methods than from some bureaucracy in Washington.
The notion of data-mining is very troubling. It may be that these fears are unfounded, but then again, they may not. Why not put the brakes on the program until all of these questions are answered? The fact that inBloom has folded doesn’t mean that the issue is behind us.
… Further comments to come
Further comments…
Expanding on my second point above, it is generally agreed that Massachusetts’ standards were higher than those of the Common Core, but the state nonetheless adopted Common Core, presumably for the money dangled in front of it. However much the states receive in Race to the Top grants, or gain from waivers granted under NCLB, it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the billions that the states collect from their taxpayers to support their schools. Grabbing for nickels is a slap in the face to the taxpayers and parents.
The cost to the states has yet to be calculated. The tests are taken online, which means that school districts are going to be forced to upgrade their technologies to conform. I’m not against technology, but the City of Los Angeles alone is spending $1 billion to provide iPads to every kid in the system. The cost to the Illinois’ school districts has yet to be determined, but regardless of how much or little it is, this State is in no condition to implement another unfunded mandate.
Further comments to follow…
Furthermore …
I agree with Sal that there’s nothing wrong with introducing stress in a kid’s life in the form of strenuous testing, but we already have that in the current system of tests such as the SAT and the ACT. I don’t see how changing the methodology of testing will help measure the effectiveness of the curriculum or the manner in which it’s taught. The teachers I’ve spoken with are mostly opposed to the new system. It may be that they’re resistant to change for its own sake, but I don’t think so. A large portion of their annual review is dependent upon test results, results that to no small degree are determined by circumstances over which they have no control, such as what the kid brings into the classroom in the form of family circumstances or distractions ranging from peer pressure to being bombarded from all sides by social media.
Final comment to follow…
One more comment…
In his recent book, “The New School” (Encounter Books, coupon code “Ricochet”) Glenn Reynolds lays out in very clear fashion why he thinks the education system is failing us as a society. Central to his premise is that we have an education system designed for the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century which is ill-equipped for the demands of the 21st. We live in a time of unprecedented expansion in our access to knowledge, but we insist that our kids obtain that knowledge in the same manner as I did when I was in school in the 1960’s. Rather than fight the impulse to expand the classroom, or to “flip” it as can now be done (let kids watch lectures and lessons at home through outlets such as Khan Academy, then do the homework at school where the teacher is there to help. I know that Khan has recently bought into CC, but it can just as easily buy out if the demand is there), let’s use that freedom to create new means of learning. Let kids learn in ways that work for them. Measure results, but not nationally.
Just one more, I promise…
To sum it up…
Knowledge is no less valid if the lessons are learned outside the traditional school. Glenn Reynolds argues that our school system created that odious phenomenon, the teenager. Our current education system insists on limiting advancement through the use of a “born on” date. We’re doing our kids no favors by having the biggest aspect of their development take place in the hothouse environment of a roomful of people their own age. Taking education “to the streets” so to speak, will create a generation of young adults who understand that there’s a bigger world out there that doesn’t revolve around them.
My opposition to Common Core is simply stated: education is not a product, it’s a process. Common Core sets the current system in cement. We may be dazzled by its reliance on new technologies, and the thought of all oars pulling in the same direction is seductive. But if we believe in individual liberty, that belief must extend to the way we educate our kids. Rather than regimentation using the methods of the past, let’s devise a system for our time. Common Core doesn’t do that.
Thanks, Merina, for the link. I love Noonan’s writing! She always gets to the core of things (excuse the pun).
The issue of the Common Core standards and their implementation (at least in high school math, which is my world) bears striking resemblance to the issue of Obamacare:
Both sounded great, but were founded on a pretty big lie. For O-care it was the idea that everyone could be covered, prices would not go up, and plans would not change (sounds awesome!!). For Common Core in math, it was that the curriculum would no longer be “mile wide and inch deep,’ in other words that teachers could go deeper into the key concepts as opposed to having check off too many boxes. Well, that promise (which is made in page 1 of the Common Core manual) was a lie: there are actually more new standards in math than in the old ones! I called one of the Common Core trainers out on this once, and he had no answer for me. In my world of high school math teaching, that’s a pretty big lie, akin to “if you like your plan …” My colleagues agree with me on this point.
(continue reading for more Obamacare/Common Core similarities!)
The rollout of Obamacare is a MESS, and so is Common Core. No one really knows what we’re supposed to be doing (meaning teachers), we all go to lots of meetings just to try to understand what the heck this is all about. They had years to get this thing ready, and on launch date it’s not ready. The tests aren’t ready, the way we are implementing the standards in CA is constantly changing, people are confused. Sound familiar?
The vibe is that the federal government is now involved. That means you have no say in the matter. That is a tangible element of this issue for me. What if I don’t agree with these standards? Additionally, there are ‘teaching practice’ standards that dictate how teachers should teach. More or less they are sound teaching techniques that teachers should be doing anyway, but having the freaking federal government mandate teaching practices is not a good way to improve the quality of teaching. (The best way would be simply to fire more bad teachers and keep the good ones, sorry no way to candy-coat that one).
You can find similar ideas in the works of the Tofflers.
And to add my name to the list of commenters that write several long posts one after the other …
I ask, what about the ‘shut up, take some notes, read over your notes, pass the class’ standards? Is that method outdated? I am so non-progressive, then, because I thought that was kind of what it comes down to when you are trying to learn something.
As has been said in these comments, the standards have some pros and cons – but so what? They do not address any of the key issues of what is harming public education, and I guarantee in 10 years we will basically be in the same place as we are now.
If they want to mandate something, how about mandating that parents meet with their teacher at least twice in the school year? I teach some rough kids, and if I could meet those parents (who are exactly the ones who never come to back to school night or anything else), I think it would actually help. These standards, I’m afraid, will not.
I would love to give Jeb Bush a big wedgie for his involvement in this.
Now, that would go viral on youtube.
Historically, and I expect here what is nominally proposed as a minimum will rapidly become the maximum, and any teacher who dares to teach anything not covered by the common core, will be disciplined, because someone will sue the district that his child did not get a good education because too much time was “wasted” on items not in the core, so to avoid problems, districts will only allow teachers to teach to the core. Presto, minimum is now maximum.
That is my fear of any national curriculum.
Hey, J Flei, my dad is also a high school math teacher in Calif, and I’ve heard him say very much the same things you wrote here. He basically rolls his eyes at Common Core because to him it seems to be just a bunch of busy work for teachers. He knows how to teach–he’s been doing it for 20 years–and he knows first-hand the issues that prevent students from learning … and it’s not because they just need more boxes to check off and more standardized testing. Just wanted to let you know you’re not the only math teacher in Calif that is unimpressed with Common Core.
commie core..bringing out the inner Borg in our children
Sal,
I am conflicted on Common Core as well. Standards are generally a good thing but I am open to arguments these standards are not. (My children will not are too old for it to be a primary concern for me)
I am curious to hear from the teachers here how they believe they should be evaluated if not on the basis of their students’ performance on standardized tests?
That’s a good question. Any takers?
My own view is that teacher performance should be assessed on the basis of students’ test scores, but not strictly by the raw score. Assessing the increase in knowledge from the beginning of the year to the end would be a way to control for a lot of the effects of previous years of ineffective education.
I’m not a teacher in danger of having my work evaluated by student performance on tests (oh, no, my teaching is evaluated by student’s subjective perceptions of the class… don’t get me started on student evals). However, the method used by Eric Hanushek and Steven Rivkin is pretty interesting. Take a whole school of students over several years as your data -so each case is a student/year pair. Dependent variable is their standardized test score in that year predicted by their standardized test score he previous year -so it’s a “value added” model. Include all your controls, then include a teacher fixed effect for each teacher in the school. If in the given year the student had that teacher, it’s a 1. If they didn’t, it’s a 0.
Regress as normal for panel data.
The teacher fixed effects tell you the average contribution by the teacher to the student’s scores conditioned on the student’s effort and ability as measured in previous exams. Some students might slack in a given year, but others will mature -so that should all come out in the error term.
How long do they estimate it might take to identify sub-standard teachers?
I don’t think the article specified, my recollection when Hanushek came and spoke at the University of Kentucky was that the minimum number of years to get a first estimate was 3. You could get a better one in 5. If we were going to use it for promotion or termination, I’d bet more like 8. Hanushek’s argument was that you collect the data during the probationary period, and then make the tenure/promotion decision after 5 or 6 years using the updated rolling estimates.
Wow… That’s job security.
Aa an aside, I don’t see any justification for tenure at sub-university levels… and little justification at universities.
I’m fine with using standardized tests as one piece of an overall evaluation, just not the whole thing. It’s a good question, I think there are ways to come with an evaluation system that includes evaluations by administration and locally administered tests, among other measures. Teachers need to be evaluated, like at any other job, so I’m more than open to ideas for better ways to do that. The problem, actually the elephant in the room, is the teachers unions.
I didn’t say it was easy -and if it had no flaws we’d all have adopted it by now. Single year high risk tests are never going to fly for the very good reason that the teacher’s contribution to student performance is only one of many things that affect the end grade -and not even necessarily the largest -so if we want to evaluate teacher performance some type of multi-year measure is almost certainly going to be required.
Klaatu,
I teach 5th grade in NYC. This year they changed the evaluation system for teachers from 0-1 observations from an administrator a year to 6 or more. I would say that this method is just as effective as the old, in that it’s completely ineffective.
Test Scores are one way to evaluate teachers, but they only cover grade 4-8 here in NYC. Since they evaluate us on growth 3 grade doesn’t count beside their state test and neither do high school teachers.
Additionally, I’ve found the people that pursue administration positions tend to come from non-evaluative positions and are brainwashed during leadership programs with teaching philosophies that have little to nothing to do with teaching.
So for the commentators who suggest some sort of data system covering 3 – 8 years before termination or promotion you need to understand there is no promotion without another degree in meaninglessness.
Teaching is currently so far from normal market/performance forces major reforms need to be implemented before you see any change.
VAM models have been found to be extremely problematic and riddled with errors. Kids who are either far too low or way above grade level will count even more against a teacher since it is that much harder to move their scores upward. What will happen is what is happening now: teachers focus on the middle because thats where they stand the greatest chance of “moving scores” The problem I see is that teaching is a bit unique in that we are not really creating a product in a tangible sense and sometimes the returns come in years later. Test scores can be a part, they have been for me for awhile and I can prep my students for that kind of test, but the real question is: do these tests have much value? I would argue not really since, like many of us I am sure, we prep and cram for a test and then when we dont use the info, it fades from memory. I think sometimes we get caught up on “teacher responsibility or eval” and lose focus that the real problem is that students are no longer accountable to us or to their parents.
I’m not sure I understand your point here. You are creating a product, educated kids. At the end of each year the children in your charge should know and understand a certain set of subjects and concepts. Determining whether you have been successful should be rather easy. Of course there are variables outside your control which can influence individual outcomes but that certainly is not unique to teaching.
I also think you have this backwards, teachers are accountable to students and their parents not the other way around. This sounds like the salesman who argues he can’t be held accountable because customers just won’t buy.