The “counter-manifesto” released this week in opposition to national testing and a national curriculum is full of half-truths, mischaracterizations, and straw men. But it was signed by a lot of serious people and deserves a serious response.
First, let us dispatch some silliness. To the best of our knowledge, and based on all evidence that we’re aware of, neither the signers of the Shanker Institute manifesto, nor leaders in the Obama/Duncan Education Department, advocate a “nationalized curriculum” that would “undermine control of public school curriculum and instruction at the local and state level” and “transfer control to an elephantine, inside-the-Beltway bureaucracy.” Nor is anybody calling for “a one-size fits all, centrally controlled curriculum for every K-12 subject.” We certainly wouldn’t support such a policy—and can understand why the conservative luminaries who signed the counter-manifesto wouldn’t want it, either. As parents, grandparents, charter-school authorizers, and champions of school choice in almost all its forms, we believe deeply in the importance of schools having the freedom to shape their own unique educational approaches.
So let us be clear: While the assessments linked to the Common Core State Standards will be mandatory (for schools and districts in states that choose to use them), the use of any common curricular materials will be purely voluntary. We don’t see any evidence to indicate otherwise.
We also find curious the attack line, penned by Jay Greene, that “centralization of education is bad for everyone except the central planners.” This faux-populist rhetoric is compelling until you consider that many of the counter-manifesto’s signatories have been deeply involved in efforts to centralize education decision-making at the state level for years. Weren’t Sandy Stotsky’s (praiseworthy) struggles to ensure that all students in Massachusetts had exposure to scientifically-based reading instruction and high-quality literature exercises in central planning and top-down control of curriculum and pedagogy? What about Bill Evers’s push in California to mandate rigorous math instruction—including Algebra in eighth grade? Some libertarian signers of the counter-manifesto may indeed believe that we should let schools, districts, and parents make every single educational decision no matter how irresponsible, hare-brained, or even harmful to kids. But the vast majority of reformers who support standards-based reform have already acknowledged that “local control” should have its limits—beginning with academic standards.
And that brings us to the substance of the attack on the Common Core project. Its opponents’ most persuasive argument is the concern that the Common Core standards and assessments may wrap schools into a curricular straightjacket and diminish opportunities for educational innovation. They might be at least partly right to worry about this. The question is: Will it be worth it? Let’s look at this from both sides.
Supporters of the Common Core, ourselves included, peer out across this vast nation and see a hodge-podge of standards, tests, textbooks, curricular guides, lesson plans—little of it of high quality or particularly “innovative” (with much of the “innovative” stuff being faddish and silly), and none of it aligned with much else in any meaningful sense. We look with some envy at other countries that can boast curricular “coherence”—a clear vision of what students should know and be able to do, a reasonable plan for getting teachers trained to impart it, and rich materials to help students and teachers reach the Promised Land. Attaining consensus on the standards and the assessments—the core part of Common Core’s work—is a huge leap forward. But why not go the last mile? Why repeat the mistakes of the state standards movement, in which we demanded that teachers boost their pupils to higher levels of achievement but failed to provide helpful tools or guidance in getting them there? Why pretend that more than a handful of the nation’s 14,000 school districts (and 5,000 charter schools) have the capacity to create the instructional materials that many teachers crave? And why leave it to hegemonic textbook companies—vendors, too often, of thoroughly mediocre stuff—to fill the gaps?
No, government must not mandate the particular curricular or instructional materials that schools and teachers use. But why not make lots of good stuff available for free? Why not work to make the “default” option in American public education far better than it is today, and aligned with the excellent Common Core standards? Schools (and teachers) can veer from that default, or build upon it, or excavate under it, if they have the interest, capacity, and drive to do so. But by offering tools, guides, and all the rest, maybe we can bring the floor up significantly for the vast majority of schools and classroom practitioners that lack those traits.
At the same time, we can understand the heartburn this whole endeavor gives to promoters of innovation and diversity in education. We agree with Rick Hess, for example, that “through-course assessments”—high-stakes tests to be taken a half dozen times a year—will pressure schools to follow a particular scope and sequence—and that this is a serious infringement on school-level autonomy. (That’s going to be especially hard on charter schools.) It’s one thing to ask schools to demonstrate solid performance on an exam once every spring. It’s quite something else to expect them to prepare students for tests six to eight times during the year. We agree that this is a bridge too far.
So here’s where we stand: First, states should be encouraged to stay the course with the Common Core standards and assessments, at least until we see what the tests look like. While the standards aren’t perfect, they are vastly better than what they are replacing in most states. Second, à la the Shanker manifesto, efforts should be made to develop all manner of tools, materials, lesson plans, professional development, curriculum, and more that will help teachers implement the standards in their classrooms—and to help students master them. We have no particular concern with the federal government—or philanthropists and venture capitalists, big and small—helping to pay for those activities, as has been done so often in the past. But, third, it should be made crystal clear that the use of all such materials will be completely voluntary for states and, we would argue, for districts within states, schools within districts, and teachers within schools. And fourth, the two consortia now building new Common Core assessments should take pains not to cross the Rubicon into micromanaging schools’ curricular and instructional decisions.
Now for some specific advice:
- Drafters of the counter-manifesto: Make sure your signers—including the famous ones—understand that nobody is calling for a single mandatory “national curriculum,” and see how many folks you lose.
- Shanker Institute: Make clearer than your original document did that you are not proposing that there be only one “common” curriculum for all schools.
- Secretary Arne Duncan: Ask the two testing consortia to sign agreements swearing not to mandate—directly or indirectly—the use of curricular materials they develop.
- The PARCC consortium: Figure out a way for schools to opt out of the through-course assessments and take a single end-of-year test instead.
- Supporters of the Common Core: Encourage states to enact laws barring their education departments and state boards from mandating any particular curricular or instructional approaches—including those developed through the Common Core effort.
- And big funders and nonprofits that care about this stuff: Devise a really powerful version of “Consumer Reports” by which to vet curricular materials (commercial and “open-source” alike) that purport to be “aligned” with the Common Core so as to gauge their validity—and whether they’re quality materials worthy of the attention of practicing educators.
These steps won’t resolve all the tension between national standards and “local control.” But they offer some reasonable safeguards and a clear path forward. Any takers?
- Mike Petrilli and Checker Finn
A related point that I really believe is that the new Common Core State Standards with improved, aligned assessments and (optional, but available) aligned curriculum materials will be the first time we’ve really given “standards-based reform” a national chance to show what it can do. The parts of the system are currently so un-aligned that we really can’t understand whether the ideas of standards-based reform are working, because we haven’t implemented the policy the way it was intended by its architects. Anyway, great response.
This is a great response/summary of the issues surrounding the CCS&A.
I have one big question, though, about the following assertion (and I ask this as someone who in theory supports national curricular “coherence”):
“While the assessments linked to the Common Core State Standards will be mandatory (for schools and districts in states that choose to use them), the use of any common curricular materials will be purely voluntary.”
In education, the rule of thumb is to plan from the assessment, meaning the assessment should include what by the end of a series of lessons or a course students should know and be able to do.
If the assessments are mandatory and the assessments contain items from the curriculum, doesn’t that make the curriculum mandatory by default? Isn’t it disingenuous to say that the assessments will be mandatory but the knowledge and skills assessed by the assessments won’t be? Won’t the condition of mandatory assessments force the curricular hands of educators, schools, and districts being evaluated by their students’ performance on those assessments?
I am not sure what is in Fordham’s water, but you must be the only ones that think CC isn’t a national curriculum. In every meeting I go to “National Standards” and “Common Core” are used interchangeably. Or perhaps, it is just in California that it isn’t so much a Rubicon to cross as a rain-soaked towel.
Morgan, I hope you’re right. Rachel and Arnie: This is largely a matter of semantics. What do we mean by “curriculum”? Or “content”? Or “standards”? As I see it, the Common Core State Standards explain (in much detail) what students show know and be able to do, and by when they should know and be able to do it. And yes, the assessments will surely drive instruction and, to a degree, curriculum. But even with a prescriptive test, I don’t think there will be “one best way” to get all kids ready for it. Is there a single “national curriculum” for AP U.S. History? Well…there’s a syllabus, and clarity around what might be on the test. But that doesn’t mean that every AP US History teacher selects the same textbook. Same thing here.
I really find it difficult to believe that the authors don’t understand that assessment drives curriculum. For years reformers have been claiming that the textbook is not the curriculum. They have claimed that curriculum includes the assessments, standards, pedagogy and a whole host of items that no one previously considered curriculum. Now that we have a national standards movement they want to backtrack to a very narrow definition of curriculum. Sorry…. we aren’t that stupid. You can’t have it both ways… Of course national standards are part of a national curricula…. it is disingenuous to claim otherwise. One of the stated goals of the CCSSI is to make it easier for students to move from state to state with the least amount of disruption in their education. Common standards don’t accomplish this goal…. it takes common texts with common lessons….. that is exactly what many of the proponents of the CCSS want (as I have often heard them state). It is only those with their head in the sand that would claim otherwise…. the only reason proponents of the CCSS want to pretend that national curriculum is something different than national standards is because they know the truth would cause them huge problems in attaining their goal.
The whole CCSS movement is disingenuous and built on falsities and misinformation. As the truth comes out this movement will collapse.
“it should be crystal clear that the use of such materials would be completely voluntary by the states” Who are you trying to kid? The Obama administration is playing hardball to make states fall in line with the CCSS. You analysis of this situation puts a cloud on everything that you have done.
Bob Dean
Just so readers can follow the debate, here is my reply:
http://jaypgreene.com/2011/05/12/fordham-and-the-use-of-passive-voice/
The rare specific content example in the “A Call for Change” Manifesto, is in its Recommendation #4, which includes the suggestion that “some teachers may choose to have [Grade 4] students spend a week building scale models of the solar system”?
But,as Wikipedia notes: “The enormous ratio of interplanetary distances to planetary diameters makes constructing a scale model of the solar system a challenging task. …
If the smaller planets are to be easily visible to the naked eye, large outdoor spaces are generally necessary. … “
The Arithmetic is:
Suppose the class tries to represent Mercury by a small, but visible pinhead, with a scaled diameter of 1 mm.
The diameter of Mercury is about 3000 miles; so the scale is 1mm for each 3000 miles.
The distance from Neptune to the Sun is about 2800 million miles. Then the scaled distance from Neptune to the Sun will be [(2800 million miles)/ 3000 miles] mm, which is a little less than 1000m = 1 Km.
So diameter of Neptune’s orbit would be scaled at almost 2 Km, which is more than a mile across.
Spending a full week on the model would be a highly inefficient use of class time, with much busy work.
Building a model of the solar system does not require analytical reasoning. Good science lessons include analytical reasoning. “Trivial pursuit” science lessons avoid analytical reasoning. So building a model of the solar system is “Trivial pursuit” science or an art project.
“Content experts” are assigned an important role in the “A Call for Change” Manifesto. But, no qualifications are hinted at for being a Content expert. Clearly, the content expert, who suggested that “some teachers may choose to have [Grade 4] students spend a week building scale models of the solar system”, was a respected pseudo-content-expert.
As a parent of 2 children in the public school system, I must say that the Common Core, as part of the Race to the Top Initiative, is a huge disappointment. Their clandestine development by a select few with vested interests is another significant fault. The standards, as pointed out by many others, are anything but world class. Yet, 42 (I think this is the number) states have signed on to adopt these standards and are now aligning curriculum to meet them. In some cases, as in Massachussetts, this means lowering the bar. There is no room for excellence.
Perhaps the Fordham Institute needs to take a look at who is lock step aligning with this move and take a step back and think about it. Why is it that Marc Tucker supports this movement? Bill Ayers? Bill Gates and all of his billions support these initiatives. Afterall, they are putting technology in the classroom.
There is a reason so many education conservatives, be they democrats, republicans, libertarians, etc,have no faith in the biggest government take over of anything to date. It is obvious and has been transparent throughout the entire developmental process.
“Charter school authorizers and champions of school choice” means goose eggs if there is nothing to choose from.
I am really confused…years ago my state (TN) used the Iowa (don’t know its full name) annual test to assess the kids. So…the kids in TN were assessed nationally against their peers across the country that took that same test. These were consider NRT – national referenced test? The complaint was the curriculum in TN did not cover a lot of what was assessed on those tests. So…we redid the standards (truly horrible ones) and came up with a criterion referenced test or CRT. Guess what…the kids still did horribly on the tests because…the curriculum was weak and the cut scores for proficient and advanced were a joke…
So now the government has thrown/wasted more tax-payer dollars on developing a “new” system. Why? What I don’t understand is if the Iowa test is truly good or the MA standards and MCAS were the best at the state level…why we the country wasn’t directed to adopt/modify curriculum to better align with either the Iowa test (I don’t know the name of it) or with the MA standards?
Why waste all of the tax-payer moneys with RTTT, common core, etc…seems like more and more dollars going into education are a “make work” program but does not benefit those that need it most…the teachers. Wouldn’t the money be better spent tweaking the curriculum to align with one of the two mentioned above and put the rest of money into the classroom resulting in better trained (and paid teachers), smaller classes for those kids that need it, acceleration for those that have demonstrated mastery and can move ahead regardless of the “school year”, etc. Wouldn’t this be real innovation vs more of the same and more good money after bad?
I don’t understand why common core is the be all end all…I think it is already there and I for one am tired of wasting my money on education….I must be missing something…
I feel as if I’m somehow in the wrong pigeonhole. I have no interest in issues like, “Should the Feds…” and so forth. I care only about how this curriculum plan relates to kids and teachers in the classroom. I signed against the Core Curriculum for technical reasons that make the plan sloppy at best. And in the end, after all the political salvos are fired from one lofty point to another, the reality of this initiative will affect the moment-to-moment details of how successful the kids are, and whether they are learning good stuff.
The math standards have lots of problems in grades K through 3. Some have parts that are wrong. Some are obviously too ambitious for their targeted grade level; some are far too restrictive. Some that are too restrictive imply missing standards that would need to be included. For instance, a host of problems with fractions in these grades is the result of the fact that there is no standard that articulates the role of the top number and the bottom number of the fraction in generating models that show fractions and in generating fractions that equal whole numbers.
Before there’s any serious talk about a Core Curriculum, these problems need to be addressed. Many people who are associated with instruction, including the president of the AFT, admit that the Standards are not perfect.
Well, let’s fix the thing up and then discuss the pros and cons about a Core Curriculum. Clearly, if there are substantive problems with specific Standards, these will be reified and crystallized in any “curriculum” that articulates how to teach them. In other words, the instruction will not be enlightened in ways that accelerate performance. It will simply provide evidence about why the various difficulties with the Standards are difficulties.
And let’s not be glib about how to teach material for the Standards. Phrases like “rich content” don’t translate automatically into the nuts and bolts of effective curricula. We should have discovered this following the New Math, the various cognitive cycles, and the superficial return to fundamentals, all of which had alluring language.
An absolute requirement should be that any curriculum, voluntary or not, would be field-tested, revised, and validated to work with at-risk populations before it is disseminated. Even more basic: unless the specific teaching “suggestions” are either created or okayed by people who have demonstrated expertise in teaching at-risk students math and have seriously accelerated their performance, the curriculum will not prove to be much more successful than the current programs. Rather, the Standards plus Curricula will once more put the system where it was in the ’50s, when it had very solid grade-level requirements. Those who failed to meet these requirements were retained, failed. That is exactly where this initiative will take us unless we really do our homework in designing the “curriculum” so it is teachable. Otherwise, in some integrated schools, and most inner-city schools, a high percentage of students will fail, and we’ll have to face the issue that the curriculum is elitist. Then policy folks will either have to soften the Standards (a la the AYP fiasco) or face the issue of fixing the Standards and the curriculum.
Fix the Standards now or fix them later, but they ain’t going to work as an informed guide to a curriculum without considerable fixing.
This article made a comment that local school districts may make “hair-brained” and “harmful” decisons regarding education. What makes you think that only local officials may make such decisions?. I am concerned that some official (unknown, unelected, unreachable) will make “hair-brained” and “harmful” decisions about my child. At the local level, I have recourse. At the “hidden” Federal level, the system is designed to shut me out. As a concerned parent, and a Licensed Graduate Social Worker, I want to state clearly that this is unacceptable.