Complaints about the Common Core are usually made by whiny republicans who are holding on to the state's rights concerns, so they always sound more radical than they actually are. The biggest beef I usually have with these are that they are based on principles and not the actual standards In my two years in Roosevelt I saw poor district implementation and yearly teacher training that teachers said didn't help.
Before I list my problems, Here is a list of why I like it (the whiny republicans never do this, which always makes them seem more crazy, because the unwillingness to cede anything, even the obvious, in an argument usually is a characteristic of someone blinded by personal interests and is being irrational.
Why I Like it
1. My first thought was that it's about time. The highest performing countries all have state-run education systems (and by state I mean national) that are linked to the states forecast of economic needs. The difference is that these states (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan) are only as big as a US state. And the CCSS weren't developed in line with any outlook on the economy, which is different in each region.
2. I like the idea that each state is actually on the same page. Going to an institution like BYU with a national base of students opened my eyes to the different educations you get from each state. It may not be the best reason to create a nationally implemented curriculum, but for a 'United' States that depends on each other it really troubles me to think how little people care that one state can fall so far behind another's educational standards. To be able to actually compare students from one state with students from another based on common assessment is not a horrible idea, either. You just have to make sure the assessment actually is worth it then implement it well. More on this later.
3. It focuses on good math solving skills, not just math skills. The rigorous nature of the math curriculum is great for assessing a students' true understanding of the subject. This is great, but it doesn't look great due to flawed implementation, which I'll touch on later, and makes assessment-writing difficult as well.
4. English teaching that matters. As much as I love reading, and enjoy reading the classics, we really don't need any more English majors. Kids need to learn at a young age how to effectively read informational texts. Why? Because this way students will be able to understand the wording in math problems and science lab instructions, which are two of the greatest contributors to math anxiety and disinterest in the sciences. Aside from this advantage, people need to know how to read boring forms because life is full of them, and if nothing else, it might prevent people from getting in line at the DMV just to ask stupid questions.
Problems
1. Poor implementation. districts like he one I formerly taught in throw it all all grades at once and hope for the best. This predictably leads to failing students in the higher grades because they did not grow up in the system, and therefore are unaccustomed to the types of high-level of expectations dictated by the curriculum. I witnessed a higher than usual amount of 9th graders who failed (or nearly failed) and went on to fail yet again in the the 10th grade, and definitely will in the 11th grade as well because they were the test run of the secondary math curriculum.This really only shows the incompetence of local leadership, but I think this is happening in a lot of other places, too.
2. Poorly trained teachers. Teachers are being tossed into the fire of teaching for new types of outcomes without really knowing how to do so. They are asked to attend a week-long unpaid training every summer that teaches them about teaching the CCSS, but I have not heard a single favorable report back from those (I went to a special education one that was separate, paid, and really, really helpful, but that's special education for you). Now, teachers are generally cynical about changing anything they do, so many likely immediately shut down upon being asked to change and shown how to do so effectively. And when they are pulled away during the summer to be trained without pay, usually sacrificing time from a summer job that they have in order to make ends meet, it doesn't exactly help the attitude. The problem of poor teacher training will lead to all sorts of problems with the implementation of CCSS and, consequently, student learning.
3. Poor Assessments. The first two concerns alone will drive CCSS into the ground, and it will have nothing to do with the actual quality of the material. That being said, the material (specifically math) has led to difficulty in assessment. When proving the effectiveness of CCSS, all that will matter is the test results. Standardized tests have come a long way since I was a kid. I couldn't believe the amount of useless testing that was going on when I started teaching. The end of year standardized assessment used when I began teaching was the NWEA. It was administered three times during the year, and the results were treated by teachers like Angry Birds high scores. So this testing did not do anything for the teachers or students and yet the kids took four different tests (math, science, reading and langauge) three times a year, taking away instructional time, and developing in some students (and most teachers) test apathy.
I asked my colleagues serious questions about it because the results were so abstract and time-consuming to interpret that I wondered if they took the time to analyze the results of their 180 students. None of my fellow teachers had any idea how to use NWEA scores to direct instruction. The only training they had received was how to administer the test. I was in attendance at the monthly principal's meeting when they had a training on it, but it was from a school administrator from another district who was trying to sell the state on adopting it state-wide and the information did not make it to other teachers in the schools and focused mainly on interpreting school-wide results. What it really showed me was how much we don't know from student test scores*, affirming my belief that the test was a waste of money.
I mention all of this because I believe that standardized testing in any form is flawed, it's not new, and I actually don't hold much hope in that changing (at least not in the district I taught at). The year after I left the district picked up the new SAGE test compliant with the new CCSS, and it turned out that it was just more of the same. Do you know why? Teachers were not given adequate training, and students were also left in the dark about what to expect, so the test apathy developed from the NWEA was perpetuated.
The Common Core? Well, if what I've seen is any indication, the poor results in the classroom and on standardized tests will likely cause people to really question its worth. Maybe questions about how it was implemented will be asked and answered, maybe not, but if nothing else it gives the opportunity for someone to come up with another program that will be touted to "increase educational outcomes in our schools". I am perfectly confident that the next one won't fix the previous, and also that the current isn't actually that bad, but there are some major problems with implementation, training and assessment.
Recap
This has been long, but I want to quickly revisit what I said in the first paragraph. I agree with the whiny republican who is in charge of www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.com in that education is a responsibility not granted to the federal government and therefore should be reserved to the states, and that wheels are in motion signaling greater federal control of the education system. This is not okay, especially since it is the states that fund their schools and have the right control them. If they want to usurp some power from states there is a perfectly constitutional process to do that in the form of amendments. That being said, I can't think of the last time the country was able to do anything about executive overreach (or should I say, "I don't recall"), but if Republicans can put it on the agenda for 2016 and find a candidate who's not a time bomb of frequent racist/sexist/anti-leftist fear-mongering/plutocratic/crazy comments, something might change.
What I really want to know is where these guys were during NLCB. They could have saved us from years of horror.
*I could talk about this, but I won't because 1)It's boring 2) They aren't doing that test any more in that district and 3) It'd be really long.
