Common Core: Not the Answer

I admit: I was lucky. From sixth grade to eighth grade, I attended a strong public school gifted program that offered honors classes for all courses and encouraged accelerated math tracks that ranged from one year to three years ahead of standards. Until the first semester of my eighth grade year, teachers never complained about unreasonable district tests; students worked hard to complete creative projects and assignments that extended far beyond district standards. But all of this changed when the Los Angeles Unified School District accepted Common Core as its principal code of education. My brother, who was a new sixth grader at that time, tested into an Algebra math class, but instead entered the normal “math path.” The district also forced all teachers, regardless of their corresponding subject matter or grade level, to issue week-long practice tests. These practice tests interrupted the flow of all classes and pressured most teachers to cover the remaining course material in a more condensed, less apprehensive manner. There were many more negative consequences, but for now, it suffices to say that Common Core simply didn’t work. So why?

For many years, the United States education system has fallen behind those of other nations. A lack of funding, deluge of bureaucratic interests in public schools and high student-to-teacher ratios have made education unproductive and inefficient. The Common Core State Standards, a set of educational standards for kindergarten through twelfth grade students sponsored by federal organizations, have universalized education—not just standardized testing but the method of teaching as well—in a futile effort to globalize quality schooling. And it has failed. Time and again, the government has implemented policies that were fueled by political interests rather than societal needs. Instead of giving educators the opportunity to pursue standards in the way they deem necessary, Common Core has made teachers robots executing overhead instructions and plans. By creating rigid standards that limit the flexibility of education, Common Core has placed advanced students, or for that matter any student wishing to learn more or strive far, at a disadvantage, subjecting them to national guidelines and creating boundaries to their potential.

A competitive market always tailors better to consumers’ demands than a monopolistic one. Players in the former are motivated to improve their goods and services to attract more consumers. Schools and districts function similarly in that they benefit from the competition between one another. An innovation in one school encourages another one to strengthen its own resources or improve its curriculums. Common Core annuls this positive mutual relationship by leveling all schools to a predetermined foundation and killing progress in education by installing one “right” system. Public schools, especially magnet and gifted programs, find it increasingly harder to offer innovative ways to challenge their students, as government restrictions and specific standards lead districts to take easier and more standard paths. A monopolized public school market makes it harder for schools, teachers, and districts to tailor to the needs of students and create diversified learning environments. No longer can schools accommodate intramural academies (i.e. Humanities Academy, Environmental Science Academy) as teachers must follow a strict curriculum with no room for deviation, creativity or eye-opening projects. The result is rather daunting: parents have less freedom in providing their children with a unique and specialized education, and students have less options to choose from in school.

Common Core furthermore devalues classical reading by prioritizing unreasonable short term goals over the bigger picture. Literary discoveries not only open our minds to reading devices but teach us how to analyze any text. Common Core’s ELA Standards set ten informational standards and nine literary standards. Common Core justifies this dramatic increase in the amount of required nonfiction pieces in ELA courses by pointing to college readiness. However, the lack of college readiness amongst high school students results from the use of more contemporary short stories published over the past fifty years rather than a lack of informational texts. Even more, these ELA standards were developed by federal officials and thus ignored the preferences or teaching abilities of English teachers. Teachers may lack the experience or training to sustain the proposed standards; changes in the curriculum could further disrupt the flow of the class, creating a structure that is fragmented and disjointed. What is the consequence of this degradation in ELA standards? Students no longer read literature of value: epic poems, plays, novels. Instead, these rich, powerful texts are supplanted by less enjoyable nonfiction pieces, useless content that lacks the potential for analysis and literary thinking. As a result, teachers across all subject areas resort to informational texts as a means for learning, thus making subjects like history and science less based on class discussion, participation and critical thinking and more focused on memorization and independent thinking.

Proponents of Common Core cite the variety in state standards as a reason for adopting national guidelines. Common Core reinforces the standards of some states but brings down the curriculum of others, therefore prioritizing uniformity over academic excellence or enhancement. States with high standards such as California downgrade their preexisting standards for the less rigorous curriculums of Common Core. No change is sparked, as the students of one state suffer for those of others. The government’s focus must shift from making everything equal to making everything better. The idea of providing every student with an “equal education,” though attractive, lacks feasibility in the twenty-first century. Every state, every district, every school and every child is different; to remedy the broken status quo, we must work from the bottom up instead of from the top to the bottom.

Unfortunately, Common Core also fails to achieve its goals and detracts from the main problem concerning education today: childhood poverty that prevents children from reaching their potential in school. The government can alleviate this dilemma by investing in early childhood education programs and childcare. Studies have shown that students with early education are more likely to graduate from high school, so if the government truly wishes for “college readiness,” its first step should be to ensure college admission. But the government should not plunge into the endeavor of proper school reform by itself. In fact, the government’s impact should be minimal, as federal intervention takes authority away from local schools, districts and parents. I urge the Obama administration to reexamine its approach to education, to prioritize personalization over centralization and to incorporate all players—students, teachers, parents, districts, states—into the plan, because we can only create real change if everybody is involved in the process and if everybody has a voice in what’s right for school reform. ♥