Common Core: 7. Does the Common Core Serve the Common Good

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) aim to ensure that, according to their developers, “our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy.” This is a corporate imperative, not a student-centered one. Many parents and educators and a growing number of states are questioning whether CCSS will best serve all of our children and whether, in fact, CCSS is detrimental to the common good of our republic. There is solid evidence that America already competes very successfully in the global economy, a success presumably attributable to U.S. schools present and past.

The one-size-fits-all curriculum philosophy has already been tried and found wanting at various times over the past century. Three additional, interrelated factors now merit attention as the public becomes increasing informed about the Common Core and how it will affect not only schools and children but also the public at large. These factors are costs, technology, and corporatization.

Regarding cost: In Indiana, for example, according to the IDOE website, the state spends more than $46 million annually on various standardized tests and claims that testing takes only 4.5 to 6.25 hours out of students’ annual learning time. These claims are, at best, misleading because they fail to include local-level direct and indirect costs (staff time, logistical support, and so on) as well as the massive amounts of learning time specifically directed toward teaching the narrow skills that will be assessed.

Multiply the costs in dollars and hours by a factor of 10 or more and a truer picture of CCSS in combination with existing high-stakes standardized testing will likely emerge. The Common Core cookie-cutter curriculum makes no allowance for individual differences, including the effects of students’ socioeconomic status (SES). Consequently CCSS will increase learning disparities rather than level the academic playing field. It’s not really one-size-fits-all, it’s one-size-fits-none—and a wastefully expensive size at that.

Regarding technology: The two organizations designing Common Core assessments, set to begin in 2014-15, recently released the technology requirements that schools will need to meet in order to test students by using computers. Among the requirements are moving from Windows XP (used by more than half of schools today) to Windows 7; upgrading computers to at least one gigabyte of internal memory; making sure screens used for assessment are no smaller than 9.5 inches with at least 1024 x 768 resolution; ensuring that testing sites operate on a secure browser; and providing 5 to 10 kilobytes per second of bandwidth per student. Set aside the techno-speak and the bottom line is that many schools are going to need to make significant investments in technology upgrades and new equipment in order to meet the CCSS assessment requirements.

While schools would benefit from technology upgrades in ways apart from administering new standardized tests, the big questions involve costs. Who pays? How much? A number of states have questioned CCSS participation on this basis. For example, Indiana State Senator Scott Schneider filed Senate Bill 193 in January to withdraw Indiana from the Common Core, citing in part the “veil of secrecy” behind which CCSS was adopted without sound estimates of the costs involved.

At a hearing on the bill in January, former Texas Commissioner of Education Robert Scott also testified before Indiana legislators, “These standards have not been piloted anywhere to show that they lead to better student performance” (in Education Week, February 11, 2013). Texas is among the states that have not adopted the Common Core.

Are American taxpayers really ready to shell out millions to implement an unproven program?

Regarding corporatization: Consider the focus on global competitiveness and the massive amounts of taxpayer money pouring into corporations, from those that develop and administer tests to those that run charter, take-over, and private schools using public money. CCSS fits into an overarching goal by certain policymakers to corporatize American education. It is little wonder that growing numbers of parents, educators, and lawmakers are urging caution or a step back from the edge of this particular precipice.