[fblike]

Last week Secretary of Education Arne Duncan sparked a firestorm over the controversial Common Core State Standards (CCSS), which are aimed at raising education standards nationwide to meet college and career ready targets.  Addressing criticism of the standards, Duncan argued that white, suburban mothers were angry because their children and schools were not as good as they felt they were.  Forces that oppose Common Core standards immediately called for his resignation and he apologized for his comments several days later.  The firestorm over Common Core standards is one of the most interesting domestic issues because it is one issue where far-left and far-right forces find areas of agreement.

This topic brief will explain the formation of the Common Core State Standards and their purpose, explore the hostility found toward the standards from liberal and conservative forces, and discuss issues that could weaken support for the Common Core in the future.

Readers are also encouraged to use the links below and in the related R&D to bolster their files about this topic.

Education in Extemp

Before I dive into the content of this topic brief, I wanted to devote some time toward discussing strategy when extempers approach education issues.  As I have argued in previous topic briefs concerning education, extempers need to be wary when they approach education topics in a round.  Unlike other issues you talk about in extemp, you are directly impacted by education policy and you experience changes in curriculum, state testing, etc. on a daily basis.  It is easy to criticize America’s education structure in terms of its bureaucracy, teachers unions, lack of pay for teachers, the pension crisis facing state governments, the underfunding of schools, and/or the benefits (or some would say lack thereof) of private and charter schools.  If you are someone that does not care for the American education system, you have to realize that a large number of your judges will be teachers or parents.  Teachers do not take kindly to have a teenager criticize what they do for a living and parents are likely to be critical of speeches that are overly pessimistic about the prospects of American education.  This does not mean that you have to take pro-teacher stances in your speeches, but you do need to provide evidence to back up your claims.  You also need to approach education topics like abortion questions in the sense that both are sensitive areas of discussion, so it is always best to provide a balanced approach.  Going too far toward a pro-teacher stance could be consider pandering, but going toward an anti-teacher or anti-public education approach is likely to met with hostility.  Therefore, it is best to find a middle ground where you can discuss problems that American education faces, but present evidence that recognizes some of the limitations that have faced reforms in the past.  For example, you can point out that American test scores lag behind other nations, but also note that other nations do not always test all students in their education systems like the United States, which skews the data.  You can also mention that it makes sense in theory to tie test scores of students to teacher pay, but adequate financial resources from the state and federal government need to be given to teachers in order for this to work.  Education policy is very complex and if you recognize these complexities and put them into your speeches you stand a better chance of creating a good impression when you discuss education issues.

What is the Common Core?

Shortly after President Barack Obama was elected he looked for ways to change federal education policy.  Former President George W. Bush pushed No Child Left Behind (NCLB) through Congress in January 2002.  This was a piece of bipartisan legislation and Bush worked with Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts to get it through Congress.  The legislation required testing for reading and mathematics at specific grade levels and provided penalties for school districts that did not meet adequate benchmarks and demonstrate yearly progress.  These penalties could range from consultants coming into schools to the firing of teachers and administrators to a government takeover of schools to the reduction of financial resources available to a school.  Schools were also required to report the progress of students by race, gender, and education ability in an attempt to show how well schools were closing the achievement gap among subgroups.  The law hoped that all American students would be proficient in math and reading by 2014, which was a fanciful goal that had no chance of ever happening.  The law was criticized by teachers unions as being overly optimistic in its goals and too penal towards low-income districts.  Democrats also eventually criticized the law for not being fully funded by the federal government.  Some Republicans eventually joined the criticism as well by arguing that the law forced school districts to teach to a test and that some states were making their state assessments easier so as to look better on a national scale.

Extempers should realize that the federal government cannot influence curriculum decisions at the local level.  The U.S. Constitution gives the federal government no role in education policy, which is why there are not national education standards for states to follow.  For this to be changed there would have to be a new constitutional amendment.  If you happen to compete in Student Congress (or Congressional Debate if you prefer) you might be aware of this.  However, while the federal government cannot force a specific curriculum upon the states, it can provide funding and financial incentives for the states to adopt specific programs.  The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were designed by a combination of teachers, administrators, those who create the ACT exam, business interests, and elements of the Gates Foundation, which has made American education reform a priority.  Some opponents of the Common Core argue that not enough teachers or administrators were involved, but proponents dispute this.  That said, the Common Core were meant to create a framework for what skills students should demonstrate in English and mathematics in order to be ready for success on the job market and in college.  The way that the standards are implemented and taught is up to local and state education officials.  Americans have been alarmed at the amount of students that are ready to do collegiate work once they graduate high school and President Obama and bureaucrats at the federal Department of Education argue that higher standards at lower grade levels can fix these problems.

Since the federal government could not force states to adopt the Common Core and thereby bring some uniformity to American education, they opted to use financial incentives to get states to go along with the program.  The Obama administration developed a Race to the Top initiative, which as The San Francisco Chronicle explains on November 1st offered states funding for pursuing education reforms.  This pot of money, worth $4.35 billion, encouraged states to look at alternative ways to teach students, adopt higher standards that were in line with the Common Core, and look into charter school options for at-risk or low income students that lived in areas where public schools were in poor shape.  States began submitting applications to receive this money in 2010.  To date, 46 states have adopted some form of Common Core standards (45 have adopted all of it), with Alaska, Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia never adopting them, and the Brookings Institution on October 30th notes that 85% of American students attend schools in states that have adopted the Common Core.  Al.com, a website that provides news about the state of Alabama, explained on November 12th that each state had different reasons for not adopting the Common Core.  Texas rejected the system because it felt that its education standards were already high and Governor Rick Perry estimated that compliance would cost the state $3 billion in textbooks, teacher training, and testing materials.  Alaskan conservatives rejected Common Core, but they are now working to get some of the testing aligned with Common Core into their school system.  Virginia has argued that its English standards already mirror the Common Core and that the math standards are too strict regarding how they should be taught.  Nebraska rejected the Common Core because it said it was already teaching similar standards, but in a different way that the Common Core was prescribing.

The Washington Post on October 31st explains six ways that Common Core standards will lead to different forms of instruction in English and math classrooms.  You may have experienced some of these already in your high school education, so again, you are likely having some experience with the Common Core whether you realized it or not.  Some of the changes include having English classes read different types of nonfiction literature and writing essays based on evidence instead of their own opinions and having math classrooms cover topics more slowly and finding new ways to apply math formulas instead of just memorizing them.  The goal of Common Core is to have students think more critically about the material they are learning.  In theory this will make students able to achieve higher order thinking tasks by the time they graduate high school and attend college and this will prepare them for the jobs of the future.  The San Jose Mercury on November 9th explained that teachers in California are excited about some of the changes happening with the implementation of Common Core, but some fear that teaching critical thinking will be more difficult than education planners predicted.  These teachers fear that students will not have enough content knowledge to think critically about what they are being asked to do and some parents at the elementary level have argued that their students are not ready to do the tasks that Common Core is requiring them to do.  Therefore, Common Core has a good vision for the future of American education by trying to make students achieve higher order thinking skills and raising the bar for student performance, but its implementation may take a long time as school districts, parents, and students adapt to the new standards.

Opposition to the Common Core

As explained in the preview of this brief, opposition to the Common Core is bipartisan, which is difficult to find on any issue in today’s very polarized political climate.  The alliance against the Common Core include Tea Party groups, the John Birch Society (a very far-right anti-communist organization), local teachers unions, and liberal political groups.  Each group has its own reasons for opposing the Common Core and they are not working in tandem because on some other education issues, like charter schools or tuition tax credits for private education, they completely disagree.  Nevertheless, the fact that groups from both sides of the political spectrum are opposing the Common Core has created a headache for the Obama administration and the Department of Education.

For teachers groups, the implementation of Common Core standards has happened too quickly and is demanding too much of students, parents, teachers, and administrators.  The Baltimore Sun explained on November 21st that teachers in Baltimore County, Maryland have filed a grievance against their local school board because they were not given adequate training or time to become familiar with Common Core standards prior to their implementation.  Since the education reforms affiliated with Common Core will tie teacher evaluations to student performance, teacher groups argue that without enough resources and time they cannot help their students achieve well on Common Core-aligned exams and this will produce a negative impression of the teaching profession.  Politico on November 18th explained that some left-wing forces fear that the harder tests of the Common Core, which will be given to students who have not been prepared for them because their previous learning was based on different standards, are meant to make public schools look bad and cause parents to feel that public schools are under performing.  These forces argue that if parents feel that the public schools are failing that those parents with means will pull their children out of the public system and place them into private alternatives, which will further erode support of the public education system.  This conspiracy theory is not a fringe view and those that support it point out that the Gates Foundation, which has been critical of America’s existing education structure, has spent $191 million, on getting states to adopt Common Core standards.

Some school administrators, who occupy a nonpartisan role for the most part, argue against the Common Core because it has created anxiety among students.  A letter from eight principals in New York, which was signed by 3,000 parents and 530 other principals argued that during New York’s state assessments last year children cried during and after the test and some lost control of their bladders.  Education Week on November 19th dubbed this condition “Common Core Syndrome.”  The Washington Post on November 21st went on to explain that another letter by a different group of New York principals, which was signed by another 1,535 principals and more than 6,5000 teachers claims that since 2010, the amount of time spent on testing has increased by 128% for those students in grades three through eight and third graders alone have seen a 163% increase in the amount of time devoted to testing.  One of the criticisms levied against No Child Left Behind is that it put too much emphasis on test scores and that teachers were trying to beat a test as opposed to finding creative ways to teach their subject matter.  For these administrators, there is very little difference between the Common Core and the old No Child Left Behind.  The National Schools Boards Association on November 21st quoted Duke Pesta, who says that the “one-size-fits-all” approach of the Common Core in regards to its testing and expectations constitutes “No Child Left Behind on steroids.”  The Education Week article previously cited mentions that administrators are also questioning the validity of some of the testing measures associated with the Common Core, since the goal of the tests is to promote critical thinking, yet the tests include lots of multiple choice questions.  Multiple choice questions are great for states to use for education measurements because they can be graded quickly and easily, whereas grading essays takes more time and costs money because people have to be hired to read and evaluate them.  The College Board has to do this when evaluating your Advanced Placement (AP) exams in June and July.  While multiple choice might be ideal for states that want quick results, those types of assessments are probably not the best to measure what the Common Core seeks to achieve, so these administrators have a legitimate complaint.

Right-wing forces allege that the Common Core is eroding local control of schools.  Pointing out that Race to the Top funding has made many states sign onto the Common Core, they see the federal government coercing cash strapped states into adopting national education standards.  Federal interference with education on the local level has been a long held fear by conservatives and it infused the debate over the Department of Education’s creation in 1979.  These right-wing forces also hold No Child Left Behind up as an example of why President George W. Bush was not a true conservative.  At the extreme, some right-wing groups allege that the federal government is using the Common Core to indoctrinate young students into left-wing ideology.  The Dallas Morning News on November 18th explained that parents in Texas objected to a worksheet given to fifth graders that had the statements “The commands of government must be obeyed by all” and “The choices of the president affect everyone” as part of a grammar exercise.  Although Texas is not part of the Common Core, Common Core-related materials are sometimes used in the state.  Other conservatives have written about how the reading list recommended for English classes by the Common Core is left-leaning and they have pointed to a recommended biography of President Obama that says whites oppose his presidency because they are racist.  Radical groups like the John Birch Society have tried to get states like Wisconsin to reconsider their role in adopting the Common Core, but as The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel explains on October 31st the participation of these far-right groups in state education policy has alienated moderate politicians on both sides.

Other arguments against the Common Core can be as diverse as the political forces that oppose it.  U.S. News & World Report writes on October 28th that higher standards do not guarantee better results since Massachusetts and California have high standards, but Massachusetts is one of the best ranked education systems in the country whereas California is one of the lowest ranked.  The article also explains that shifting to a different testing regimen may make it hard to really hold schools accountable for performance, since they will argue that they need more time to adapt to the new standards.  Other groups have argued that cursive writing has been neglected by the Common Core in favor of computer skills and test prep.  The Christian Science Monitor summarizes this debate on November 14th by writing that advocates of cursive argue that it helps students with hand-eye coordination and develops fine motor skills in younger students.  Advocates of cursive also note that if students cannot read cursive that it could harm academic fields like history in the future because older documents, like the U.S. Constitution, are written in cursive.  Of the 45 states that have adopted all of the Common Core, seven of them (California, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Utah) want cursive to be part of its curriculum.  Finally, those that oppose the standards argue that not enough time was given to their creation and not enough stakeholders were involved.  These people believe that the federal government is bullying states to adopt standards that did not have enough input from teachers, students, and parents, and that Arne Duncan’s comments about white suburban moms illustrate the arrogance of federal education officials.

Thus far it appears that the Common Core critics are a decided minority, mostly because a large number of Americans are unsure what the Common Core is.  The Politico article previously cited explained that these moderate Americans whose minds are not yet made up will hold the fate of the Common Core, since they could end up pressuring politicians to eliminate it.  The Heritage Foundation on August 14th reveals that Indiana and Pennsylvania have given into political pressure to pause implementation of the Common Core, that Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Utah have downgraded their participation or withdrawn from Common Core testing, and that Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania have introduced anti-Common Core measures.  There is a growing movement against the Common Core, which is why extempers might be encountering this issue in future months and next season since it looks like a debate that is not going away.

The Future of the Common Core

Despite criticisms of the Common Core, it does have its fair share of supporters.  Aside from those in the federal bureaucracy and President Obama, there is a bipartisan group that supports the Common Core.  For example, Jeb Bush and the Chamber of Commerce support the Common Core, as does Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the second-largest teachers union in the country (for humor in a round extempers might make a joke about how the Chamber of Commerce and unions rarely see eye-to-eye on an issue, but the Common Core appears to be the exception).  Weingarten is an interesting figure because she is one of the most powerful women in the country and in New York City politics, yet is largely ignored by the media when they look for influential women in American society.  In an editorial in The Huffington Post on November 2nd, Weingarten explains that the Common Core offers the possibility of reversing poverty and economic and social stratification in American society by giving a high standard education to students in poorer school districts who have previously been given sub-standard education.  However, she cautions that more resources are needed to make the Common Core work and that states like New York are rushing to implement new testing regimes without delaying the penal aspects of poor test results, which is what California is going to do when it rolls out its batch of Common Core tests this spring.  California’s approach is to withhold releasing the results of statewide tests for several years, using the data to perfect teaching practices, and by not releasing the results this will not impact the rankings of schools and their respective districts.  As a result, its transition to the new standards will be less painful and less punitive, which makes sense.  Extempers would be wise to point out the differences in the New York and California approaches because California’s appears to be a better way to acquire support from teachers and parents concerning the new standards.

States that have implemented Common Core testing have seen poor results, but this is not shocking to education officials who expected poor results since the tests are harder than what many students are used to.  The Washington Post on November 21st points out that New York state saw a 30% decline in test scores last year and other states like Kentucky experienced similar declines.  Administrators warned parents to expect significant declines in scores as the new tests were adopted and emphasized that the poor results were due to the harder standards.  The New York Post on November 20th explains that the Common Core is a great device for overcoming grade inflation, which has been a persistent problem in American schools for the last several decades.  The Post notes that New York state “dumbed down” its Regents exam, which students have to pass to graduate, and as a result students that were not ready for college were passed through the system with high marks.  This accounts for the 30% decline in New York’s test scores because the high standards are an illustration that New York’s children are not as prepared or bright as originally thought.  While Arne Duncan’s remarks about white, suburban moms were heavily criticized, Duncan has said that what he really meant to emphasize was that high standards are a good thing and people need to get used to the idea that high grades should not come easy.  An easy parallel to make for this is the Advanced Placement (AP) program that offers college-level credit to high school students.  An AP class worth its muster should be more difficult than a regular high school course, so student grades should be somewhat lower than they would be in a typical high school class.  This is why some high school weight their AP classes so that students who take them do not take sizeable hits to their grade point average.  The same principle is at play with the new tests.  Standards are being raised, so it will take time for everyone to get used to them.  However, the other side of the coin is that schools are also being pressured to raise their graduation rates, so while there are higher standards, there is still pressure not to fail students and hold them back, which can serve as a self-defeating mechanism if high standards really are the goal.  After all, if students are passed up the education ladder but have not mastered the skills required of the Common Core assessments, then scores may remain low.

Extempers will want to pay attention to where the Common Core debate heads for the rest of the reason and for the duration of their competitive careers.  You are bound to get questions about it in “Domestic Social” rounds and even if you are not asked a question about the Common Core directly, you can still use it for topics that deal with high standards in American education, the role of politics in education policy, testing, and No Child Left Behind.  The most significant issue to watch with Common Core are the reactions of parents nationwide.  Parents might stand early setbacks that states experience with testing, but as The Huffington Post explains on October 10th they are not likely to put up with having large numbers of students, especially their students, fail new assessments tests year-after-year.  The most difficult thing to do in American education is to raise standards because it creates a painful transition period and requires people to realize that things will not come as easy as they once did.  However, if the process is too painful then the Common Core could be scrapped by the time the next presidential administration takes office and that will create even more changes to an already confusing education apparatus.