I've written about the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) previously. I summarized the rationale for CCSS and briefly addressed some of the objections to it. It's still in the news - one of my favorite commentators (Erick Erickson) has recently come out strongly against CCSS. With elections coming up, he is basing his endorsement of candidates partially on their opposition to Common Core. I respect Erick greatly, mainly because he comes from an explicitly self-conscious Christian foundation in what he does. But I think there are problems in this whole discussion.
What has happened is that people don't distinguish between the standards themselves vs. the implementation of the standards. Let me give an analogy. Local governments (cities, counties, etc.) set up building codes or standards for churches - there must be so many fire extinguishers located in specified ways, stairwells must be a certain width, doors must be a certain width, walls must have a certain fire rating, etc. Now we can debate the merits or usefulness of those standards if we wish - for example, when my church was built the county required us to install an expensive wheelchair lift from the floor to the platform for the pulpit (about 3 feet), but we were not required to install an elevator from the first to the second floor classrooms (because we could move a class to a room downstairs for a handicapped person). That's strange, but that's the standard.
Those building standards for churches, though, have nothing to do with whether or not the church faithfully preaches the gospel. A faithful, Bible-believing church can build a building that meets those standards, and a liberal, God-denying "church" can also build a building that meets the county code. The standards have nothing to do with how the church carries out its work. We don't blame the building code when we have churches that preach a different gospel. We don't go around saying, "These building code churches are corrupting the Word of God. We need to eliminate the building codes." No, we just make sure our churches faithfully teach the Bible within the buildings that meet the codes.
I think that's the same thing that has happened to Common Core. Look at the standards themselves. I have yet to hear any critic of CCSS point to a Common Core standard and show how it is wrong. For example, Erick Erickson is concerned about his daughter's second grade math. Here is one of the Common Core standards for second grade math:
Understand that the three digits of a three-digit number represent amounts of hundreds, tens, and ones; e.g., 706 equals 7 hundreds, 0 tens, and 6 ones. (CCSS.Math.Content.2.NBT.A.1)
That's all the Common Core standard itself says. It says nothing about how students are to be taught that concept. It says nothing about what story problems will be used to teach it. It says nothing about whether parents should be able to help their students or not. If students leave second grade knowing this concept of place value in three-digit numbers, they have met this Common Core standard.
What has happened, though, is that liberal curriculum writers and textbook authors have layered their own educational views onto the CCSS. It's just like the liberal church using a building that meets county codes. Liberals teach about place value through strange methods, and they use story problems that present socialism. ("Vladimir Lenin had 706 Tsarist palaces to distribute equally to the tireless, hard-working masses. How many hundreds are there in 706?")
But I could just as easily teach that same Common Core standard through traditional means (children have always learned about place value) and through better story problems. ("Ronald Reagan's policy of lower taxes resulted in 706 new businesses being created in Atlanta in 1983. How many hundreds are there in 706?")
You see, CCSS says absolutely nothing about how the standards are to be met - that is the work of curriculum developers and textbook writers. If those curriculum developers and textbook writers are liberals, the materials they produce are going to reflect liberalism. And I think the educational liberals have taken the opportunity presented by the implementation of CCSS and have "hijacked" CCSS to implement their own liberal educational views. But that's not the fault of Common Core.
We have conservatives, ranging from the very reasonable Erick Erickson to some real wacked-out nutjobs, calling for states to withdraw from Common Core. And, at this point, it might be best for Common Core to die - it's impossible to have reasonable discussions about it. But - and this is important - Common Core is not the cause of liberalism in education, and eliminating Common Core will not eliminate liberalism from the schools. If Common Core were to disappear entirely tomorrow, liberal educational policy makers and textbook writers would continue to churn out the type of nonsense that has lit up the blogosphere. If there's no Common Core, textbook writers would just use some other vehicle for promoting the same methods.
In Erick's article, he says, "with nationalized standards as states like California being the biggest purchasers of textbooks, it’ll be the big states and their standards that help shape textbook content." That has been the case for many years before Common Core. California and Texas are the two largest state purchasers of textbooks, so textbook writers have always designed their books to meet the standards of those two states. The result has been a de facto national curriculum - whatever California wants, the textbook publishers provide, and because other states and individual school districts don't have the economic clout to make the publishers meet their own standards, the textbooks across the country invariably conform to California and Texas standards.
As I say, I think the whole discussion about CCSS has become so toxic that it would probably be better for CCSS just to disappear - not because I think the standards are bad, but because so many people conflate the implementation of the standards with the standards themselves. But I don't believe the elimination of CCSS would change anything about the radical liberalism and socialism found in the schools. That is going to continue as long as schools are not based on the foundation of the Word of God. Until all men everywhere - including educators - bow the knee to King Jesus, we should expect to see anti-Christian thinking permeating our culture. The only hope for education - as for all of life - is repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
What has happened is that people don't distinguish between the standards themselves vs. the implementation of the standards. Let me give an analogy. Local governments (cities, counties, etc.) set up building codes or standards for churches - there must be so many fire extinguishers located in specified ways, stairwells must be a certain width, doors must be a certain width, walls must have a certain fire rating, etc. Now we can debate the merits or usefulness of those standards if we wish - for example, when my church was built the county required us to install an expensive wheelchair lift from the floor to the platform for the pulpit (about 3 feet), but we were not required to install an elevator from the first to the second floor classrooms (because we could move a class to a room downstairs for a handicapped person). That's strange, but that's the standard.
Those building standards for churches, though, have nothing to do with whether or not the church faithfully preaches the gospel. A faithful, Bible-believing church can build a building that meets those standards, and a liberal, God-denying "church" can also build a building that meets the county code. The standards have nothing to do with how the church carries out its work. We don't blame the building code when we have churches that preach a different gospel. We don't go around saying, "These building code churches are corrupting the Word of God. We need to eliminate the building codes." No, we just make sure our churches faithfully teach the Bible within the buildings that meet the codes.
I think that's the same thing that has happened to Common Core. Look at the standards themselves. I have yet to hear any critic of CCSS point to a Common Core standard and show how it is wrong. For example, Erick Erickson is concerned about his daughter's second grade math. Here is one of the Common Core standards for second grade math:
Understand that the three digits of a three-digit number represent amounts of hundreds, tens, and ones; e.g., 706 equals 7 hundreds, 0 tens, and 6 ones. (CCSS.Math.Content.2.NBT.A.1)
That's all the Common Core standard itself says. It says nothing about how students are to be taught that concept. It says nothing about what story problems will be used to teach it. It says nothing about whether parents should be able to help their students or not. If students leave second grade knowing this concept of place value in three-digit numbers, they have met this Common Core standard.
What has happened, though, is that liberal curriculum writers and textbook authors have layered their own educational views onto the CCSS. It's just like the liberal church using a building that meets county codes. Liberals teach about place value through strange methods, and they use story problems that present socialism. ("Vladimir Lenin had 706 Tsarist palaces to distribute equally to the tireless, hard-working masses. How many hundreds are there in 706?")
But I could just as easily teach that same Common Core standard through traditional means (children have always learned about place value) and through better story problems. ("Ronald Reagan's policy of lower taxes resulted in 706 new businesses being created in Atlanta in 1983. How many hundreds are there in 706?")
You see, CCSS says absolutely nothing about how the standards are to be met - that is the work of curriculum developers and textbook writers. If those curriculum developers and textbook writers are liberals, the materials they produce are going to reflect liberalism. And I think the educational liberals have taken the opportunity presented by the implementation of CCSS and have "hijacked" CCSS to implement their own liberal educational views. But that's not the fault of Common Core.
We have conservatives, ranging from the very reasonable Erick Erickson to some real wacked-out nutjobs, calling for states to withdraw from Common Core. And, at this point, it might be best for Common Core to die - it's impossible to have reasonable discussions about it. But - and this is important - Common Core is not the cause of liberalism in education, and eliminating Common Core will not eliminate liberalism from the schools. If Common Core were to disappear entirely tomorrow, liberal educational policy makers and textbook writers would continue to churn out the type of nonsense that has lit up the blogosphere. If there's no Common Core, textbook writers would just use some other vehicle for promoting the same methods.
In Erick's article, he says, "with nationalized standards as states like California being the biggest purchasers of textbooks, it’ll be the big states and their standards that help shape textbook content." That has been the case for many years before Common Core. California and Texas are the two largest state purchasers of textbooks, so textbook writers have always designed their books to meet the standards of those two states. The result has been a de facto national curriculum - whatever California wants, the textbook publishers provide, and because other states and individual school districts don't have the economic clout to make the publishers meet their own standards, the textbooks across the country invariably conform to California and Texas standards.
As I say, I think the whole discussion about CCSS has become so toxic that it would probably be better for CCSS just to disappear - not because I think the standards are bad, but because so many people conflate the implementation of the standards with the standards themselves. But I don't believe the elimination of CCSS would change anything about the radical liberalism and socialism found in the schools. That is going to continue as long as schools are not based on the foundation of the Word of God. Until all men everywhere - including educators - bow the knee to King Jesus, we should expect to see anti-Christian thinking permeating our culture. The only hope for education - as for all of life - is repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.