In an effort to improve the education of American schoolchildren from kindergarten through 12th grade, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were released by the Council of Chief State Schools Officers and the National Governors Association in 2010 (Applebee, 2013); 43 of 50 states adopted them by 2013 (Conley, 2014). Attempts at voluntary national standards began with the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics in 1989 and over the next six years, a project in English language arts lost its funding after two weeks in 1992 and standards for history were voted down by the Senate in 1995. The introduction of Common Core Standards is an attempt to detail the knowledge acquired by students in mathematics and English language arts at the completion of each grade level. In addition, assessments of students graduating high school try to determine if they are qualified to successfully attend college or become employed. While the aspirations of adopting Common Core Standards is admirable, a blanket testing for all students under the age of 18 in the United States without regard to disabilities, immigration status, categorization as gifted, population base of the state, and other influences prompts Applebee (2013) to state,
These debates are wide-ranging, from the conflict between phonics and whole language in beginning reading, to the balance of literary versus informational text in reading instruction, to the role of explicit instruction in teaching vocabulary and usage, to on- demand versus process-oriented writing tasks. (p.25)
The information in this paper presents briefly as many arguments as possible. The problems discussed indicate that a return to individual state testing using the CCSS as a guideline is needed in order to meet the needs of students below the college level for future career and academic success.
The development of the Common Core State Standards was prompted by the goal of raising standards for every child (VanTassel-Baska, 2015). Assessment was promoted as the best way to determine that higher levels of learning were taking place. The individual states wanted to maintain their own standards and assessment and national standards were initially defeated. The legislation enacting No Child Left Behind took place in 2001, but 50 states set in place 50 different versions of student expectations (Applebee, 2013). In addition, many states created such uneven standards and low assessments that the decision was made to enact the Common Core State Standards in 2010. Career and College Standards were then spread out over the twelve grades. The original draft underwent multiple revisions as more educators contributed their opinions on the contents. For instance, the standards for just the English language arts section consists of 63 pages for the main section with 3 appendixes for an additional 333 pages and 6 pages of material for introductions. The bulk of the standard and the problems with interpretation are major contributors to criticism of the program.
After the final version of the CCSS was accepted, a number of different analyses were conducted to determine its quality and practically every state sought common and different characteristics (Conley, 2014). A study by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation reports the CCSS was more clear and stringent than almost all of the state standards (Carmichael, Martino, Porter-Magee, & Wilson, 2010). Statistical testing in 2012 found that states using math standards similar to the CCSS received higher scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress than states that did not (Schmidt & Houang, 2012). Two studies drawing correlations between preparedness for college and careers, Lining Up (Conley et al., 2011a) and Reaching the Goal (Conley et al., 2011b), found that the CCSS made the same strong determinations as postsecondary educational facility standards. Another study comparing Common Core Standards in math to standards of top achieving nations in the Third International mathematics and Science Study in 1995 reported a high degree of similarity.
There is a wide range of opinions of educators, analysts, and politicians concerning the effectiveness of CCSS (VanTassel-Baska, 2015). Several of the arguments for the continued use of the CCSS are that they are more effective at promoting higher levels of skill than previous state standard and that the techniques for instruction function at higher levels and are more open-ended. The current CCSS also demands a higher level of skills for student to demonstrate acquired knowledge and the two contractual agencies responsible for development of assessments have done so based on performance. Additional arguments state that the CCSS meets current standards for learning and testing, emphasizes the education needed for successful career paths, and allows for a common base across the country. Opponents to the continued use of the CCSS propose that allowing federal agencies to mandate education lead to a curriculum that is complete standardized and that educators are not effective of abiding by them. There are also complaints that math and English language arts are over-emphasized, assessment processes are too difficult and requires technology that students do not know how to operate, and that special students such as those that are determined to be gifted are held back in their progress. Also, while adopting the CCSS was touted as being voluntary for state participation, the choices that followed distribution intimate they are more federally managed than state managed and should a state elect not to use the CCSS, access to some resources would be forfeited (Applebee, 2013).
Adoption of the CCSS has important impact on the education of American students. As schools struggle to comply with the standards for their students, teachers are finding that teachers use the test to structure curriculum designed for high scores (Applebee, 2013). Unfortunately, the ultimate goal of obtaining a knowledge base is not achieved and future success is impaired. Judith A. Lange conducted a study of students in high-risk middle and high school that demonstrated learned subject skills outside of the ability to answer test questions allowed them to understand the material more thoroughly (Langer, 2000). The CCSS addresses the skills that are important for students to master, but not the content needed to read, write, and discuss English language arts. In What the Big Idea?, Jim Burke discusses how he uses literature to obtain the necessary answers to the CCSS through supplemental texts, discussions, relationships to current events, films, and other assignments. This would require extensive class preparation on the part of the instructors, but Burke demonstrates that this is possible. VanTassel-Baska (2015) notes that this type of curriculum is advantageous for gifted students while still benefiting the average one. Unfortunately, not all teachers are trained in teaching mathematics or English language arts for higher skill levels (VanTassel-Baska, 2015). It is necessary at that point for school administrators to respond proactively to organize supplemental training.
One state taking steps to reject the CCSS is North Dakota, who plans to replace the CCSS with a new set of standards to be developed over the coming year (Sisk, 2016). North Dakota legislators failed in an attempt to resign from the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium in 2015. Rep. Rick Becker is an opponent of Common Core Standards and advocates giving control of state education back to state educators. “We will create a set of standards by North Dakotans for North Dakotans,” states State Superintendent Kirsten Baesler. “These standards will set clear and high expectations for all students.” The new standards are anticipated to be in place for the 2017-2018 school year.
In conclusion, there are both positive and negative attributes to the present Common Core State Standards. Since its introduction in 2010, the vast majority of the states accepted the testing and assessment program for determining the level of achievement for students in kindergarten through 12th grade. However, criticisms of the CCSS have prompted many opponents to demand rejection or changes in order to promote college and career success for high school graduates. While some states want to return to individual standards, the ability of individuals to relocate to any of the 49 other states may present issues with previously accepted scores. There is no denying that there are high recommendations regarding the CCSS qualifications. The issue is the intricacy of application, narrow focus, and inability to generalize to all locales and students. States looking to again create their own standards, such as North Dakota, would do well to look to the positive characteristics of the Common Core State Standards and use them to create a state version that is simpler and applicable. In addition, an agreement on a national consistency is necessary for scoring across state borders.
References
Applebee, A. (2013). Common Core State Standards: The Promise and the Peril in a National
Palimpsest. English Journal, 103.1, 25–33. Retrieved from
http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/EJ/1031-
sep2013/EJ1031Common.pdf
Burke, J. (2010). What's the Big Idea?: Question-Driven Units to Motivate Reading, Writing,
and Thinking. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heineman.
Carmichael, S. B., Martino, G., Porter-Magee, K., & Wilson, W. S. (2010). The state of state
standards—and the Common Core—in 2010. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham
Conley, D. T., Drummond, K. V., de Gonzalez, A., Rooseboom, J., & Stout, O. (2011a). Lining
up: The relationship between the Common Core State Standards and five sets of
comparison standards. Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center.
Conley, D. T., Drummond, K. V., de Gonzalez, A., Rooseboom, J., & Stout, O. (2011b).
Reaching the goal: The applicability and importance of the Common Core State
Standards to college and career readiness. Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improvement
Center.
Conley, D. (2014). Common Core Development and Substance. Social Policy Report, 28(2), 1.
Retrieved from http://www.srcd.org/sites/default/files/spr282_final.pdf
Langer, J. (2000). Beating the Odds: Teaching Middle and High School Students to Read and
Write Well. Albany, New York: National Research Center on English Learning &
Achievement. Retrieved from
http://www.albany.edu/cela/reports/langer/langerbeating12014.pdf
Sisk, A. (2016). North Dakota to write standards replacing Common Core. Bismarck Tribune.
Retrieved 29 July 2016, from http://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/education/north-
dakota-to-write-standards-replacing-common-core/article_06b2f0f4-cd72-5179-b53c-
8e72bf8894a4.html
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2015). Arguments for and Against the Common Core State Standards.
Gifted Child Today, 38(1), 60-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1076217514556535
