The Common Core standards were developed in 2010 as an effort to create voluntary national standards for learning in math and reading. The effort, which was spearheaded by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers and funded by among others the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, is to ensure our nation’s students are more globally competitive and better prepared for college or the workforce. Although voluntary, all but four states have adopted the standards, which are just now starting to be implemented by the states. Embraced by the Obama administration and vilified by some members of the far right, the standards are not without controversy, and may or may not become an issue in the upcoming presidential election as President Obama and Mitt Romney jockey to define education policies apart from one another.
According to the president of the American Federation of Teachers, the standards are designed to help students think more critically and not just be able to “fill in the blanks on standardized tests.” Teachers who are familiar with the standards believe that topics will be taught in much greater depth than previously. Critics, including NYU education historian Diane Ravitch, argue that the standards are untested and that no one knows if they are “good or bad, whether they will improve academic achievement or widen the achievement gap.” The Brookings Institution suggests that since existing state standards, which are being replaced by Common Core, have had little impact on academic achievement within individual states, there is little reason to believe the Common Core standards will improve our nation’s schools.
The conservative right believes that Common Core is an effort at a top-down implementation of a national curriculum, despite the fact that it was a bipartisan coalition of state governors which initiated the effort. Accordingly, it is only a short step down the slippery slope from adopting national standards for reading and math to developing national standards for science, which could possibly include benchmarks for the teaching of evolution. To the right, Common Core is further evidence of the federal government’s over involvement in education, which should rightly remain the domain of the states.
Conservatives have a point in arguing that the Obama administration is in fact imposing a national curriculum. In its “Race to the Top” initiative introduced in 2009, the Obama administration rewards states that adopt a series of reforms that are designed to ensure that our nation’s students are prepared for “college and career readiness.” Those states that adopt these reforms are being offered a huge financial carrot; namely, waivers from the stringent requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), arguably allowing the administration to circumvent the law and impose its own policies. But given that the NCLB target date for proficiency in math and reading among our nation’s students is 2014 and that on average half of the nation’s schools will fail to meet this target, states are scrambling to adopt “Race to the Top” reforms. To date, just over half of the states have applied for NCLB waivers. And what is included among the Race to the Top reforms? One of the key reforms demanded by the Obama administration is the adoption of “internationally benchmarked academic standards.” As the only current set of “internationally benchmarked” standards that have been developed, Common Core is the de facto standards states are adopting.
So where does Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, stand on the merits of Common Core? It’s not that clear. In an October 2011 Fox interview, Romney stated that he didn’t like a national curriculum and objected to the Obama administration’s efforts to get states to adopt one. Romney argued that states need to be responsible for developing their own curriculums. Elsewhere, Romney campaign staff have said that Romney supports Common Core standards although he objects to how the Administration is pressuring states to adopt them.
In May, Romney released his education position paper, “A Chance for Every Child: Mitt Romney’s Plan for Restoring the Promise of American Education.” It would seem that within its 34 pages Romney’s position on Common Core would be clear. Not really. In fact, Romney never actually mentions the words “Common Core” at all. Instead he discusses setting “high standards” for students and assessing students’ progress toward meeting those standards. More significantly, the paper states, “What we do not need are prescriptive top-down mandates emanating from Washington D.C., which are so fashionable among many in the nation’s capital.” Although these words sound “anti” Common Core, given the advisors with whom Romney has surrounded himself, it’s hard to think so. The introduction to the White Paper was drafted by Governor Jeb Bush who, despite his conservative bent, is a strong proponent of Common Core. Additionally, one of Romney’s advisors is Tom Luna, the Idaho state chief and president of the Council of Chief State School Officers, which helped draft the Common Core standards in the first place.
The New York Times suggests that Romney is treading a fine line in his effort to distance himself from the education failures of the administration of George W. Bush; namely, NCLB, and yet define separate positions for himself from those of President Obama, who has already touted what are considered some “traditional” Republican talking points relating to education; e.g., support for charter schools and tying teacher evaluations to student scores. What Romney has embraced is a pro-choice, pro-voucher (though he doesn’t use the word) approach. Romney wants Title I funds (which are funds allocated to schools with a certain percentage of low-income students) and IDEA funds to follow the child to whichever school—public, private, charter, or virtual—selected by his or her family. Romney argues that market forces, not policies from Washington, are what will ultimately improve our nation’s schools. Critics, however, lament that school choice will be the death knell of public education. By raising the issue of vouchers--however Romney chooses to label them--he may have found the issue that most clearly separates his education policies from those of President Obama.
