The conspiracy theory in search of a conspiracy

From where I sit, a member of the local school board and
head of our board’s curriculum committee, I appreciate what No Child Left
Behind and Race to the Top have meant for our district: forcing accountability
on a school district that pushes inexorably against it. And I see the Common
Core as promising us a curriculum where none has ever existed.

The Common
Core promises us a curriculum where none has ever existed.

Sure, we have plenty to worry about when it comes to the
role of the federal government in our lives. The current cover story in the Economist is about an “Over-regulated
America,” smothered by a wave of “red tape” that may crush the life out of
America’s economy. It sure seems to have already crushed much of the life out
of America’s public education system.

Coming at the question from a different direction, David
Brooks
recently suggested that the United States is just as freighted by central
government as the Europe is; we just do it differently—and not so well. Our
economic briar patch, says Brooks, is in the tax code.

There should be a lesson here for our education policy-wonks
and -makers: instead of getting hung up on which government agency is making
the rules, let’s dig a little deeper into the question of red tape, at all
levels, and find out exactly which ties are binding so firmly to mediocrity and
entropy. Chris Cerf in New Jersey has a team going through every Garden State
education rule and regulation with an eye of stripping away unnecessary
restraints.

The point is, this isn’t a federal problem; at least, not
exclusively.

But what worries me about the reasoning of some of the anti-Common
Corers (see Jay
Greene
) is that they seem to confuse a popular national trend with
nationalism. The problem was on fine display last week in an exchange between Jay
and W. Stephen Wilson, a mathematician who defends the Common Core standards in
the current Ed Next forum.  When Jay wrote that Wilson saw the Common Core “as a first
step toward developing stronger national standards that would be comparable to
those of our overseas competitors and better than all previously existing state
standards,” Wilson shot back,

Never said that. Anyway, that’s politics, and I try to stay out
of politics. I’m a content sort of guy. Also, although technically I’m the
pro-Common Core person, the questions don’t actually ask me to be pro-Common
Core. Thus I could answer all the questions without taking a political stance,
unless being pro-math is political.
A national curriculum is great; a nationalized one
is not. And there’s a difference.

This is a fascinating reply by Wilson and I would recommend
reading the full exchange between the two. There is, as I read it, some welcome
concession on the part of Jay that the Common Core standards can indeed be
evaluated for their content not their
commonality—but even that is a far
cry from a nationalized curriculum.

In fact, a national curriculum is great; a nationalized one
is not. And there’s a difference. Here’s what New York State Commissioner David Steiner told
me last year when I asked him for the argument for a common curriculum:    

[T]here’s every argument for it.  First of all, there’s an equity argument.  We have students in this state who are,
through no fault of the teachers, but just because of the history in that
school, or the training and preparation of those teachers, or the lack of
resources or whatever it may be–those teachers are teaching material that is
one year, two years below (in content sophistication) what it needs to be.  That’s an equity problem.
Second, there’s a resource problem.  By having multiple different and fragmented curricula, we
can’t get the quality we could otherwise get from a really, superb curriculum
that has online, that has multimedia, that creates internal assessments for
students that enables the teachers to get data about performance.  All of that is much too expensive for
an individual district, still less a school to be able to produce.
And third, we’ve never had a common set of standards before
that have been back-mapped from college and career readiness, which is what the
Common Core standards are.  And so,
for the first time we can say we have a ladder to college and career
readiness.  It’s time to build that
curriculum on that ladder.

There is no doubt that our educational governance system
needs overhaul. But let’s not begin by throwing the baby out with the
bathwater. Let’s at least hang on to the good that we have (remembering, of
course, that good need not be perfect) and start knocking down the barriers to
improvement.

More By Author

Related Articles