Common Core Standards Miss the Mark

June 21, 2010 By Sandra Stotsky

Editor's introduction: NAS board member Sandra Stotsky wrote the following statement as an explanation for her decision not to endorse the Common Core State Standards, a new set of K-12 standards that were released in March as a draft for public comment. Last year Dr. Stotsky was appointed to the validation committee which approved the Common Core State Standards this month. Dr. Stotsky's absence from the list of signers, as well as that of another committee member, James Milgram (a Stanford mathematician), go unremarked in the committee's official report. 

Dr. Stotsky elaborates her position on “College and Career Readiness Standards” in a recent Pioneer Institute white paper with NAS member Ze'ev Wurman, The Emperor's New Clothes.

You can find out more more about the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) and read pro and con reactions to it here and here. 

The opinions expressed in this guest article do not necessarily reflect the official position of the National Association of Scholars.

* * *

June 6, 2010 

Mitchell Chester, Commissioner of Education, Massachusetts
Charles Quigley, Center for Civic Education
Susan Wolfson, Association of Literary Scholars, Critics, and Writers
Vance Ablott, Triangle Coalition
Michael Petrilli, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
William Gorth, Pearson Evaluation Systems
David Saba, American Board for Certification in Teacher Excellence
Peter Wood, National Association of Scholars
Barbara Davidson, StandardsWork
Leonard Sax, National Association for Single Sex Public Education 

Dear Gene and Dane, 

I feel that I owe you, as well as all the individuals and organizations that recommended me for Common Core’s Validation Committee, an explanation for why I could not sign off on the final version of the Common Core State Standards.  I did not sign off because I could not “validate” the criteria we were given to affirm.  All members of the Validation Committee were asked to affirm that the final version of Common Core’s mathematics and English language arts standards met the seven criteria below.  My reasons for not signing off relate to the standards for English language arts [ELA}, with a focus on the secondary grades, 6-12. 

1   “Reflective of the core knowledge and skills in ELA and mathematics that students need to be college- and career-ready.” 

U.S. documents in grades 9-12, foundational works in American literature in grades 11/12, and a play by Shakespeare in grade 12, but there is little else with respect to content in lower grades.  These minimal requirements, laudatory in themselves, would not be considered adequate to frame a literature and language curriculum in any country. In addition, the distribution of literature and informational standards indicate about a 50% division between imaginative literature and informational texts in the English language arts/reading class at all grade levels, a division that is inappropriate at the secondary level given English teachers’ academic background and what they are prepared to teach based on their undergraduate or graduate coursework.  Moreover, there is an implementation issue that is not addressed; Common Core does not make it clear that English teachers will need to take academic coursework (or a significant amount of specific professional development) in history and political science to understand the historical context, philosophical influences, unique features, and national and international significance, historically and today, of the foundational documents they are being required to teach students how to read. 

2.  “Appropriate in terms of their level of clarity and specificity.” 

3.  “Comparable to the expectations of other leading nations.” 

The two English-speaking areas for which I could find assessment material (British Columbia and Ireland) have far more demanding requirements for college readiness. The British Commonwealth examinations I have seen in the past were far more demanding in reading and literature in terms of the knowledge base students needed for taking and passing them. No material was ever provided to the Validation Committee or to the public on the specific college readiness expectations of other leading nations in mathematics or language and literature.

4.  “Informed by available research or evidence” 

No evidence was ever provided to the Validation Committee supporting the specific “college and career readiness standards” as a group and their use as an organizing scheme for generating grade-level standards.  In fact, the evidence that can be located is either counter-evidence or misinterpreted evidence (see Stotsky and Wurman, 2010).  Nor is there clear evidence that career readiness is similar to college readiness. 

Sandra Stotsky
Member, Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education
Professor of Education Reform, University of Arkansas 

References

Sandra Stotsky.  (2000). The state of literary study in national and state English language arts standards: Why it matters and what can be done about it.  In S. Stotsky (Ed.), What’s at Stake in the K-12 Standards Wars: A Primer for Educational Policy Makers (pp. 237-258). NY: Peter Lang Publishers. 

Sandra Stotsky, with Lisa Haverty. (2004). Can a state department of education increase teacher quality? Lessons learned in Massachusetts.  In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 2004 (pp. 131-180). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.