There's another factor here that deserves some consideration, concerning the nature of the tests themselves. In principle, these standardized exams, while academic in nature, measure a basic foundation for all thinking, not just for academia. Nobody ever adds a clause like '...of those going on to college' to the declarative 'Students are performing below grade level...' Rather, everyone is under the impression that these exams measure a kind of baseline skillset required for all functioning adults in society. Grade level is grade level regardless of the path a student might take,
But even a casual glance at even elementary standardized exams reveals a distinctly academic, college-centered focus. Unless demonstrating mastery of linear functions (8th grade CC) or analysis of figurative language (6th and up) on randomized fragments of text or equations is a universal skill, the exams are overwhelmingly directed towards the thinking and action that takes place in a University. There's nothing wrong with academia, but it's disingenuous at best to pretend it isn't the priority, and even if most students do end up in college, few remain there speaking its language. Not that you would know this by looking at any high school junior's coursework.
The Standards themselves are often framed in universal terms like 'real life action', but in vocabulary, syntax, and execution the Exams are academic, designed by academics and distinctly reflecting their view.
In the UK, we are finding the same thing with the toxic legacy of Michael Gove's curriculum reforms nearly a decade later. The current government is producing a review of our National Curriculum - but they are promising "evolution rather than revolution" so I'm not holding my breath...
Anyone who has ever taught other human beings knows that the best way to help humans learn is to create a supportive relationship, engage them in ways that are inclusive of their interests, and help them see the meaning behind their learning. Certainly, cramming can work to raise test scores. But cramming isn’t really learning—it’s more like drilling a hole. At first that hole is filled with the sawdust that’s called “learning” by standardized tests, but then a breeze comes along, the sawdust is blown away, and all that remains is the hole.
This is a powerful post. I recently published a policy brief for the Manhattan Institute that takes a closer look at NAEP data and how federal initiatives like Common Core led to widespread academic decline in reading and math. While there are different views on how best to structure education policy, I think we can agree that rigid, top-down reforms have failed both teachers and students. I believe we need standards that actually support good teaching and real learning, measurable, yes, but also grounded in what works.
Benchmarks became standards. Standards became curriculum (test prep drill/kill) and the god awful tests became EVERYTHING! The largest teacher's union in the country accepting $$$$ from the Gates Foundation to get school systems and teachers to "sign on" to the program shows just how horrible it was going to be. And standing at the top of the pyramid was David Coleman who got to write the ELA standards (with Jason Zimba/math) now heading up the not so non-profit College Board....also tied to the stupid and awful tests. All as a gateway to an expensive college education that the poor proles must believe would allow them into the realm of the middle class....NOT!
I have worked on developing K-12 science standards and have seen from the inside how the work of well-meaning individuals makes our educational system even more factory-like. First, given that ecosystems and living systems are powered by diversity, why would we seek to produce children that conform to standards? Second, why would we roll out new standards every 5-7 years when it takes just about that long for teachers to get comfortable with the latest? Third, responsive education works best, and standards disable teachers from being responsive. Fourth...
I'm very thankful for Florida giving the option of where to spend your child's allotted funds, public or private. My daughter's school uses very different methods, and their test scores are awesome.
I always find it hard to evaluate these claims, because a lot of criticisms of Common Core also apply to phonics-based reading instruction.
Phonics-based lessons are:
- Repetitive
- "One-size-fits-all"
- Make the teacher feel like they are teaching from a script
As a result, many teachers preferred teaching using whole language methods, which allow more dynamic lessons, incorporating interesting stories, pictures, etc.
Unfortunately, phonics approaches are dramatically more effective for developing reading skills than other methods. It's an inconvenient truth - if you actually want the kids to read, the "boring, scripted" approach is what works.
I'm very open to criticism of Common Core, but don't necessarily accept narratives from teachers at face value. What feels good and generates energy in a classroom isn't always what causes learning and retention.
I also don't think the causal link between Common Core adoption and a weak trend in test scores from 2010-2019 has been established all that clearly. There were a couple other salient changes in education policy during that time period that all plausibly depress test scores:
- Significant changes to school disciplinary policy, which caused a significant reduction in how often students were asked to leave the classroom or suspended from school for behavioral issues
- Systematic reduction in "tracking", which caused the spread of abilities within each classroom to significantly widen.
- Much more permissive attitude towards cell phone use in school, including during instructional time. I don't believe this was an intentional policy change, but it happened, and may have been downstream of new discipline policies.
All of the above are plausibly correlated with timing and intensity of Common Core adoption, so they are very difficult to disentangle.
In general, I would prefer opponents of Common Core to be more specific about what exactly they would like to change. I don't see "stop standardized testing" as a reasonable suggestion - if not for standardized testing, it wouldn't necessarily be clear we currently have a big problem.
We should be very clear about what changes we think should be applied to pedagogy - just handing it back down to local control is unlikely to be successful, because the status quo bias is very powerful.
I taught elementary school for 28 years, and have always considered Common Core as the skeleton of a good education. It is definitely not the entire body!! But there is nothing wrong with it as a skeleton. I think the idea of how you assess it is very important as another comment mentioned. In Delaware we used Smarter Balanced for assessment toward the end of when I taught. I found it a completely inappropriate assessment for elementary school students, and allowed my own children to opt out. Anytime you give a multiple choice test to someone in the elementary or even early high school years, where all four answers are correct and they have to determine which is the most correct, you are no longer assessing basic skills!! It wouldn't matter which skeleton of basic content information a state chose, the wrong assessment would not demonstrate mastery!
My 12 yo son has never been in school. We also don't follow any specific curriculum b/c he learns by doing. I have never bought a textbook. I've never given him a test. The only "formal" lessons I've given him were phonics based reading lessons (and not until he passed his 7th bday) and basic math along the way. We just do a lot of living, read-alouds, and museum trips. NO video games.
We "school" maybe an hour a day at most. And he spends the rest of day playing, sports, or working on his own projects which is LEARNING by doing.
This past spring, he had to take his first standardized tests EVER to comply with my state's homeschooling program. We did Math, Reading, Language (like grammar rules), and Science.
He scored in the high 90's percentile for his grade 6 on 3 of the tests. 80's in another. Public school is simply babysitting with a negative influence.
thank you for the article. I would like to begin by stating that I too am not a fan of Common Core. With that said, I do not agree with much more of what you have written. Calling Common Core a failure (IMHO) is emblematic of the blame culture that is replete in our country today. You stated in your article that "the system wasn't bad when ....teachers had more autonomy" ....when was that?
I had the pleasure of teaching both prior to and during the Common Core era ...which continues today (CC that is, not me teaching). I disagree that CC changed teachers or even changed what type of teacher would appeal to CC. There are so many issues with compulsory public education beginning and ending with the bureaucratic structure, to blame anything but ourselves is simply ignorant.
Not all teachers are built the same, just as not all parent(s) are built the same, just as not all students are built the same. I have said it in all of my writings on the topic, ....sending you children is public school is doing the absolute bare minimum. More importantly, surrendering your parenting responsibilities to bureaucratic agencies in the hopes of educating them will never work in anyone's favor. Public school is nothing more than a place for children to practice the skills they have been taught at home ...not a place to "learn" them.
Thank you for this comment. We probably agree on most issues regarding schooling. I accept that in your experience Common Core did not change much, but many surveys indicate that is not the view of most teachers. There has actually been a lot of research on this. States and individual school districts and schools varied in how they interpreted Common Core, but overall it clearly made schooling more stressful for most teachers and students. I have presented some of that evidence in previous letters in this susbstack, and I will be summarizing the evidence more thoroughly in a forthcoming book.
There's another factor here that deserves some consideration, concerning the nature of the tests themselves. In principle, these standardized exams, while academic in nature, measure a basic foundation for all thinking, not just for academia. Nobody ever adds a clause like '...of those going on to college' to the declarative 'Students are performing below grade level...' Rather, everyone is under the impression that these exams measure a kind of baseline skillset required for all functioning adults in society. Grade level is grade level regardless of the path a student might take,
But even a casual glance at even elementary standardized exams reveals a distinctly academic, college-centered focus. Unless demonstrating mastery of linear functions (8th grade CC) or analysis of figurative language (6th and up) on randomized fragments of text or equations is a universal skill, the exams are overwhelmingly directed towards the thinking and action that takes place in a University. There's nothing wrong with academia, but it's disingenuous at best to pretend it isn't the priority, and even if most students do end up in college, few remain there speaking its language. Not that you would know this by looking at any high school junior's coursework.
The Standards themselves are often framed in universal terms like 'real life action', but in vocabulary, syntax, and execution the Exams are academic, designed by academics and distinctly reflecting their view.
In the UK, we are finding the same thing with the toxic legacy of Michael Gove's curriculum reforms nearly a decade later. The current government is producing a review of our National Curriculum - but they are promising "evolution rather than revolution" so I'm not holding my breath...
Anyone who has ever taught other human beings knows that the best way to help humans learn is to create a supportive relationship, engage them in ways that are inclusive of their interests, and help them see the meaning behind their learning. Certainly, cramming can work to raise test scores. But cramming isn’t really learning—it’s more like drilling a hole. At first that hole is filled with the sawdust that’s called “learning” by standardized tests, but then a breeze comes along, the sawdust is blown away, and all that remains is the hole.
This is a powerful post. I recently published a policy brief for the Manhattan Institute that takes a closer look at NAEP data and how federal initiatives like Common Core led to widespread academic decline in reading and math. While there are different views on how best to structure education policy, I think we can agree that rigid, top-down reforms have failed both teachers and students. I believe we need standards that actually support good teaching and real learning, measurable, yes, but also grounded in what works.
https://manhattan.institute/article/the-nations-report-card-is-out-heres-what-the-results-tell-us-about-americas-schools
Thank you, Jennifer. Very intereresting article.
Benchmarks became standards. Standards became curriculum (test prep drill/kill) and the god awful tests became EVERYTHING! The largest teacher's union in the country accepting $$$$ from the Gates Foundation to get school systems and teachers to "sign on" to the program shows just how horrible it was going to be. And standing at the top of the pyramid was David Coleman who got to write the ELA standards (with Jason Zimba/math) now heading up the not so non-profit College Board....also tied to the stupid and awful tests. All as a gateway to an expensive college education that the poor proles must believe would allow them into the realm of the middle class....NOT!
I have worked on developing K-12 science standards and have seen from the inside how the work of well-meaning individuals makes our educational system even more factory-like. First, given that ecosystems and living systems are powered by diversity, why would we seek to produce children that conform to standards? Second, why would we roll out new standards every 5-7 years when it takes just about that long for teachers to get comfortable with the latest? Third, responsive education works best, and standards disable teachers from being responsive. Fourth...
I'm very thankful for Florida giving the option of where to spend your child's allotted funds, public or private. My daughter's school uses very different methods, and their test scores are awesome.
I always find it hard to evaluate these claims, because a lot of criticisms of Common Core also apply to phonics-based reading instruction.
Phonics-based lessons are:
- Repetitive
- "One-size-fits-all"
- Make the teacher feel like they are teaching from a script
As a result, many teachers preferred teaching using whole language methods, which allow more dynamic lessons, incorporating interesting stories, pictures, etc.
Unfortunately, phonics approaches are dramatically more effective for developing reading skills than other methods. It's an inconvenient truth - if you actually want the kids to read, the "boring, scripted" approach is what works.
I'm very open to criticism of Common Core, but don't necessarily accept narratives from teachers at face value. What feels good and generates energy in a classroom isn't always what causes learning and retention.
I also don't think the causal link between Common Core adoption and a weak trend in test scores from 2010-2019 has been established all that clearly. There were a couple other salient changes in education policy during that time period that all plausibly depress test scores:
- Significant changes to school disciplinary policy, which caused a significant reduction in how often students were asked to leave the classroom or suspended from school for behavioral issues
- Systematic reduction in "tracking", which caused the spread of abilities within each classroom to significantly widen.
- Much more permissive attitude towards cell phone use in school, including during instructional time. I don't believe this was an intentional policy change, but it happened, and may have been downstream of new discipline policies.
All of the above are plausibly correlated with timing and intensity of Common Core adoption, so they are very difficult to disentangle.
In general, I would prefer opponents of Common Core to be more specific about what exactly they would like to change. I don't see "stop standardized testing" as a reasonable suggestion - if not for standardized testing, it wouldn't necessarily be clear we currently have a big problem.
We should be very clear about what changes we think should be applied to pedagogy - just handing it back down to local control is unlikely to be successful, because the status quo bias is very powerful.
Alex, thank you for this comment. You might find some of my past articles on reading interesting. Phonics works best in the classroom, where kids are forced to read, but when kids learn to read outside of the classroom, they read first for meaning and then infer the phonics. Here are some of my essays on reading: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/201311/the-reading-wars-why-natural-learning-fails-in-classrooms
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-to-learn/201002/children-teach-themselves-to-read
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-to-learn/202012/how-dyslexic-kids-learn-to-read-when-removed-from-school
I taught elementary school for 28 years, and have always considered Common Core as the skeleton of a good education. It is definitely not the entire body!! But there is nothing wrong with it as a skeleton. I think the idea of how you assess it is very important as another comment mentioned. In Delaware we used Smarter Balanced for assessment toward the end of when I taught. I found it a completely inappropriate assessment for elementary school students, and allowed my own children to opt out. Anytime you give a multiple choice test to someone in the elementary or even early high school years, where all four answers are correct and they have to determine which is the most correct, you are no longer assessing basic skills!! It wouldn't matter which skeleton of basic content information a state chose, the wrong assessment would not demonstrate mastery!
My 12 yo son has never been in school. We also don't follow any specific curriculum b/c he learns by doing. I have never bought a textbook. I've never given him a test. The only "formal" lessons I've given him were phonics based reading lessons (and not until he passed his 7th bday) and basic math along the way. We just do a lot of living, read-alouds, and museum trips. NO video games.
We "school" maybe an hour a day at most. And he spends the rest of day playing, sports, or working on his own projects which is LEARNING by doing.
This past spring, he had to take his first standardized tests EVER to comply with my state's homeschooling program. We did Math, Reading, Language (like grammar rules), and Science.
He scored in the high 90's percentile for his grade 6 on 3 of the tests. 80's in another. Public school is simply babysitting with a negative influence.
thank you for the article. I would like to begin by stating that I too am not a fan of Common Core. With that said, I do not agree with much more of what you have written. Calling Common Core a failure (IMHO) is emblematic of the blame culture that is replete in our country today. You stated in your article that "the system wasn't bad when ....teachers had more autonomy" ....when was that?
I had the pleasure of teaching both prior to and during the Common Core era ...which continues today (CC that is, not me teaching). I disagree that CC changed teachers or even changed what type of teacher would appeal to CC. There are so many issues with compulsory public education beginning and ending with the bureaucratic structure, to blame anything but ourselves is simply ignorant.
Not all teachers are built the same, just as not all parent(s) are built the same, just as not all students are built the same. I have said it in all of my writings on the topic, ....sending you children is public school is doing the absolute bare minimum. More importantly, surrendering your parenting responsibilities to bureaucratic agencies in the hopes of educating them will never work in anyone's favor. Public school is nothing more than a place for children to practice the skills they have been taught at home ...not a place to "learn" them.
Thank you for this comment. We probably agree on most issues regarding schooling. I accept that in your experience Common Core did not change much, but many surveys indicate that is not the view of most teachers. There has actually been a lot of research on this. States and individual school districts and schools varied in how they interpreted Common Core, but overall it clearly made schooling more stressful for most teachers and students. I have presented some of that evidence in previous letters in this susbstack, and I will be summarizing the evidence more thoroughly in a forthcoming book.
I just wrote about this history on my Substack. Check it out.
Kristine, can you add a link to it?
Sure! I didn’t want to seem too self promoting.
https://open.substack.com/pub/unscriptedlearning/p/welcome-to-the-push-up?r=5c1lzj&utm_medium=ios
Thank you.