Evaluating Common Core

Kendall Deas

The Journal of Educational Foundations, Fall-Winter 2018

Kendall Deas is an adjunct assistant professor of education policy and law in the Department of Political

Science and an Honors College faculty fellow at the College of Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina. His e-mail

address is: [email protected]

Abstract

This article examines the Common Core State Standards Initiative

and provides a policy analysis of issues concerning its implementation

as a policy initiative to achieve education reform in the U.S. Aside from

highlighting developments concerning this policy initiative, it exam-

ines the origins of this movement toward adopting common core state

standards and political implications of the education policy. The article

assesses what are the advantages, disadvantages, and pitfalls concern-

ing prospects for change that could result from the implementation of

common core state standards, and examines the policy as it relates to

theories of action or change. Speciﬁcally, as it concerns theories of ac-

tion or change, it will focus upon how this education policy is supposed

to improve student learning along with its prospects for success. The

hypothesis proposed here is that this policy initiative as a reform will

not result in improving student achievement. For one, there is clearly a

ﬂaw in the underlying rationale that uniform standards are needed to

improve education in U.S. schools. Further, there is no clear evidence that

raising standards will result in increased student learning. In addition,

the common core initiative lacks a convincing research base to support this

perspective which could in turn undermine support for implementation

of the policy. Finally, research shows a weak or nonexistent relationship

between common core standards and high test scores.

Evaluating

Common Core

Are Uniform Standards

a Silver Bullet

for Education Reform?

Kendall Deas

The Journal of Educational Foundations

Vol. 31, No. 3 & 4

Fall/Winter 2018, pp. 47-62

Evaluating Common Core

Introduction

This article examines the Common Core State Standards Initia-

tive and issues concerning its implementation as a policy initiative to

achieve education reform in the U.S. The Obama administration was a

proponent for a set of education standards developed with the goal of

making all high school graduates in the U.S. prepared for college entry

or careers. In order to reach this goal, the administration pressured

states to incorporate content standards referred to as the common core

and developed by the National Governor’s Association and the Council

of Chief State School Ofﬁcers (NGA/CCSSO). In fact, the administration

proposed that federal Title 1 aid be withheld from states that do not

adopt these or comparable standards.

Aside from highlighting developments under the Obama administra-

tion and the policy’s status in the current political climate, the article

examines the origins of this movement toward adopting common core

state standards and political implications of the education policy. It

assesses what are the advantages, disadvantages, and pitfalls concern-

ing prospects for change that could result from the implementation

of common core state standards, and examines the policy as it relates

to theories of action or change. Speciﬁcally, as it concerns theories of

action or change, it will focus upon how this education policy aims to

improve student learning along with its prospects for success. It is clear

that there is an underlying ﬂaw in the rationale that common core or

uniform standards are necessary to improve education in American

schools. For one, there is no compelling or clear evidence that raising

standards will ultimately result in enhanced student learning. Further,

there is no convincing or solid research base associated with common

core to support this perspective. This could in turn undermine support

for the policy’s implementation. Aside from a limited research base, some

of the existing research indicates that there is a weak or nonexistent

correlation between common core standards and high test scores.

Common Core State Standards:

Origins of the Movement and the Rationale for Uniformity of Standards

The origin of the Common Core State Standards Initiative is linked

to a critical meeting in April of 2009 when the National Governors’ As-

sociation and the Council of Chief State School Ofﬁcers (NGA/CCSSO)

met in Chicago, Illinois to undertake efforts to propose more uniform

standards for U.S. education (Mathis, 2010). During this period, rep-

resentatives from 41 states along with NGA/CCSSO ofﬁcials met and

Kendall Deas

proposed to draft a set of uniform or common education standards for

American schools (Mathis, 2010). A private contractor company known

as Achieve, Inc. was commissioned by NGA/CCSSO to develop a set of

new common core standards for U.S. schools in the areas of both math-

ematics and reading (McNeil, 2009). In fact, the project to develop new

common core standards was basically fast-tracked for Achieve, Inc. to

have a clearly articulated set of grade-by-grade standards by the end

of 2009 (McNeil, 2009).

Aside from the federal funding, the Gates Foundation also contributed

signiﬁcantly to the effort to create new common core state standards

for U.S. schools. The foundation not only bankrolled the development of

the standards, but also built vital political support across the country,

and persuaded state governments to make systemic and costly changes.

The Gates Foundation essentially provided the money and structure for

states to work together on common standards in a way that avoided col-

lusion between states’ rights and national interests that had a tendency

to undercut previous efforts (Layton, 2014). It provided ﬁnancing across

the political spectrum to teachers unions, the American Federation of

Teachers, the National Education Association (NEA), and business

organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Layton, 2014).

Despite previous conﬂicts, these groups became vocal supporters of the

standards. Further, ﬁnancing was channeled to policy groups on both the

left and right to scholars of varying political persuasions who advocated

for common core state standards. For example, liberals at the Center

for American Progress and conservatives associated with the American

Legislative Exchange Council who often were on opposite ends of the

policy spectrum accepted funds from the Gates Foundation and were

on common ground with common core standards (Layton, 2014).

In assessing the foundation’s investment in creating, implementing

and promoting common core state standards, it is clear that it essentially

underestimated the basic level of resources and support necessary for

America’s public education systems to be properly equipped to actually

implement the standards (Strauss, 2016). Moreover, the foundation missed

an early opportunity to engage teachers, parents, and communities so

that the beneﬁts of the standards could take affect from the beginning

(Strauss, 2016).

It is signiﬁcant to note that during the period of development and

implementation of common core standards, states faced ﬁnancial difﬁcul-

ties. Despite facing these ﬁnancial challenges, states still made concerted

efforts to implement common core standards (CEP, 2012). Even though

they faced limited funding and budget cuts, many states engaged in

long-term planning for implementation of common core standards. They

revised and created aligned curriculum materials and adopted and imple-

Evaluating Common Core

mented new assessments that were aligned to the new standards (CEP,

2012). Most of the states made a range of standards related changes to

areas such as teacher professional development, preparation, induction,

and evaluation (CEP, 2012). Further, many of these states carried out

special initiatives to implement these new standards in their lowest-

performing schools (CEP, 2012).

When one examines the issue of subject-matter standards, it becomes

evident that the development of standards for academic subjects in

U.S. schools had historically been the domain of area specialists within

universities and schools. In contrast, workgroups associated with the

corporation commissioned by NGA/CCSSO met privately to develop the

new common core standards excluding many K-12 educators. Moreover,

these workgroups associated with the corporation consisted largely of

corporate employees, and employees afﬁliated with testing companies

such as ACT and the College Board. In addition, employees of pro-account-

ability groups such as America’s Choice, Student Achievement Partners,

and the Stanford think tank known as the Hoover Institute were also

involved in the process to draft new uniform standards for U.S. schools.

This in turn led to complaints about exclusion from both practitioners

and subject area experts. Some observers contend that this was because

they wanted to draft a set of standards based on the best research as

opposed to the opinions of just one organization (Cavanaugh, 2009). In

fact, only one K-12 teacher was involved in developing the new common

core state standards out of the more than 65 individuals who participated

in the process (Cavanaugh, 2009). Further, the workgroups developing

uniform standards were devoid of input from administrators.

There were conﬁdential iterations of the standards between both

developers and state departments of education. The initial public release

of a draft for the common core state standards occurred on March 10,

2010 (Department of Education, 2010). The ﬁnal set of recommendations

for the new common core standards was released on June 2, 2010. As a

result of efforts by the Obama administration, states that sought to be

in contention for the second round of Race to the Top grants had to adopt

the new standards by August 2, 2010 (Gerwertz, 2010). The guidelines

established by the NGA/CCSSO proposed statewide adoption of the com-

mon core state standards if they desired to be a part of the Race to the

Top initiative (Phillips & Wong, 2010). The Obama administration’s use

of federal dollars through Race to the Top to encourage states to adopt

new and more rigorous standards in the midst of an economic downturn

was a powerful incentive to encourage states to adopt the policy.

In terms of the rationale for the uniformity of state standards, the

Obama administration held the view that a set of common core state

standards for education in the U.S. was necessary for national economic

Kendall Deas

competitiveness in an increasingly global economy. The administration

asserted in its Blueprint document on standards to the U.S. Congress that

having uniform state standards in education is paramount in reaching the

objective of having all American children achieve academically regardless

of their socio-economic background (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).

A critical component of the federal approach is basically aligning common

core standards with both curriculum and assessments. In the Obama

administration’s Blueprint document on standards to the U.S. Congress,

the set of uniform standards is required to be high in the sense that the

federal goal is for all American students to be career or college-ready.

This is signiﬁcant as it is in direct contrast to the standards movement

of the 1970s which only required students to achieve minimum basic

skills. Further, the National Governors’ Association and Council of Chief

State School Ofﬁcers contended that having a set of common core state

standards for U.S. schools is necessary for our nation to achieve greater

international competitiveness (National Governors’ Association, 2009).

Many advocates for uniform state standards in education argue

that large variations in state assessments and levels of proﬁciency can

hinder effective and efﬁcient reform (Phillips and Wong, 2010). Those

supporters of uniform state standards suggest that common core state

standards will allow broad-based sharing of what works within and across

schools, districts, and states. The idea here is that common core state

standards will increase efﬁciency. Further, proponents of uniform state

standards point to the fact that with a common curriculum, students

can change schools without having the continuity of their educational

studies interrupted (Richardson, 2010).

Those who oppose the movement towards common core state standards

for U.S. schools tend to focus upon two major concerns. First, they argue

that top-down, high-stakes standards will diminish the rich variety of

experiences in the classroom. Moreover, they contend that a one-size-ﬁts-

all model of education is not ideal for every child. They also have concerns

that the adoption of common core state standards may limit teaching to

just testable information and stiﬂe knowledge, ﬂexibility, and creativity”

so vital to quality educational experiences. Second, opponents of com-

mon core state standards fear an intensiﬁcation of the punitive policies

associated with accountability that could occur if uniform standards are

adopted. However, it is important to note that high-stakes standards and

punitive policies are dependent on state policymakers.

Policy Issues Concerning the Uniform Standards Movement

and Political Implications

The central argument most often used by those who are proponents

Evaluating Common Core

of common core state standards is that uniformity in standards is critical

to enhancing America’s international competitiveness. There are several

assumptions made by supporters of common core standards that are the

basis for this argument or viewpoint. First, supporters of uniformity in

standards for education assume that high quality state standards will

lead to U.S. students achieving higher test scores. Second, they assume

that high quality national standards will lead to higher scores on tests

for international comparisons. Third, supporters of common core stan-

dards assume that the shortcoming of the American educational system

hinders the nation from being more competitive globally. Finally, they

assume that a set of quality common core state standards will help

the nation meet the workforce needs of the economy. However, there is

limited evidence to support many of these assumptions.

An important policy issue concerning the common core state standards

movement is whether or not adopting uniform standards for U.S. schools will

improve, harm, or have no effect at all on student learning. In fact, many

observers suggest that this is the most important policy issue concerning

the movement toward instituting common core standards. It is important

to note that while the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law was conducive to

state standards, it was also accompanied by additional mandates for test-

ing, sanctions, and interventions. This in turn made it difﬁcult to assess the

effects of one of these various elements. Some education policy researchers

argue that there is still no clear evidence that standards-based account-

ability systems are especially effective. Moreover, some of these scholars

contend that any beneﬁcial effects on students’ average test scores are quite

minimal, and there appear to be negative effects on the achievement gap,

graduation, and dropout rates (Strauss, 2014).

In terms of the political dynamics surrounding the process, the

movement for common core state standards may best be understood as

an extension of President George H.W. Bush’s education proposals. In

1989, President Bush along with leaders from the National Business

Roundtable set forth critical components of a high quality education

system that incorporated standards, assessments, and accountability.

In 1994, President Clinton signed Goals 2000 into law which provided

states with grants to adopt content standards. However, Goals 2000

created a political backlash by conservatives against the growing inﬂu-

ence of the federal government over education. There was also concern

expressed pertaining to the content and goals of the standards.

There are clearly policy and political implications concerning the

movement toward adopting common core state standards for U.S. schools.

The federal government has traditionally had a limited role in the area

of education. In fact, the responsibility for education is delegated to the

states within their respective individual constitutions. Regardless as to

Kendall Deas

whether it is characterized as a political, policy, or legal concern, some

citizens question whether it is appropriate for the federal government to

make a strong demand on states to adopt common standards. However,

it is important to consider that it may be voluntary but not if federal aid

becomes contingent on states’ adoption of them. In addition, there are

certainly some implementation issues and other obstacles or challenges

that may serve to undermine efforts to initiate common core standards.

Whether or not a common core standards system can be implemented with

valid assessments is a critical issue as well as securing adequate funding

of special programs to assist students in reaching these new standards.

Common Core State Standards and Implementation Issues:

Potential Challenges for Implementation of the Policy

When one examines the landscape concerning the education policy of

common core state standards, it becomes clear that there are a number

of implementation issues and obstacles that could potentially hinder

the overall success of the effort to institute common core standards. The

issue of policy implementation can create some practical problems that

must be resolved if the effort to institute common core standards is to

be a success. Some scholars within the ﬁeld of education policy argue

that in the case of common core state standards, there is substantial

overlap between policy issues and implementation obstacles.

A particular issue of concern relates to the content of standards

and the formal comments from professional organizations. For example,

there have been some disagreements over standards for areas such as

English and mathematics. Many of the most important educational

professional associations such as the American Association of School

Administrators, the National Association of State Boards of Education,

the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teach-

ers, and the National School Boards Association have generally been

quite supportive of the initiative to adopt common core state standards

for U.S. schools. However, they made their support conditional on both

the provision of professional development and adequate resources.

Further, teacher organizations particularly requested more time

be devoted to careful development and to assure the common core

standards are broader than just the area of mathematics and reading

(National Education Association, 2009). They also expressed support for

maintaining the role of educators on local levels (National Education

Association, 2009). However, it has been the English and mathematics

teachers associations that have focused most intently upon the content

of the draft standards.

Some groups such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathemat-

Evaluating Common Core

ics (NCTM) have complemented efforts by the NGA/CCSSO to develop

standards, but prefer their own work. A major concern of the NCTM is

that the NGA/CCSSO math standards are not properly articulated from

one grade to the next. In addition, NCTM contends that there is a lack of

focus on mathematical understanding and very little attention devoted

to technology, statistics, and data analysis. They also suggest the area of

fractions receives too much attention and the group is concerned overall

that the NGA/CCSSO standards are inadequate.

In contrast, the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) was

essentially more cautious in their stance on the NGA/CCSSO standards.

In its committee review, the organization expressed a number of concerns

pertaining to the NGA/CCSSO standards. For one, the NCTE suggested

that the NGA/CCSSO common core standards were too narrow and

prescriptive and that there was a deﬁciency in grade-to-grade articu-

lation. The NCTE also had concerns that the NGA/CCSSO standards

would relegate the curriculum for U.S. schools to merely what could be

measured on a standardized test because of its focus on lower-order rote

learning rather than higher-order thinking and applications.

Aside from the difﬁculty that is clearly implied by the common core

standards requirement that every American high school graduate be col-

lege and career ready, another challenge will be determining the difﬁculty

of the required tests and where to actually set passing scores. These are

critical decisions because they will most deﬁnitely affect the percentage

of students, teachers, and schools labeled as proﬁcient. This issue has the

potential to become quite political because if the standards are unrealisti-

cally high, this could be detrimental to potentially low-scoring students,

the national economy, and society (Warren & Grodsky, 2009).

Another issue of overall concern pertains to the validity and reli-

ability of test scores that will be used for high-stakes assessment. Many

observers contend that adequately measuring students’ higher-order

skills which was the objective of the Obama administration and the

NGA/CCSSO could prove considerably more problematic for state-wide

testing programs. For example, attempting to score more open-ended

responses on tests measuring students’ problem-solving skills could

clearly represent some critical challenges. While it is true that tested

knowledge tends to be linear, sequential, and hierarchical to meet

growth-score requirements, this is not easily achieved once students

move beyond elementary school level mathematics and reading. Moreover,

attempting to assess or measure the growth of students’ higher-order

skills through standardized tests is a psychometric issue that could also

result in problems related to both measurement and cost (Linn, 2005).

Finally, the lack of adequate funding could prove to be a challenge in

terms of the implementation of common core state standards as a national

Kendall Deas

education policy. Those who actively support the effort for common core

standards argue that the new policy will create mechanisms for all children

to have high and equal educational opportunities. However, some educa-

tion policy scholars argue that this assertion by proponents of the policy

should be considered in light of experiences with the NCLB law. In the

case of the NCLB law, the initiative has been quite underfunded. In fact,

there are studies indicating that economically deprived children require

some 20% to 40% more funds per pupil than more advantaged students

(Mathis, 2010). Moreover, economically disadvantaged students receive

fewer resources than more advantaged students even when funds such

as Title 1 from the federal and state governments are taken into account.

In a similar vein as what has occurred with the NCLB law, the common

core state standards initiative could possibly result in obligations that are

underfunded at various government levels. In addition, if the initiative

proves to be successful in improving schools, more ﬁnancial resources will

be needed to keep them at that improved level.

Scholarly Perspectives on Policy Implementation

The implementation of common core state standards as a national

education policy can also be assessed through the perspectives of several

leading scholars in the area of policy implementation. In The Rand Change

Agent Study Revisited: Macro Perspectives and Micro Realities, Milbrey

W. McLaughlin’s (1990) research highlights the signiﬁcance of local fac-

tors in determining policy or project outcomes. In fact, McLaughlin (1990)

ﬁnds that local factors as opposed to federal program guidelines or project

methods were more determinative of these outcomes. McLaughlin (1990)

notes that these local factors can surely change over periods of time and

that top-down policies before they are implemented should be designed

and integrated in ways that are conducive to local level conditions.

If one lends credence to McLaughlin’s (1990) research ﬁndings, then

there potentially could be some challenges ahead concerning the imple-

mentation of the common core state standards as a national education

policy. For one, the manner in which the new common core standards were

drafted with the virtual exclusion of any K-12 educators from local levels

who are certainly more aware of local districts’ educational needs runs

counter to McLaughlin’s ﬁndings. McLaughlin would suggest that based

upon her ﬁndings, the common core state standards initiative would ben-

eﬁt from greater inclusion of K-12 educators’ perspectives that are more

aware of local districts’ needs. In addition, McLaughlin would suggest

that before implementation of the policy, common core standards should

be designed to be conducive to the educational needs of local districts.

The manner in which the common core state standards came into

Evaluating Common Core

fruition is also a direct contrast to the research ﬁndings concerning

policy implementation by Cohen, Mofﬁt, and Goldin (2007). In Policy

and Practice, Cohen, Mofﬁt, and Goldin (2007) argue that policy design

should essentially rest with the needs of practitioners. This approach

came to be known as the bottom-up perspective. Further, with this ap-

proach, practitioners use knowledge that policymakers do not have in

order to modify policy (Cohen, Mofﬁt, & Goldin, 2007).

The development of common core standards as a national education

policy is reﬂective of top-down approaches or strategies (Cohen, Mofﬁt, &

Goldin, 2007). Cohen, Mofﬁt, and Goldin (2007) would most likely be critical

of this top down approach because K-12 practitioners were excluded from

the design of the policy. They would view K-12 educators as practitioners

who possess crucial knowledge about the educational curriculum that

policymakers lack in order to develop or modify policy. In fact, at the same

time when policy researchers were arguing that policy should be understood

and developed from the bottom-up, federal and state governments were

making concerted efforts to employ top down approaches (Cohen, Mofﬁt,

& Goldin, 2007). In addition, the federal government began to turn away

from shaping practice through the allocation and regulation of resources

toward shaping practice by requiring outcomes.

Some scholars argue that common core state standards will in

evitably lead to restrictive high-stakes, standardized testing similar

to that associated with NCLB (Au, 2013). They hold the view that the

authentic standards movement has been subverted by a high-stakes

standardized test-based movement. Scholars in the ﬁeld such as Wayne

Au (2013) contend that these forms of standards and accountability have

deviated from their original intent and have relied erroneously on the

faulty measures provided by high-stakes, standardized tests. Moreover,

Au (2013) and other scholars in the ﬁeld note that socioeconomically

disadvantaged children across race lines are seeing certain subjects

such as art or physical education eliminated to focus on mathematics

and literacy as well as test preparation.

The Politics of Common Core State Standards

A thorough assessment of common core state standards as an educa-

tion policy reveals that despite being referred to as state standards, the

common core state standards are really national standards (Mathis, 2010;

Au, 2013). A careful evaluation of the policy reveals that these standards

were originally developed with national standards as the primary goal

(Au, 2013). In fact, the goal and referring to them as state standards

was mainly a tactic or strategy to aid in negotiating the complicated

politics of national standards and national curriculum (Au, 2013).

Kendall Deas

The movement towards common core state standards has generated

a broad coalition of support from business leaders, politicians from both

major political parties, and both of the nation’s major teachers’ unions

(Au, 2013). In fact, the support for common core state standards is

comparable to that of NCLB with the exception of two critical aspects.

With the common core state standards unlike NCLB, the support of civil

rights organizations and discourse around racial achievement gaps and

inequality are notably absent (Au, 2013). There are also similarities in

terms of the opposition generated against both policies (Au, 2013). For

example, opponents of both education policies cited the need for local

control, concerns or fears of a federal overreach with a possible national

curriculum, ﬁscal efﬁciency, and parents’ rights (Au, 2013).

As was the case with NCLB, a close examination of the political

landscape concerning the policy reveals that the common core has

caused a division or split amongst some political conservatives (Au,

2013). For instance, right wing extremists, populist libertarians, states’

rights advocates, and Tea Party styled free market nationalists such as

the Pioneer Institute, the American Principles Project, the Washington

Policy Center, and the Goldwater Institute have taken a stand against

the common core state standards movement due to years of federal

control and critique of big government spending (Au, 2013). In 2013,

some 10 states backtracked on their support of the common core state

standards with conservative Republicans in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana,

and Alabama leading the effort to block the implementation of the policy

in their respective states (Au, 2013).

While liberal Democrats tend to be supporters of the common core

state standards as was the case with NCLB initially, the policy initiative

has also caused some rifts amongst left progressives (Au, 2013). While

NCLB basically relied upon the rhetoric of achieving racial equity in terms

of the existing achievement gap in order to gain support from liberals

and progressives, those in authority have essentially made conditions

in K-12 public education so challenging through the initiation of budget

cuts, ossiﬁed state standards, and high-stakes tests based on standards

that many progressives view the common core as an improvement over

what has currently been occurring in American education (Au, 2013).

Further, some view the common core as more constructivist in nature

than previous state standards while focusing on developing higher-order

skills (Au, 2013).

In the current political climate, there has been much opposition to

common core standards as a viable education policy. The Trump admin

istration has positioned itself strongly against the policy indicating that

efforts at improving education should be localized. However, in contrast to

the current administration’s position, common core state standards were

Evaluating Common Core

developed by governors and state school superintendents and adopted

at the state level. They were not created by the Obama administration

or forced on states. At present, some 37 states and the District of Co-

lumbia have incorporated common core standards. However, in today’s

political climate and under the leadership of the current administration,

political pressure has clearly played a role in some states reviewing and

nominally replacing common core standards.

Common Core State Standards Related

to Theories of Action or Change

The goals or objectives of the Common Core State Standards Initia-

tive can be assessed through theories of action or change. Within the

ﬁeld of education policy, a theory of action or change can be used to help

policymakers, policy practitioners, and academicians address speciﬁc

questions or issues concerning the goals or objectives of particular poli-

cies (HFRP, 2010). For example, scholars within the ﬁeld of education

associated with the Harvard Family Research Project (HFRP) have

developed theories of action and change to address questions concerning

how to both develop and evaluate professional development opportunities

for after school staff (HFRP, 2010). These theories of action and change

are helpful in articulating policy approaches, deﬁning their intended

impact, and designing an evaluation strategy to measure the potential

impact of the program or policy (HFRP, 2010). In fact, theories of action

and change have been utilized within other ﬁelds outside of education

such as sociology and social work to accomplish these same objectives

(Bourdieu, 1998; Berglind, 1998).

In relation to the national education policy of common core state

standards, it is useful to examine the policy through a theory of action

to obtain a clear understanding of the policy’s goals or objectives. The

common core can be examined through a theory of policy change such as

path dependence because of the high costs associated with implementing

the policy and the difﬁculty in changing policies concerning standards

given actors tendency to protect existing policies (Greener, 2002). A

theory of action underlying the common core state standards initia-

tive is reﬂected in its rationale for why standards are needed for U.S.

schools. First, standards are necessary to increase the nation’s economic

competitiveness in an increasingly global economy (Mathis, 2010). When

held to these standards, the belief or understanding is that the national

competitiveness of the U.S. economy will increase (Mathis, 2010). Second,

standards are necessary so that all American children regardless of

background will eventually achieve at high levels (Mathis, 2010). As it

relates to a theory of action, the understanding in this instance is that

Kendall Deas

if students are held to these common core standards, they will achieve

or increase their educational output (Mathis, 2010). In short, examining

the rationale for common core standards allows one to apply a theory of

action or change that underlies the education policy.

Common Core State Standards:

Do Beneﬁts Outweigh Costs?

In assessing common core standards, it becomes evident that any

beneﬁts associated with the policy do not outweigh costs. There are

clearly both advantages and disadvantages associated with the policy. A

particular advantage of the policy is that common core state standards

may in fact hold some promise for bringing greater rigor and consistency

to critical elements of education across various states and school districts.

Proponents of the policy contend that this greater rigor and consistency

will enhance student achievement and allow the U.S. to become more

competitive internationally when compared educationally to other na-

tions. However, one of the glaring disadvantages or shortcomings of the

policy is that it is a potentially costly and complex initiative to fully

implement that will take time to enact. Moreover, once implemented,

the policy will affect many aspects of the nation’s education system from

areas of curriculum, instruction, and assessment to teacher policies and

higher education.

Another drawback of the policy is the level of resources needed for its

implementation by respective states when so many of them face ﬁnancial

challenges. State efforts to assist districts with the implementation of

the policy will most certainly be affected by states’ ﬁnancial climate.

Further, these ﬁnancial challenges states face could result in funding

problems that could delay plans to actually implement the policy. In fact,

when one examines the history of common core state standards, many

of the initial implementations of the policy occurred at a time where

local, state, and federal budgets were actually expected to decrease.

An additional shortcoming of common core standards is that rather

than enhance student academic achievement, the policy has exacerbated

the dropout and graduation rates in states that have implemented the

standards. The nonproﬁt Carnegie Corporation of New York, which

supported the common core state standards, published a report in 2013

indicating how the policy would affect graduation and dropout rates.

This report revealed that a six-year dropout rate would increase from

a 15% to 30% dropout rate by 2020 unless there was a major change in

learning environments (Strauss, 2014). It also indicated that the four-

year graduation rate would drop from 75% to 53% (Strauss, 2014).

Evaluating Common Core

Conclusions:

Insights and Recommendations Concerning Policy Implementation

While the Common Core State Standards Initiative is an admirable

effort to improve elementary and secondary school education in the U.S.,

there are a number of critical problems with the national education policy.

Aside from the beneﬁts of the policy not outweighing costs, some of the

inherent problems with the policy relate to its underlying rationale for

why it is believed uniform standards are a necessity for American schools.

There is clearly a ﬂaw in the underlying rationale that uniform standards

are needed to improve education in American schools.

The Obama administration and others who supported the movement

for common core standards argued that raising standards for U.S. schools

would result in increased student learning. Many proponents of the policy

initiative view it as a mechanism of social justice to aid in addressing

educational inequities so that all U.S. children regardless of racial or socio-

economic background will achieve at high levels. However, this particular

assumption that is at the foundation of the rationale for standards is

problematic because there really is no clear evidence that simply raising

standards will result in increased student learning (Mathis, 2010). In all

actuality, there is evidence that common core standards have exacerbated

both graduation and dropout rates in states that have adopted the policy

(Strauss, 2014). This evidence supports the hypothesis that common core

as a policy initiative will not result in improvements in student achieve

ment. The common core state standards initiative lacks a convincing

research base to substantiate or support this viewpoint. In fact, this is

one of the most critical issues facing the movement for common core state

standards. The lack of a convincing research base to support its assump-

tions as to why uniform standards are needed could undermine support

for implementation of the policy and make it difﬁcult to garner additional

support for the movement. However, linking federal funds for states to

their adoption of the common core standards as the Obama administra-

tion did could serve as a powerful incentive for states. This seems quite

unlikely in the current political climate where the Trump administration

views common core as an unnecessary federal encroachment on the area

of education where they feel policy efforts should be more localized. The

greater likelihood under the current administration’s leadership is for

political pressure to play a signiﬁcant role in states opting to review and

nominally replace common core.

As is the case with the assumption that standards will increase

student learning, there is a problem with supporters’ assumptions that

having uniform standards for U.S. schools will increase the nation’s inter-

Kendall Deas

national economic competitiveness. In fact, many scholars suggest that

the international economic competitiveness argument supporters of the

policy often use is poorly grounded. The results of some research indicate

that there is a weak or nonexistent relationship between common core

state standards and high test scores. Further, as it relates to international

achievement measures, it is critical to note that it is not intended as a

curriculum which is different from some other countries.

Moreover, there are some observers concerned with the state of the

current K-12 educational system in the U.S. who suggest that it is not

enough to just have high standards and to make them uniform across

respective states. Many of them place their emphasis on additional

resources. They believe that vital economic, programmatic, and social

support is needed for the nation’s most economically disadvantaged

students as well as crucial professional development for teachers. This

support for socio-economically disadvantaged students will become

even more critical in light of the fact that states which have adopted

common core have experienced negative effects on the achievement

gap and dropout rates. Further, the common core standards emphasize

preparing students for college and careers, but there is nothing in the

standards that teaches citizenship and helps students develop a sense

of social and civic pride (Wraga, 2010). This is clearly important for not

only maintaining a vibrant democracy but also successfully addressing

some of the goals of a social justice agenda such as eradicating inequities

in American K-12 education and the existing racial achievement gap.

References

Au, W. (2013). Coring social studies within corporate education reform: the

common core state standards, social justice, and the politics of knowledge

in U.S. schools. Critical Knowledge, 4(5), 1-16. Retrieved from http://ojs.

library.ubc.ca/index.php/criticaled/article/view/182278

Berglind, H. (1998). Towards an action theory for social work. Stockholm, Sweden:

Almqvist & Wiksell.

Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: on the theory of action. Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press

Cavanaugh, S. (2009). Subject matter groups want voice in standards. Education

Week, 28(35), 1-6. Retrieved from: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009

Center on Education Policy, (2012). Year two of implementing the Common

Core State Standards: States’ progress and challenges. Retrieved from:

http://www.cep-dc.org

Cohen, D. K., Mofﬁt, S., & Goldin, S. (2007). Policy and practice, In D. Cohen,

S. Fuhrman, & F. Mosher (Eds.),The state of education policy research (pp.

63-85), London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Department of Education. (2010). Common core standards initiative timeline.

Concord, NH: State of New Hampshire.

Evaluating Common Core

Gerwertz, C. (2010). Allies shift focus toward promoting standards adoption.

Education Week, 29(33), 1, 18-19. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/

?id=EJ887547

Greener, I. (2002). Understanding NHS reform: the policy-transfer, social learning

and path dependency perspectives,

Governance, 15(2), 161-183. Retrieved

from https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0491.00184

Harvard Family Research Project. (2010).

A proﬁle of the evaluation of the 21st

century community learning centers-national. Cambridge, MA. Retrieved

from https://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/proﬁle .

Layton, L. (2014, June 7). How Bill Gates pulled off the swift common core revolution.

The Washington Post. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com

Linn, R. L. (2005). Standards-based accountability: ten suggestions. CRESST

Policy Brief. Los. Angeles, CA: UCLA. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/

?id=D488732

Mathis, W. J. (2010). The common core standards initiative: An effective reform

tool? Boulder, CO and Tempe, AZ: Education and the Public Interest Center

& Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved from: http://epicpolicy.org/

publication/common

McNeil, M. (2009). NGA,CCSSO launch common standards drive.

Education Week,

28(29), 1-29. Retrieved from: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009

National Education Association. (2009). NEA partners to develop standards for

measuring 21st century skills. Retrieved from: https://www.nea.org

National Governor’s Association. (2009). Common core state standards k-12 work

and feedback groups announced. Retrieved from: https://www.nea.org

Phillips, V., & Wong, C. (2010). Tying together the common core standards,

instruction and assessment.

Phi Delta Kappan, 91(5), 37-42. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009100511

Richardson, J. (2010). The editor’s note. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(5), 4. Retrieved

from https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200103

Strauss, V. (2014, September 4). Will Common Core double the high school dropout

rate? The Washington Post. Retrieved from: http://www.washingtonpost.com

Strauss, V. (2016, June 2). Gates Foundation chief admits Common Core mistakes.

The Washington Post. Retrieved from: http://www.washingtonpost.com

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization

of the elementary and secondary education act. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education

Warren, J. R., & Grodsky, E. (2009). Exit exams harm students who fail them

and don’t beneﬁt students who pass them. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(9), 645-649.

Retrieved from https://dpi.org/10.1177/003172170909000908

Wraga, W. G. (2010, August 18). Dangerous blind spots in the common-core

standards. Education Week, published online, Retrieved from https://www.

edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/08/18/01wraga.h30.html