By Stephen Krashen

Bill Nye (“The Science Guy”) is enthusiastic about the Common Core because he feels that there are some basic principles that students simply need to know: Everybody needs to learn “a little bit of physics, chemistry, mathematics and you got to learn some evolution. You’ve got to learn some biology … Everybody’s got to learn the alphabet. Everybody’s got to learn to read. The U.S. Constitution is written in English so everybody’s got to learn to read English.”

I completely agree and I think that nearly all educators and parents agree. The opposition to the standards movement today among many professional educators and researchers is NOT based on an opposition to having standards. It not based on an opposition to making sure students learn “a little bit of physics, chemistry, mathematics …”.

It is an opposition to a specific approach to standards known as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) described by education writer and former teacher Susan Ohanian as as “a radical untried curriculum overhaul” and “nonstop national testing.”

Educators have pointed out that the standards themselves are developmentally inappropriate, were created without sufficient consultation with teachers and research on learning, and their validity has never even been investigated. In a recent article in US News, the standards are described as a “poison pill for learning.”

In addition, the CCSS imposes more testing than we have ever seen on our planet, despite research showing that increasing testing does not increase achievement.

All tests are to be administered online, which which promises to be a boondoggle that will never end – billions to make sure all students are connected to the internet with up-to-date computers, followed by billions for constant upgrading, billions for constant replacement of obsolete equipment, and billions more for the never-ending new technologies. Moreover, there is no evidence that the brave new technology result in better student achievement.

Finally, CCSS does not address the real problem in American education. Critics complain about our unspectacular scores on international tests, but when researchers control for the effect of poverty, American test scores are near the top of the world. Our unimpressive overall scores are because the US has the second highest level of child poverty among all 34 economically advanced countries (now over 23%, compared to high-scoring Finland’s 5.4%).

Poverty means poor nutrition, inadequate health care, and lack of access to books, among other things. Study after study confirms that all of these have a profound negative impact on school performance. The best teaching and best standards in the world will not help if students are hungry, ill and have little access to books.

Instead of protecting children from the effects of poverty, the common core is investing billions in inappropriate and harmful standards, and useless massive testing.

Some sources:

Educators have pointed out: Hiller, R. and Cody. A. 2014. A poison pill for learning. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/09/02/the-common-core-standards-are-bad-for-teachers

Testing: Krashen, S. How much testing? Posted on Diane Ravitch’s blog: http://dianeravitch.net/2012/07/25/stephen- krashen-how-much-testing/
Posted on The Answer Sheet, Valerie Strauss’ Washington Post blog: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/

Increasing testing: Nichols, S., Glass, G. and Berliner, D. 2006. “High-Stakes Testing and Student Achievement: Does Accountability Pressure Increase Student Learning?” Education Policy Archives 14 (1). <http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/72/198> (accessed October 14, 2013).

Control for the effects of poverty: Payne, K. and Biddle, B. 1999. Poor school funding, child poverty, and mathematics achievement. Educational Researcher 28 (6): 4-13; Bracey, G. 2009. The Bracey Report on the Condition of Public Education. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. http://epicpolicy.org/publication/Bracey-Report. Berliner, D. 2011. The Context for Interpreting PISA Results in the USA: Negativism, Chauvinism, Misunderstanding, and the Potential to Distort the Educational Systems of Nations. In Pereyra, M., Kottoff, H-G., & Cowan, R. (Eds.). PISA under examination: Changing knowledge, changing tests, and changing schools. Amsterdam: Sense Publishers. Tienken, C. 2010. Common core state standards: I wonder? Kappa Delta Phi Record 47 (1): 14-17. Carnoy, M and Rothstein, R. 2013, What Do International Tests Really Show Us about U.S. Student Performance. Washington DC: Economic Policy Institute. 2012. http://www.epi.org/).

Level of child poverty: Levels of poverty: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre 2012, ‘Measuring Child Poverty: New league tables of child poverty in the world’s rich countries’, Innocenti Report Card 10, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence.

Poverty means …: , Berliner, D. 2009. Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. http://epicpolicy.org/publication/poverty-and-potential;   Krashen, S. 1997. Bridging inequity with books. Educational Leadership 55(4): 18-22.

Image by D&S McSpadden, used with Creative Commons license.