Warnings Sound of Federal Interference via Common Core

Sherena Arrington revives Joseph Califano’s 1977 warning about federal government’s suppression of ideas via the introduction of a national school curriculum.

Joseph Califano’s 1977 warning about the control of ideas via national school curriculum was resurrected this week in a column by George Will, who quoted it while criticizing President Obama’s Common Core Education Standards. Califano, who was the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare in the Carter Administration said:

“in its most extreme form, national control of curriculum is a form of national control of ideas.”

For critics of CCES, it surely feels like today brings the reality of this warning. Sherena Arrington, writing for the TalkingGwinnett.net, sounds the warning bell, focusing on the hazy way in which the curriculum was written and “forced” onto the states.

Almost every state in the nation has rushed to join the Common Core curriculum movement with hardly a thought of the cost, financial or otherwise. In most cases, however, the “states” have barely been involved. Simply put, massive educational bureaucracies have signed on to the Common Core and have expected, and generally received, no interference from the three branches of government. Whatever happened to that adage, “Look before you leap?”

She points out that many states were committing to adopting the Common Core before it was even fully written. States like Georgia weren’t even given an estimate of how much they can expect to spend implementing the standards in their schools. Although Georgia voted nearly $1.3 million for each of the two years specifically to cover the Common Core price tag, in reality all state legislatures are operating in the dark as to the real expense of the initiative.

Further concern is about the authorship of the Common Core. The Federal Government is careful about not claiming authorship, since such direct interference in state school curriculum might be illegal. While forcing the program onto the states via the Constitutional “Spending Clause,” it is at the same time eager to distance itself from actual credit for its creation.

Two organizations take credit for developing the Common Core “on behalf of” the states, declaring, “These English language arts and mathematics standards represent a set of expectations for student knowledge and skills that high school graduates need to master to succeed in college and careers.” These organizations, both based in Washington, D.C., are the National Governors Association’s Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) along with considerable advice from Achieve, Inc., ACT, the College Board, the National Association of State Boards of Education and the State Higher Education Executive Officers.

So far, most states have quietly accepted Common Core as an inevitability, regardless of the fact that it might cost more to adopt them than they receive from the Federal Government, but at least one state is experiencing a bout of second thoughts. After agreeing to implement Common Core last year, the South Carolina Senate is now considering a bill to block the implementation of the math and English portion of the program. The bill has even received support from the South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, who wrote a public letter to the bill sponsor Senator Mike Fair, praising the proposed legislation.

Comments

Linda Brees

March 21, 2012 at 6:03 am

I think the Nikki Haley move is just grandstanding. There really isn’t anything negative to be said about the idea of high school graduates being taught to similar standards throughout the country, whatever these standards might be, as long as we can agree they are thorough, unbiased and fair. Trying to draw a line in the sand over an imminently practical idea seems like an empty gesture, which is exactly what this is. She needs to look all tough on states’ rights for her electorate while at the same time making sure that SC students don’t embarass themselves in college. OK, Governor, you made your point, let’s all move along now.

Reply
bennie (retired teacher)

March 21, 2012 at 12:10 pm

For once I agree with George Will. Common core really scares me.

Reply
- Linda Brees
  
  March 21, 2012 at 1:18 pm
  
  Why?
  
  Reply
Jeannette Abulafia

March 21, 2012 at 8:25 pm

I don’t know that I’d call Common Core ‘eminently practical’; I do believe, though, that varying standards are particularly hard on students who move frequently.

My worries about any sort of national standard are quality and stultification.

Reply
- Mike
  
  March 22, 2012 at 6:36 am
  
  Maybe its not the standards, but the actual frequent moving that is the problem. Just a side note, our curriculum director told us that with common core our freshman would be ready for Physics. Really, this is what is necessary? And I would like to see the day every freshman is doing trig. would it be nice sure, but why stop there, why not nuclear physics by 7th grade?
  
  Reply
  - Linda Brees
    
    March 22, 2012 at 10:09 am
    
    Well, why not nuclear physics? It would be wonderful if we could offer that kind education opportunities. I would be over the moon about that. When I was a student, although too many years ago, I did trigonometry in 8th grade. In high school, I took Biology as a freshman, Chemistry as a sophomore and Physics as a junior. Considering that those three weren’t actually interdependent and all started from zero, I don’t see why taking physics in 9th grade instead would be an issue.
    
    Reply
  - Linda Brees
    
    March 22, 2012 at 10:12 am
    
    BTW, Mike, your “subtle” digs on parenting lapses implied by the fact families move a lot is misplaced. Military families are only some of those that are required by circumstances to change residences and thus schools frequently. It’s more practical to try to accommodate them than to try to judge and shame them. Please note that no one here is pointing out that maybe thinking that physics would be too hard for one’s kids to tackle might imply a parenting lapse all its own.
    
    Reply
- Linda Brees
  
  March 22, 2012 at 10:13 am
  
  Do you think there could be a way to overcome this? Like having the curriculum overhauled every few years?
  
  Reply
Mike

March 23, 2012 at 8:56 am

I think we rely too heavily on curriculum and standards. This is a people business. You could teach practically anything, but if it was done correctly and honestly it would enhance critical thinking skills and problem solving. Why not nuclear physics? For some (very few) maybe, for all? Never. As a biologist and an observer of the human race I understand that their is natural variation, I also understand that the human brain doesn’t develop until the age 25 (that is why there is so much growth in college), and I understand that some people try as they might will never be able to comprehend abstract ideas. Try as you might this will never be overcome. It is nice to sit there and think we can all be doctors, lawyers, or engineers but the simple fact is that we all cannot. We can all be better, but better is relative. I’m not sure I want my children learning nuclear physics in 7th grade. I enjoyed childhood and want my kids to keep their creativity and childhood innocence about them. As far as the moving, I wasn’t trying to dig or be subtle. The fact is that change is hard on people, children especially. I think this is overcome by a caring, professional teacher that knows how to interact with kids. Education is a people business, curriculum, tests, and standards will not change that.

Reply
Joe

March 23, 2012 at 9:19 am

If there are no curriculum there is no way to judge the success of the school and there’s no means by which to guide the quality of education across states and across districts. I am not saying that federal government should control it or write it, but there should be some minimum standards. There’s a lot of room between nuclear physics in high school and trigonometry in 8th grade.

Reply
Mike

March 23, 2012 at 10:59 am

I never said no curriculum. But, if you were actually in education and knew half as much as you pretend to on here you would know that schools are being driven solely by curriculm. There is no deviation, no opportunity for learning moments, no learning from once in a lifetime experiences. I’m sorry you don’t know about this, but really just another reason why reform should be left to those that do the work.

Reply