An Interview with Neal Mc Cluskey: Common State What?

Neal Mc Cluskey

3.17.10 - Michael F. Shaughnessy - Neal, I understand that Common Core State Standards were recently released. What are these standards, and how may they impact on education?

An Interview with Neal Mc Cluskey: Common State What?

Michael F. Shaughnessy
Eastern New Mexico University

Portales, New Mexico

1)      Neal, I understand that Common Core State Standards were recently released. What are these standards, and how may they impact on education?

What was released was a draft of proposed grade-by-grade mathematics and language arts standards from the Common Core State Standards Initiative, a joint effort of the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State Schools Officers. The standards are intended to lay out what all kids should know and be able to do in those subjects in each grade, ultimately leading to all students being “college and career ready” by the time they graduate high school.

The potential impact of these standards on schools is considerable. While promoted as voluntary standards put together by states, the Obama administration has already connected states adopting common standards – and the CCSSI standards are the only ones out there -- to their getting federal “Race to the Top” funds. Also, President Obama has proposed that the structure of a renewed Elementary and Secondary Education Act – aka, No Child Left Behind – be built around states adopting common standards and being measured against their mastery. So the common standards will be de facto national standards, and all federal accountability mechanisms – and the politics that go with them – will be focused on them.

2) Neal, you and I both know that children grow and develop at different rates, and as educationally incorrect as it may sound, you and I both know there is something called intelligence that differs between children. How will the imposition of common state standards impact those unfortunate individuals in the 70—99 I.Q. range?

If federal education policy – which these days drives the train for all education policy – is built on these standards, it has negative ramifications for all kids other than the mythical “average kid” they would target. So kids who learn more slowly in mathematics and language arts will either constantly be struggling to keep up, or be triaged between those who can be brought to standards after intensive help, and those who can’t.

Meanwhile, the students who easily exceed the standards will tend to be afterthoughts, largely left to their own devices while school resources are focused on the kids near, but not at, the standard. And forget about kids who have aptitudes for non-academic work: The goal of the standards is supposedly college and career readiness, but the standards themselves have a clear bent toward college.

So those kids who have an interest in, and great potential to become, auto mechanics, electricians, carpenters, artists, etc., will be forced to pursue studies that make little sense for them and that do little to prepare them for the rest of their lives.

3) Now, a real simple question that may be lost on those inDUHviduals in Washington, but, do all students learn at exactly the same rate?

No, and you only need to have met a few kids – or even just have heard of “kids” – to know that. Boys tend to learn differently from girls and mature at different rates. Some children are nose to the grindstone from day-one, others have en epiphany about working hard after years of sloth. Some kids are great at sketching, some basketball, some geometry. Obviously, all kids – all people – are different, and it makes no sense to say they should all learn the same thing at the same time.

4) In the United States, we have a good deal of variability- we have students with vision and hearing problems. Is it realistic to expect them to master these standards at the same rate as those who have good 20/20 vision and perfect hearing?

No, it is not. Depending on their disability, some kids could take much longer to master standards, and some might never master them. This is just reality. Unfortunately, reality doesn’t often matter in politics, where what sounds nicest – say, leaving no child behind – is much more important than what actually makes sense. Which is not to say that we should abandon kids with disabilities, or assume that they can’t master certain things. What’s important is that they have the ability to pursue education that makes most sense for them, and that requires a wide variety of education providers with different approaches and specialties, and the ability to choose among them. That’s educational freedom, the opposite of one-size-fits-all standardization.

5) I am going to ask (GASP!) another politically incorrect question- would these state standards be applied to those who are in our country illegally- such as illegal aliens and the like? Or are there legal aliens?

They would be applied to all public school students, and insofar as public elementary and secondary schools are required to educate the children of illegal residents, then those children would have to master the standards.

6) Now, let’s be good scientists, and empiricists—where is the proof, where is the evidence that imposing state standards will help the educational system and endeavor?

There isn’t any. As I discuss in detail in my new report Behind the Curtain: Assessing the Case for National Curriculum Standards, there is very little comparative research on national or state standards, and what exists of the former tends to focus on national standards coupled with tests with high-stakes for students. The research generally shows some positive effect for national standards, but typically fails to control for what appears to be a crucial variable – culture. Once that is considered, or when “outlying” nations are accounted for, there is no meaningful positive effect at all. In other words, the research on national standards offers no good reason to believe that national standards will do any good, which might be why supporters often seem determined to not even mention empirical evidence in pitching their favorite reform.

7) How are these people going to assess growth in say written expression or writing skills? This is a kind of subjective realm.

I am not a curriculum expert so I can’t offer especially insightful critiques of the draft standards, but reading over the draft it is hard to conclude that subjectivity in evaluation wouldn’t be a big problem. With such broad reading standards for students in grades 11 and 12 as “analyze how multiple themes or central ideas in a text interact, build on, and in some cases, conflict with one another,” it is hard to imagine a clear-cut way to establish mastery. Indeed, the general hollowness of the standards seems to emerging as a major objection to them.

Of course, the more fundamental point here is that there is disagreement – often considerable – about what kids should learn and how that should be assessed. Unless we somehow become omniscient and recognize with absolute certainty what is the right or wrong thing to learn – at which point we won’t need standards or even education – we are much better off decentralizing standards and content and letting alternatives compete. You can’t do that with national standards.  

8) I hate to ask, but I do believe that students in our American school system should be exposed, at least minimally to the arts- will music, art and the fine arts be part and parcel of this endeavor? And will these be evaluated?

These will not be evaluated, though they could be added. But you will have to fight to have them included, and ultimately the people with the most political power – not what is educationally optimal or best for individual kids – will determine does is or does not get attention.

9) What have I neglected to ask?

I think you hit all the important stuff.