Work with us
Sunday, May 29, 2016
Where is the proof that Common Core works?
(Page 2 of 3)
Howard Schwach

The test results were a self-fulfilling prophecy,” West Hempstead Superintendent John Hogan said. “The state said that the scores would be down by 30 to 40 percent and their prediction certainly came true. When I was a student in the 70s, a wise education professor told the class that if you give your students an exam and half of them fail, then you did something wrong. The state gave a test where 70 percent of the students failed. How do you justify that? How do you justify changing the passing-fail score three times in five years, once after the test was already given? ”

Dr. Phyllis Harrington, the newly-appointed superintendent of the Oceanside schools used a sports metaphor while describing the impact of the tests on her community.

“The game has changed,” Harrington said. “It’s like you kick a field goal in foot ball and while the ball is in the air, they suddenly moved the goalposts back ten yards.”

Neal McCluskey is the associate director of the Center for Educational Reform. Williamson Evers was the U.S. assistant secretary for education for policy. Sandra Stotsky was senior associate commissioner of education for Massachusetts. The three recently wrote an op-ed piece for the Daily News.

They point to a number of problems with the Common Core.

“First, the creation and adoption of these standards have violated the traditions of open debate and citizen control that are supposed to undergird public schooling,” they wrote, pointing out that the adoption process was “strong-armed” by the Obama administration via the Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind money that was only granted to states that adopted the curriculum with no questions asked.

Secondly, they said, “The Core is supposed to be internationally benchmarked, but supporters cannot name on nation to which it is pegged. Third, they say, “there is little evidence that setting national standards yields superior outcomes. There is little deeper research on [the Core Curriculum], but what there is suggests that once you control for variables such as income and culture, national standards have no effect.


1 comment on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment

The Common Core Curriculum is designed to homogenize the youth of today - to make everyone "equal." And it is not well accepted by teachers. In fact, teachers are opposed to it. Years ago, we had different classes within the same grade - A, B, and C. The more intelligent children who tested well, excelled in the classroom and, in general, were more motivated than some of the other students were put into class A. The average students were put into class B. The slower students were put into class C. I made the classroom environment better for the teachers and for the students involved. The slower students didn't keep the class back. They were taught within their learning range. Today, these systems would be called "harsh," "unfair," "prejudicial," or whatever you want to label them. But in reality, they not only made the children in the average classes more competitive (by forcing them to try harder) but helped those who were not able to keep up with smarter children not feel inadequate. This common core curriculum is nothing more than a high gloss brainwashing, mind-numbing, robotic learning system for the youth of today.

Thursday, October 3, 2013 | Report this
Terms of Use | Advertising | Careers | Contact Us | Community Links © 2016 Richner Communications, Inc.