Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:20:09.537Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Common Core and the Evasion of Curriculum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Extract

Although the common core state standards initiative was adopted with little controversy in forty-eight states, it soon became the target of attacks both on the right, for the mistaken perception that public education was being taken over by the federal government, and on the left, in response to the institution of an all-too-real draconian testing regime that served the needs more of the testing companies and other corporate agents than of students or teachers. Despite these attacks, it seems likely that the initiative will prevail in most states, perhaps both for better and for worse. My position is that real national standards—not simply state standards— are a desirable goal for the United States today, and long overdue. The “local control” of public education by states and school districts has been, let us admit, the greatest flaw of the K-12 system and a powerful obstruction to the reform of that system. On the other hand, I agree with many (Bryant; Hacker and Dreifus; Ravitch) who see the Common Core as a misguided effort at reform, fatally undermined by the use of punitive, high-stakes testing as the driver of implementation (Loveless). Opting for this strategy, the promoters of the Common Core unfortunately imposed a top-down procedure just where it is least appropriate. Testing, by its very nature, ought to arise from the classroom, the scene of a unique relation between teacher and students. This is not to deny that universal testing is possible and even necessary but rather to acknowledge that the more distant tests are from the scene of teaching, the more limited their informational value.

Type
Theories and Methodologies
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited

Applebee, Arthur. Literature in the Secondary School: Studies of Curriculum and Instruction in the United States. Urbana: NCTE, 1993. Print.Google Scholar
Bryant, Jeff. “Common Core Propaganda Fails: Well-Financed Education ‘Reformers’ Fight Common Sense.” Salon. Salon Media Group, 22 Apr. 2014. Web. 26 Feb. 2015.Google Scholar
Burke, Jim. The Common Core Companion: The Standards Decoded. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2013. Print.Google Scholar
Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. Common Core State Standards Initiative. Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2 June 2010. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.Google Scholar
Davidson, Alice, and Kantor, Robert N.On the Failure of Readability Formulas to Define Readable Texts: A Case Study from Adaptations.” Reading Research Quarterly 17 (1982): 187209. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Douglas, Frey, Nancy, and Lapp, Diane. Text Complexity: Rigor in Reading. Newark: Intl. Reading Assn., 2012. Print.Google Scholar
Griffith, Lorraine, et al. Common Core Curriculum: English. San Francisco: Jossey, 2014. Print.Google Scholar
Hacker, Andrew, and Dreifus, Claudia. “Who's Minding the Schools?The New York Times. New York Times, 8 June 2013. Web. 11 Aug. 2015.Google Scholar
Hayes, Donald P., Wolfer, Loreen T., and Wolfe, Michael F.Schoolbook Simplification and Its Relation to the Decline in SAT-Verbal Scores.” American Educational Research Journal 33 (1996): 498508. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehman, Christopher, and Roberts, Kate. Falling in Love with Close Reading: Lessons for Analyzing Texts—and Life. Portsmouth: Heinemann, 2014. Print.Google Scholar
Loveless, Tom. “Implementing the Common Core: A Look at Curriculum.” Brookings. Brookings Inst., 15 May 2014. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.Google Scholar
Mandel, Barrett, ed. Three Language-Arts Curriculum Models: Pre-kindergarten through College. Urbana: NCTE, 1980. Print.Google Scholar
Nelson, Jessica, Perfetti, Charles, Liben, David, and Liben, Meredith. Measures of Text Difficulty: Testing Their Predictive Value for Grade Levels and Student Performance. CCSSO: Council of Chief State School Officers. Council of Chief State School Officers, 1 Feb. 2012. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.Google Scholar
Ravitch, Diane. “Why I Cannot Support the Common Core Standards.” Diane Ravitch's Blog. N.p., 26 Feb. 2013. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.Google Scholar
Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America. National Endowment for the Arts. Natl. Endowment for the Arts, 2004. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.Google Scholar
Reading between the Lines: What the ACT Reveals about College Reading and Readiness. ACT. ACT, 2006. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.Google Scholar
Rideout, Victoria, Roberts, Donald F., and Foehr, Ulla G. Generation M: Media in the Lives of 8-18 Year-Olds. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2005. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.Google Scholar
Salvner, Gary M.Time and Tradition: Transforming the Secondary English Class with Young Adult Novels.” Reading Their World: The Young Adult Novel in the Classroom. Ed. Monseau, Virginia R. and Salvner, . Plymouth: Boynton, 2000. 8599. Print.Google Scholar
Smith, Michael W., Appleman, Deborah, and Wilhelm, Jeffrey D. Uncommon Core: Where the Authors of the Standards Go Wrong about Instruction—and How You Can Get It Right. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2014. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Standards for the English Language Arts. Urbana: NCTE, 1996. Print.Google Scholar
Steiner, David. “K-16: Our Dogmatic Slumbers.” Profession (2007): 141–49. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stotsky, Sandra. The Death and Resurrection of a Coherent Literature Curriculum: What Secondary English Teachers Can Do. Lanham: Rowman, 2012. Print.Google Scholar
Stotsky, Sandra, with Traffas, Joan and Woodworth, James. Literary Study in Grades 9, 10, and 11: A National Survey. Forum 4 (2010): 177. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.Google Scholar
To Read or Not to Read: A Question of National Consequence. National Endowment for the Arts. Natl. Endowment for the Arts, 2007. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.Google Scholar