By: Nathan Williams
Education reform at any level of government is challenging considering the heightened sensitivity usually surrounding this type of debate. The implementation of the new Common Core Standards upholds this theory as the controversy surrounding its voluntary adoption begins to unfold in states across the country.
Common Core is a nationally standardized initiative designed to replace traditional state education standards. The program establishes common goals for reading, writing, and mathematics in schools throughout the country as means of improving our national education system and improving global competitiveness. It replaces existing grade level requirements – traditionally established through local or state governments – for students in kindergarten through 12th grade. At the most basic level, Common Core encourages educators to focus on fewer topics and concepts but with greater depth and intensity to build critical thinking and problem solving skills.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson has historically been the primary legislative vehicle for national education policy reform. However, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, President George W. Bush’s bipartisan extension of the ESEA, expired in 2007 and has not since been reauthorized by Congress. As a result of congressional inaction, national education policy has been considerably ambiguous and largely left to individual states.
In 2009 forty-five states and the District of Columbia committed to developing and adopting education policy reforms, which was originally an initiative suggested by the National Governor’s Association. The U.S. Department of Education subsequently encouraged national Common Core adoption by incentivizing application for “Race to the Top” grants under the requirement that states demonstrate advanced innovations and progressive reforms.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan argues that Common Core replaces the often artificially low, “dummied-down standards” states set to project proficiency. Some argue, however, that the education overhaul ignored the historic tradition of consulting Congress when considering reforms to national education by circumventing the legislative branch altogether.
In 2010 President Barack Obama offered states waivers to opt out of NCLB requirements, affording states the opportunity “to raise standards, improve accountability, and undertake essential reforms to improve teacher effectiveness.” The Georgia Board of Education subsequently adopted the Common Core standards, perhaps due to former Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue’s proactive involvement in the creating the initiative. Under direction from the governor, the state of Georgia voluntarily pledged its support.
As with all public policy, the initiative has underwhelming aspects. Common Core, which has been called a “nationwide straightjacket on academic freedom and achievement” by the RNC, takes away local control of education and cedes power to bureaucrats in Washington. The standards constrain individual state freedoms in developing independent education reforms and minimize localism. While national education advancements are necessary to compete in the global economy, the erosion of federalism is uncomfortable to many.
Common Core’s initial development and implementation will be funded solely by the federal government, but the states will assume the costs of maintenance. Since the program is incomplete, the long-term costs that states will be forced to bear are uncertain. According to the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, the initiative could cost state governments between $8 and $12 billion.
At the same time, improving our national education system should be considered both an investment and a priority.
A study conducted by Harvard University in 2012 suggests that “students in Latvia, Chile and Brazil are making gains in academics three times faster than American students, while those in Portugal, Hong Kong, Germany, Poland, Liechtenstein, Slovenia, Colombia and Lithuania are improving at twice the rate.” According to journalist Michael Gerson, “the [current] system can get away with leaving millions of American students unprepared for global competition.” Common Core standards are designed to narrow the gap between lower and higher achieving students domestically, which in turn could improve our standing on the global scale.
Another important benefit offered by Common Core is the insurance of educational equality between states. Regardless of where a child lives, he will be held accountable to the same standards as he would if he lived in Massachusetts or Montana. Curriculums may differ, but the end goal remains constant.
Opposition is on the rise within the state, most recently from the Georgia Republican Party’s vote urging state officials to withdraw from the program. But Gov. Nathan Deal says the program is “simply an effort to say if we’re going to be compared with students in other parts of the country, we should be teaching to the same standards of what we expect our students to know and be able to do.” While most within the party cite increased federal control as the basis for concern, prominent GOP heavyweights like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, endorse the standards.
Though the consortium is imperfect, a strong education system is a significant catalyst towards restoring a globally competitive economy. Common Core does not dictate that states conform to a nationalized curriculum, but it does institute a common destination. Parents may be apprehensive since the standards are a significant shift from the past, but Common Core could help restore our nation’s position as the global leader in education if an effective partnership is created between states and the federal government. It could be in the best interest of all Georgians, and Americans, to afford Common Core the same opportunity it is designed to offer our youth – a chance.
