Why Alabama Should Rescind its Adoption of Common Core’s Standards

        Sandra Stotsky

              Professor of Education Reform

        University of Arkansas

1.  The mediocre quality of Common Core’s English language arts/reading standards in grades 6-12 and their lack of international benchmarking

2.  The higher academic quality of Alabama’s own English language arts and beginning reading standards

3.  The non-transparent process used to develop Common Core’s standards now being used to develop a national curriculum and national tests based on Common Core’s standards

Point One: Common Core’s “college readiness” standards for English language arts and reading do not aim for a level of achievement that signifies readiness for authentic college-level work. They point to no more than readiness for a high school diploma and possibly not even that, depending on where the cut score on tests based on these standards is set.  Despite claims to the contrary, they are not internationally benchmarked.

Making this country competitive was one reason for developing national standards.  But this goal was quietly abandoned by the Common Core State Standards Initiative in favor of a single set of mediocre standards for all students. Yes, Common Core’s ELA/R standards may be somewhat better in K-5 than most of the state standards they are replacing, but they are not sufficiently rigorous in grades 6-12.  The bar is set much higher overseas because no other country expects all students to complete an academic high school or prepare for authentic college coursework.  Only mediocre standards and tests based on them will allow us to pretend that all students will be “college-ready.”

How do I know the goal of international benchmarking was abandoned by CCSSI?  As a member of Common Core’s Validation Committee, I regularly requested evidence of international benchmarking.  But I never received material on the specific college readiness expectations of other leading nations in mathematics or language and literature.  I also did my own research on the matter.  The two English-speaking regions for which I could find assessment material (British Columbia and Ireland) indicate far more demanding requirements for college readiness with respect to the literary/reading knowledge students need to pass high school exit tests or matriculation exams than appear in Common Core’s high school standards.

Apparently, national legislators and self-appointed central planners, among others, are so mesmerized by the idea of having uniform national standards that they do not  believe this country needs high quality English, mathematics, and science standards. A reasonable case can be made for standardizing academic expectations across all states and using the same tests to facilitate comparison of results. But the academic standards should have been first-class. The attempt by CCSSI (and others) to pretend that Common Core’s standards were internationally benchmarked cannot be justified.  I was one of the five members of the Validation Committee who declined to sign off after examining the final version of the standards released in early June 2010.   Among the criteria we were asked to sign off on was whether Common Core’s final version of its standards was “comparable to the expectations of other leading nations.”

Point Two:  Why should Alabama give up ELA/R standards that are in many ways better than Common Core’s?   This is not just my opinion.  Its high school Reading and Literature standards were commended in the 2010 Fordham Institute evaluation as follows:

“The Reading and Literature standards do a commendable job of calling out specific literary genres, elements, and devices.  In addition, the standards include recommendations about the quality and complexity of reading by appending sample reading lists organized by genre and grade level.   Finally, standards writers attempt to address American literature specifically in several places at the high school level…. Alabama does much more than most states to address this essential content at any level of detail.”

In fact, the Fordham reviewer noted in his/her final remarks that:

“Alabama’s standards addressing specific literary genres, elements, and devices are generally clearer and more detailed than those in the Common Core.  In addition, the standards place a greater emphasis on the study of American literature throughout high school, whereas Common Core mentions it just once, in eleventh grade.”

Moreover, your own department of education noted in a detailed “crosswalk” of over 170 pages that Alabama’s standards on British literature and some literary elements are absent from Common Core.

While Alabama should clarify the wording of its own objectives, eliminate unassessable reading strategies, ensure that the rich cultural content in its own standards is used in state assessments, and aim for a reasonably high cut score, Alabama has almost nothing to gain from using Common Core’s ELA/R standards and much to lose.   Its beginning reading standards have already proven themselves, as the latest NAEP scores on grade 4 Reading suggest.   What could Alabama gain by using standards that have no evidence to suggest their effectiveness?  Or by using tests that may not address the important cultural content in Alabama’s own standards?

Point Three:  The lack of transparency about the literary and reading content to be used on the common tests now being developed by two USDE-funded testing consortia is perhaps the most important reason why Alabama should withdraw from participation in the CCSSI.  There has been a consistent history of non-transparency in how our “national” standards were developed and how the content of the common tests is being finalized. The National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers have never explained to the public what the qualifications were for membership on the standards-writing committees, how it would justify the specific standards they created, or why Common Core’s high school exit standards were equal to college admission requirements without qualification, even though this country’s wide-ranging post-secondary institutions use a variety of criteria for admission.  CCSSI also gave no rationale for the composition of the Validation Committee, nor did it use this committee as it promised.  The members of this group, described as a group of national and international experts, were to ensure that Common Core’s standards were internationally benchmarked and supported by a body of research evidence.  By the time the final version of Common Core’s standards were released, it was clear that the real role of this committee was to be that of a rubber stamp.

The two testing consortia funded by the USDE are currently developing curriculum frameworks, models, and guides, as well as instructional materials, with no public procedures for the selection of curriculum developers, for determining revisions, and for final public approval.  Moreover, it isn’t clear that what the USDE and these testing consortia are doing is even lawful.

States using Common Core’s standards will damage the academic integrity of both their post-secondary institutions and their high schools precisely because Common Core’s standards do not strengthen the high school curriculum and cannot reduce the current amount of post-secondary remedial coursework in a legitimate way.  Language for a re-authorized ESEA has not yet been finalized, and it will be hard for Congress to resist using scores from tests based on “standards that prepare all students for college and career” for accountability.  Who will remember that state high school standards were never designed to prepare students for credit-bearing college freshman courses?  Their legitimate mission has always been to prepare students for a meaningful high school diploma.  State and federal policy should aim for two broad goals: (1) having all students graduate from high school with a meaningful diploma, academic or technical/occupational, and (2) maximizing the number of students ready for authentic college-level coursework while acknowledging that not all high school students may be able to meet that standard or even interested in doing so.