Your opinion on common core

[muon2]

Common Core is about states adopting standards for Math and English that are aligned with 21st century needs - an internet driven economy with readily available computers. Those standards changed the relative emphasis of topics in those two areas from what most states were using. The goal is to reduce the amount of remediation needed in college as well as provide students with basic skills needed in today's job market. States were not expected to have a 100% match to all the standards - 85% was considered sufficient for the program.

Common Core is not about how often students are tested. Part of the push in 2008 was from states looking for a waiver from No Child Left Behind, which does have testing requirements. Common Core was expected to generate a pool of questions that would meet the standards and save states money to independently develop questions to meet NCLB. States that adopt most of the standards can then utilize common testing services now provided by a number of private companies. Testing remains part of federal law through NCLB and the 2009 Race to the Top funds. Neither NCLB nor RTTT require Common Core, but it is designed to meet federal requirements if states use it.

[muon2]

I guess I've never really cared enough to know what the big deal is about it...so, what are the arguments?  The only things I do know is that kids do standardized testing way more than they (we) used to, and that apparently a lot of teachers spend a lot of time preparing students for these tests.  It seems to me neither of those is a good thing, but I"m willing to be...ahem....schooled on the subject.

As I noted, the testing is a result of NCLB and RTTT, not from Common Core. Common Core is used to satisfy those federal programs because a state then gets more points of credit with the feds.

[muon2]

Can't the country have a common core of standards without running children and teachers through the hoops of continuous exams and standardized tests? I support regulating the content and quality of curricica objectives across the country—it makes sense that all Americans should receive the same standard of education and have a similar basic skill set coming out of school. But why the tests after tests?

In the Ontario public school system we had the following standardized tests:

EQAO Grade 3: Math, Language Arts (no link with final grades)
CCAT Grade 4: Cognitive Abilities (?) (basically to identify gifted students) (no link with final grades)
EQAO Grade 6: Math, Language Arts (no link with final grades)
EQAO Grade 9: Math (score was partly tied with final math mark)
EQAO Grade 10: Literacy (required for graduation)

Teachers even argue that these tests are excessive. I certainly see no reason why any school system would want to have kids do more.

The test after test mentality grew out of a number of states in the 1990's where parents wanted more accountability for the education delivered by the schools. The tests weren't really about assessing the student progress, teachers were doing fine with traditional in-class tests. The issue was how to assess the school's progress when so many were demonstrably graduating children lacking basic skills.

The drive for school accountability went national with NCLB in 2001. It required tests with roughly the same frequency that your list in Canada does. Since RTTT required more accountability, the usual response was to test more frequently - every year in some cases.

[muon2]

Disgusting. All standards should belong at the local and school district levels.

Which would be fine 100 years ago when most people stayed in the area of the school they attended. Mobility is much higher now. How can an employer know what skills were taught in localities far away - what does that HS diploma mean? What is the impact of different standards on a child when their family relocates for employment? That's a common occurrence now, though it was much less common 50 years ago. Standards don't have to be identical, but there should be enough similarity that 5th grade has about the same level of core material in any state.

[muon2]

The standards themselves are insubstantial and weren't developed by education experts. They were developed by lobbyists. Local boards know what's better for kids than lobbyists. Giving power to local boards allows more accountability for parents, who are really the ones that matter with education. The only interstate agreement that should be with education is what NOT to teach, such as the Bible in public school.

That's entirely false. The standards were developed by panels of educators in each of about 40 states in 2008-2009, then collated to find the common elements. I know because I served on one such panel (Math) in a state that was already using statewide standards for public schools.

The standards as released were free to be used by the states to the extent they wished and were not mandated. The feds through Race to the Top required adoption of the standards if they wished to maximize their point score to get a grant. This occurred during the recession and many states wanted the federal funds so they adopted the standards.

[muon2]

Knowing nothing about it, it seems like an issue where opposition is only based on vague generalities about local control

And in many states that local control was governed by state standards long ago. These are still just state standards that can be adopted as is or amended as desired. The difference is that this time the states got together and said it would be nice if there was some basic set of skills that students graduating in WV or CA had to benefit benefit college admissions and employers, and skills at each grade to benefit moving families.

[muon2]

The standards themselves are insubstantial and weren't developed by education experts. They were developed by lobbyists. Local boards know what's better for kids than lobbyists. Giving power to local boards allows more accountability for parents, who are really the ones that matter with education. The only interstate agreement that should be with education is what NOT to teach, such as the Bible in public school.

That's entirely false. The standards were developed by panels of educators in each of about 40 states in 2008-2009, then collated to find the common elements. I know because I served on one such panel (Math) in a state that was already using statewide standards for public schools.

The standards as released were free to be used by the states to the extent they wished and were not mandated. The feds through Race to the Top required adoption of the standards if they wished to maximize their point score to get a grant. This occurred during the recession and many states wanted the federal funds so they adopted the standards.

Then why were only 2 education experts brought on board to develop them, and are now speaking out against them.

I have no idea what that is about. In IL there were two panels (Math and English) of two dozen experts that met for 6 months in 2009 to provide input on standards. The experts in IL were evenly split between higher ed professors and teaching leaders from high schools. Other states had similar panels to provide input on the standards. Do you mean the tests?