Common Core, Part 8

In Part 7, we saw Common Core curriculum being used with second-graders in New York. For K-12, the standards, readings, and suggested curriculum remain about the same – developmentally inappropriate for learners, especially in elementary school. How did it come to this?

According to the 2010 U.S. Census and the National Center for Education Statistics, 13,604 school districts oversee the more than 100,000 public schools serving about 50 million students. I understand that about 100 high-poverty school districts formed the basis for the nation’s governors and chief school officers’ efforts to “set up a process to establish specific grade-level standards from kindergarten on” (Douglas Hesse, member NCTE Review Team of Common Core Standards). All this to bring those school districts “up to standard” and pass international tests. An Idaho state education official confirmed my understanding.

What is known about high-poverty schools? First, “high-poverty” means 75% or more of the students are in the free or reduced lunch program (Odessa, 42%). Second, many are located in inner cities across this country. Third, according to Stephen Krashen, professor emeritus University of California, students in high-poverty schools suffer from malnutrition and poor health care and lack of books, all impacting their school achievement.

We are told that we need new standards and tests because American students do poorly on international tests. However, the major reason for poor international test results is the level of child poverty in the United States, now 23%, the second highest among 35 economically advanced countries, says Stephen Krashen. When we control for poverty, American students’ test scores are near the top of the world, according to Stephen Krashen and Gerald Bracey, among others.

Schools aren’t failing.

Standards aren’t needed to raise U.S. international test results.

Poverty needs to be addressed.