So what’s the problem with Common Core?
Published June 28, 2013
by Becki Gray
So what’s the problem with Common Core? Well, we don’t know. Don’t know how it will work, don’t know how well it will work and don’t know how much it will cost.
The State Board of Education adopted Common Core in conjunction with the state’s Race to the Top application. The prospect of “free” federal money? NC and nearly every other state were anxious to sign up, even though Common Core standards had never been field tested – not in a classroom, not by a teacher and not on students.
A number of curriculum experts have concluded that the standards, although better than what NC currently has, are not particularly rigorous. Other states have adopted standards that strive for higher goals. If we aim to improve standards in NC, shouldn’t we be looking to the best in the country to emulate?
Who buys something with no idea of what it will cost? Apparently state education officials. Costs associated with Common Core include teacher training, instructional materials and technology to administer the tests. Early estimates figure over the next seven years NC will need to spend about $525 million on Common Core, with $204 million needed right away to get this thing started. None of this is included in the state budget for 2013-15. Or county budgets. Or school board budgets.
If the indications were that adopting Common Core would revolutionize education in NC, catapulting our students to the highest level of learning and skills, putting them at the forefront of qualified workers for high-level employment, the cost might well be worth it. But so far, nothing and I mean nothing, indicates Common Core is the answer to improving education in North Carolina.
We’re better off to pursue the movement towards greater accountability and school choice.
Becki Gray is Vice President for Outreach, John Locke Foundation
June 28, 2013 at 1:19 pm
Robin Livingston says:
I've long been a proponent for common standards in education across the country. I don't know enough about Common Core to discuss its merits, however, I think there's one positive element. My father was in the military when I was in elementary school, and I attended 5 different schools, starting in Madrid, Spain, at the AFB, coming to rural NC, then moving to Denver, then a suburb of Denver, and finally rural Colorado. All schools had different standards and covered different material at different times. For example, when we moved halfway through my 6th grade year, I relearned fractions and completely missed out on decimals. My upbringing was a little unusual for the time. However, people are a lot more transient now, and it isn't unusual for someone to get transferred or be forced to move to a different state for work. I like that the education in Common Core will be the same from one state to the next. That part is better for children.
June 28, 2013 at 9:05 pm
Bill Worley says:
So basically your brief article says that you know nothing about the Common Core, but since it costs money it is probably bad?
How do you agree the Common Core standards are better than what we had, but then make an argument against them? Can the Locke Foundation's general operating principle be summarized as "anything that costs money but is not directly for corporations is bad?"
Seriously.
Fracking is great, though it will potentially not only cost us financially, but geographically. Tax breaks for corporations that are paid for by increasing taxes on the poor is great fiscal policy. You all never surprise us at least.
So, how about some specifics to show how much research you actually did for this piece? Where exactly are the improvements in curriculum versus the NCSCOS?
I await your response.
Bill Worley
