.                        The Common Core State Standards:
      Signs of Progress for the U.S. Public Education System
     Fall 2015

W.E.B Dubois once asked: How shall man measure Progress? And, what happens when Progress replaces what is no longer useful?
The Common Core State Standards are a sign of progress for the American Public School System. After all, the latest student scores, on aligned assessments, have far exceeded expectations .
This news, which is very good news, is a way to measure progress but many states have placed the political needs of their school representatives and elected officials above the needs of their students by rejecting the need for uniform, research-based standards such as the Common Core State Standards.  Clearly, all students suffer when school officials make decisions that are not
well-thought out --- or in the overall best interest of their students who want and need a high quality  public school education --- no matter where they live. 

According to Gary Phillips: "Fifty states going in 50 different directions is not a strategy for national success in a globally competitive world. It may look good for federal reporting purposes, but it denies students the best opportunity to learn college-ready and career-ready skills.” But will states reject lessons learned or best practices and the need for uniform, high quality standards and their aligned tests?

If so, the most mind-boggling question that needs to be asked is: why are so many parents and community stakeholders, in particular, siding with state education leaders and elected officials  or deliberately working against signs of progress in the U.S. public school system? Why are they sabotaging school reform efforts that support public school children ?
Once upon a time our educators, politicians and parents all agreed that our U.S. educational standards were low, vague, incomprehensible, and vast, which prompted President Obama in 2009 to explain the importance of high quality standards. He said:

             Today's system of 50 different sets of benchmarks for academic success means 4th grade                    readers in Mississippi are scoring nearly 70 points lower than students in Wyoming -- and                    they're getting the same grade. Eight of our states are setting their standards so low that                      their students may end up on par with roughly the bottom 40 percent of the world… That's                inexcusable. That's why I'm calling on states that are setting their standards far below where              they ought to be to stop low-balling expectations for our kids. The solution to low test                          scores is not lowering standards -- it's tougher, clearer standards…

As far back as 2005 Diane Ravitch, an education historian also made the case for national standards, a national curriculum and a national testing system (Refer to: Every State Left Behind) . While her political positions on these topics have changed --- the need for the Common Core State Standards still remains.

Going back even further Sandra Stotsky (who currently is a critic of the standards) in 1998 said:

          One reason for U.S. students' poor rankings on national and international tests is the lack  of             uniform high standards for all students. State standards are not useful if they  are vague,                       uninterpretable, and unmeasurable, which occurs in many states.

And, then there are the republican presidential candidates who all seem to be against the standards for reasons that have nothing to do with children. They have forgotten that education must be a bipartisan effort for  the sake of children, which means its bottomline must be based on lessons learned and best practices or proven results. And yet, disagreeing with President  Obama who just happens to support the standards is the reason for their stance.  For instance, Carly Fiorina, in her speeches, talks about government overreach even in the development of the tests and textbooks aligned to the standards but the federal government is not responsible for the 
tests or the textbooks.   These facts do not seem to matter to her or her constituents. 
The real issues emerge , however, and the political conversations change when the focus is on children, first and foremost.  For example, in 1996, Schmidt, McKnight, & Raizen wrote:

            It is time to admit that at the ground level, where teachers teach and students learn, there is              not coherence, but chaos. The chief problem is that there is simply too much to teach—                        arguably two to three times too much (Schmidt, McKnight, & Raizen,1996)—and too many                  options for what can be taught (Rosenholtz, 1991). There are enormous differences in what                teachers teach in the same subject at the same grade level in the same school. Even when                  common, highly structured textbooks are used as the basis for a curriculum, teachers make                independent and idiosyncratic decisions regarding what should be emphasized, what should              be added, and what should be deleted (see, for example, Doyle, 1992). Such practices create              huge holes in the continuum of content to which students are exposed.

And, so the Common Core State Standards began their journey as a state-led effort.  (Note:
"They were  launched in 2009 by state leaders , including governors and state commissioners of education from  48 states, two territories and the District of Columbia, through their membership in the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). State school chiefs and governors recognized the value of consistent, real-world learning goals and launched this effort to ensure all students, regardless of where they live, are graduating high school prepared for college, career, and life.")

James Migram from Stanford University, who supports the Common Core State Standards states: 
           The reality is that they are better than 85 or 90 percent of the state standards they  replaced.              Not a little better. A lot better.”
An Iowa teacher who has taught for 21 years, a teacher who supports the Common Core
State Standards and finds it painful that they are being attacked, recently asked presidential candidate Hillary Clinton about the standards. Hillary Clinton responded by saying:
           How did we end up at a point where we are so negative about the most important non-                        family enterprise in the raising of the next generation, which is how our kids are                                        educated? When I think about the really unfortunate argument that’s been going on                              around Common Core, it’s very painful, because the Common Core started off as a bi-                            partisan effort — it was actually nonpartisan. It wasn’t politicized, it was to try to come up                    with a core of learning that we might expect students to achieve across our country, no                        matter what kind of school district they were in, no matter how poor their family was,                            that there wouldn’t be two tiers of education. Iowa has had a testing system based on a                        core curriculum for a really long time, and you see the value of it. You understand why                          that helps you organize your whole education system. And a lot of states, unfortunately,                      haven’t had that, and so don’t understand the value of a core in this sense.
So how have the Common Core State Standards changed the public education system, especially opportunities to learn for children of color?
              According to its supporters , what the Common Core did, by applying a more rigorous
             testing standard across the board, was to pull back the curtain on the problems that
             had  existed everywhere else (so these problems could be identified and addressed).
             It turned out that a lot of suburban schools weren't doing so well either, although the                            system  didn't show it. They had been administering the wrong kind of tests and teaching
             the wrong kind of math, and now it was their students and teachers who would
             feel the heat of the "accountability" ethic. (Tim Murphy, 2014)
From this frame of reference, the Common Core State State Standards have paved the way for citizens to ask better questions about instructional leadership, teacher instructional practices, teacher effectiveness, actual classroom instruction and student mastery of lessons. These citizens now know why it is important for states, districts and schools to align the standards to the curriculum, the assessments and teacher professional development training programs --- so teachers do not have to “teach to the test.”
Stakholders who were against charter schools that continue to support  high standards are now
wondering why low income students are scoring higher than children in wealthy suburbs at schools such as the: Success Academy Charter Schools, Promise Academy Charter Schools, etc. In other words, they are asking the questions that need to be asked --- for example: Why are the poorest 10 percent of students in Shanghai scoring higher than the richest 10 % of U.S. students?
All citizens and/or parents and community stakeholders then need to discuss subjects from a wider perspective with many options for information dissemination/knowledge utilization or within a culture of inquiry so informed debates can take place . Unfortunately, teachers’ unions with their lobbyists are dominating the discussions against the standards and aligned testing in some locations.  Some unions have even asked parents to opt-out-of-testing without the parents and citizens gaining access to information from different sources.

The key, however, to understanding the common core state standards (or any educational subject for that matter) is for stakeholders to make "informed decisions" tied to student achievement,
first and foremost. Opportunity structures and spaces must exist for parents and community stakeholders to build their capacity so they are able to understand such subjects as the standards without special interest groups controlling the discourse or explaining the standards from their perspective, alone. 
With this view in mind --- in 1899 , W.E.B Dubois found, after returning to the community where he had once taught that the school had been replaced --- in its place, he noted, "stood Progress, and Progress, he understood, is necessarily ugly." In other words, inclusive school communities know that there may be differences in perspectives, opinions, and stances on certain subjects but they will still ask: What is progress? How is progress measured? In the case of the Common Core State Standards with the students exceeding expectations on the aligned tests these questions have already been answered.
By Stephanie Leigh Robinson