.                        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?   The answer to this question or the reasoning behind  this decision is stunning , a fact the Trump Administration has never mentioned (to learn more click on the link ).   But, is this the only reason that  so many states replaced the Common Core State Standards with carbon copies and "keep wasting tax payer funds" in the process? 

Many people of color believe that these educators were and are simply biased if not racist and, therefore, opposed to anything the Obama Administration would ever support and promote such as the CCSS --- at whatever the cost to children.  With history as a witness to this type of posturing, these educators will never be fit to be called educators (along with the people of color who are willing to brown nose and lose their dignity to serve them) --- if they must  act in unfair ways that intentionally hinder the education of children decade after decade. 

In other words, did these educators simply need an excuse to act on their racist ways by refusing to weigh the information that they were exposed to on social media? Are they still willing to play these types of games and place bias or racism above the educational needs of all American public school students? For instance, why are state officials failing to provide teachers with the training that they need to fully implement the  Common Core State Standards in some states ?These types of questions must be discussed before parents and community stakeholders can truly trust state officials or educators who, in the above-stated instances, were willing to duplicate the CCSS, waste funds and criticize the CCSS   --- all at the same time --- merely because they were against the Obama Administration.

Parents and community stakeholders, therefore, are the only ones who can change this type of culture at its root, a culture that allows state officials, educators, unions, and lobbyists to work against the needs of students. Parents and community stakeholders must stop believing that someone else as a matter of principle will address these concerns. They must realize that they are the ones who must hold educators accountable for making sound decisions.

School-based decision-making processes and structures, of course, must never be about politics but instead, start with a foundation consisting of a common understanding of the difference between right and wrong --- and/or the capacity or ability to distinguish between effective and ineffective practices before decisions are made.  In this light, parents and community stakeholders must be knowledgeable about school-based discourse and decision-making practices in which a wide range of policies and practices fail to lead to student achievement. These decision-making processes and structures must be transparent and fully acknowledged by the overall school community rather than hidden from view until after the fact.  Why should this happen?
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 bottom line 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.”
Stakeholders who were against charter schools that (continue) to support the common core
state standards are now wondering  why low-income students (attending such schools as the
high performing Success Academy Charter Schools, Promise Academy Charter Schools, etc.) 
are scoring higher than children who attend wealthy suburban schools. Note:  " Students attending Success charters: a) are three times as likely to qualify for free or discounted lunch, b) 12 times as likely to be black and c) twice as likely to be Hispanic   and yet they perform the same or higher on the common core aligned test than students who attend schools in upscale Scarsdale, a district where the median household income is $221,531." For instance, "90% of the students who attend public schools (in Scarsdale) are white or Asian and less than 1% are black with 0% of the students qualifying  for free/reduced lunch." 

Based on exposure to this type of data, stakeholders are asking better questions about their own  children's schools . Consider  Frederick Douglass High School in Baltimore ,  a school where not one student was proficient on state assessments. Janel Nelson, a parent, however, responded to the scores by saying to her son:  "That’s your teachers' report card, ultimately.” Parents then understand the importance of high quality standards aligned to classroom instruction, state
assessments, instructional practices, including the professional development of leaders and teachers, etc. They want access to objective information based on   what students are actually learning   in classrooms or --- "what is or isn't being taught in classrooms" tied to  high, quality research-based standards.   This type of information empowers stakeholders and  creates a culture of inquiry that can lead to pertinent questions or: Why are the poorest 10 percent of students in Shanghai scoring higher than the richest 10 % of U.S. students on the PISA?
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, of course, to understanding the common core state standards (or any educational subject for that matter) is for stakeholders to have access to meaningful information so they can 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 D. Leigh Robinson