Comments about ‘John Florez: Common Core standards in nation's interest’

Thank you for a well-articulated and more importantly, a well-reasoned article on this critical initiative. I see now that the Common Core raises the standards across the nation. Something our children desperately need in order to compete in this global economy.

With so much misinformation out there, I appreciate your clear column.

I hope this helps. I worry that all the children would be in one regimented system. Math is the big weakness. Why can't we have Singapore math?

I don't mind the Core Standards or the ideology behind it, but as a teacher I will say that the implementation of it is terrible! All of the writing and curriculum development is being passed on to the teachers with little to no support. The teachers are having to pull double duty of preparing for old classes and new ones, all the while still having to try to explain what is going on to all the students and parents, most of whom are ignorantly upset. Not to mention, all of the "veteran" teachers are dragging their feet because they just need to get through a few more years for retirement. Why would they want to put in the effort? Especially when they have seen new curriculum implemented every couple of years throughout their careers. What assurance do the teachers, parents, students, and schools have that this isn't just a fad that will fade out in a couple of years? Previously committed states are already starting to back out. It is a great idea, but it will crumble rapidly if they don't develop a quality transition/implementation plan.

John, you have made so many assumptions and assertions without any back up. Your analogy with the National Guard has no relevance. How did we do so well for over 200 years in education without a national curriculum?! There is nothing about having a national curriculum that will magically improve anything!

It was what the national government did to education that brought about the indictment of Nation at Risk. The Common Core Curriculum does not improve on what we have now. It is merely a stepping stone to giving Washington the power to dictate what our kids are taught.

Any decline in education is NOT happening because of a particular curriculum. It is happening because the people are losing their willingness to work, which has been mainly caused by government "entitlements," and the interference that the national government has had in education since the 60's.

The national "mandate" is defacto, because in order to get national money, you HAVE to adopt Common Core. That makes it a virtual mandate.

There is NOTHING to be gained by adopting Common Core except a little federal money, bought with our freedom to control what our kids are taught. Not worth it!

Oh yes, adopting common standards was strictly voluntary- Utah HAD to volunteer to adopt them so they could join the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium in order to be eligible for the RttT Assessment grant (which they did get.) Utah HAD to volunteer to adopt them in order to be eligible for RttT grants (which they didn’t get.) And Utah HAD to volunteer to adopt them to be eligible for a No Child Left Behind Waiver. Certainly, Utah has the option to reject Common Core Standards- of course they would then lose their NCLB waiver. No, Common Core isn’t mandated by the Federal government, but they sure hold out a lot of money in front of you if you do and make you suffer the consequences if you don’t.

Proponents of national standards argue that these common standards will “make us compete successfully in today’s global market place.” The proof they offer to support this claim is, well… none.

What the evidence does show is that Common Core standards are less than “world-class.” California and Massachusetts actually lowered their standards by adopting Common Core. (So much for RttT being about raising state standards.) CC Mathematic Standards are two years behind those of most East Asian countries. They are also behind the National Mathematics Advisory Panel’s recommendations. (NMAP recommends addressing the conversion of common fractions and decimals in the 4th grade, which California and Massachusetts standards did. Common Core doesn't until 7th grade.) Several members of the Common Core Validation Committee refused to even sign off on them. As for “college and career readiness,” I think Professor Stephen Wilson of John Hopkins put it best: “Common Core focuses on minimal college readiness, and I want to emphasize the minimal there.” Sorry Common Core folks, I’ve done my homework, and I’m just not buying the over-inflated rhetoric anymore.

Re: Elles

I personally know Dr. Wilson, and he has also stated that the Common Core is "vastly superior to the standards in more than 30 states."

Re: tbrewhel

As a teacher, I can see your points. My district has been very good at giving us training. As a veteran teacher, I have really enjoyed the inservices and training I have attended. It is true that Utah has changed curriculum a lot in my years of teaching. It is annoying. However, the Core standards are standards that all students need to know.

To Alberobello:

Why then couldn't we just improve whatever is necessary in our own state core without adopting Common Core, with all its mandates, defacto or real? Why do we have to accept the shackles that WILL come with a national curriculum? There is NOTHING to be gained by jumping in on Common Core except federal mandates.

Mr. Racer,

The Common Core is NOT a curriculum. Each state has control of their own curriculum. The Core has standards that all children must meet. We are the United States, and the Core unites some, not all, educational requirements. The rigor involved in the Core is considerably more difficult than what is in place in many states. The federal government has no control.

What many people who dislike the national office of Education fail to remember is that the first Secretary of Education was a Utahn! T.H. Bell.