boilerplate image
Your daily serving of high school news and policy.

Core of the Matter: Dismissive, Insulting, Deflecting (#CoreMatters)

RSS feed

May 20, 2014 02:04 pm


The following blog post comes from Christopher Edley, Jr., a professor and former dean at the University of California-Berkeley Law School, member of the Alliance for Excellent Education’s board of directors, and co-chair of the National Commission on Education Equity and Excellence. His post is the latest in the the Alliance for Excellent Education’s “Core of the Matter” blog series, which is devoted to the implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and struggling students. Please email if you would like to receive an email notification when a new blog post in the series is published. 

Proponents of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are not always as righteous as they believe themselves to be. In places where political support evaporates, hubris will be a principal cause.  We have to challenge it before this opportunity is derailed.

Over the course of two years formulating a comprehensive set of recommendations, the congressionally-chartered national Commission on Education Equity and Excellence discussed CCSS for only about five minutes, because the merit and importance were so clear to all of us. The twenty-seven Commission members, appointed by U.S. Secretary of Education Arnie Duncan, included researchers, the unions, some major civil rights organizations, public interest litigators, state and local education officials, and several other important voices.  In developing a unanimous set of recommendations, there were several hard-fought issues. CCSS was easy.

In particular, for most equity advocates steeped in the issues, the promise of CCSS is that every student will have access to curriculum content, instructional goals, and well-designed assessments all directed towards twenty-first century college and career readiness. Put differently, CCSS provides a baseline or foundation with which we can build advocacy and accountability for narrowing disparities in opportunity and achievement.

Or not.  While many on the ideological Right fulminate about the federal role, especially the fictional one, many teachers and equity advocates are steadily moving down a path that starts with concern, anxiety, and kvetching, but soon leads to protest, outrage and bare-knuckled politics.

Some rhetoric aside, their concerns are pretty clear:  Teachers won’t get the necessary professional development and other support to deliver CCSS well. High stakes for kids and teachers will start too soon, be too severe, and violate tenets of psychometrics.  Poor scores will demotivate and stigmatize, even if lack of resources and support are the chief villains. Teachers and public education as a whole will be trashed by so-called privatizers.

Finally, most important and certainly familiar, the worst of all this will play out for the districts, schools, and kids who are most aggrieved by the current state of affairs.

Hearing all this, many CCSS advocates have been dismissive, attributing the barbs and lamentations to a combination of crassly self-interested trade unionism and, insultingly, lack of commitment to excellence.  Other CCSS advocates acknowledge the concerns but, deflecting, treat them as mere details of implementation to be worked out over time, rather than vital and urgent matters at the absolute core of implementing the Common Core effectively.  Which they are.

These largely unaddressed implementation questions can quickly become an existential threat to CCSS; beware the backlash.  I am reminded of the Clinton-era controversy over the president’s proposed Voluntary National Test (VNT).  As usual, the Right fulminated.  Many progressives, including civil rights groups and the minority caucuses in Congress, urged that protections be included against using the test for high stakes consequences directed at students (as opposed to people with real power to change what happens in schools and classrooms).  The reaction of VNT proponents? Dismissive, insulting, deflecting.  The result? A Left-Right political combination killed the proposal.

I am a strong proponent of the Common Core for several reasons. Among them is my belief that CCSS is indispensable to bringing about excellence for each and every child—a vision which places equity among the goals at the center of the work we must all do in the years ahead.  However, the Common Core, even where it survives politically, will fail if the implementation fails.  Implementation must be judged a failure if it reinforces rather than narrows our system’s great divides.  In particular, if education leaders and advocates are impatient, incautious and cheap, then we will know that they have subordinated excellence-for-all to some other agenda—in effect, if not also by intent.

Christopher Edley, Jr. is a professor and former dean at the University of California-Berkeley Law School. He is a member of the Alliance for Excellent Education’s board of directors, and was co-chair of the National Commission on Education Equity and Excellence.

Common Core Equity Series


  1. photo
    Monica Almond
    Posted 7 years ago

    Spending time in a DC high school east of the river, in the most impoverished part of the Nation’s Capital, will quickly remind you how vital the successful and thoughtful implementation of the common core is. I recently took a trip to Anacostia High School where the student population is 100% African American and 100% low-income. More than 80% of the students at Anacostia High are performing at basic and below basic on the annual state assessment known as the DC-CAS. Visiting the school at this time of year you will find the hallways relatively quiet and nearly empty, as half of the student population decides to stop showing up to school when the weather changes and once they’ve had enough, because they find no point in coming. There is little to hold their attention and even littler incentive for them to remain in class. The common core presents an opportunity for school systems around the country to fundamentally change the dynamics of teaching and learning, to make learning more relevant and more rigorous for students like those at Anacostia High School so that rather than sapping their potential, student expectations are high and they are enforced. Generational inequity is an unwelcomed stain over our stars and stripes. We MUST do better.

  2. photo
    Posted 7 years ago

    Teachers will learn the new strategies although as with any new strategy this takes time with varying degrees of success. The greatest opportunity with CC lies in the exposure of more rigorous standards placed on unchallenged minds. Some will struggle, some will succeed, all we be challenged. Teachers should be there when they can, but students will always be doing the front line work. They will garner the biggest rewards. It’s not unlike a low achieving student going to a higher achieving school. Some will struggle but the exposure to more learning in a higher achieving environment is an educational platform that will produce results.

    Martin Krongold
    New York City Citywide Council on High Schools

  3. photo
    Posted 7 years ago

    This post demonstrates that CCSS are not just about state adoption of new standards, but about changing the way that teachers teach, that schools operate, are measured, and supported, and that students learn and are assessed. Meaning, it is about fundamentally changing the way some schools have been structured – all for the purpose of ensuring that each and every student has access to a rigorous and engaging education that demonstrates a respect for their capacity. This is no small task, and as Dr. Edley so accurately notes,one that needs patience, caution, and funding to support its successful implementation.

Join the Conversation

Your email is never published nor shared.

What is this?
Multiply 5 by 5 =
The simple math problem you are being asked to solve is necessary to help block spam submissions.



Every Child a Graduate. Every Child Prepared for Life.