This recent article in the Wall Street Journal does a grand job of summing up both the Math and ELA inadequacies of the Common Core Standards. It also points out the discrepancies of Obama’s STEM plan and what the Common Core actually delivers. The author Sandra Stoksy is the leading critic of Common Core according to Diane Ravitch’s blog and she has been credited with one of the country’s strongest sets of academic standards for K-12 students in Massachusetts. She did so while serving as Senior Associate Commissioner in the Massachusetts Department of Education some ten years ago. Stoksky’s current research ranges from the lack of teacher preparation programs and teacher licensure tests to the deficiencies in the K-12 reading curriculum, as well as the question of gender bias in the curriculum.
Read on to get a better understanding of what the consequences of the Common Core will be in American education if we continue on this path.
As a former member of the Common Core Validation Committee and the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, I am one of the few mothers to have heard the full sales pitch for this latest educational reform, which has been adopted by 45 states.
I know the Common Core buzz words, from “deeper learning” and “critical thinking” to “fewer, clearer, and higher standards.” It all sounds impressive, but I’m worried that the students who study under these standards won’t receive anywhere near the quality of education that children in the U.S. did even a few years ago.
President Obama correctly noted in September 2012 that “leadership tomorrow depends on how we educate our students today—especially in science, technology, engineering, and math.” He has placed a priority on increasing the number of students and teachers who are proficient in these vital STEM fields. And the president’s National Math and Science Initiative is strongly supported by people like Suzanne McCarron, president of the Exxon Mobil Foundation, who has said she wants to “inspire our nation’s youth to pursue STEM careers by capturing their interest at an early age.”
Yet the basic mission of Common Core, as Jason Zimba, its leading mathematics standards writer, explained at a videotaped board meeting in March 2010, is to provide students with enough mathematics to make them ready for a nonselective college—”not for STEM,” as he put it. During that meeting, he didn’t tell us why Common Core aimed so low in mathematics. But in a September 2013 article published in the Hechinger Report, an education news website affiliated with Columbia University’s Teachers College, Mr. Zimba admitted: “If you want to take calculus your freshman year in college, you will need to take more mathematics than is in the Common Core.”
As Stanford mathematics professor James Milgram noted in “Lowering the Bar,” a report the two of us co-wrote for the Pioneer Institute in September, the Common Core deliberately leaves out “major topics in trigonometry and precalculus.” Contrast that with the status quo before the Common Core, when states like Massachusetts and California provided precalculus standards for high-school students. The implications of this are dramatic. “It is extremely rare for students who begin their undergraduate years with coursework in precalculus or an even lower level of mathematical knowledge to achieve a bachelor’s degree in a STEM area,” Mr. Milgram added.
To read the rest of the article and get Stoksky’s view on the Common Core and ELA read the rest here in the The Wall Street Journal.