3 hurdles for Common Core adoption

The pitched battle over Common Core State Standards has many of the hallmarks of prior edu-wars, but it also has three unique facets that could help or hurt it, depending on how they are handled.

Despite a yeoman’s effort to examine a wide range of topics in this column, I have to return once more — before summer comes and the talk in Washington turns to the humidity and the Nationals — to the much discussed, often maligned, and continually misunderstood Common Core State Standards. Although the 2013 PDK/Gallup Poll revealed that 62% of Americans surveyed had never heard of the Common Core, the public profile of the standards and aligned assessments has risen dramatically in the last year. Once considered inside baseball among education researchers and policy makers, the fate of the Common Core is now being argued in the court of public opinion.

I must admit that I am fascinated by the Common Core debate. Having lived and worked through several previous edu-wars, this one has a flavor all its own. While those enlisted in this battle bear some of the same flags as in earlier conflicts — cultural elites vs. local leaders, money-hungry corporations vs. the public school establishment, the feds vs. everyone — there are additional dimensions in the Common Core debate that make it particularly hard to understand, let alone to resolve.

Emotion often trumps facts and data when fear and trust are underlying issues.

First let’s consider the debate’s emotional aspects, which center on fear and trust. When faced with a new situation, most people initially will gather relevant information and then attempt to process it. Other factors — feelings like fear and trust — also come into play, and, in the end, people will make a decision to get on board, stay put, or lash out based on emotions. This process plays out over and over again in national and local elections. Voters consider the facts, but, more times than not, their decisions are sealed by a gut feeling of likeability or a sense of trust toward the candidate, even though their chosen candidate may not align with their interests and concerns. Simply put, emotion often trumps facts and data when fear and trust are underlying issues.

One reason so many Common Core critics don’t seem to process the facts nor be assuaged by them is that they’re afraid of what the new standards might mean for them, their kids, and the broader society. Couple that with the fact that they may not even trust the messengers who are trying to convince them that this change will benefit everyone. Common Core advocates can talk until they’re blue in the face, but if the audiences they’re trying to reach don’t fundamentally trust them and if they as advocates don’t take seriously their audience’s fears and apprehensions (hint: don’t call them whack jobs), then the road to acceptance is going to be long and hard.

It is a very real hazard of life in Washington — perhaps other places, too — to be blissfully unaware that you are living in a fishbowl.

I understand the frustration that Common Core supporters feel at this stage of the game. Much hard work has gone into the standards and the aligned assessments. Having worked with many of the people who toil every day to make the new standards and the assessments as good as they can be, I can say without reservation that their intentions are true. Unfortunately, along with the hard work and passion that embody their work, there also has been at times an unwillingness — dare I say an arrogance — among some to really listen to those who fear the consequences of a Common Core. It is a very real hazard of life in Washington — perhaps other places, too — to be blissfully unaware that you are living in a fishbowl. Fully acknowledging my place in the fishbowl, I suggest that the fear and mistrust are fueled by three big issues.

Issue #1

The constantly stated fact that the Common Core standards were developed by a state-led effort clearly offers little solace to those who suspect that the federal government and/or corporate America are involved in this effort and want to somehow undermine America’s schools. It’s true that the unified leadership of the states was an essential part of the development and adoption of the standards, but other players also were deeply involved. Advocacy groups, foundations, and other nongovernment entities were major players in the process; to pretend otherwise lacks transparency and appears condescending.

I suspect the many good people who actively support the Common Core believe that the state-led nature of this initiative should mitigate concerns that a top-down/foundation and/or corporate-led effort actually guided the standards’ developers in determining what students should learn in their local public schools. Clearly that has not happened. History has taught us that when it comes to education, many Americans are far more inclined to distrust federal policy makers and others seen as tampering with local school systems that are meant to be locally controlled. Despite a myriad of efforts to clarify roles and intentions, or the concern that a mysterious cabal is running the show, the misinformation continues its pervasive spread.

Issue #2

There has not been enough attention paid to supporting teachers and school leaders as they introduce and refine their teaching of the standards. From the start, the standards were touted as a game changer for public education. But, about the same time that the Common Core was gaining support in states and districts across the nation, there was an equally dramatic push for high-stakes teacher evaluations that would use test scores as the major indicator of teacher performance. If students did well on the assessments, teachers and school leaders could breathe a sigh of relief. If not, we commence the education version of “The Hunger Games.” Considering teachers are probably the most important players in the transition to the new standards and assessments, holding off on the high-stakes aspect of teacher evaluations until the new aligned assessments were in use and everyone involved had time to adjust and acclimate would be prudent. I understand and applaud the intent behind evaluating teachers in the same manner as other workers and give props to the Education Department for making mid-course corrections to federal policy requirements for teacher evaluations. But the mutually assured destruction aspect of these two policy objectives did nothing to help build trust or win hearts and minds for the Common Core.

Issue #3

Finally, it comes down to language. Shakespeare asked the simple question: “What’s in a name?” With the Common Core, the answer is “depends on whom you ask.” If you asked me, a policy person, I’d probably say something about the value of a common high bar for what all students should learn and know and the utility of common assessments that allow for comparability among all kinds of students all across the country. But, for some, the optics of the Common Core standards name comes across as something far less wonderful. I normally shy away from using an anecdote to make a serious case for or against anything, but this one really sticks with me: On a plane ride, the woman seated next to me explained her perception of the Common Core to me like this: “Isn’t education about not being common? And the core is the part of the apple you throw out.”

Now I’m not suggesting the entire country thinks like this nor am I taking a pot shot at those who came up with the name Common Core. Honestly, who could have ever predicted that reaction? But that conversation reminded me that perception is reality — no matter how hard we try to prove otherwise. The lesson to be learned in this instance for all of us who try to improve the world through policy is that you have to listen to your critics and take them seriously, even when they say things that go against your own personal narrative.

Will the effort to implement common, higher standards in a majority of states fail because of the fears and concerns that are fueling so much of the rhetoric and misperceptions? I think not as long as the supporters of the standards listen carefully and respond accordingly, especially as the new assessments get introduced. The likely drop in test scores and the data privacy issue have the potential to make the assessments even more controversial than the standards themselves. The good news is there are plenty of examples of shifts in public policy that created a firestorm when first implemented (think welfare reform and the current effort to overhaul the nation’s health care system). History has taught us that while most people do not like change when it is first introduced, positive results can sway public opinion and quiet even the most ardent critics. The Common Core is just now taking hold in classrooms around the nation so it is still too early to tell on which side of history it will fall. For now, we might all be better off letting teachers and students take some time to adapt and adjust to the changes. As far as the rest of us are concerned, we can always talk about the Nationals.

Citation: Ferguson, M. (2014). Washington view: 3 hurdles for Common Core adoption. Phi Delta Kappan, 95 (8), 68-69.