Common Core

If Colleges Are Skeptical of Common Core, It's Probably Because the Standards Are Awful

Universities may be hesitant to put blind faith in Core-certified students, since teachers played almost no role in the development of the standards.

|

Kids
Wikimedia Commons

As the tide turns against the national Common Core education standards, its backers are desperate to recruit new supporters and keep the momentum on their side. Enter the Core-supportive New America Foundation, which has just released a report urging colleges to get on board with the standards and their related testing requirements.

Lindsey Tepe, a program associate at NEA, authored the report, which gives a detailed history of the development of Common Core. Tepe is particularly concerned that colleges are just going to ignore the standards, even though everyone who passes a Core-aligned test is supposed to be "college and career ready." From the report:

Arkansas is not even considering integrating its high school assessments with its admissions criteria. If that remains the case, the state's college-ready assessments will have no bearing upon a student's actual ability to attend one of the state's four-year universities.

This approach will not make sense moving forward. A college-ready designation on the state-adopted, Common Core standards-aligned PARCC assessment should be sufficient to meet state minimum eligibility criteria for unconditional admission to the state's public universities. While students may always choose to take additional assessments—as many currently do by taking both the ACT and SAT—they should not be required to jump through multiple hoops of assessment just to meet minimum standards.

Core backers are essentially saying that public universities should trust that Core-aligned standardized tests are sufficient to demonstrate student preparedness for a state university. They are getting ahead of themselves, however. Shouldn't the universities be the ones determining whether new K-12 standards are good enough to render a student college-ready?

The reality is that universities may be hesitant to put blind faith in Core-certified students, since teachers played almost no role in the development of the standards—a criticism made by Margaret Ferguson, a UC-Davis English professor and president of the Modern Language Association:

One of the troubling components of the [Common Core State Standards Initiative] is the stipulation that, once adopted, the wording of the standards cannot be amended, although states are allowed to add 15% more text. Major revision seems not to be envisioned by the framers of the document. In 2010, the MLA and the NCTE were invited to comment on a draft of the literacy standards as these were formulated both for specific grades and for students graduating from high school. A joint committee urged that revisions give more attention to the aesthetic dimensions of literature, the rhetorical aspects of writing, the advantages of knowing more than one language, and the ways in which new media shape literacy practices in the twenty-first century. The authors of the standards failed to incorporate most of the committee's suggestions. But the CCSSI, as teachers and students now encounter it on the Web, is a complex and generically hybrid text, open to interpretation and translation. Members of the MLA have been interpreting the CCSSI document since its initial rollout and have arrived at strikingly different conclusions…

To say nothing of the fact that the Core-aligned tests have a long way to go before they could be rightly viewed as fair assessors of college and career readiness. Students can't even pass them yet.

Common Core was designed at the behest of government bureaucrats by a small and secretive group of supposed education experts and then vigorously pushed by the federal government, which handed out bribes in the form of Race to the Top money to compliant states. Formulators and supporters shouldn't be surprised that their top-down approach to education reform has thus far failed to convince colleges—and teachers, parents, and students—of how they brilliant their fancy new standards are.

Read more from Reason on why "The Populist Uprising Against Common Core Is Libertarian and It's Winning" here.

NEXT: Americans Say Country is 'More Divided.' Maybe It's Not Divided Enough.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Core backers are essentially saying that public universities should trust that Core-aligned standardized tests are sufficient to demonstrate student preparedness for a state university. “

    “f you can’t trust a rubber stamp”, thinks the bureaucrat = “WHAT CAN YOU TRUST??”

  2. “Common” is a word to loathe.

  3. everyone who passes a Core-aligned test is supposed to be “college and career ready.”

    Meh. Are they “vote ready”?

  4. This shows their hand with common core. They want anyone to be able to go to whatever school they want, so using common core as the standard – all these kiddies will have to be let in.

    What would happen if this were the case? Do they really expect top-tier public universities like Wisconsin or Berkley to just let any kid who passes the common core in?

    Not only would they not be able to handle such an influx of students, but most of those kids would quickly fail out.

    1. ” top-tier public universities like Wisconsin…”

      (chokes on white-privilege sandwich)

      1. They deny that race will factor into grading. Then again, who knows.

        1. Most of my family except me all went to UVA, and i tend to sneer at anyone using the expression ‘top tier state schools’… please. who are you kidding.

          one of my exes went to madison and said it was so large that she didn’t realize she was signed up for a class, never showed up, and she still got a C at the end of the semester.

          1. The same anecdote can be told of any Ivy-league.

            So you want to lump places like Berkley, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc in with Arkansas or a huge range of other schools?

            If you look at the world ranking of universities you’ll find all the ones I mentioned in the top 25, and you can’t put them in the same category as most public schools (or even private schools).

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…..iversities

            1. “”you can’t put them in the same category as most public schools (or even private schools)””

              Really?

              Because… US NEWS AND WORLD REPORTS.

              yep. Because someone made a list!

    2. In Wisconsin, they grade you based on skin tone now.

      1. Not yet… there is just a proposal to include that. We’ll see. I’m guessing it won’t go anywhere for one reason and one reason only. They want to maintain their college rankings, and they will lose rankings if they go through with it.

        Also, they’ll risk losing all the rich foreign students who pass 5-10x what in-state students pay.

  5. With any luck the education bubble will burst soon and we won’t have to worry about it anymore.

  6. I’ve been college touring with my kid. The Admission Offices of colleges are quite able to figure out which kids have been taking challenging college-prep classes and which have not. More government fixing of a non-existent problem.

  7. the stipulation that, once adopted, the wording of the standards cannot be amended, although states are allowed to add 15% more text

    It’s the perfect statist law: you’re not allowed to change it, except to make it longer.

  8. Robby cites one source on university attitudes towards Common Core and gets it wrong. Margaret Ferguson’s column summarized the range of stances that university professional organizations are taking towards CC standards. She didn’t take a stance herself. Ms Ferguson acknowledges that some believe teachers didn’t play a strong role in developing the standards, and also refers to CC developers’ response to this belief.

    Robby’s reference to ‘passing’ CC-aligned tests also demonstrates his general ignorance of how CC testing works. Individual states will set their own cut scores for ‘passing’, and will decide how much to weight this standardized test against other graduation criteria. Likewise, colleges and universities that choose to use CC-aligned tests as part of their admissions criteria will also set their own cut scores. This is how colleges and universities currently use ACT/SAT scores (and TOEFL scores for non-native speakers).

    As always, Robby is a good source of opinion, but a very very bad source of information.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.