Common core can be a good thing for our education system, but... | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Those interested in public education in North Carolina who missed the May 16, 2013 Beaufort TEA Party meeting, you missed an excellent chance to learn about "Common Core," perhaps the hottest topic in education circles today. Dr. Don Phipps, superintendent of Beaufort County Schools and Becky Taylor, newly appointed State Board of Education member, gave presentations focused on how Common Core is being implemented at the local level and how the State is dealing with it.

    Common Core is a curriculum development project that was developed by the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers to "provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them." To date, forty five states have joined in the effort in some fashion or other while five state (Texas, Virginia, Alaska and Nebraska) have opted out and Minnesota has opted in on the English Language Arts standards and opted out of the Mathematics standards.

    Click here to review the standards which are included on the official website of the initiative.

    The initiative has, as always happens, generated a great deal of controversy. Much of it is coming from conservative groups and individuals. There is a fear that the content of the standards will promote a liberal, left-wing agenda.

    I think what is important to remember here is that major curriculum revisions come along on a regular basis. Probably none was ever more prominent than that which followed the launching of Sputnik in 1957. Earlier, the Seven Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education were published in 1918. Then there have been numerous curriculum reform movements within specific subject areas, such as science, art, physical education etc. The last iteration was called the Standard Course of Study.

    Let me make my position clear: Common core as a vehicles for designing a curriculum for what every student, regardless of geography, should know at specific levels of their education, is a good idea. Common Core should not be opposed because it is an attempt to define what students should learn. Nor should Common Core be viewed as a Federal national curriculum. It should be realized as a uniform set of standards because if it indeed defines what every child should learn or know at a specific grade level then it is going to be "national" by its inherent nature.

    The issue, it seems to me, is what the content of the standards is. Just as important as the "common" standards are those that go beyond the core. In fact, if I had my way about it, the "Common Core" would not be uniform for all students. Part of it would be, which I would call the "basics" but higher level standards would be identified on a "stair-step" design that specify what should be expected not only as a minimum level of knowledge but what should be known by students at advanced levels as well. (Note the plural of level.)

    In my opinion, much of the debate on Common Core misses the point. The point is not whether to have a standardized curriculum, but rather what should be included in that curriculum.

    The issue of a "national or Federal curriculum" is bogus. There can be no Federally mandated curriculum unless the states accept such. And there is a need for national standards and a legitimate way of assessing mastery of those standards that allows parents and policy makers to determine the relative performance of students in one state compared to other states and "national norms." We need to know how North Carolina students perform in comparison to other states and a parent needs to know how their child's performance compares to students in other states.

    There are, however three issues that are not bogus that have been raised by conservative groups.

    The first is the content. That is, what are the actual standards? The second is the materials that are used to teach the content and the third is the issue of assessment standards.

    Becky Taylor clearly understands all three of these issues. She explained how the State Board is addressing each of them and more importantly, she solicited participation from interested citizens. All that is essential, but not sufficient.

    The State Board should immediately address the process it is going to use in developing the Common Core in North Carolina. That need was clearly obvious recently when the U. S. History standards were adopted. Public participation came too late in that process and it should be avoided in the future.

    What the State Board should do is develop a systematic plan for informing the "stakeholders" of what it is going to be considering, the timeline upon which it will be operating and it should establish an efficient process by which interested parties can participate. I think, as a minimum, there should be an easy to use website that is used to update the public and a notification system (email) that alerts stakeholders when revisions are made. There should be a notification system established that allow for interested parties to sign up to participate. Such participation should be two-way with notifications going out from the State Board and a systematic way interested parties can offer input into the process.

    The TEA Party and other interested groups should form groups/committees that monitor the development of Common Core standards, review of instructional materials and the design of assessments of student and school achievement. These groups should then develop a mechanism for keeping their members informed and channeling feedback from their members to the State Board.

    One of the most effective things that could be done is to have a systematic process whereby employers can know what the standards are that are being considered and how they can have access to the process to insure that the needs of employers will be incorporated into the standards. Chambers of Commerce, trade associations and other business groups should develop systematic ways for the business community to be involved in the development of Common Core.

    Don Phipps' leadership in Beaufort County demonstrated recently the value of sound decision-makers being informed by broad-based participation when Beaufort County adopted its revised sex ed curriculum. That is the model the State Board should be using.

    Conservatives who are raising alarms about the Common Core have good reason to do so. History has shown that numerous radical left-wing groups seek constantly to shape public school curricula. The homosexual groups are a notable example. You can bet George Soros is not missing the opportunity that Common Core presents.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with those groups trying to impact the curriculum being used in our schools. But groups of all persuasion should be equally active in doing so as well.

    But I the final analysis what will determine the value of Common Core will be having leaders like Dr. Phipps and Becky Taylor who have solid values that will assess what is proposed by various entities, all the way from the staff of the Department of Public Instruction and U. S. Department of Education to interest groups and people seeking to make money on the process (publishers). Whether Common Core turns out to be a good thing or not will depend on the quality of the decisions that are made and consequently the quality of the people serving in positions such as State Board members, local board of education members and the leadership of those boards.

    Common core can be a good thing. But it will take some work with a great deal of participation to make it successful.

    Delma Blinson writes the "Teacher's Desk" column for our friend in the local publishing business: The Beaufort Observer. His concentration is in the area of his expertise - the education of our youth. He is a former teacher, principal, superintendent and university professor.