Article Critique 1

Article Critique
Advocates Worry Implementation Could Derail Common Core
Robert C. Bope
Arizona State University
RDG 507: Content Area Literacy














Article Critique 2

While many states have decided to follow the common core guidelines this article
contends that the implementation may be too costly and confusing thus making the
implementations of common core problematical. It is one thing to put the standards on
paper, but it is quite another to see the changes take place in the classroom. The
biggest problem is not that the standards are bad but the implementation is failing. It is
the all too often seen problem of a good idea poorly implemented.
The common core standards can be traced back to 1983 when the report A
Nation at Risk warned of the failure of the United States to set national education
standards. The lack of standards was perceived as a reason for the growing gap in test
scores between U.S. students and other countries. President Bush and then President
Clinton both tried to start national standards, but political controversy and opposition
stopped them both. This did lead to many states developing their own standards and
many leaders saw that as a big step since the tradition in the U.S. from before the
revolutionary war was that education was controlled locally. Finally it was decided any
attempt to nationalize education should be led by the states and not the federal
government.
This sounded good in theory, but in practice the huge amounts of money that the
federal government made available if the states followed their guidelines gave the
federal government de facto control of the common core standards. The No Child Left
Behind Act cemented that control with its ability to give federal money to complying
states.
Article Critique 3

A large area of concern in Math is preparing teachers for common core. Many
math concepts have been pushed down to lower grades where teachers may not have
the training to effectively teach the understanding that common core demands. Another
concern the article stated was the testing that is to go along with common core. The
tests are still being developed and the concern is will the tests reflect the standards or
will the standards cause teachers to teach to the test. The article ends by saying that
maybe two dozen states will get it right and that will result in a dramatic, positive good
for that half of the country.
The article brings up many good points that have been part of many discussions I
have had with teachers about common core. The article emphasizes how local and
state governments resist what is seen as federal interference in local education. This is
a major contention with common core implementation throughout the country. The
money the federal government is offering if you follow common core is enough to
influence the districts and many find this unsettling. Supposedly common core is not a
curriculum, but testing is developed from common core and if that testing is used to
determine federal money, then of course common core with drive the curriculum. The
article continually states the importance of national standards in educational content,
but if national standards are so important why are there no national standards for
teachers? Why do I have to be re-certified if I want to teach in another state? Education
cannot decide on a national certification for teachers so it is not surprising a national
standard for curriculum would be tough to implement. The fight between states rights
and the federal government goes back to the founding of this country.
Article Critique 4

For common core to work it must be better, easier and make obvious sense to
everyone. At this point it is confusing and unnecessarily complex which leads to
resistance from all but those that wrote it. It is also unfortunate it was tied so closely to
federal funding, since the perception of big government interfering with the local schools
hurts it image as the article points out so well.
I think the biggest problem was tying common core to high stakes testing. The
article touches on this, but as a possible reason for common core implementation to fail
this could easily be the main problem. I have talked to many teachers that resent the
necessity to teach to the test and that they are being told how to teach in their own
classrooms. Tying the common core to the standardized testing, and then determining
everything from federal funding, to teacher salaries to even the closing of schools to
these tests was just asking for trouble. The math department where I am interning
developed their entire curriculum around passing the AIMS test. They changed the
order of the units studied in the books, skipped some things and added others and
wrote tests just to help pass the AIMs tests. All of this was then blamed on common
core, when the testing is not really part of common core.
I think the article takes the position often seen today. They blame the federal
government and teachers for the problems in education and with common core. They
do not want to look at root causes, like the high stakes testing, lack of funding, teacher
salaries and classroom size, as some of the true reasons for the problems in education
today.

Article Critique 5

References

Gewertz, C. (2014, April 23). Advocates Worry Implementation Could Derail
Common Core. Education Week, S6-S9. Retrieved 9/21/14 from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/04/25/29cs-overview.h31.html