How Common Core Literary Standards Undermine Education

With the growing acceptance of the Common Core State Standards, a set of benchmarks that seeks to raise the literacy of our elementary and secondary school students, a debate is underway over the wisdom or folly of a federally crafted plan that aims to have a major hand in the education of our nation’s children. Presently, forty-five states, the District of Columbia, and four territories have adopted the Common Core.

The principal architect of the Common Core is David Coleman, a Yale graduate and a Rhodes Scholar. While his critique that public schools could be more analytical in their approach to reading has some points in its favor, his solution of standardization and diminishing the role of fiction in favor of non-fiction is creating more problems than solutions. As many of his critics point out, Coleman has never taught in an elementary or secondary classroom. Nevertheless, he is among a group of reformers who want to reshape the landscape of education in America.

In 2012, David Coleman was named as the ninth president of the College Board. He is well-poised to continue the standardization agenda he has initiated with CCSS. In fact, his agenda, while its ostensible goals are unobjectionable, is deeply intertwined with progressive politics and a philosophical pragmatism infatuated with the “data gathering” that lead to President Obama’s two-term presidency. As noted by Susan Berry, in Breitbart, Coleman’s remarks at a Harvard Education conference in 2012 included a Who’s Who of Obama’s re-election campaign and Democratic activists: Google CEO Eric Schmidt, Jeremy Bird, who lead the “Turning Texas Blue” campaign, and notably, Dan Wagner, Obama’s former chief analytics officer. The data collection gurus are now set to reform American education with an unprecedented access to our children by means of a nation-wide net of statistics starting in pre-school.

Coleman has not wasted any time. The College Board recently announced a redesigned SAT (to take effect in 2016) in which the essay is optional, and the verbal section is less based on differentiating degrees of word knowledge (gained only by years of reading) and more on students justifying their answers with evidence from the passage. There are also changes in the math section, focusing on linear equations, functions, and proportions. The penalty for wrong answers is gone. Coleman is delighted with these changes.

Not all the changes are bad: the essay, scored mechanically, could never accurately gauge writing ability. But what is certainly problematic is Coleman’s obvious aligning of the SAT with the Common Core. Both share the same preoccupation with “college and career readiness,” with non-fiction, Founding Documents, with egalitarian motives that too often are a screen for political activism.

As well, there is the simple fact that though forty-five states have adopted the Common Core, the standards have yet to be proven over time to increase the quality of the education of our children. Writing about the College Board’s ideology behind the recent SAT changes, Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, put it this way: “We are embarking on a great expansion of the left’s long-term project of trading off our best chances to foster individual excellence for broadly-distributed access to mediocre education.”

There has been resistance to Common Core as well, some of it articulated in Crisis. Last October, 132 Catholic professors sent every bishop in the United States a letter arguing that Common Core is “deeply flawed” and should not be accepted by Catholic schools, and that the some 100 dioceses that have accepted it “should seek an orderly withdrawal now.”

I share their concern that the Common Core’s vision of education is imbued with pragmatism to the detriment of giving students an opportunity to nurture a love of truth, goodness, and beauty as expressed in the rich textures of fiction and poetry, or as found in history and science free of ideologies that are reductively antithetical to reason informed by faith. I would add that Common Core’s sweeping reforms do damage to the reality of subsidiarity, wherein societal well-being is best served by decisions made closest to local communities.

Diane Ravitch, no friend of conservative politics or private schooling, in a speech in January of this year sharply criticized the Common Core for essentially being a framework to standardize education nationwide, with a burdensome emphasis on online testing (and a boon to the IT industry). “Behind the Common Core standards” said Ravitch, “lies a blind faith in standardization of tests and curriculum, and perhaps, of children as well.”

One of the ironies of modern society is that we can produce iPhones spun from glass thinner than the petal of a violet and still not really figure out how properly to educate students in the literary arts and moral virtues on a suitably mass scale. This really should not surprise us. Persons are not products, and don’t behave at all in the manner of parts fitting into a whole, even if that whole if rationally broken down into measurable units. Perhaps we should add, especially if that whole is put into measurable units.

“The human individual” wrote philosopher Roger Scruton “is the single most important obstacle that all bureaucratic systems must overcome, and which all ideologies must destroy.” For the things of the spirit, the unfolding of a single soul, defies measurability. Governmental systems and their like, of course, thrive on measurable data; it’s their fuel, they can’t survive without it. But a person is a spiritual reality, a union of heaven and earth, in time and yet destined for eternity.

Admittedly, part of that last sentence is confessional in nature, seen in the light of a faith that is a partaking of God’s knowledge of who we are. However, reason has its own light, and should, at the very least, see the mystery which is the person, and as such deal with that mystery in an appropriate way.

What We Can Learn from Literature
Let me explain my admittedly brief critique of the Common Core literary standards by way of a novel.

Kazuo Ishiguro’s masterpiece, The Remains of the Day (1989), is a close study of an English butler who at the end of his life wonders if he had, after all, tragically wasted his life in the pursuit of a false ideal. In the summer of 1956, Stevens takes a short trip to see a former housekeeper, a Miss Kenton. As he does so, he journeys in his own mind back over the years between the wars, when he missed an opportunity to take Miss Kenton as the love of his life, and foolishly followed his employer, Lord Darlington, with a misguided sense of loyalty that smiled and bowed before the likes of Joachim Von Ribbentrop and other fascist friends visiting the estate.

The tragic nature of Stevens’ story is one of great subtly as his narration of the novel is layered with the evasions and lies with which he has fooled himself for over thirty years. What possible national “outcome,” research-based logarithm could help a student realize Stevens is what critics call an “unreliable narrator” whose observations are untrustworthy, and must be evaluated by the reader’s own sense of humanity and moral decency?

There is one scene in the novel that to my mind captures Stevens’ problem with unique perfection. Mr. Faraday, the new owner of the estate, is showing an American couple around when the wife asks Stevens if an arch in the house is real, or a “mock period piece” recently installed. Mr. Stevens tells her it is possible it is a recent addition. She then asks him: “But tell me, Stevens, what was this Lord Darlington like? Presumably you must have worked for him?”

Stevens denies working for Darlington—who by this time was long dead, his reputation tainted by his Nazi connections—and leaves the visitor puzzled, as she looks again at the great arch of the dining room, and says, “So we don’t know for certain then. Still, it looks to me like it’s mock. Very skillful, but mock.”

Ishiguro leaves little doubt that we should see this as a reference to Stevens himself. While he is a skillful butler of a once great house in England, his choices have left him bereft of the very dignity by which he strove to live each day of his life. His professionalism and dignity have turned against him because he was blind to what lay before him for decades.

I wonder: how would the committee who put together the Common Core read this quiet yet disturbing novel? I suspect they would speak about “scaffolding” with backgrounders on World War II, and assign speeches by Churchill and Roosevelt. While there is nothing wrong with any of that, they are far from appreciating and learning from a story (yes, mere fiction!) the human complexities and imperfections that make for tragedy.

How does one read, after all? It is surely more than a technical skill we are trying to pass on. Perhaps only after reading all those old, good, and great stories of shipwreck and decade-long sieges, of kings exiled and white whales hunted and dreams gone up in flames all gaudy with desire over a Long Island skyline will one really become the reader one dreams to be. Of course, again, that does mean we have experienced at least in some fashion those elemental things (earth, water, sky, wind, rain, cold, a moonlit forest) that the great writers weave into their stories of such harrowing power that the centuries will not stop them from being retold, at least somewhere where hearts seek the good.

When Imagination Dies, So Does Learning
By demanding analytical rigor for its own sake, Common Core will inevitably replace literature with non-fiction pieces, by the senior year of high school making the latter some 70 percent of the entire curriculum. Hamlet, to be sure, will stay, but alongside “Recommended Levels of Insulation” by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Renaissance prince will be further reduced to a museum piece rather than be encountered as one of the supreme dramas of human existence in which the mysteries of identity, evil, betrayal, and death are explored in metaphors of operatic beauty and complexity.

In nearly every case in which I have seen a student blossom as a writer and a reader, I have always seen an imagination fired up by a love of the extraordinary nature of ordinary life. These kids are hungry for adventures, and actually see everyday living as one, too. No wonder they take to, say, Jack London’s Klondike stories so readily: they almost know what he’s talking about before they read him.

This passion for the wonder of things is actually a pre-literate requirement to literacy: the outward-looking soul, alive to the real, becomes the engine that feeds the literary disciplines of learning alphabets, gerunds, syntax, and comma usage. In a sense, we endure the thorns of grammar to behold the rose of beauty.

Hence the pre-school years, as well as the primary grades, especially for boys, are absolutely vital. Enclose then in a fantasy world of no effort and constant ego-fulfillment, and curriculum standards, however well-researched, will not easily bring them into the joy of discovering being, the bedrock of truth, and the goal of all education. The temptation to escape to the effortless will be nearly overwhelming.

Hence, too, is the inescapable reality of parents as primary educators of their children. A point clearly ignored by the data-mining reformers now re-fashioning American education.

The German philosopher Josef Pieper, in The Silence of St. Thomas, wrote these words about the world he saw coming into being in 1953:

The world in which man leads today his ordinary life is becoming more and more a purely technological one…. The danger inherent in this situation is that man might, erroneously, come to regard the world as a whole and the created things with it—above all man himself—in the same manner in which he regards, correctly, his own artifacts belonging to the technological sphere; in other words, man is beginning to consider the whole of creation as … fully accessible to reason.

While we should not repudiate our technology, we must—as always—make it serve humane ends. Yet the Common Core, certainly in regard to its literary standards, falls into the very fallacy Pieper was warning about a half century ago. How much greater  is the threat today for us to take the world as nothing more than a problem that our technological minds can surmount with the right standards, the perfect test, and the latest research.

In fact, David Coleman’s speech at the Harvard Conference in 2012 gives chilling testimony to his absolute faith in the ways of “data gathering” to steer the curricula our students follow, and the tests that significantly determine where they attend college. During this talk, he extols the pragmatism which is his guiding light, asserting that “the simple precision and excellence of the use of information to achieve a result is something [sic] in my mind that deserves astonishment.”

What deserves astonishment is how a man with such a diminished view of education could obtain a position with the power to determine the direction of our nation’s schools. It’s as if Stevens became schoolmaster for our country: with skillful precision our north star, method our mantra, data our deity, we can go anywhere, as long as it fits comfortably with a vision in tune with the pragmatists now reigning.

All the time we forget, amid our technical prowess, that the core elements of learning are essentially unseen to the eye, and certainly not fully accessible to reason: the soul of the child, his or her intellect, will, and heart. Our educational reformers tend to see everything except that which truly matters.

Indeed, as Stevens exemplifies: our greatest weaknesses (standardizations as dehumanizing ideology) may find their source in our greatest strengths (the efficiencies of a technological world), especially when we are guided by self-deception and vanity that such a world so easily makes possible. No one learns that from reading a government report.

(Photo credit: College Board president David Coleman by Erich Schlegel.)

Michael J. Ortiz

By

Michael J. Ortiz is the author of Swan Town: the Secret Journal of Susanna Shakespeare (HarperCollins 2006), and teaches English and Religion at The Heights School, in Potomac, Maryland.

  • poetcomic1

    “The Catholic discipline rests upon the conviction that man must have pleasure and if he does not find it in the service of God he will seek it in the false and ephemeral joys of the world; for man innately knows that he was made for happiness and endeavors at all costs to attain his destiny.” -Kenelm Digby, MORES CATHOLICI Vol.2, Pg 129

    It is this very pursuit of pleasure that Common Core surrenders without a shot fired. Stuffed with uniform bytes of info we will send our children out into this 24/7 Porn Palace Freak Show that was once a civllization.

    • Watosh

      I like that phrase “24/7 Porn Palace Freak Show that was once a civilization.” That is so apt. That is a great observation.

  • Ford Oxaal

    “we endure the thorns of grammar to behold the rose of beauty” — a real gem — thanks for the great article.
    Yes, American culture is very practical. Man as walrus, steadily lumbering around in the quest for more creature comforts. America’s legacy? Walrus-mart on the one hand, landfills on the other. A marriage made on earth. Balanced, stable, dumb — where social interaction consists of the steady munch of chips served straight from the packaging, and conversation consists of an occasional grunt and momentary glance up from some form of electronic eye-candy. No eye contact. Ever. And now, the Common Core. How utterly common and predictable. Can an American masterpiece such as Huckleberry Finn even survive next to a Windows 8 manual? As a Catholic, I tend to blame it all on Protestantism — not Protestants — of which many are better Christians in practice than ‘Catholics’. But Protestantism as the splintering of the body of Christ. No corpus. No manna. No human sacrifice. And certainly no mother. But most especially, no liquor! Right when you need it most.

  • Watosh

    The thing is: What is the difference between a person who can’t read and a person who doesn’t read? But of course one doesn’t need to read in order to spend all their time babbling on their cell phone.

  • Beth

    I believe Common Core will bring back the Catholic ‘ghetto’. And I believe they (Catholic homeschoolers) are who the Lord will use to save souls lost in the “24/7 Porn Palace Freak Show was once a civilization.”

    Goodness, Truth and Beauty….

    • TheAbaum

      It will bring back the Circuses and Lions, as it is intended to do.

  • Vinnie

    “One of the ironies of modern society is that we can produce iPhones spun from glass thinner than the petal of a violet and still not really figure out how properly to educate students in the literary arts and moral virtues….”
    The former brings in money the latter does not.

    • michael ortiz

      Well, as strange a guy as Steve Jobs was, he wasn’t merely a techie. He had an artist’s eye…so yes, teaching doesn’t make you monetarily rich, but technological know-how alone isn’t why Apple does so well.

  • unloup

    The people who run the world have everything needed. The one thing they don’t need is too many people. Among the many programs to depopulate the world is designing an education that delivers manageable masses. Let us identify the brightest and at the same time dumb down the rest. Give me robots, human or mechanical. You will be paid well.

  • Pingback: Atheist Organization Sets Its Sights on WTC Cross - God & Caesar

  • philconl

    Central Score – a big win for totalitarian mind control over the entire USA’s child population.
    It’s one big Obama campaign extension.
    Is there anything left for DC to take over ?

    • TheAbaum

      Well, they think so. DHS has been busily stocking up on armored personnel carriers and bullets.

  • Kevin Aldrich

    I want to point out one myth and make one observation.

    One myth: The Common Core ELA standards do not require English teachers to devote 70% of the reading they assign to “information texts.” The 70% number is based the students’ coursework as a whole. Practically everything students read in history and civics, science, mathematics, foreign language, and religion (if they have it) is informational (that is, non-fiction).

    One observation: How many high school students even in elite private schools can achieve the kind of subtle and sophisticated interpretation of a literary text such as the one given in regard to “The Remains of the Day”?

    • michael ortiz

      Kevin: my article say as much, re the 70%…that’s what “entire curriculum” means…also, plenty of my students are pretty subtle in regard to their readings, plus, helping the class as a whole see a little of the complexities of a great work of fiction is part of any English teacher’s job.

      • Kevin Aldrich

        Well, you wrote, “Common Core will inevitably replace literature with non-fiction pieces.” I don’t think that is accurate.

        Do not the CC ELA anchor standards require helping the class see a little of the complexities of a great work of literature?

        I know it looks like I am for CC (I am not). I think we need to attack it on the basis of what is *really* bad about it.

        • michael ortiz

          Inevitably does not mean completely….the sentence also continues…I intentionally avoided the myth you mention.

          • Kevin Aldrich

            Since we both believe in a liberal education, we can quibble about words, right?

            I am aware of nothing in the standards which calls for English teachers to teach less fiction than they have been (English teachers already teach some non-fiction English literature anyway).

            So there is nothing “inevitable” about non-fiction replacing fiction in the English classroom due to adopting the CC ELA reading standards.

            • Augustus

              I’m afraid you are mistaken. Common Core requires that 50% of classroom time in English classes at all levels be devoted to informational and non-fiction reading because students will read less fiction in college. (That’s what “college and career readiness” means.) The whole education philosophy of Common Core is flawed because it does not demand high intellectual content (that is grade appropriate) nor does it see a role for character formation. Among other things, it also puts more emphasis on writing than reading, which every competent teacher knows is backwards. See: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/12/questionable-quality-of-the-common-core-english-language-arts-standards

              • Kevin Aldrich

                I’m afraid Sandra Stotsky at the Heritage Foundation has not read the standards carefully and you have not checked her work. The total amount “informational” reading in all subjects (not just English) rises from 50% in 4th grade to 70% by senior year. The footnote reads as follows: “The percentages on the table reflect the sum of student reading, not just reading in ELA settings. Teachers of senior English classes, for example, are not required to devote 70 percent of reading to informational texts. Rather, 70 percent of student reading across the grade should be informational” (COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS & LITERACY IN HISTORY/SOCIAL STUDIES, SCIENCE, AND TECHNICAL SUBJECTS, p. 5).

                The text to which this footnote refers reads, “Fulfilling the Standards for 6–12 ELA requires much greater attention to a specific category of informational text—literary nonfiction—than has been traditional. Because the ELA classroom must focus on literature (stories, drama, and poetry) as well as literary nonfiction, a great deal of informational reading in grades 6–12 must take place in other classes if the NAEP assessment framework is to be matched instructionally.”

                • Augustus

                  Once again, you are mistaken. First of all, Stotsky is not “at the Heritage Foundation.” If you read to the end of her article you would see in her byline that she was a member of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education as well as a retired professor of education. She is perhaps the leading critic of Common Core, having been a member of the Common Core Validation Committee. Since you are unfamiliar with the debate that is now raging across the country, I am inclined to believe that your reading is limited to the claims of Common Core spokesmen. For someone who purports to be a critic of Common Core, you are clearly not doing your homework.

                  Secondly, Common Core requires that English classrooms teach upwards of 50% of its curriculum in non-fiction because 50% of the reading standards cover nonfiction texts. You can’t master these standards without reading informational literature. The problem is that the main designers of Common Core, who had no teaching experience, like David Coleman, are making contradictory claims. They say, as you quoted, that most of the nonfiction will have to be distributed in courses other than English in order to be fulfilled. This is obvious. The problem, as Stotsky points out, is that more, not less, nonfiction and informational texts must be added to the English curriculum to be compliant to the standards because CC requires more informational texts in the curriculum across the board. In many states now, English teachers are being asked to reduce their fiction content to meet CC requirements. The fact is, English teachers will be held responsible if students fail to master the non-fiction reading standards. If this is not what the designers intended, they have not made it clear to the administrators of CC who are already crowding out literary works in favor of nonfiction readings. Here is a more detailed study of this question: http://www.uaedreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2000/01/Stotsky-Literature-or-Technical-Manuals.pdf

                  • gaiasaur

                    I can confirm that in my public elementary school in Maryland, even kindergarten teachers are under pressure to devote more instructional time than previously to nonfiction, despite all the research that shows the value to children of growing to understand the interpersonal relationships often at the heart of good fiction.

  • Kevin Aldrich

    Here are the CC ELA anchor standards for reading:

    College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards for Reading

    Key Ideas and Details

    1. Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text.

    2. Determine central ideas or themes of a text and analyze their development; summarize the key supporting details and ideas.

    3. Analyze how and why individuals, events, and ideas develop and interact over the course of a text.

    Craft and Structure

    4. Interpret words and phrases as they are used in a text, including determining technical, connotative, and figurative meanings, and analyze how specific word choices shape meaning or tone.

    5. Analyze the structure of texts, including how specific sentences, paragraphs, and larger portions of the text (e.g., a section, chapter, scene, or stanza) relate to each other and the whole.

    6. Assess how point of view or purpose shapes the content and style of a text.

    Integration of Knowledge and Ideas

    7. Integrate and evaluate content presented in diverse formats and media, including visually and quantitatively, as well as in words.

    8. Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, including the validity of the reasoning as well as the relevance and sufficiency of the evidence.

    9. Analyze how two or more texts address similar themes or topics in order to build knowledge or to compare the approaches the authors take.

    Range of Reading and Level of Text Complexity

    10. Read and comprehend complex literary and informational texts independently and
    proficiently.

    Are these bad standards? I don’t think so. I think they are basically what elite private schools try to do for their students. I think it is fair to critique the standards as failing to include some pretty important objectives related to goodness, truth, and beauty.

  • Pingback: How Common Core Literary Standards Undermine Education | Crisis Magazine | Uncommon Catholics

  • Mark N Starla Traina

    NAAWP EDUCATION NEWS UPDATE: 04-09-2014

    http://boardreader.com/s/NAAWP.html

    NANCY PELOSI says that we need to IMPLEMENT the COMMON CORE
    CIRICULUM so that we can -FIND OUT WHAT’S IN IT!-

    COMMON CORE EDUCATION – UNDERSTANDING what’s at STAKE!

    The SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW SINNERS and the ZIONNIST
    ANTI-DEFACATION LEAGUE’S LGBT AGENDA is HIDDEN inside of the COMMON
    CORE CIRICULUM – see for yourself!

    LGBT LIFESTYLES: http://www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.com/american-institutes-for-research-the-sexualization-of-children-and-the-gay-agenda-in-utah-schools/

    CORE SUBJECTS:

    101: SELF-STIMULATION BEATS MASTURBATION

    102: BOYZ on BOYZ and GIRLZ on GIRLZ is COOL

    103: TRANSGENDER LIFESTYLES is EXCITING, ACCEPTABLE and FUN
    according to the NEW ZIONNIST TESTIMENT co-authored by MORRIS DEES and
    MARK POTOK

    NATIONAL ASSOCIATION for the ADVANCEMENT of WHITE PEOPLE

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Guv’mint Surveillance Edition

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Guv’mint Surveillance Edition | askmarion

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Guv’mint Surveillance Edition | Liberty's Spirit

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Guv’mint Surveillance Edition | Virginia Right!

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Guv’mint Surveillance Edition | therightplanet.com

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Guv’mint Surveillance Edition | Nice Deb

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Guv’mint Surveillance Edition | NoisyRoom.net

  • Pingback: Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Guv’mint Surveillance Edition

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Guv’mint Surveillance Edition | www.independentsentinel.com

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council nominations for May 1, 2014

  • Lee

    I think the perceived usefulness of studying literature already did in higher education. Now rather than reading the literature and studying the work, the author, the history, one merely studies the chic literary theory / criticism du jour. It’s all about Marxist theory and queer theory and feminist theory and whatnot. No one leans how to read Shakespeare or Milton to understand them in colleges and universities anymore
    So the best they can do to teach kids is to work with crappy government regulations as reading material.

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results 05.02.14 | askmarion

  • Pingback: Watchers of Weasels Winners Announced Today – Guv’mint Surveillance Edition | Maggie's Notebook

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results – 05/02/14 | NoisyRoom.net

  • Pingback: Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results – 05/02/14

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results (5/2/14) | therightplanet.com

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results | Virginia Right!

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council results for May 2, 2014

  • Pingback: Watcher's Council Results -- Wow, I've Gotten Way Behind Edition - Citizens News

  • Pingback: The Razor » Blog Archive » Council Nominations: April 30, 2014

  • Pingback: The Razor » Blog Archive » The Council Has Spoken: May 2, 2014

MENU