Michelle Malkin is wrong about the Common Core

Michelle Malkin Part 2 

Michele Malkin is a blogger, conservative syndicated columnist, author, and Fox News Channel contributor. 

Below is my response to her irresponsible articles on the Common Core.  You can find Part 2 here -> 

 http://michellemalkin.com/2013/01/25/rotten-to-the-core-part-2-readin-writin-and-deconstructionism/

 

Ms. Malkin, is obviously not an educator because she doesn’t know the difference between standards and methods. The common core standards are only standards and don’t define how the standards should be taught. In addition Ms. Malkin doesn’t understand the difference between standards and curriculum. Standards are the things students should know, but curriculum is the material used to teach the standards. Ms. Malkin confuses standards and curriculum. 

She begins: 

Thanks to the “Common Core” regime, funded with President Obama’s stimulus dollars and bolstered by duped Republican governors and business groups, deconstructionism is back in style.

First, the stimulus was spent a long time ago. ARRA money was given and spent 2 years ago and has nothing to do with the common core adoption. The #StopCommonCore group believe that the Race To The Top (RTTT) grant was a payoff to states for adopting the Common Core Standards Initiative. (CCSI) They are wrong. The RTTT grant was a competitive grant that states could choose to apply for. Only 12 states received funding. Unless the #StopCommonCore group now feels that the US only consists of 12 states, their assertion that this is the evil plan to take over 50 states' education departments, is weak. 

The grant does require states who get the grant money to adopt standards. There is absolutely no requirement to adopt CCSI. None. Nada. The state could adopt its own standards. Most states had core standards prior to the CCSI and continue to have them without the CCSI.  And, only 12 states received money from this grant. Is there some other super top secret funding they won't tell us about? 

They are also confused by the requirement that states who apply as a consortium, have to adopt common standards. In education speak, a consortium is a group of agencies that apply together. So if, for instance, Maine and New Hampshire and Vermont decided to apply together as one group, then they and only they would have to create common standards. Even these states don't have to adopt the CCSI, they could create their own standards. 

Traditional literature is under fire. Moral relativism is increasingly the norm. “Standards” is Orwell-speak for subjectivity and lowest common denominator pedagogy.

There are no literature requirements of the common core, there is an appendix to the common core which specifically states: “They expressly do not represent a partial or complete reading list.”  Pedogogy is the method to teach the standards, which is not specified in the core.

the new achievement goals actually set American students back by de-emphasizing great literary works for “informational texts.”Challenging students to digest and dissect difficult poems and novels is becoming passe. Utilitarianism uber alles.

What exactly does Ms. Malkin not like about the following books?  “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”, “The Secret Garden”, “The Black Stallion”, “Little Women”, “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer”, “The Odyssey”, “Metamorphoses”, “ The Gift of the Magi”, “The Grapes of Wrath”, “Fahrenheit 451”, “Euclid’s Elements”, “The Canterbury Tales”, “Pride and Prejudice”. Most of these books are also recommended in the most conservative schools in the country. The examples of texts given in the core are some of the best loved books in English Literature and classics in their own right.  These are only the novels. I have not even listed the “informational texts” like the “Declaration of Independence” or the “Constitution” that Ms. Malkin seems to think are not challenging.

The Common Core English/language arts criteria call for students to spend only half of their class time studying literature, and only 30 percent of their class time by their junior and senior years in high school.

Nothing in the Common Core standards specifies class time spent on any specific material.

Under Common Core, classics such as “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” are of no more academic value than the pages of the Federal Register or the Federal Reserve archives — or a pro-Obamacare opinion essay in The New Yorker. Audio and video transcripts, along with “alternative literacies” that are more “relevant” to today’s students (pop song lyrics, for example), are on par with Shakespeare.

Ms. Malkin makes another bold and completely false statement, here. There is nothing in the common core that requires any specific material to be taught to teach the standards. No opinions are given about the value of any material. Teachers, school districts, and states are completely free to pick their own books and emphasize any material they choose.

I found one Common Core “exemplar” on teaching the Gettysburg Address that instructs educators to “refrain from giving background context or substantial instructional guidance at the outset.”

Let me reiterate that the common core doesn’t determine how to teach which the quote above seems to indicate. Are there some companies in the market place trying to sell curriculum and training around the common core? Sure, it’s America, why wouldn’t some  companies do that? If a text book company is trying to provide guidance on the Common Core Standards Initiative that is idiotic, then rail against that text book company, not the CCSI. Put the fault where the fault lies instead of with the CCSI.

Bipartisan Common Core defenders claim their standards are merely “recommendations.” But the standards, “rubrics” and “exemplars” are tied to tests and textbooks. The textbooks and tests are tied to money and power.

The common core only has standards, there are no rubrics or exemplars that are part of the CCSI. Yes, there will be text book publishers who want to sell their line of texts and tests, but no State or School district has to purchase the texts. Teachers can build their own curriculum. Most high school teachers I am aware of don’t use a text book for their Literature curriculum or buy standardized tests. The State Tests are devised by each state to test to the standards. No curriculum or pedagogy is required or recommended by the Common Core Standards.

Federally funded and federally championed nationalized standards lead inexorably to de facto mandates. Any way you slice it, dice it or word-cloud it, Common Core is a mandate for mediocrity.

Ms. Malkin doesn’t provide a source for the statements above. I would like to know where the funding is coming from. What law did Congress pass to provide funding for the states to adopt common core? Again ARRA money has been spent by the states long ago.

 Is CCSI federally championed? Sure, it is. It’s a good idea to have national standards. The only law which is currently pending which specifically refers to the Common Core Standards Initiative is a two page resolution of support which provides no funding and doesn't require any state to use the standards.  It is merely that, a resolution of support.

The hysteria surrounding the Common Core is completely out of proportion to its affect in the education community.