Common Core: National rigor or rigidity?

In 1785, the Continental Congress adopted the Land Ordinance, which began the process of surveying and selling the land west of the 13 Colonies. The standard measurement that was adopted was "Gunter's chain," a metal chain that was 22 yards long. For nearly 200 years, much of the legal description of land west of the Appalachians continued to be recorded in units of "chains." The extensive use of this measuring system (still used by the U.S. Public Land Survey System) has remained a major argument against the American adoption of the metric system. It is a great reminder that a national system of standards becomes extraordinarily difficult to change. It is a lesson when we consider national standards for our public schools.

For most of the history of public education in America, standards, testing and curriculum design has been a matter of local or state determination. There has been relatively little interstate or federal coordination. The strength of American public education was found in caring teachers and a local community strongly connected to its school. Local content and performance standards were relatively easy to improve.

One of the arguments put forward today for a "common core" of learning standards for the entire nation is that such standards ensure an equal chance for all students to have a rigorous curriculum. It sounds great. But lack of equal rigor in our local schools may not be our greatest problem; the looming national problem may be equal rigidity and inability to change a national system of educational standards. Have we learned nothing from the negative effects of the national No Child Left Behind law?

A Legitimate Concern

There is a high level of support by both teachers and the public for the general notion of high standards for students. People believe in high standards as an important value in education policy. The reality of implementing the standards and the extent of its effects on the entire system is another story. There is a significant gap between well-intentioned belief in the value of high standards and the extensive and often damaging impact of a hastily designed implementation. There is a critical difference between extensive impact and good results. We all want improvement -- better results. The hope is that nationally uniform standards can deliver those results. But every policy decision is a balance between positive results and negative impact.

Those who argue for the concept of uniform standards point to the inequities that now exist in opportunities for students in different locales. It is a legitimate concern, but the cost of a nationally uniform system of content standards is the staggering impact of a system of interconnected, and often unintended, changes in the entire system.

The Tipping Point

A national system of content standards naturally tends towards alignment with scores of other aspects of schooling. Those who believe that changes in a nationally-adopted Common Core may be easily accomplished must also consider the resulting changes in its ultimate derivatives: a common curriculum, common tests, a common accountability system for teachers and schools, common textbooks, materials, common "best practices" for teachers, individual classrooms, colleges of education, and common linkages between elementary, secondary and college standards.

There are legitimate arguments on both sides of the question of the Common Core, but an important question in the adoption of any system is how easily significant improvements can be made.

Incented by federal grant programs, the influence of the 45 states that have now agreed to adopt the Common Core of content standards may have passed the "tipping point" in forcing this issue on every state. Nebraska can be proud of its local and state autonomy in determining its own course. For as long as we are able, resisting the national folly of an immutable educational uniformity will be this state's gift to its children.

Founded in 1867, The Nebraska State Education Association has nearly 28,000 members statewide.

Christiansen is Executive Director of the Nebraska State Education Association