Federal Involvement Is the Problem With Common Core, Education Experts Agree

The Common Core
education standards have become increasingly controversial since
their creation in 2009. Supporters have pointed to the need for

higher, more consistent standards; much of the opposition has
focused on the
confusing new method of teaching math. But both of these
arguments ignore the fundamental problem with Common Core: federal
involvement.

By using heavy-handed incentives to compel states to adopt the
standards, the federal government destroyed the notion that Common
Core was a legitimately state-led effort. Washington’s actions made
it nearly impossible for education leaders to adjust the standards
to meet the needs of states and school districts, and prevented
them from testing the standards against alternatives. In short,
they created a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach to education
policy.

This problem has now been recognized by education experts across
the Common Core divide. Chris Minnich, chief executive of the
Council of Chief State School Officers and a prominent Common Core
supporter, acknowledged as much on Wednesday at a
panel discussion hosted by the American Enterprise
Institute (AEI), when he said:

“The federal involvement in this has just been not helpful, in
every scenario…I think it’s pretty clear that most of us, I can’t
say ‘all of us who support the standards,’ but most of us, believe
that declaring our independence [from federal involvement], making
sure it is and remains to be state-led, is critical.”

Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at AEI,
agreed with Minnich, pointing out that that federal involvement was
not only unhelpful but also unnecessary:

“If the federal government had never waded in to this, back in
2009, I think…about 15 states probably would have gone ahead and
done the Common Core on their own. I think they would have figured
out a way to do a common assessment…and I think what we would have
seen was a truly and genuinely state-led effort, which, if it was
working and if it was being implemented well, other states would
have wanted in [on].”

Had Common Core remained a voluntary, ground-up initiative, it
would be far less controversial. States would have the freedom to
tailor its implementation according to their needs, and comparing
outcomes would offer evidence on whether the new method of teaching
math is actually worth the hassle.

This would have meant that Common Core was not a set of national
standards, but that is not a bad thing. On the contrary, having
state rather than federal standards allows for experimentation and
competition. That’s a feature of competitive federalism, and it’s
why education policy was never meant to be the federal government’s
responsibility.