Will the REAL Conservative Fan of the Common Core Please Stand Up

Are the new(ish) Common Core Learning Standards “conservative?” Some say yes, some say no. But even among those who say yes, we see a split. Leading conservative educational thinker Sol Stern offers one “conservative” vision of the Common Core, while Michael Petrilli gives another. And their differences can tell us a lot about the complicated world of conservative educational thinking.

Among some conservatives—some of them literally from an earlier generation—the new standards seem obviously objectionable, simply because of their provenance. Phyllis Schlafly, for example, emerged from the 1970s to bash the Common Core as a power grab by “Obama administration left-wing bureaucrats.” Some pundits from a newer generation agree. Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin warn that the new standards are turning American kids into “guinea pigs.”

But among those conservatives who like the Common Core—or at least think the new standards are the least-bad option—we see different emphases. Both Stern and Petrilli agree that the new standards will offer a more rigorous academic experience. But Stern suggests that such rigor is the core of the conservative case for the Core, while Petrilli says that academic rigor is only one aspect of the conservative argument in favor of the new standards.

Writing in the pages of the New Criterion, Stern defends the Common Core as the best “chance of restoring traditional academic content to the classroom.” As Stern explains,

As a conservative, I remain convinced that, faults and all, the Common Core still presents a golden opportunity and a challenge for states and school districts to rethink what is taught in their classrooms. The Standards are more than just a list of learning objectives and skills that American students are expected to achieve by the end of each grade level. The most hopeful part of the new Standards is that they reject the instructional malpractice that prevents the public schools from fulfilling their historic mission of producing literate American citizens who know something about their country’s history and its republican heritage. Contrary to the conservatives’ complaints, the Common Core is, in fact, a document that the founders would approve.

Michael Petrilli does not disagree. He thinks the Common Core will indeed help re-introduce academic rigor to public schools. But as he argued a while back in the pages of the Weekly Standard along with co-author Chester Finn, the real score of the Core is elsewhere. As Petrilli tells the story, the road to the Common Core began back in the days of Bill Bennett, Reagan’s second secretary of education.

Petrilli argues that the new standards fulfill a generation-long conservative plan to make schools more measurable, more interchangeable. With such standards in place, free-market conservatives have thought, public schools could be freed from the dead hand of left-leaning teachers’ unions. Parents could be offered a market-friendly menu of charter schools and voucher-funded private schools.

In Petrilli’s words,

Standards do a good job of clarifying the public’s expectations for schools, and signaling to parents and taxpayers whether the campus down the street is educating its students poorly or well. But standards-based reform has never had a suitable answer for failing schools. It can identify them but has had little success turning them around.

Choice, on the other hand, is great at creating new school options, places that can replace the failures and give needy kids decent alternatives. Yet market-based reform needs reliable consumer information for it to lead to strong outcomes—information that standards and tests are excellent at providing.

We might describe this difference in conservative emphases as a difference between a “classroom” approach to conservative school reform and a “systemic” approach. Or maybe a “traditionalist” versus a “free-market” approach.  And, again, we don’t want to make these plans sound entirely exclusive.

But it seems as if Stern is arguing that the heart of “conservative” reform must be with an intellectual change in the way kids are taught. Stern excoriates pedagogical ideas such as “balanced literacy.” Instead, Stern celebrates the approach of anti-progressive E.D. Hirsch. Instead of looking at structural reforms, Hirsch and Stern wanted conservative reforms to begin in the classroom. Students needed to learn basic cultural information, to focus on “Core Knowledge.”

Petrilli, on the other hand, emphasizes a different approach. Academic rigor is important, Petrilli argues, but it is only one of the reasons for conservatives to support the Core. At least as important, Petrilli says, is the boost the standards will give to school choice. Without what Petrilli calls “true external standards,” it will always be impossible to introduce a true educational marketplace. After all, how can parents know what school is the best if there are not measures that compare schools in a fair way?

In any case, these conservative pleas in favor of the Common Core might be too little, too late. Recent polls have indicated plummeting popular support for the new standards. In spite of the smart arguments of intellectuals like Stern and Petrilli, parents might decide that these standards are just too iffy.

 

Advertisements
Leave a comment

2 Comments

  1. myonlyissue

     /  September 2, 2014

    So much semantic deception in one post.

    Finn (probably retired now) is the US State Dept rep for Unesco as in Julian Huxley (trans-humanism is eugenics) as in UN agenda 21-super-communist-super-spiritual-Lucis Trust-Age of Aquarius.

    Reagan worked for the same people as Nixon and didn’t miss Bohemian grove trips. As Iserbyt teaches us (she was there) was NO conservative in education.

    Bennett, we call this R.I.N.O but the leftists regularly parade R.I.N.O.’s as ‘conservatives’, mostly because thy need to see the boogie man in right, thy never read nor attend right events and they failed to read Quigly, who taught us both parties are run by the same elite.

    As for Hirsh, frankly I bought his book and we used to read it at dinner to our school age kids. It didn’t take long before I found several factual errors and realized that “Cultural Literacy” was not a conservative view of my culture. That book didn’t even make the yard sale, it went right into the trash. CoreKnowledge is the evil triplet sister of the poorly written CCSS and C-Scope. All they wanted was the data mining which is in place now, and the charter schools so they can eliminate our self government. CoreKnowledge is what is used in the charter schools in the Barney Hillsdale initiative, oh ok, Barney Foundation funded-Chicago bankers? There are no conservatives in Chicago, even the TEA party works for the R.I.N.O.’s there.

    Core Knowledge is being used now, as I type, in Cook County IL charter schools and several IN charter schools. Most of those that have an D or F rating from the two states. CK has been used for 20years in many states. My strong opinion is that it’s humanist, is based on BF Skinner’s model, and is simply the CCSS standards ‘sequenced’ into ‘must have the right state attitudes and beliefs’ or you don’t make the next level (and you teacher can have that count against her on her test) —– this is now being called ‘classical’, really? I imagine semantic deception is one of their best weapons. It’s funny to read Mr. Moore call it classical, even he sounds not very convinced:

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hillsdale.edu%2Ffile%2Foutreach%2Fcharterschools%2FA-Classical-Education-for-Modern-Times.pdf&ei=jdoFVJTVHYaxyAT1oYCYCQ&usg=AFQjCNFl5Xhzcg1bC-mO5jGm2hhrWZUTAw&bvm=bv.74115972,d.aWw

    What’s worse is the whole this which has it’s roots in the elite foundations, UNESCO, ASCD possibly Tavistock and the UK, it’s now being repackaged as an American classical education to the British National schools. Sad.

    Now on with the flaming attacks…go on….they need to keep the lies going…they want those charters. Where’s the hate?

    Reply
  1. Heavy Hitters Take on the Common Core, Sort of… | I Love You but You're Going to Hell

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s