What do conservatives think about the emerging Common Core State Standards?
As with any question, ask a hundred conservatives and you’ll likely get a hundred different answers.
However, some distinct themes have emerged in recent months.
First, many conservative politicians and activists object to the Common Core’s implications for the creeping expansion of government. Some insist that the standards add another layer of inaccessible, distant, controlling, expensive central control.
Second, conservatives object that the new national standards chip away at parental control of children’s education. With greater central control, parents and responsive local governments will lose that much more ability to control directly what goes in their local public schools.
Both of these are storied conservative protests against the trends in public education.
Before we examine these themes and their histories, let’s look at the CCSS themselves. So far, forty-five states, plus the District of Columbia and Department of Defense schools have adopted these standards. Supporters of the CCSS insist these are not imposed by the federal government, but rather created jointly by state education officials. The reasons for such standards are many, according to supporters. In the words of the CCSS Initiative,
“High standards that are consistent across states provide teachers, parents, and students with a set of clear expectations that are aligned to the expectations in college and careers. The standards promote equity by ensuring all students, no matter where they live, are well prepared with the skills and knowledge necessary to collaborate and compete with their peers in the United States and abroad. Unlike previous state standards, which were unique to every state in the country, the Common Core State Standards enable collaboration between states on a range of tools and policies.”
Conservatives are not the only ones to dispute these claims. Progressive critics (see one example here) often lament the new standards’ failure to consider adequately individual student situations. Some progressives call the standards a greedy corporate power grab. Others lament the goal of squeezing all young minds into a procrustean bed of regurgitative multiple-choice testing instead of pursuing the more difficult goal of authentic learning for real students. Alfie Kohn, for instance, insisted that national standards would “squeeze the life out of classrooms” by mandating one-size-fits-all education, dictated by self-seeking corporate interests.
When conservative activists and pundits critique the CCSS, it is usually on different grounds. Writing for the Heritage Foundation, for example, Lindsey Burke warned, “The push for centralized control over what every child should learn has never had more momentum.” CCSS, which Burke called “national standards,” represented a “challenge to educational freedom in America.” Implementation of the standards would be expensive, Burke pointed out. Even worse, these standards reversed the proper structure of education. Instead of more and more central control, Burke argued, “Education reform should give control over education to those closest to students.”
The Heritage Foundation’s Rachel Sheffield praised state lawmakers who pushed to exit the CCSS. In Indiana, for instance, conservative state lawmakers have proposed a bill to put the CCSS on hold. One of the requirements of Indiana’s Senate Bill 193, for instance, will be to include parent members on the standards committee. Another will be to allow any parent to challenge their children’s standard-based high-stakes test results.
These themes—federal overreach and parental control—have long been central to conservative educational activism.
As we’ve noted, agitation against federal intrusion into the local politics of education has been an important element of conservative educational activism since at least the 1940s. Though it might come as a surprise to some, before the 1940s many conservatives endorsed increased centralization of education policy, as Douglas Slawson has noted in his excellent book The Department of Education Battle, 1918-1932.
The second conservative worry about CCSS also has a long history. Conservative pundits have argued for decades that parents need more control over their children’s education. Back in the 1960s, conservative educational leader Max Rafferty insisted, “Children do not belong to the state. They do not belong to us educators, either. They belong to their parents and to nobody else. And don’t you forget it.” (Source: Rafferty, On Education, pg. 9)
Note one protester’s button: “Parent Power”
These conservative concerns spanned the country and the decades. As historian Ron Formisano noted in his landmark 1991 history of Boston disputes over forced busing, parents insisted on their fundamental rights to determine their own children’s educational careers. As anti-busing leader Louise Hicks fumed, “If under a court order a child can be forcibly taken from his parents into unfamiliar, often hostile neighborhoods, then we shall have opened a pandora’s box of new, unlimited government powers” (pg. 192).
Similarly, President Reagan insisted in 1983, “I believe that parents, not Government, have the primary responsibility for the education of their children. Parental authority is not a right conveyed by the state; rather, parents delegate to their elected school board representatives and State legislators the responsibility for their children’s schooling.” (Source: Catherine Lugg, For God and Country, pg. 136).
Across the spectrum of conservative belief and activism, we hear similar echoes. In 1989, for instance, creationist leader Ken Ham warned that “Most parents have left the training of their children to the church, school or college.” No wonder, Ham argued, that children embraced anti-God theologies.
So when conservatives in 2013 warn that CCSS will undermine parental control, they draw on a rich tradition of conservative thought and activism. Schools must remain on a tight leash, many conservatives have insisted over the years. If allowed too much power, centralizing educational authorities will take over.
I Love You but You're Going to Hell 