With the release of a new Brookings Institution report today, and one from a consortium of groups last week, resistance to the national-standards offensive seems to be mounting. And even though almost every state in the union has adopted the Common Core, and few are likely to formally undo that, the war against the Core can still be won.
Today's new front comes in the form of the Brookings Institution's 2012 Brown Center Report on American Education, which includes three sections attacking rampant misuse of standards and tests. The first focuses on the Common Core, looking at the discernable impacts of state-level standards on achievement, and finding that (a) varying state standards have no meaningful correlation with achievement on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and (b) there is much greater variation within states than between them, meaning national standards will do little to change big achievement gaps.
The report's other two sections deal, first, with differences between the Main and Long-Term Trend NAEP -- which brings up a central problem of using tests to judge quality without knowing what's on them -- and second, the misues of international exams to tout favorite policy prescriptions. Basically, pundits and analysts love to pick out countries in isolation and finger one or two characteristics of their education systems as key to their success. Some also love to invoke this stinker that I and others have railed about for years:
In the U.S., advocates of a national curriculum have for years pointed to nations at the top of TIMSS and PISA rankings and argued that because those countries have national curriculums, a national curriculum must be good. The argument is without merit. What the advocates neglect to observe is that countries at the bottom of the international rankings also have a national curriculum.
The report is well worth checking out. The only quibble I have is that it fails to mention what I covered two years ago, when the national standards stealth attack was fully underway: reviewing the national standards research literature, there is no meaningful evidence that national standards lead to better outcomes. It's great to have more support for this, but we've known for a while that the empirical foundation for national standards is balsa-wood strong.
The second report comes from a coalition of the Pioneer Institute, Pacific Research Institute, Federalist Society, and American Principles Project. The Road to a National Curriculum focuses on all the legal violations perpetrated by the federal government to "incentivize" state adoption of the Common Core and connected tests. Much is ground we at Cato have periodically covered, but this report goes into much greater depth on specific statutory violations. It also does nice work debunking standards supporters' plea that they don't want to touch curriculum, only standards, as if the whole point of setting standards weren't to shape curricula. The report goes beyond pointing out just this logical silliness by identifying numerous instances of Education Department officials, or developers of federally funded tests, stating explicitly that their goal is to shape curricula.
This report is another welcome counter-attack, though it, like the Brookings report, misses something important. In this case, that all federal education action -- outside of governing District of Columbia schools, military schools, and enforcing civil rights -- is unconstitutional. Stick to that, and none of these other threats materialize.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that many states that have adopted the Common Core -- and all but four have -- will officially back out. An effort was made in Alabama to do so, and one is underway in South Carolina, but Alabama's failed and it's not clear that there's huge Palmetto State desire to withdraw. Many state politicians don't want to miss out on waivers from No Child Left Behind, which the Obama administration has essentially made contingent on adopting the Common Core, and others would rather not revisit the often contentious standards-adoption process.
That doesn't mean that any state is truly locked into the Common Core. Formally they are, but like so much government does, states and districts could just ignore the Common Core, keeping it as the official standard but doing something else in practice. The only thing that could really stop them is if Washington were to rewrite federal law to make access to major, annual education funding -- not Race to the Top or even waivers, but money from a reauthorized No Child Left Behind -- contingent on adopting Common Core, and on performance on one of the two federally funded tests to go with the standards. Then the battle truly would be lost, but we are not there yet -- indeed, reauthorization doesn't seem likely until at least next year -- so there is plenty of time for the national standards resistance to grow, and to dismantle the powerful, but ultimately hollow, national standards juggernaut.