Semis #5: A Resolution Concerning Common Core Standards

Summary: Despite

AFF
Affirmative Summary:
It

Points:
I. Lacks sufficient oversight
A. (American Enterprise Institute - Mar. 18, 2014) The Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
were developed by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State
School Officers (CCSSO) and adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia with the strong
support of the U.S. Department of Education (ED). While this genesis was great for securing the
backing of various stakeholders and for ensuring the successful adoption of the standards, such an
origin does not have clear implications for long-term management and oversight. There are
numerous tasks that a CCSS governing body would need to undertake, including revising the
standards as needed, holding states accountable for faithful implementation of the standards and
administration of the tests, and fostering cooperation across states so as to leverage the national
scope of the project. To date, it is not clear who or what is going to perform these functions.
1. No oversight means cant achieve benefits of uniform standards - no guarantee of common
part.
II. Unfunded mandate
A. (AEI - Mar. 18, 2014) In order to use the SBAC and PARCC tests, schools need hardware.
Both sets of tests are designed to be taken on desktops, laptops, and tablets (provided the tablets
have keyboards that can be attached), but even with the diverse set of compatible devices, many
schools are struggling to prepare. The state of Arizona needs to spend an estimated $230.2 million
statewide to get schools up to standard. The Boston-based Pioneer Institute (which, in fairness,
has made its opposition to the common core well known) estimates a cost of $6.87 billion for
technology to bring schools up to par with the requirements of common core assessments. This
includes $2.8 billion in up-front costs for initial purchases of new hardware and software, $326
million for the first year of operation, and $624 million for the following six years of
implementation. Bandwidth is also an issue. The State Educational Technology Directors
Association (SETDA), which worked with both assessment consortia to estimate bandwidth
needs, recommends Internet speed of 1 gigabyte per second per 1,000 students. Many states are
not even close. In Arkansas, for example, only 12 percent of schools have the recommended
broadband speed. Education SuperHighway, which advocates for technology in schools, used a
quick speed test completed by more than 600,000 students and teachers nationwide to determine
that 72 percent of schools lack necessary high-speed Internet bandwidth.
III. Americans dont support it
A. Collaborative for Student Success poll from March 2014 found that people approve of Common
Core after being told it establishes a set of clear, consistent guidelines for what students should
know and be able to do, while an Achieve, Inc. poll from the same time frame saw polling of
37/40 among those who already knew about the Core. Its crude push polling.
IV. Bad for education
A. (Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research - Apr. 2013) While American students as a
whole lag their international peers, the 2007 Trends in International Math and Science Study

showed Massachusetts students to be competitive with top-performing nations like Japan, Korea,
and Singapore. (The Bay States eighth graders tied for first in the world in science.) There is,
unfortunately, little in common between what Massachusetts did and what the U.S. Department of
Education is trying to advance.
B. Massachusetts success was built upon a relentless focus on academics, specifically on literacy,
math, and the liberal arts. Common Core emphasizes experiential, skills-based learning while
reducing the amount of classic literature, poetry, and drama taught in English classes. Its more
vocational bent includes far greater emphasis on jargon-laden informational text extracts, and it
supports analyzing texts shorn of historical context and background knowledge. The impact on
English classrooms in Massachusetts, which adopted Common Core in 2010, has been to reduce
the amount of classical literature studied by more than half.
C. In math, consider the view of Stanford University Emeritus Professor of Mathematics James
Milgram, the only academic mathematician on Common Cores validation committee. (He
refused to sign off on the final draft of the national standards.) He describes the standards as
having extremely serious failings, reflecting very low expectations, and ultimately leaving
American students one year behind their international peers by fifth grade and two years behind
by seventh grade. I think the original intent was to raise outcomes, but I think the leaders got tied
up in the issue of buy-in, Milgram said. "I think they made choices that would make it easier for
states whose expectations in mathematics were not all that high to buy into Core standards.
D. One major practical effect is that American students will not get to Algebra I in eighth grade,
which is critical if our students are to be college-ready in mathematics. Another is the insistence
on using an experimental non-Euclidian approach to teaching geometryan approach that has
never been successfully implemented at the middle and high school levels anywhere. Rather than
learn from leading states like Massachusetts, Common Core draws from the so-called 21st
century skills movement, which elevates soft skills like global awareness, media literacy, crosscultural flexibility and adaptability, and creativity to equal footing with academic content. This
less academic approach has, in fact, been road tested in places like Connecticut and West
Virginia. Predictably, the results have been dismal.
V. Good standardsgood education
A. (Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings - Feb. 2012) High-quality standards are not
linked to higher performance. There is no relationship between the quality of standards (as
measured by the Fordham Institute and others) and performance on the National Assessment for
Educational Progress (NAEP). Additional research from the National Center for Educational
Statistics found that states with more rigorous cut points, or higher definitions of proficiency,
saw no higher performance on the NAEP than states that had lower cut points.
VI. No compelling argument for common standards
A. (Bloomberg - Nov. 25, 2013) High standards may be valuable, but why do they have to be
common? It isnt as though different state standards are a major problem in U.S. education.
Theres more variation in achievement within states than between them. Common standards may
make life a bit easier for students who move across state lines, but they also mean that we lose a
chance for states to experiment. Common Core supporters sometimes suggest that with a single
set of standards, states could determine if theyre doing worse than their neighbors, and that this
knowledge will make them eager to reform their schools. They said something similar about the
No Child Left Behind Act that Congress passed a decade ago: Parents would learn that schools
were failing to make their kids proficient in English and math and would demand reform. It

didnt work out that way. Many people got mad when the law labeled their schools failures. State
and local officials responded by setting a lower bar for proficiency.
B. (Education Week - Apr. 21, 2010) All students should master a verifiable set of skills, but not
necessarily the same skills. Part of the reason high schools fail so many kids is that educators
cant get free of the notion that all studentsregardless of their career aspirationsneed the same
basic preparation. States are piling on academic courses, removing the arts, and downplaying
career and technical education to make way for a double portion of math.
VII.
No benefit from new marketplace
A. (Phi Delta Kappan (professional journal for education) - Oct. 29, 2013) As it turns out, pretty
much anyone can slap a Common Core-aligned sticker onto a textbook, professional development
module, or supplemental resource. States, districts, and schools will have the daunting task of
wading through all of these. Without some meaningful vetting process, all of the benefits of the
nationwide market for new tools will be washed away in the flood of misaligned materials.
VIII. Cost makes it ineffective
A. (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers - Aug. 2013) New exams
will cost $30 per student. Thats almost three times what Georgia spends per year on tests, and
caused the Peach State to drop out of the consortium later that day citing testing costs. Though it
is true that the price point is less than what half of the states in the consortium spend on
assessments, that is little solace for state education leaders who will need to acquire new funding
for tests at a time of constricted state budgets. If cost or politics drives every state to develop its
own test of the standards, there is little reason to believe that students will be held to the same
expectations.
1. Those prices dont include the additional costs of computer-based assessments like upgrades
in hardware, software, and Internet bandwidth.
B. (Center on Education Policy at the George Washington University - Aug. 2013) Of the 40
states surveyed, they all believe the standards are more rigorous and will improve students' skills
in math and English, but few have the necessary staffing levels, staff experience and resources to
provide Common Core training for teachers and principals. A lack of resources and training
material and a continuing drop in state funding for K-12 education in many states, will make it
difficult for other states to train teachers and principals to fully implement the standards. Finding
adequate resources is the main challenge looming over states' efforts to prepare districts, schools,
principals and teachers for the Common Core.
IX. Threatens career and technical education
A. (Rand Corporation - Jun. 19, 2013) The nation clearly seems poised for the adoption of the
Common Core State Standards (CSSC), which is implicitly hostile toward CTE. The CCSS
heavy academic emphasis poses a challenge for schools and districts to design occupationspecific courses that effectively support core competencies in core academic subjects like math.
X. One-size-fits-all approach doesnt meet our needs
A. (Education Week - Apr. 21, 2010) Consider Algebra 2, the study of logarithms, polynomial
functions, and quadratic equations. Although many states want to make the course a requirement
for graduating from high school, there appears to be no need to do so. Northeastern University
sociologist Michael Handel has found that only 9 percent of people in the workforce ever use this
knowledge, and that fewer than 20 percent of managerial, professional, or technical workers
report using any Algebra 2 material. In fact, the National Assessment of Adult Literacy shows that
more than 20 percent of adults (and about 50 percent of minority adults) never learn fractions
well enough to apply them to common tasks. When we fixate on Algebra 2s polynomial

functions, command and depth of knowledge are sacrificed for ill-learned, and quickly forgotten,
breadth.

NEG
Negative Summary:
You

Points:
I. Helps guide future educational development
A. (American Enterprise Institute - Mar. 18, 2014) Common standards will clarify the brave new
world of online and blended learning and the explosion of innovative and useful technology
resources for students. It is of enormous help to developers to have a uniform set of standards to
guide the design of their applications. When I started in education, I taught in Montgomery,
Alabama, a small city in a state with much less access to customized textbooks and resources than
larger and wealthier cities and states. With a common set of standards, the innovations of
developers in Silicon Valley can be downloaded as easily in Alabama as in California. At least in
theory, the greater, nationwide competition among developers should drive down costs and drive
up quality. Lesson-sharing web sites like BetterLesson and Share My Lesson can benefit teachers
from across the country, helping them separate grain from chaff.
II. Common Core leads to better standards
A. (Prof. William Schmidt of Michigan State University - May 2012) Those states with
standards that are closest to the Common Core did better based on national test data from 2009.
It's pretty clear that these standards are world class and very coherent, focused, and rigorous.
III. Common education is good
A. (Thomas Jefferson - 1818) Every student should be taught the skills and knowledge necessary
to transact his own business, improve his morals and faculties, understand his duty to his
neighbors and country, know his rights, vote in an informed manner, and hold elected officials
responsible.
IV. Helps other schools
A. (Wall Street Journal - Jun. 23, 2011) Common standards will allow charter schools, online
providers, and publishers to focus on excelling against a common yardstick, instead of gaming or
negotiating with 50 different state education bureaucracies.
1. Creates a new high-quality market for instructional materials and allows for comparison of
charter schools across state lines.
V. This isnt something we can eliminate
A. (AEI - Apr. 14, 2014) In getting a waiver from the federal No Child Left Behind Act, Indiana
(like other states) promised the Obama administration it would adopt standards that met federal
criteria; align curricula and teaching; select, pilot, and administer new tests aligned to the
standards; and integrate the standards into both school- and teacher-accountability systems. To
avoid losing its waiver, Indiana is rushing to adopt a new set of standards by April 28.
Meanwhile, to avoid raising Washingtons ire, Indianas state board of education is debating
whether to double or triple the amount of standardized testing next year just to cover its bases.
Schools would test once on the old standards, once on the new, and possibly a third time on an
assessment to bridge the two. This would significantly increase both the amount of testing for

kids and the costs of administering exams. The tight timeline and absence of an alternative
proposal mean that those who are crafting Indianas new standards have defaulted to basing them
on the Common Core standards.
VI. Fiscal costs are minuscule
A. (Thomas B. Fordham Institute - May 2012) The authors used three scenarios varying the
adoption rate of electronic textbooks; gross costs ranged from 1.5 to 3 percent of annual K-12
education spending. After considering current outlays for instructional materials, the authors
calculated that CCSS implementation in forty-five states and DC could cost as much as $8.2
billion, or save over $0.9 billion if electronic instruction materials are widely adopted.
VII.
Educational value of Common Core
A. (Thomas B. Fordham Institute - Jul. 2010) gave the Common Core standards a B+ in reading
and an A- in math, ranking them higher than 76 of the 102 reading and math standards in the 50
states and the District of Columbia.
VIII. Repealing lowers standards
A. (AEI - Jul. 15, 2013) Under No Child Left Behind, if a state needed more students to clear a
particular proficiency bar, it had two options. It could either do a better job educating students
and let the students clear the bar themselves, or it could take the easy way out and simply lower
the bar. Unfortunately, many states decided to take the latter option, defining proficiency down
and dumbing down their standards so more students could pass. In response to this, a group of
enterprising governors, including Democrats and Republicans, joined together through the
National Governors Association to develop a common set of standards that all states would agree
to join.
IX. Affirming threatens national security
A. (Council on Foreign Relations report from Joel I. Klein, former head of New York City Public
Schools, and Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of State - Mar. 2012) The lack of
preparedness poses threats on five national security fronts: economic growth and
competitiveness, physical safety, intellectual property, U.S. global awareness, and U.S. unity and
cohesion, says the report. Too many young people are not employable in an increasingly highskilled and global economy, and too many are not qualified to join the military because they are
physically unfit, have criminal records, or have an inadequate level of education. Human capital
will determine power in the current century, and the failure to produce that capital will undermine
America's security. Large, undereducated swaths of the population damage the ability of the
United States to physically defend itself, protect its secure information, conduct diplomacy, and
grow its economy. With the support of the federal government and industry partners, states should
expand the Common Core State Standards, ensuring that students are mastering the skills and
knowledge necessary to safeguard the country's national security.
X. Reflects international model
A. (Council on Foreign Relations - Oct. 10, 2013) The recent adoption of Common Core State
Standards, though controversial, is one example of how the United States has replicated an
international best practice in education. Countries like Finland and Poland, both viewed as
shining examples of how to improve educational outcomes for all with less money, implemented
both common standards and a common curriculum prior to their recent dramatic improvements
on the PISA exam.
B. (Prof. William Schmidt of Michigan State University - May 2012) Schmidt and his colleague
at Michigan State Richard Houang developed a statistical measure of "congruence" among
standards. They compared the common core in several ways to the standards of the highestachieving countries as measured by performance on TIMSS, the Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study. (Drawing from an earlier study from Schmidt, this list includes

Belgium, the Czech Republic, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea.) Basically,
mathematicians developed what is called the "A+ profile," a composite of the standards of those
countries. The new paper concludes that the common core is closely aligned with the A+
standards, with about a 90 percent degree of similarity when it comes to focus and coherence.
Also, the report finds a high degree of consistency in math topic coverage between the A+
standards and the Common Core, a point it uses to make the case that the common standards are
rigorous and implying that they are internationally competitive.
XI. States shouldnt have the power to set their own standards
A. (Secretary of Education Arne Duncan - Dec. 2010) In addition to better funding, another
transformational reform is the voluntary adoption by at least 35 states and the District of
Columbia of the Common Core State Standards, which measure K-12 students' readiness for
college or careers. For the first time in history, rigorous, internationally benchmarked standards
for math and English will be applied to more than three-fourths of all U.S. public-school students.
This will end some states' notorious practice of dumbing down academic standards to make
students who are far from ready to enter college or start a career appear proficient.
XII.
Helpful for economy
A. (Letter from business leaders - Feb. 2013) We believe that the Common Core State Standards
Initiative has produced K-12 standards in the foundational subjects of math and English that meet
the business communitys expectations: they are college- and career-ready, grounded in evidence
and internationally-benchmarked. We, the undersigned companies and organizations, support the
adoption of the Common Core State Standards by the states. The CCSS are an important
opportunity to set consistent, focused, rigorous expectations for all students; a necessary
foundation for making the changes needed to improve student achievement and ensure the United
States educational and economic preeminence.
B. Accenture, Aetna, BAE Systems, Battelle, The Boeing Company, Business Coalition for Student
Achievement, Dell, Eastman Chemical Company, Eastman Kodak Company, GlaxoSmithKline,
IBM, ING, Intel, Microsoft, Qualprint, Rockwell Collins, State Farm Insurance, U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, Verizon Communications, etc.