Math Common Core:

An Essential Asset or A Drastic Mistake?

Lekha Tantry
15 January 2016

In March of this past year, hundreds of students walked out of classrooms in New
Mexico, protesting the new assessments that have been implemented with the new Common
Core standards, specifically, the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and
Careers (PARCC) test. Hundreds of students from Albuquerque High School and Highland High
School collectively participated in a group walkout, chanting with signs. Students advocated that
the tests were simply taking away from their overall education, and instead focusing on
preparing for these bounty of tests. Signs read More teaching, less testing, and Out the door
with Common Core (Frustrated Students Walk out over New Common Core Testing). Across
the country, similar events are occurring, with backlash aimed at the new standards of the
Common Core. The two words bring a negative connotation to mind almost instantly, as the
news is filled with teachers, students, and parents exasperated by the convoluted way of teaching
and the focus on testing rather than education. However, are we too quick to judge? The
Common Core, or the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSS), headed by the Council
of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices,
is a set of standards created in an attempt to outline what a student should know and be able to
do at the end of each grade in order to ensure that students are prepared for success in college
and later, in their careers (Common Core State Standards Initiative). These standards
supposedly use the best standards from states across the country and around the world to create
an outline of what students should be prepared to do when they graduate. After these standards
were outlined, states adopted them, setting the boundaries for what and how a teacher should
implement these standards.
It is known that the American education system is lacking when compared with other
countries in subjects such as Mathematics. Therefore, the CCSS has been implemented in order

to increase the expectations and allow students to be more prepared when facing the outside
world. However, is this the reality? After the implementation process took place, numerous
schools discovered that indeed it was not. Its timing was too hasty and its implementation was
ineffective. Although the purpose of the Common Core, specifically the Mathematics Standards,
seems to be a valuable one, its timing and implementation deem it as an ineffective change in our
education system.
The Common Core Mathematics Standards are said to build on the best of high-quality
math standards from states across the country and around the globe. The main idea of these
standards is to make certain that students learn the conceptual understanding of the ideas and
algorithms that they learn (Common Core State Standards Initiative"). They must understand
the reasoning behind a mathematical statement or rule and be aware of how this is derived. In
traditional schooling, the algorithm to solve a problem is introduced first, and the explanation is
taught later on, once this algorithm is fully understood. However, with these standards, this order
is flipped. The explanation is taught first in order to allow students to derive this algorithm and
understand where this algorithm comes from. In this way, students in the Unites States can keep
up with students from other countries who have [a] much better understanding of the concepts
in math that [American] kids do by teaching them how to think like a mathematician (Amos).
Testing is done in order to raise academic performance of all students and hold schools and
students responsible for attaining [the standards] (Schiller 299). Theoretically, this seems as
though it would be beneficial for students, allowing them to gain a better understanding of the
concepts of mathematics and concurrently allowing schools to be held accountable for the
success of their students. Practically, however, a different story can be told. This year, I have had
the opportunity to intern in a 7th grade Math Common Core classroom, and have seen this

implementation process and its struggles first-hand, most having to do with the timing and the
ineffective implementation of these standards.
The first draft of the standards for mathematics specifically was displayed on March 10,
2010, with a public comment period from this date to April 2, 2010. Although the National
Council for Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) first raised concerns about the progressions
being overambitious and beyond the bounds of what is known from research, the NCTM later
endorsed the final standards when released in June of 2010, even though no changes seemed to
be made at this time. This in and of itself shows the lack of input from school-based
practitioners, in the extremely quick time that the standards were developed. In one year, these
standards were created and established, raising concerns as to the development, content, and
information stacked within five hundred pages of documents. No field testing took place to test
the effects of these standards, posing high-risk consequences for the entire nation if all does not
go well. In just one year, the standards were established and implemented across the nation,
rushing too quickly to put these experiential standards on students without fully understanding
the consequences. It is extremely dangerous to forcefully implement these standards without
proper testing, for these over-ambitiously created standards risk the chance of younger students
lacking the solid, base foundation of math skills (Main 73-77).
When the standards were first proposed at the national level, allowing states to decide
whether or not they wanted to adopt these standards in their education systems, it was essentially
a mad dash for federal cash. Within two months of the release, 28 states had already adopted
these standards. States were in a hurry, without considering the content of the standards nor any
plan to implement these standards into their respective education systems. It was simply a
competition between the states, instigated by the Department of Educations Race to the Top

program. Furthermore, adopting these new standards brought on the baggage of more testing as
well, impacting the school and teacher evaluation system. Although test taking has begun to
bring about a negative connotation in our ears, Dr. Morgan Polikoff from USC recently argued
that research upholds that standards-based accountability has improved American education
over the past two decades. However, this hasty implementation of the Common Core into these
school and teacher accountability systems poses the risk of destabilizing them (McShane).
Overall, states inability to first have a clear plan as to how their education systems would
transition from the standards they had been using to these new standards in their rush for federal
money is one of the main issues and concerns raised when discussing the timing of the Common
Cores implementation.
The implementation itself of the Common Core was also handled in an inefficient way,
due to its confusing and lacking standards that kept teachers from having their own freedom to
teach in their own styles. The wording of the standards proved to be confusing, with lofty
implementation goals that went against the Common Cores purpose of having a lesser amount of
clear standards (Main 73). Numerous books have been published, such as the Pathways to the
Common Core by Lucy Calkins, Mary Ehrenworth, and Christopher Lehman, in order to better
understand and decipher the meaning behind the standards. These such books are written in order
to illuminate both the standards themselves and the pathways [educators] can take to achieve
those ambitious expectations. (Calkins, Ehrenworth, Lehman 1). The fact that there is a need for
such books to be written is a signal of the fallacies that take place in the proper implementation
of the standards. This need demonstrates a need for a change in the standards. Furthermore,
going back to the Common Cores main reason for implementing these standards as preparing
students for college and eventually, the workplace, these standards prove to be unreliable in this

proposed feat. A student who does well on the Common Core assessments will not necessarily be
completely ready for success in college or in their future career. It is quite dangerous to say that
students who ace these tests will, without a doubt, be guaranteed successful people. Being ready
for college and career is a multidimensional construct of which this content knowledge is only
one aspect. The other factors are not addressed by the Common Core standards and [] in all
likelihood will not be assessed by the common assessments currently under development, such as
the PARCC. These other factors include cognitive strategies, learning skills and techniques when
a student comes across challenging material, and specific knowledge and skills students need to
make a successful transition from high school to postsecondary education (Conley 99). All of
these factors join together to form the multi-dimensional knowledge students will need to carry
with them on to college.
The Common Core also inhibits the creativity and diversity of teachers and their teaching
styles. Kindergarten teachers, specifically, rely on hands-on, fun activities to teach children and
activate their brains, providing them with the essential stimulation during playtime to grow as
healthy human beings. However, with these new tests and implementations, there is no more
time for playtime, and more of an importance put on teacher-centric activity. At the expense of
hands-on, playful learning, the standards put an increased emphasis on didactic forms of
literacy and math instruction. Although testing does not start until third grade, teachers have an
increased pressure to have their students ready for these tests, forced to cover a large amount of
material and, in the process, losing the activities and investing more time and money into this
type of content. This pressure throughout the school years puts more pressure on the teachers,
especially those in disadvantaged schools, to meet the rigor of the standards, resulting in teachers
becoming more and more wary of experimentation with other methods that could probably be

more beneficial for the students (Bowdon 33-35). Any kind of national standardization of the
education can result in the risk of undermining the ability for the American education to produce
creative and diverse talents, with a group of diverse and creative citizenry. According to Yang
Zhao, the issue of the American education is a highly complex one, involving psychological and
social issues as well, and cannot be solved with this over-simplification of a supposed solution
mixed in with the pursuit of political convenience (46).
Additionally, different students learn in different ways. Some students are hands-on,
whole others are more auditory. Some students like a faster-paced class while others find this
type of class hard to catch up to. It is the job of the teacher to adhere to every students need and
allow them to prosper and learn as they are most accustomed to. However, with these standards,
teachers are forced to cover a certain amount of material in a certain amount of time in order to
have students succeed on the standardized tests. This puts all of these students in a rigid,
inflexible, one-size-fits-all box that will only result in harm in the long term. Teachers who
are well qualified and bring years of experience to the classroom are now handicapped from
using their skills to their best advantage. They are expected to simply procure measurable
results that will determine whether or not they still have a job. In this ruthless quest for
conformity, freedom and the inspiration to be creative is lost (Kibbe).
As an intern at Burleigh Manor Middle School in a 7th grade Math Common Core
classroom, I chose my project to be constructing lesson plans and teaching an entire unit, lasting
two months. When I began, I tried to decipher the standards to the best of my ability, but felt
defeated by the convoluted string of words, unclear as to what I was supposed to be teaching.
Only after my mentor was able to advise me and decipher all of the standards, was I able to
understand the different concepts I would need to go over in order to cover the entire unit. From

this experience, I have seen first-hand the difficulties teachers must have trying to decipher and
figure out what they are to cover according to the standards. My next step was creating my
lesson plans. Originally, I had planned fun-filled activities for the students to complete. However,
seeing the amount of content I would need to cover in a span of a little over 34 school days, I
was afraid of wasting time and instead stuck to simple lesson plans with a few activities
sporadically. Any experimental activity I tried had the risk of failing, losing one more day of
lessons. I was afraid of losing precious time, and instead planned most of my lessons around
notes and a couple of activities. This further illuminates the glaring issue of the implementation
of the Common Core.
It is quite obvious that the Common Core, although proposed with good intentions, must
be recalled and worked on more in order for it to be a successful initiative. Its quick timeline and
lacking structure both justify this. In order to alleviate the problems that occurred during its
current implementation, many changes must occur. Laura Fricke Main suggests that these
standards be used as merely an assistance tool for the states as a way of improving the
curriculum and professional development, rather than mandating it for schools, as it is
concurrently subjected to extensive validation, trials, and revisions before being reimplemented (76). The standards themselves must also be altered to fit the practical uses of this
countrys education system. In order to reflect the wants and needs of actual educators, these
individuals must be used in order to create the standards in a way that is beneficial and useful for
real teachers who are being forced to use it. Only another teacher can understand everything that
encompasses being in such a position and will be able to contribute valid insight into the process.
Furthermore, a critical aspect that must be changed in the general education system that can be
implemented with crucial changes to the standards, is the heightened importance on making

education about learning for ones life rather than learning for the standardized test. This defeats
the purpose of education and leads students to become disinterested in education altogether.
Education is not a business, and must not be run like one. It is essential that these prime ideals
are changed, for education is a vital part of our society. School education is the enlightening of
the next generation. If we fail at properly educating the next generation, how will the country
continue? Although the standards will not solve every problem in this education system, a
process this large and this substantial must not be recklessly implemented, as it was this time
around, and must be reevaluated with time, effort, and less of an emphasis on the financial aspect
and more of an emphasis on making the standards the best for students in the current generation.
It is essential that we properly educate and inspire students of the next generation to become
thinkers and creators, rather than automated machines that are good test takers. We must build a
country of, as we so often say, innovators, who will bring the country forward, and major
standards in the education system must reflect these ideals.

Works Cited
Amos, Denise Smith. "Duval Parents Stumped by Elementary Math Blame Common Core
Standards, New Curriculum." Jacksonville.com. The Florida Times Union, 20 Oct. 2015. Print.
21 Oct. 2015.
Bowdon, Jill. "The Common Core's First Casualty: Playful Learning." Phi Delta Kappan 96.8
(2015): 33-37. Print. 24 Oct. 2015
Calkins, Lucy, Mary Ehrenworth, and Christopher Lehman. Pathways to the Common Core:
Accelerating Achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2012. Print. 21 Oct 2015.
"Common Core State Standards Initiative." Core Standards. Common Core State Standards
Initiative, n.d. Web. 7 Oct. 2015. <http://www.corestandards.org/>.
Conley, David T., Kathryn V. Drummond, Alicia De Gonzalez, Jennifer Roosebom, and Odile
Stout. "Reaching the Goal: The Applicability and Importance of the Common Core State
Standards to College and Career Readiness." ERIC. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2011.
Print. 20 Oct. 2015.
"Frustrated Students Walk out over New Common Core Testing. Fox News."Fox News. FOX News
Network, 02 Mar. 2015. Web. 10 Jan. 2016.
Kibbe, Matt. "Debate Club: Attempts to Standardize Education Are Doomed to Fail." US News.
U.S.News & World Report, 27 Feb. 2014. Web. 01 Jan. 2016.
Main, Laura Fricke. "Too Much Too Soon? Common Core Math Standards in the Early
Years." Early Childhood Education Journal Early Childhood Educ J 40.2 (2011): 73-77.
Print. 19 Oct. 2015.
McShane, Mike. Debate Club: Common Core Causes Collateral Damage. US News. U.S.News &
World Report, 27 Feb. 2014. Web. 01 Jan. 2016.
Schiller, K. S., and C. Muller. "Raising the Bar and Equity? Effects of State High School
Graduation Requirements and Accountability Policies on Students' Mathematics Course
Taking." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 25.3 (2003): 299-318. Print. 14 Oct. 2015.
Zhao, Yong, PhD. "Comments on the Common Core Standards Initiative." Journal of
Scholarship and Practice 6.3 (2009): 46-52. Print. 16 Oct. 2015.