Thanks for posting this. I've worked in the development of education funding policy for the last 25+ years (background in tax/public finance policy) and, as a result, have been exposed to a lot of the standards discussion that has been taking place since the Clinton administration launched Goals 2000 in the early 1990s. I've learned quite a bit through intellectual osmosis. The irony here is that the development of the Common Core has largely come from the business community, which has long been concerned about the what a diploma means.
Minnesota tried to implement some standards that would have promoted more applied learning to accompany traditional academic subject matter, but our old friend Congresswoman Bachmann (then a State Senator) along with a set of cultural conservatives, derailed that effort by depicting it as the "failed Soviet system" of education. The cultural conservatives were joined in an odd coalition by disgruntled teachers--mostly from academic subject areas--who were somewhat threatened by the standards and contended that the standards would drive the curriculum, which would in turn drive the teaching methods and the last thing one ever wants to do is get between a teacher and their pedagogical training (at least that's what I learned).
The same dynamic is going on with the Common Core standards, which are solely academic. There's concern that it will lead to a national curriculum, which is anathema to a lot of folks along the ideological spectrum. The reasons for the opposition are strikingly different from group to group, but it will be interesting to see if there is a coalescence among these seemingly incompatible groups. The big thing for cultural conservatives couldn't have been summed up better than with the inane comments provided by Elisabeth Hasselback. Lincoln was largely unchurched, but clearly thought about religion a lot. I don't know if that is "liberal" religion or not (and given the charged nature of the word "liberal," perhaps it is best avoided, but if that is the case then so should the word "conservative" unless it is being used in the classical sense), but cultural conservatives tend to want to "religionize" the American story. Folks don't tend to fight about math standards, language arts standards (except for the whole word vs. phonics debate), or science standards (except for the debate around evolution vs. intelligent design), but everybody goes hog wild in the debate over social studies standards. Witness the Texas textbook debate.
I don't know if our American education system is truly struggling. I think the problem is one where the skills of students are not being matched with new economic realities. The Europeans do a much better job of preparing kids for the reality involved in their next life step, whether that be higher education, technical education, or heading straight into the workforce. Of course, the Europeans have a much more developed sense of social/economic class than what exists in the United States and as a result the Europeans are much more regimented in the delivery of high school curriculum. Kids take a test in 7th or 8th grade and then are directed to a curricular track depending on their test score. That would never fly in the United States. There are some encouraging signs in the United States that aims to address this problem. Time magazine had a cover story a couple of months back about a six-year high school program that would give kids a diploma and ISO certificate or Associate of Arts degree when they finish. Tennessee's newly-minted Drive to 55 program is also in this vein.
There has been a huge demographic shift in the United States over the past 50 years and education clearly hasn't recognized that change. Standards have been increased and the kids I see graduating today have been exposed to a lot of academic content in high school that I didn't see until college. Of course, I went to a medium-size rural school in the 1960s. But what happened when I was growing up is that there was a local economy that could absorb non-college bound youth and get them into jobs (many related to the small-scale agricultural economy when someone could make a decent living with a dairy herd of 40 head and 120 acres under till) with which they could not only support themselves, but grow into leading roles in the community. With the collapse of these smaller sub-regional economies, there has been greater stress on the education system to create a product that is portable and can be successfully applied in an economy that is less bound by geography. I think the Common Core has been developed to create a notion of consistency that translates in the new economy. Whether it would or not is anyone's guess.
We spend a lot of money on education and much of it is ill-spent because we continue to stress that college is for everybody. I don't want to make that comment sound as though I'm saying "some kids are too stupid for college and we should throw them on the scrap heap." I'm saying the problem in the American education system is that students are not availed of the broad range of opportunities that exist and the ways to prepare for those opportunities. We continue to treat kids like widgets and grade the delivery system on measures that are incongruous.
I did mention the Common Core a month or so ago in response to a comment you made about Jeb Bush being a possible contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. His support of the Common Core is certainly going to be a hurdle for him if he pursues the nomination and if he is derailed because of his support for the Common Core, it will say a lot about who is running the Republican party. Bush is a decent guy with strong moderate, consensus-building credentials. Those qualities may not fly with the portion of the conservative base that believes the Common Core is out to indoctrinate the youth of America.
