It’s too soon to guess TIME Magazine’s person of the year, but a clear favorite has emerged for Common Core person of the year: the man, woman, or group that has done the most to advance the adoption and implementation of Common Core State Standards in the U.S.
Ladies and gentleman, for meritorious service to further the cause of rigorous academic standards and educational excellence, please put your hands together for the governor of the great state of Louisiana, Common Core Man of the Year, Bobby Jindal!”
Jindal, as I’m sure you know, is suing the federal government over Common Core. And for this, he deserves enthusiastic cheers and undying gratitude from supporters of the Common Core State Standards. He has thrown into profound jeopardy the most effective talking point that their opponents have: that the feds forced national standards down the states’ throats and that Uncle Sam is illegally dictating what schools will teach. If this were true, any number of states, districts, or other stakeholders would have been in court ages ago. But they haven’t. The blunt fact of the matter is that this is powerful rhetoric atop an extremely weak legal case—like posting a “beware of dog” sign on your home when you own a beagle puppy.
Jindal’s suit alleges that the Department of Education forced adoption of Common Core through its Race to the Top program, which “required” states to “enter binding agreements to adopt and fully implement a single set of federally defined content standards and to utilize assessment products created by a federally sponsored ‘consortia.’”
The truth, of course, is that no state was forced to apply for RTTT funding (Louisiana did, won, and received $17.4 million). Fifteen states, insufficiently intimidated perhaps, skipped one of two main application rounds; four more didn’t apply at all. In all, nineteen states eschewed some part of the program, while a mere eighteen states plus the District of Columbia received RTTT dollars. Moreover, these federal aid-to-state programs, which condition federal subsidies on specific state actions, are legion—numbering a whopping 1,122 in 2010 alone. There is nothing particularly new, novel, or legally adventurous about any of this.
What’s in it for Bobby Jindal is clear enough. His about-face on Common Core has won him attaboys from the tea party, home of some of the most virulent anti-CCSS sentiment. Perhaps you heard that Jindal might be considering a run for the Oval Office in 2016?
But what’s good for Jindal is not good at all for his fellow Common Core opponents. And even they acknowledge that this suit will have little chance in court.
“The chances of prevailing are middling, at best,” blogs the Cato Institute’s Neal McCluskey. “The courts in the past have been pretty lenient in cases in which Washington gets states to do its bidding in exchange for funding when the feds don’t have authority in the Constitution to do something.” McCluskey notes that the Jindal suit hinges largely on federal action “that doesn’t state outright that the Core must be adopted.”
Writing at The Federalist, Joy Pullman says “it’s about time someone with power and cojones took a stand,” while offering no opinion whatsoever on the likely outcome—but of course taking the opportunity to note yet again (cue the applause) that “federal laws explicitly prohibit the national government from directing, supervising, or controlling curriculum and instruction.”
Common Core, of course, does none of that. It doesn’t direct, supervise, or control anything, nor does the federal government direct, supervise, or control it. And about the last thing Common Core opponents should be seeking right now is a court decision saying so.
A mere 15 percent of Americans polled in the recent PDK/Gallup survey believe that “the federal government should have the greatest influence on what schools teach.” Nearly twice as many say it should be the states; nearly four times that number say it should be their local school board. That’s a rout. When the court decides, as it almost certainly has to that, no, in fact, no one forced Louisiana or any other state to adopt Common Core, the most effective anti-Common Core argument goes, “Poof!”
Common Core has been taking a beating in the court of public opinion. So why overplay your hand and take it to an actual, real court? I have no idea.
Ask Bobby Jindal, the 2014 Common Core Man of the Year.
This first appeared on the Fordham Institute’s Common Core Watch blog.
Boston’s successful charter schools appear to be able to get students to know more stuff but do not improve their ability to think quickly, keep things in memory, or solve new problems.
The term “competency-based” often describes a wide range of classroom practices, but schools that call themselves competency-based may not subscribe to all such practices.
I was part of a team of 14 teachers from across New York City that put the typical rhetoric aside and paired our collective experience with the existing body of research about standardized assessment to create a series of recommendations.
The California Charter Schools Association just released our 4th annual Portrait of the Movement report which covers what has happened in California’s charter school movement over the past five years, why it happened, and what can be done to ensure continued growth and momentum.
A new Pew report finds that using social media like Twitter and Facebook makes people less likely to express views that differ from those of their friends.
As interest has grown in the idea of requiring police officers to wear video cameras, Slate’s Reihan Salam wonders why we don’t also ask teachers to wear them.
Secretary Duncan’s reflective take on testing can delay, but cannot resolve, the reckoning that seems to be at hand.
On Monday, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a new policy statement saying that “insufficient sleep in adolescents [is] an important public health issue that significantly affects the health and safety, as well as the academic success, of our nation’s middle and high school students.”
We are witnessing a particularly exciting breed of edtech that focuses on relationships and networks as much as academic content and assessment.
Posts by Authors
- Achieve, Inc.
- Alliance for Excellent Education
- Alliance for School Choice
- American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence
- American Institutes For Research
- American Legislative Exchange Council
- Annie E. Casey Foundation
- Aspen Institute
- Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
- Broad Foundation
- Brookings Institution
- Building Excellent Schools
- Center for American Progress
- Center for Education Reform
- Center for Educational Achievement
- Center on Reinventing Public Education
- Citizens Commission On Civil Rights
- Common Core
- Consortium for Policy Research in Education
- Core Knowledge Foundation
- Data Quality Campaign
- Democrats for Education Reform
- Education Sector
- Education Trust
- Foundation for Excellence in Education
- Friedman Foundation
- Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media
- National Alliance for Public Charter Schools
- National Association of Charter School Authorizers
- National Charter School Research Project
- National Council on Teacher Quality
- National Education Writers Association
- National Governors Association
- National Institute for Excellence in Teaching
- New Leaders for New Schools
- New Schools Venture Fund
- Program on Education Policy and Governance
- Progressive Policy Institute
- Public Impact
- Teach for America
- The New Teacher Project
- Thomas B. Fordham Institute
- United States Department of Education
About the Blog
The Ed Next blog aims to provide lively commentary on education news and research and to bring evidence to bear on current education policy debates.
Our bloggers include editors at Education Next magazine and others who have written for the magazine. Education Next is a quarterly journal of opinion and research about education policy published by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and additionally sponsored by the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University and the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
The opinions expressed by the Ed Next bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of Educationnext.org, Education Next magazine, or its sponsors. Educationnext.org is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by the bloggers.