Making the Common Core Not So Common: A
Directive for Literacy Leaders
By
Dr. Alfred W. Tatum
University of Illinois at Chicago
The dissenting voices
against the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are beginning to grow before the
full implementation of the standards. There is a call for states to abandon the
standards and the associated assessments. Heeding the call, the state of Alabama
is withdrawing from two testing consortia aligned with the standards, PARCC and
Smarter Balanced. Legislation was introduced in Indiana to drop the standards.
Two major arguments are
surfacing from democratic and republican leadership. One, the standards are
creating a pipeline for private industry to access taxpayers dollars. Two, the
common core is laying the foundation for a national curriculum. Other arguments
include the financial costs states will incur to implement the standards and
the lost of local control for designing curriculum. Still, many from the 46 states who have
adopted the CCSS agree with the National Governors Association and the Council of
Chief of State School Officers that higher standards are needed to prepare
students for college and careers. Despite
the opposition, states are gearing up for the assessment of their students
beginning in the 2014-2015 school year.
While others engage in
hot political and economic debates about the CCSS, it is important for leaders of
the education of African American and Latino boys to ask two fundamental
questions:
1. Will the CCSS yield
the promise for African American and Latino boys that reshapes the trend for
college and career readiness to be on par with the best young minds in the
nation?
2. Or, will the CCSS
serve as a metaphorical noose that hangs young African American and Latino boys
from data sheets until the next best reform effort comes along?
I offer these questions
because they are not raised in the larger debates about the CCSS, and the
voices of African American and Latino leaders were noticeably absent in the
development and push for CCSS. I anticipate many states will opt out the
standards within 5 to 7 years because many of their students will fail to meet
the standards and they will be penalized as a result. Following groundswell
adoption by many school districts throughout the U.S., reform efforts have a
way of leading to educational carnage before being ditched. There is precedent
for this with the No Child Left Behind legislation that was designed to yield
educational parity. Similarly, two years ago everyone was on the Response to
Intervention (RTI) bandwagon that is being squeezed out in favor of the current
reform mandate because the promise of RTI did not manifest.
After 45 years of reading
reform legislation and initiatives, many colleges and universities are
experiencing their lowest enrollments of African American and Latino males.
Reforms efforts without a strong conceptualization and committed leadership to
move beyond the narrow aims of these efforts will not reverse the trend of
underperformance among many African American and Latino boys or push our best
minds to higher heights. Essentially, we are underserving boys at both ends of
the academic spectrum, that is, our high performing and low performing
students. It must be clear that the CCSS are a proposed lever of change that
ignores the depth of the needs of many young African American and Latino boys. As
I have offered elsewhere (Tatum, 2013), the absence of sanctioned standards is
not the root cause of the reading and writing outcomes for African American and
Latino boys. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the implementation of the
CCSS will be at the epicenter of their academic success.
Our boys need a common
core that is not so common. The call to read fiction and nonfiction as a
pathway to social and economic parity and as a pathway to manhood was the
resounding call among people of color, African American males in particular,
almost two hundred years ago. A demarcation between reading fiction and
nonfiction did not exist until modern-day school leaders authorized reading less
nonfiction and easier, leveled texts to the detriment of many students.
Historically, the focus on reading was driven by reading the best texts
available, texts that stimulated intellectual development and shaped pathways
for progress and human liberty. For example, Frederick Douglass’ life was
forever changed after he read The
Columbian Orator. My life was forever changed after reading Dick Gregory’s Nigger. Many of our students are not
encountering life-altering texts, texts that restore their confidence in
reading and writing as tools of protection, human development, and identity
formation. This will continue with CCSS if we are not careful. Again, our
common core has to be not so common.
What will make the common
core not so common? I share the following for literacy leaders to consider.
1. While the CCSS call for
increasing complexity in what students read, leaders of African American and
Latino boys must do it in a way to build agendas to improve and enhance the
condition of African American and Latino communities.
2. While the Common Core State
Standards call for including rigorous content and application of knowledge
through high-order skills, leaders of African American and Latino boys must do
it in a way that allows boys to make meaning of their identities.
3. While the CCSS call for
writing logical arguments based on substantive claims, sound reasoning, and
relevant evidence, leaders of African American and Latino boys must do it in a
way that produces texts that allow boys to define their lives and define their
times. (See aaamsli5.blogspot.com)
4. While the CCSS call for
growing students’ vocabularies through a mix of conversations, direct
instruction, and reading, leaders of African American and Latino boys must do
it in a way that charges boys to use language to reclaim authority over their
lives and counter threatening circumstances.
5. While CCSS call for
having academic discussions and being able to deliver formal presentations in a
variety of contexts, leaders of African American and Latino boys must cultivate
speakers and thinkers who share knowledge and promote ideas en route to a literate
way of life.
Many of
you reading this post learned and prospered without the presence of the CCSS.
This suggests that they are not absolutely necessary for our students’ personal
growth and intellectual development. However, we had teachers and leaders who
moved beyond the common toward
something extraordinary and worthwhile – something that was not so common. Although I embrace the
CCSS, I advocate for a Common Core (+). Leaders who accept this premise will do
well by our young males. Those who do not should prepare to pull out the ropes
because you will hang our young males from data sheets when it is your
protection they need.
Tatum,
A.W. (2013). Common core state standards: Structuring and protecting
equitable pathways for African American boys. In
S. Neuman & L. Gambrell (Eds.), Quality
reading instruction in the age of common core state standards (pp. 75-89).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
