The Common Core

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.