Once upon a time, the term “grade” in school meant something. Now that term eans nothing but approxi-
mate;age,;since;it;certainly;doesn’t;mean
actual;ability.;Consider;this:;In;a;1990
book;entitled;Why Johnny Can’t Write,
authors Linden and Whimbey note that
according to The Writing Report Card
(from the National Assessment of Educa-
tional;Progress,);seventy-five;percent;of
eleventh grade students have inadequate
ability to do the type of “writing required
for educational advancement or business
and;technical;work.”
If “eleventh grade” meant anything
other than “approximately 16½ years
old,”;it;wouldn’t;be;possible;for;seventy-
five;percent;of;eleventh;grade;students
to have inadequate ability. They would
still be in tenth grade, or ninth grade, or
eighth grade.
Now,;I;don’t;know;a;single;business
owner or university professor who would
argue;that;writing;skills;of;high;school
graduates;have;improved;since;1990.;If
anything, it’s worse now—twenty-four
years later—with parallel declines in
reading and math competencies.
Why? Given the amount of atten-
tion, funding, and effort expended, this
doesn’t make sense. In 1975, the Col-
lege;Board;decried;the;decline;of;SAT
scores. 1 In 1983, the National Com-
mission on Excellence in Education
called for higher standards for teachers
and students, along with a core cur-
riculum, 2 which prompted President
Bush;in;1990;to;set;national;goals;for
“excellence;in;education.” 3 Congress at-
tempted to mandate standards with the
“Goals;2000:;Educate;America;Act”;in
1994.4 States cooperated, issuing grade-
level standards, then “revised” stan-
dards, then “improved” standards—all
of;it;so;effective;that;in;2002,;the;second
President;Bush;signed;into;law;the;“No
Child;Left;Behind;(NCLB);Act”;which
required student assessments for all
schools receiving federal funds. 5;NCLB
was based on the premise that setting
high standards and creating measurable
goals would improve individual out-
comes.;Within;five;years,;however,;this
mandate;had;earned;a;nickname:;“No
Child;Gets;Ahead.”;During;the;follow-
ing decade, the SAT was re-normed,
state standards re-revised; US student
skills;continued;to;decline;compared;to
other developed nations, and the lofty
language of the Goals 2000 Act grew
more and more unachievable.
Currently we see the newest iteration
of a failed idea: the “Common Core State
Standards;Initiative.” 6 Regardless of what
you;think;about;the;idea;politically,;it;too
will;fail.;Why?;It’s;because;the;term;“stan-
dards”;has;become;a;self-contradictory
term.;If;the;so-called;“educrats”;were;to-
tally honest, they would use the term
“dreams”;or;“hopes”;or;even;“wishes”;to
label their programs, but they cannot be
called;“standards”;unless;there;are;some
consequences for not meeting those sup-
posed;standards.;But;there;are;not.
Standards typically use verbiage such
as: “Students will, by the end of the year
be;able;to;.;.;.”;However,;the;new;Common
www.TheOldSchoolhouse.com
What About Common Core?
Academic;“Standards”
An Oxymoron of Modern Education
Academic standards initiatives . . . cannot really accomplish anything
By;Andrew;Pudewa
