Organized interests and the Common Core

McDonnell, Lorraine M., & Weatherford, M. Stephen. (2013). Organized interests and the Common Core. Educational Researcher,
42(9), 488-497.


The development, adoption, and implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) has been a historic process in many ways. Whether one is a supporter, an opponent, or “on the fence” about CCSS, the historic aspects surrounding this massive policy initiative cannot be denied. An initiative that promotes national standards goes against the federal government’s historically “hands-off” stance toward education, which was one of those functions left implicitly in the hands of state and local governments. McDonnell and Weatherford describe the political processes that made it possible for the CCSS to take hold of the U.S. educational landscape as well as it has done to date.

The CCSS came about due to the coming together of various kinds of influential groups, some of which had been in opposition to each other in the past. These groups represent a wide range of interests, from the interests of state governors to the interests of teacher groups, to the interests of business owners like Bill Gates (described in this article as a major supporter and funder of the CCSS initiative) just to name a few. McDonnell and Weatherford’s specifying of these groups and the interests that drive their involvement with the CCSS is valuable information for those of us with a stake in educating children, if only to remind us of how the U.S. political system works. It is important to be aware of where policy changes come from, who is supporting them, and how exactly they came about, no matter where one stands on those changes. As an educator, I already had some idea of where the CCSS came from and who was supporting them, but this article gave me a better grounding and reminded me that I always have to keep in mind that with every policy change, there are multiple agendas, and not all of those agendas are solely (or even primarily) about making sure all children have opportunities to become literate citizens. As always when it comes to politics, education is tied up in economic agendas, and ultimately in how resources are distributed. It’s “the American way”. That’s not to say that some good outcomes could not come from policy changes like the CCSS. Nonetheless, it is good to know the sources of policy changes, especially historic ones that are already shaping literacy instruction in schools.

McDonnell and Weatherford’s analysis helped me reflect on the things that make this particular policy change especially noteworthy. As mentioned earlier, it is first and foremost a historic change that reverses traditionally held beliefs in local control of education that were considered inviolable not too long ago. Second, the CCSS initiative is noteworthy in the speed with which it was brought to a place where it is already changing the face of classroom instruction. Educational change has usually been slow. This change has taken place in less than a decade, from start to finish, and it is already shaping the classroom lives of teachers and their students. Is this accelerated change just a part of the way we do things in society now? If the CCSS could have an influence this rapid, could they be just as rapidly replaced by a counteracting kind of policy? What would that mean for teachers, and for school children? Finally, though I was not a supporter of No Child Left Behind, and was initially glad to see that initiative being replaced by almost anything else, I must admit that it worries me that the CCSS seemed to use economic influences to work around the usual processes for making and enforcing laws. The CCSS has never come before voters at any level, and never has been passed by elected legislatures. Along with that, the notion of CCSS as “voluntary” for states seems disingenuous to me, which immediately makes my radar go up. The state adoption process was so rapid, and so closely tied to both the receipt of federal funding as well as waivers from No Child Left Behind that it just doesn’t seem like a truly voluntary thing. You can call them “state standards”, and even have each state devise new names for them, but they are still national standards, and if they are implemented in the majority of states, they will look like national standards, and they will drive education nationwide.

I hope that the CCSS leads to good learning outcomes for children, but what I know about the origin of the initiative makes me skeptical and cautious. These days, that’s probably a good way to view anything that is tied to political processes, not just education. This article is a helpful reminder for all of us with a stake in education.