Professional Documents
Culture Documents
English 1010-050
Jim Beatty
December 9, 2015
The governing body of the Common Core State Standards claims that the initiative
focusses on developing the critical-thinking, problem-solving, and analytical skills students will
need to be successful, and that the new standards provide a way for teachers to measure student
performance throughout the school year and ensure that students are progressing successfully
toward their academic careers.
However, as always what is tested is what is being taught and students are, above all else,
being taught to take tests. In the context of this standardized testing, high-order thinking skills
are specific skills supporting the testing format, including rote memorization, as opposed to
analysis and critical thinking. Marcia Clemmitt reviews this in her report Teaching Critical
Thinking: Should schools do more to foster analytical skills?, and claims that in depth analytical
and critical thinking involves investigating a text or concept. It goes beyond decoding and
comprehension, to challenging ideas, constructing pertinent arguments and examining
influences (392). It clearly follows that, although memorization and test-taking skills are useful
and even necessary, they do not facilitate the process itself of deep examination, analysis and
interpretation of complex concepts and arguments, all of which constitute critical thinking.
Proponents of Standardization
In her article, How and Why Standards can Improve Student Achievement: A
Conversation with Robert J. Marzono, Marge Scherer presents an argument for implementing
standards in education, while at the same time admitting the challenges. Marzano, a highly
respected educator and vocal proponent of standards, claims that the mandate for standards in
teaching and testing results from the need for more frequent feedback regarding student progress
because of concerns regarding performance. This information comes directly from the classroom
in the form of assessment and reporting, and is seen by proponents as an easily obtained and
monitored feedback mechanism. At the same time, Marzano admits the process of identifying
standards has been clumsy, and their implementation difficult. Additionally, in spite of claims by
policymakers that they are not telling teachers how they should teach, some have gone so far as
to strongly recommend a repertoire of instructional strategies to increase student learning, and
even prescribe specific classroom practices they feel generally increase achievement. (Scherer)
Taken together, these initiatives boil down to a call for standardization in teaching itself.
Such standardization of the teaching process will thwart creative teaching strategies which are
crucial to effectively respond and react to student readiness and comprehension, engender
curiosity, in-depth examination and critical thinking in the classroom, and will directly result in a
compromised quality of teaching. Once again, although standards have a definite application in
teaching and assessment, the overuse of either standards or standardization in education will
hinder innovative, thought-provoking teaching approaches.
requirements, and monitor student comprehension, giving feedback to both students and teachers
regarding how the learning is progressing. However, the definition of standardization is to
change (things) so that they are similar and consistent and agree with rules about what is proper
and acceptable, and one synonym for standardization is uniformity. Thus, standardization,
by definition, calls for uniformity in teaching, and it is arguable whether this initiative will allow
schools to foster critical-thinking skills or will constrain teaching by forcing reliance on
standardized tests as a way to measure education quality and success. (Clemmitt) It has in fact
become apparent, that an initiative which enforces standardization in teaching and assessing will
precipitate uniformity and squelch diversity in teaching.
Although standards in teaching are valuable tools, robust and stimulating teaching and
learning is not achieved by simply meeting objective standards, but by the interactions in the
classroom between the teachers and students - a process which is as individual as the people
involved. A teacher can set up a classroom which stimulates the students curiosity and captures
their interest, and a student who is enthusiastic about the content at hand will be genuinely more
interested in learning, and will actually learn more than one who feels he or she is simply
fulfilling predetermined requirements. (Brooks)
The Common Core Initiative has provided educators across the country with a common
language - standards, which can serve as a basis for evaluating content and minimum
requirements. However, effective education and standardization are antithetical to each other.
Educators should be supported in pursuing and employing innovative teaching approaches
always in response to the comprehension and readiness of their students, empowering and
enabling students to examine and evaluate ideas, events and arguments in their contexts. This
style of creative, responsive and diverse teaching, rather than repeated testing, will enable
educators to truly cultivate critical thinking in their classrooms.
Work Cited
Brooks, Jacqueline Grennon and Mary E. Dietz. The Dangers and Opportunities of the
Common Core. Educational Leadership. 70.4. (Dec 2012/Jan 2013): p. 64-67.
Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 Nov. 2015.
Development Process. Common Core Standards Initiative. 2015. Web. 4 November 2015.
Scherer, Marge. How and Why Standards Can Improve Student Achievement: A Conversation
with Robert J. Marzono. Educational Leadership. 59.1 (2001): 14-18. Academic Search
Premier. Web. 17 November 2015.