Sign Up For Our Newsletter

Over the past couple of years, the Common Core debate has taken up much of the space devoted to education both in the media and public life. In contributing to the far-reaching conversation, a host of policymakers, elected officials, and concerned citizens have voiced their opinions on what Common Core is, what it isn’t, and whether or not it’s a good idea.

Despite Common Core being such a high profile issue, the Common Core debate has actually distracted the American public from an honest examination into setting rigorous expectations for students.

To remedy this, the Fordham Institute’s Mike Petrilli and CATO’s Neal McCluskey, a Common Core supporter and opponent respectively, lay out the facts as well as the origins and evolution behind the federal government’s role in education.

Similar to the Fordham-hosted discussion on legal challenges against harmful teacher employment policies, this commentary takes care to lay out background and context as a precursor to actual debate.

One facet of this discussion that has received CER’s attention is the ongoing attempts by the federal government to measure the right amount of carrot and stick in the disbursement of funds to state and local sources. The arrival of No Child Left Behind in 2002 not only demanded a quantifiable return on investment but also established the federal government as a repository of student achievement data, creating never-before-seen snapshots of how kids are doing on a national level. Needless to say, the stagnant proficiency rates on NAEP continue to be eye opening and serve as a catalyst for change.

If the NCLB waiver saga and pushes by members of Congress to facilitate choice and charter schools are any judge, the federal government is still grappling with what its proper role is in improving schools.

In response, here we are in 2014, looking at all the ways to set a high bar for students and improve achievement that addresses not only America’s education crisis but appreciates the urgency with which this crisis must be resolved. For some, Common Core is part of this solution.

In no way does this settle the debate on Common Core or any proposed delivery method of high expectations, for that matter. Rather, dialing down the rhetoric allows an all-encompassing dialogue on improving education that includes high expectations, educational choice, and accountability to parents and students.

By laying out basic facts surrounding the Common Core, Petrilli and McCluskey, rightly transition from a misinformed debate to a thoughtful one.