A CRT Critique 1

Running head: A CRT CRITIQUE OF THE COMMON CORE

A CRT Critique of the Common Core

A case study for Critique: “The Common Core State Standards: Insight into their

development and purpose”

Ceilon Aspensen

Montana State University

A CRT Critique 2

Abstract

The push for and institution of CCSS has earned legitimate criticism rooted in several tenets of

CRT. Permanence of Racism, the need for Counter Storytelling, a Critique of Liberalism (in its

manifestation as veiled racism), Interest Convergence, a lack of Contextual / Historical Analysis

of Law (or any other historical context that would be relevant to the education of all students

regardless of race or ethnicity), and Essentialism, are just a few examples. Though race is never

mentioned in the CCSSO report critiqued here, the majority of students in urban districts, which

make up the majority of “underperforming” school districts with an “achievement gap,” are

students of color. This makes the report seriously flawed, and reinforces the idea of public

education as an institution of white supremacy.

A CRT Critique 3

A CRT Critique of the Common Core

A case study for Critique: “The Common Core State Standards: Insight into their

development and purpose”

According to an article written by Donald H. Smith, Ph.D. (former chair of the New York

City Board of Education’s Commission on Students of African Descent) in the Black Star News

(2013),

“Common Core State Standards are untruthful about the United States’ history. CCSS

assume an American population embodied with a similar history of freedom and cultural

‘neutrality’ or ‘universality.’ That assumption is incorrect with regard to the history and

present experience of students of African descent whose ancestors bore the scars of

physical and mental chains of enslavement, and who themselves, whether they recognize

it or not, are still victimized by a white supremacist culture and school curriculum.” (p. 2)

Smith quotes Carter G. Woodson’s seminal work, The Mis-Education of the Negro, to make his

case, and points out that not much has changed since the publication of Woodson’s work in

1933. (as cited in Smith, 2013) This paper supports Smith’s criticism of the CCSS (Common

Core State Standards) with an analysis rooted in CRT (Critical Race Theory).

In order to properly analyze the validity of Smith’s critique, we must first look at the

CCSS to determine what they are attempting to accomplish. In the recent report released by the

CCSSO (Council of Chief State School Officers), Conley makes three primary claims

concerning this (2014):

“Standards help ensure that students in every school will acquire the knowledge and

skills critical to success in college, career, and life. Standards help guide local school

boards as they make critical decisions about curriculum, textbooks, teachers, course

A CRT Critique 4

offerings, and other aspects of district instructional programs. While standards provide a

framework, they do not require a certain curriculum or specific teaching methods.” (p. 1)

The report goes on to make many other claims about a student’s viability in a changing

economy and marketplace, and makes additional assumptions about students not living in one

community their entire lives. This smacks of cultural ignorance and corporate propaganda,

ignores the reality that many people are rooted in their communities by culture and family ties

and see that as a strength, and assumes that all students will eventually leave their communities

to chase corporate jobs. In reality, corporate interests have driven the “American Dream” away

from community-based ownership to a jobs-dependent economy. It is difficult to find their

claims genuine when their rationales for educational standards are expressed in terms of

economic outcomes for the national economy rather than educational benefits for the students

that the CCSS are supposed to benefit.

Concerning the claim that educators are able to determine the curriculum by which

students will achieve the standards, the reality is that schools emphasize and focus on preparing

for the standardized tests that are supposed to assess mastery of the CCSS in underperforming

schools and school districts. Smith points out (2013),

“In the areas of mathematics and science, a failed curriculum relies heavily on rote

memorization for high stakes tests, rather than inquiry based learning of math, science

and technology. This is coupled with inadequately educated mathematics and science

teachers who have to rely on the textbook industry to tell them what and how to teach.

Moreover, continuing to omit the historical foundations of science as originating in

Africa often results in Black students not seeing themselves as mathematicians or

scientists. The current ‘education’ of African American students is an ongoing process of

A CRT Critique 5

‘Educational Genocide’, [sic] the deliberate dumbing down of a people while erasing or

distorting their history to benefit other ethnic groups.” (p. 3)

Smith’s complaint is not unique to educators of African descent. Sir Ken Robinson,

Ph.D., the renowned educator and expert on arts and creativity in learning, reiterated his stance

on the role of standardized testing in education (2014):

“The role of a teacher is to facilitate learning. That's it. And part of the problem is, I

think, that the dominant culture of education has come to focus on not teaching and

learning, but testing. Now, testing is important. Standardized tests have a place. But they

should not be the dominant culture of education. They should be diagnostic. They should

help.” (How to escape education’s death valley, n.d.)

Robinson goes on to say (2014):

“But all that should support learning. It shouldn't obstruct it, which of course it often

does. So in place of curiosity, what we have is a culture of compliance. Our children and

teachers are encouraged to follow routine algorithms rather than to excite that power of

imagination and curiosity.” (How to escape education’s death valley, n.d.)

One of the justifications made in support of the claim that the CCSS are a good thing is

that there is a strong evidence base supporting the need for CCSS, and educator input into

creation of the CCSS. However, this is not true. According to John Eppolito, a former teacher in

the Nevada public schools who currently has several children enrolled in Nevada public schools,

most of the people who advised, provided input, and created the standards are not even

educators. In fact, according to his report, the outcry against the CCSS from educators is

significant. He points out that the objections are not against a need for measurable standards (as

A CRT Critique 6

does Robinson), but rather to their construction, usefulness, and implementation in their current

form. (John Eppolito’s Presentation on Common Core, 2014)

Another justification of the CCSSO for the CCSS is international comparisons based on

US student performance compared to other countries were scrutinized by a “Validation

Committee.” (Conley, 2014) While this may be true, Robinson points out that the country with

the highest test scores in the world (Finland) uses an entirely different method for getting there

than is prescribed by CCSS and the CCSSO report, which calls for “what students need to

succeed (more and narrower focus on math and language skills).” (Conley, 2014). But Robinson

points out that “narrower focus” is not the way to get there (2014):

“Finland regularly comes out on top in math, science and reading. Now, we only know

that's what they do well at because that's all that's being tested currently. That's one of the

problems of the test. They don't look for other things that matter just as much. The thing

about work in Finland is this: they don't obsess about those disciplines. They have a very

broad approach to education which includes humanities, physical education, the arts.

Second, there is no standardized testing in Finland. I mean, there's a bit, but it's not what

gets people up in the morning. It's not what keeps them at their desks.” (How to escape

education’s death valley, n.d.)

Robinson also points out several other differences in Finland’s approach to education that

differ from that of the U.S. One is that there is no dropout rate in Finland; none. Another is

(2014),

“that many of the current policies are based on mechanistic conceptions of education. It's

like education is an industrial process that can be improved just by having better data, and

somewhere in, I think, the back of the mind of some policy makers is this idea that if we

A CRT Critique 7

fine-tune it well enough, if we just get it right, it will all hum along perfectly into the

future. It won't, and it never did.” (How to escape education’s death valley, n.d.)

The CCSSO report contradicts itself, saying on the one hand (2014), “The standards

identify what is important for students to learn; they do not specify the instructional methods or

curriculum that teachers must use. This is not a one-size-fits-all approach,” (p.7-8) but also

emphasizing the narrow focus on mathematics, science and English.

In his article, Smith offers us a critique of the CCSS and its implementation as harmful to

African-American children. Related to the CRT tenets of Permanence of Racism and Counter

Storytelling, Smith says the CCSS are inadequate for all American school children,” and “are

demeaning and particularly unacceptable for students of African descent.” (Smith, 2013) He

goes on to offer a potential point of Interest Convergence, stating that despite “considerable

dissent,” “those states which reverse their adoption of the Standards risk their eligibility for Race

to the Top funds.” Despite potential consequences, New York proposed to the state assembly that

Common Core be discontinued on the following grounds: “The common core program and the

race to the top program are having a detrimental impact on our children, parents, teachers,

administrators, and our school budgets. These programs have shifted the emphasis away from

actual learning, and instead have focused purely on testing and data collection.” (Smith, 2013) In

asserting his most powerful indictment against the CCSS (related to the CRT tenets of

Permanence of Racism, Social Construction of Race, and Counter Storytelling), he says that the

Common Core is a “a white supremacist purpose” manifested “in teacher training, in curriculum,

in instruction, in books, newspapers, broadcasting, films and, most importantly, in public

discourse, philosophy and institutionalized in public policy.” (Smith, 2013) He underscores his

contempt for the CCSS by saying, “students of African descent…are still victimized by a white

A CRT Critique 8

supremacist culture and school curriculum.” (Smith, 2013) To support his position he points out

that,

“Although the new standards claim that no specific curriculum materials are being

advocated, in several areas that specify common standards in English Language Arts, and

Literacy in History/Social Studies, Mathematics, Science, and technical subjects, the

‘sample’ of illustrative tests rarely contains any books or writings by Black authors, and,

for that matter any writings by Hispanic/Latino, Native American or Asian writers…The

CCSS claim these are only recommendations, not required readings. Presumably, states

are free to choose their own readings. Then how can these readings be considered

Common Core?” (Smith, 2013)

The latter demonstrates foundations related to the CRT tenets Permanence of Racism, Counter

storytelling, and Social Justice.

Redirecting focus away from the damage being done to children of African descent, he

points out that much could be done to raise the consciousness of White students and teachers that

is not being done in the CCSS: “There are no recommendations for truthful readings or

discussions that will help all students of whatever ethnicity or gender to become divested of

cultural, racial, gender or sexual biases.” (Smith, 2013) This reinforces the perpetuation of the

Permanence of Racism while negating the possibility of Social Justice that might be

accomplished through Counter Storytelling. It also denies the opportunity for application of

Contextual/Historical Analysis of general history and African-American History.

At best, the CCSS maintains the status quo in American education that reinforces

negative stereotypes about African-American people not by leveling the playing field, but rather

continuing to support the Empathic Fallacy that American public education is a great equalizer.

A CRT Critique 9

According to a world expert on education and creativity (Robinson), it is an industrial model.

According to an African-American educator specializing in the education of students of African

descent, it is the latest method in a long practice of maintaining the Permanence of Racism in a

deplorable and only thinly veiled history of white supremacy.

A CRT Critique 10

References

David T. Conley. (2014). The Common Core State Standards: Insight into Their Development

and Purpose. Retrieved from

http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2014/CCSS_Insight_Into_Development_2014.pdf

How to escape education’s death valley. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_how_to_escape_education_s_death_valley?langua

ge=en

John Eppolito’s Presentation on Common Core. (2014). Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w4xD7nzLD8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Un-common Core: The Continued Mis-Education Of African Americans. (n.d.). Retrieved

October 29, 2014, from http://www.blackstarnews.com/education/education/un-common-

core-the-continued-mis-education-of-african-americans.html

Woodson, C. G. (2008). The Mis-Education of the Negro. Wilder Publications.