Rhetoric surrounding the Common Core

With the start of school, the Common Core has been a hot topic on my Twitter feed and other of my online haunts. I find the rhetoric (from both advocates and opponents) distressing. From one side, the rhetoric presents the Common Core as the solution to our long-time education problems. From the other side, the Common Core is presented as an evil attempt to control the young. Neither is correct.

Most would agree with my assessment that the Common Core is a political solution to a the political problem of public education.  In the domain of political problems and solutions, one is not compelled to argue from evidence and one is allowed any interpretation of any evidence. Both advocates and opponents of the Common Core appear to be taking advantage of this characteristic if political problems to make claims that reasonable observers must conclude are hyperbole.

As a scientist (and an educator who believes learning is a process that depends of biology of the brain which cannot be denied), I believe a more healthy and responsible and correct approach to the Common Core would proceed from a scientific point of view and approach the problem (and temper their rhetoric) by following the model of scientists.

Science is uncertain, so no scientists will say "for sure" what the results or outcomes of Common Core curriculum or assessments will be. No one can say with certainty that a curriculum or instruction will produce students who will score well on any test. No one can say with certainty that students who score well on a test will succeed in life (whatever that might mean). Any person making predictions about the effects of the Common Core is merely guessing.

The uncertainty of science is based on contingencies, and reasonable scientists who make predictions clearly articulate the contingencies. "It depends..." is the way most scientists answer questions, and that is the cue that a contingency is to follow. In political debates, the contingencies are seen as weakness in the argument, so such arguments are dissatisfying. In science contingencies show that one understands deeply enough to know what is unknown.

Science is about answering questions based on data, and so the ideas accepted at any moment in science are subject to revision. Contrary to politics, science requires one to (however reluctantly) say, "I was wrong," when the data require.

Finally, science requires ideas be falsifiable. If a statement cannot be proven false, then it cannot be included in science. Falsifiability also requires one be able to question and all assumptions and study all relevant factors. In politics, only select assumptions may be questioned and only select factors may be considered.

If the debate surrounding the Common Core is so dissimilar to science, the reasonable question becomes, then: "Do we really need to regard education from a scientific perspective if it is a political problem and solution?" My answer is, "yes," and I base this answer on three reasons:

1) The purpose of education is to help people learn. Learning is a natural physiological process of the human brain. That nature defines the rules within which educators (and education policy makers) must play.  While it might be convenient for policy makers to define test scores as a measure of learning, if test scores are a weak measure of learning, then that is the nature of our universe, and the policy must be adjusted.

2) Education has broad and diverse goals in our society: free and appropriate education for all. Despite the connotation of "standard" education, most recognize that "one size fits all" education is not what most students need. That suggests we recognize contingencies in education, just as scientists recognize contingencies. Science has centuries of managing contingencies, so we can learn from the best.

3) While claiming to be "data-driven," educators are incredibly sloppy with our collection, analysis, management, and reporting of data. Our sloppiness derives from blind acceptance that tests measure what they proportion (and other unchallengeable assumptions). Our sloppiness derives from our reliance on single measures; triangulation (support from three independent measures) is where scientists begin to draw conclusions.

I am in favor of a rigorous education research community, and a vibrant education policy debate, and a strong educational practice community. All are required in 21st century society. Each should learn from the other, but the educational research- the science community- with it's reasoned evidence must be the arbiter of all disputes and judge of all rhetoric.