We're not opposed to criticism here at the Fordham Institute. In fact, we welcome healthy dialogue involving more than just one perspective on a given issue or topic. The release of Fordham's new Standards Central online clearinghouse, a one-stop-shop for all of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute's recent reviews of state, national, and international curriculum and testing standards, will inevitably attract the condemnation of critics opposed to the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI).
They will be quick to point out how (with Fordham's own site!) one can identify the outstanding ELA and math standards in California, D.C., and Indiana that have all been done away with thanks to their decisions to adopt the Common Core. At no point, however, have we denied the fact that some states were home to some top-rate standards prior to implementing those of the Common Core (if you don't believe me, see the sentence before this one).
But in order to actually believe that the CCSSI is a detriment for that reason, one must either ignorantly deny or consciously ignore some pretty compelling evidence. While the three states mentioned above did have better ELA standards than those of the Common Core, 32 states that adopted the Common Core ELA standards were previously operating under significantly inferior standards. The same holds true for math, where 32 states have considerably improved their standards through Common Core implementation. How can you argue with those numbers?
So for any decriers of the CCSSI planning on using our new Standards Central site against us in the manner which I have just described, probably best you just save your breath; I just made your argument for you (except I did it in context). If you can't help getting nitpicky though, dig into the 15 sets of standards in the eight states that haven't adopted the Common Core (Minnesota has adopted the CCSS in ELA but not math) - 80% of which are undeniably second-rate.
