The Common Core By Stephen Krashen Analysis

“The Common Core”

The debate over education reform has been around for a long time. Common Core State Standards is the most recent version. The journal for the American Association of School Librarians, Knowledge Quest published an article by Stephen Krashen that argued against the Common Core State Standards titled “The Common Core: A Disaster for Libraries, a Disaster for Language Arts, a Disaster for American Education.” Krashen argues that the education standards are not the real problem, poverty is, and that if the funds used to perform the testing required by the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were used to combat the effects of poverty, it would be a better use of the money. He also argues that the only people that will see any benefits

Krashen’s language is clear and easy to follow and understand. He does not use professional jargon or come across as condescending. Occasionally he phrases things somewhat bluntly, such as when he claims that the CCSS assert that “our schools are terrible” (Karshen 37). While some of his phrases are amusing, for example he says, “The Common Core is clearly more than a ‘core’; it is the entire apple” when discussing how little time teachers will have to teach things not included in the standards (40). Other times he comes across as rude, like when he says “…we should have only standardized tests that actually do some good, that help with teaching and learning” (40). These types of remarks do nothing to strengthen his argument, if anything they weaken

He argues that the standards have accepted at face value the conclusions of the National Reading Panel that, according to him had “unimpressive results” with a program they had previously promoted (40). He also argues that teachers and students “will have little time for anything not linked to the standards” (40). He validates his argument by explaining that not only will there be consequences to the students their test results don’t improve, teachers and possibly to the school itself. In these “high-stakes” tests, the teachers will have to primarily focus on what the tests cover (40). Athough these are valid arguments, Krashen uses several sources that could be considered outdated and this weakens his