The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) is a primary- and secondary-level educational model designed in 2009. It was meant to replace the Bush administration’s widely criticized 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, which spearheaded standardized testing and held teachers and public schools accountable for student performance. States developed their own standards, with the federal government ensuring that those states would be responsible for achieving 100 percent proficiency by 2014; otherwise, the states could be penalized. Cooperation was mandatory. However, this model was ineffective, and hence, Common Core was developed. And with it were a string of legal, but unethical, practices.

The CCSSI was supposed to be a national educational model meant to prepare students for future careers. Under NCLB, every state had a different set of standards, but under Common Core, the federal government sets the standards. States can adopt all, some or none of the standards at their discretion. States were given financial incentives to adopt the CCSSI. The seemingly benign intention of the program turned out to just be an idealistic version of a nuanced initiative.

What we now know as Common Core began as a basic concept at the November 2007 annual Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) convention. The following year, the CCSSO and the National Governors Association (NGA) wrote a report, calling for the standardized tests to be held up to international benchmarks. The report also demonstrated the importance of a “common core” of standards, to which the entire country would be held, in order to make Americans “globally competitive.”

The goal was to improve education. The theoretical system would also analyze and implement strategies already in place around the world, in order to create the best possible educational system. The report also found that under NCLB, the United States ranked last among developed countries for equity of educational opportunity. The proposed system was meant to fix this as well. The theoretical standards would be focused, rigorous and coherent.

Using these objectives, the CCSSO and NGA developed their set of standards, beginning in 2009. In order to accomplish this, they invited 51 states and territories to independently develop standards. The ideas came together and Common Core drafts were made. The final CCSSI was released in June 2010.

But do these standards actually achieve the goals originally set forth?

To an extent, yes. The standards are internationally benchmarked, which allows education experts to compare American students’ scores with those posted by students around the world. The standardization of the system across 42 states, five territories, the District of Columbia and the Department of Defense Education Activity reduces the cost of creating new curricula and standardized tests. And, students have to think critically in order to answer test questions correctly.

However, the standards aren’t nearly perfect — or even beneficial. This is especially apparent in elementary-school math, when basic skills must be taught and strengthened so the students can succeed in higher-level math. Firstly, the new educational system is vastly different from the one before it. An easy example is the subtraction of 32-12. Under the traditional model, you simply subtract 2-2=0, and 30-10=20, so the answer is 20. But under the CCSSI, the student must follow the below steps:

12+3=15

15+5=20

20+10=30

30+2=32

To find the difference you simply add 3+5+10+2=20. 32-12=20. Easy, right?

Other questions have multiple parts, so if you get the first part wrong, you get the questions that require that answer wrong as well.

To be fair, a lot of questions are straightforward, but require confusing and unintuitive methods to reach the answer. For example, for multiplication, students do not necessarily use the traditional method, but rather use models or a number line — for multiplication!

There are huge logistical barriers as well. Many previous materials have been rendered obsolete, because the new standards are vastly different from past ones, requiring new textbooks, lesson plans and methods of teaching which may not work. Furthermore, testing must be done online, which is an impossibility for underfunded schools that cannot afford the technology required just to test the students.

One of the major shortcomings and criticisms of NCLB is that the educational system was too reliant on standardized testing and “teaching to the test.” Under the Common Core, that hasn’t changed at all. Instead of combatting the problem, the CCSSI just ignored it.

The CCSSI has resulted in unethical (albeit legal) actions. As previously stated, NCLB demanded that each state reach 100 percent proficiency by the 2013-2014 school year, or else penalties could be put into place. Not a single state met this goal, so all were subject to punishment.

On Sept. 23, 2011, then-U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan wrote a letter to the Chief State School Officers, stating that he could waive the penalties for not meeting 100 percent proficiency if he accepted a state’s request for “ESEA flexibility.” This is legal under section 9401 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) stating that the Secretary of Education may waive any regulatory requirements of the act as long as certain conditions are met. This applies to NCLB as well. As such, the Secretary waived the 100 percent-proficiency requirement only for the states that adopted the Common Core standards and model.

Under Section 9401 of the ESEA, this is perfectly legal. However, it does represent a breach of morality in one of education’s highest offices. The fact that the waivers were handed out selectively — and only to the states that adopted Common Core — leads one to question the ethics of the undertaking.

In 2007, the CCSSO began a revolution in education. It was meant to prepare students to deal with and for a world with unprecedented challenges. It was meant to push us past our limits and make us better, stronger and more capable than those that came before us. We were promised depth, not breadth, but were only granted confusion and deceit. The CCSSI is rotten, almost to the core.