Research & Commentary: Georgia Common Core

Published October 13, 2014

On September 24, 2014, a Georgia House Study Committee on the Role of the Federal Government in Education examined Common Core State Standards. It was the third of four such meetings, with the fourth scheduled for October 21 in Gainesville, Georgia.

Georgia was one of 41 states that promised the Obama administration it would adopt Common Core five months before it was published. In doing so, Heartland Research Fellow Joy Pullmann noted in her testimony before the committee, “Georgia traded 5 percent of one year’s K–12 budget for tying itself more closely to Obama administration education policies and even more direct federal oversight.” Other states—such as Alaska, Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia—never adopted them, and a recent nationwide backlash has led to successful repeals in Indiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Carolina.

Common Core supporters say implementing standards that are both high and unified with those of other states will jumpstart the U.S. education system and improve student achievement nationally. But a study from the Brookings Institution contradicts that claim, instead finding government-mandated standards do not correlate with student achievement. For example, every state has had its own set of standards for many years, yet variation in achievement is four to five times larger within states than between them, regardless of the quality or rigor of the standards.

The individual needs of Georgia’s 1,685,016 students are unlikely to be best accommodated by a government-mandated, single-style progression of learning. The state’s lawmakers should repeal Common Core, and they can replace it with standards based on those of high-achieving states. They should also recognize that research suggests there is no need for government-imposed standards at all. A free market has its own standardizing mechanisms, and reformers can help free the market in education by letting the money follow the child and by providing schools with greater autonomy while increasing accountability.

The following documents provide additional information about Common Core in Georgia and nationwide.


Testimony on House Bill 597 to Repeal and Replace Common Core to the Ohio House Rules and Reference Committee
In August 2014 testimony before the Ohio House Rules and Reference Committee public hearing on Common Core State Standards, Heartland Institute Research Fellow Joy Pullmann argues for Ohio to repeal Common Core in favor of “proven” and “objectively higher” Massachusetts standards.

The Common Core: A Poor Choice For States
In this thoroughly footnoted Heartland Institute Policy Brief, Heartland Institute Research Fellow Joy Pullmann reveals some major weaknesses of Common Core State Standards. The standards represent a major centralization of control over curriculum, contrary to the American tradition of decentralized control and funding. Instead of being “world class,” the standards represent a significant step back from what experts say students really need. In addition, the standards are tied to large expansions of data collection on students and erosion of privacy rights.

Tip Sheet: Common Core Standards
This one-page tip sheet summarizes the background of and arguments regarding Common Core. The writer concludes, “States should replace Common Core with higher-quality, state-controlled academic standards and tests not funded by the federal government. They should secure student data privacy and ensure national testing mandates do not affect instruction in private and home schools.” 

Dumb Versus Dumber in Common Core Debate
Ramesh Ponnuru, a Bloomberg View columnist and resident fellow at the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics, opines Common Core supporters and opponents have been perpetuating misleading claims. He says opponents are inaccurate in stating Common Core will reduce the reading of literature in English classes in favor of nonfiction texts. He charges Common Core supporters with overstating the notion Common Core is not a curriculum, “as though there were a hard and fast distinction between requiring all students to know specific things at a set time and requiring they be taught them in a certain order,” he said. Ponnuru says the real problem is Common Core is unlikely to increase student learning, primarily because state standards don’t correlate with student achievement.  

Background and Analysis of the Common Core State Standards As They Relate to Georgia
This August 2013 paper from the Georgia Public Policy Foundation provides useful background and analysis of Common Core, including the cost of implementation, specific weaknesses of the standards, and concerns regarding student privacy and loss of local control. 

How Well Are American Students Learning?
A series of data analyses from the Brookings Institution finds no link between high state standards and high student achievement. “Every state already has standards placing all districts and schools within its borders under a common regime. And despite that, every state has tremendous within-state variation in achievement,” says the latest report. Based on every state’s experience with standards and corresponding tests over the past 30 years, the study authors see no evidence to believe Common Core will improve student achievement.  

What to Do Once Common Core Is Halted
For states that realize Common Core is of low academic quality and infringes on their freedoms, there are several better paths to take, writes University of Arkansas Professor Sandra Stotsky. She recommends lawmakers set up task forces of in-state academic experts to draw up academic standards for high school, develop networks of specialized high schools, fund internationally recognized math curricula, and most important of all, raise the academic bar for prospective teachers.  

Behind the Curtain: Assessing the Case for National Curriculum Standards
Neal McCluskey, Ph.D., associate director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute, examines national curriculum standards in this February 2010 Policy Analysis and finds setting high standards and getting students to achieve them is very difficult. McCluskey also writes successful education reform will require going in the opposite direction of the top-down approach taken by national standards, instead moving toward a free-market system that produces a mix of high standards, accountability, and flexibility that is essential to achieving optimal educational outcomes. 

Choosing Blindly: Instructional Materials, Teacher Effectiveness, and the Common Core
There is strong evidence instructional materials play a pivotal role in student learning and, compared to more popular reforms such as merit pay and school turnarounds, changing them for the better is easy, inexpensive, and quick, conclude Matthew Chingos and Grover Whitehurst in a report for the Brookings Institution. Very little research has been done on available curricula to determine effectiveness, and it’s practically impossible to determine which curriculum is the most widely used, because no one keeps such statistics. Without more information on which curriculum schools use and how well it instructs students, initiatives like Common Core will not improve learning, and the core of student learning will continue to be ignored to students’ detriment.


Nothing in this Research & Commentary is intended to influence the passage of legislation, and it does not necessarily represent the views of The Heartland Institute. For further information on this and other topics, visit the School Reform News website at, The Heartland Institute’s website at, and PolicyBot, Heartland’s free online research database, at

The Heartland Institute can send an expert to your state to testify or brief your caucus; host an event in your state; or send you further information on a topic. Please don’t hesitate to contact us if we can be of assistance! If you have any questions or comments, contact Logan Pike, Heartland’s state government relations manager, at [email protected] or 312/377-4000.