Glenn Beck’s Common Core Hysteria Doesn’t Help Advance Conservative Education Policy

Photo of Daniel Lautzenheiser
Daniel Lautzenheiser
Education Policy Studies Program Manager, AEI
  • See All Articles
  • Subscribe to RSS
  • Bio

      Daniel Lautzenheiser

      Daniel Lautzenheiser is the program manager of the education policy studies department at AEI. In this role, he serves as the department’s research coordinator and is responsible for promoting AEI Education’s work to the general public. He first joined AEI as a research assistant, where he oversaw projects on the federal role in K-12 education and stretching the higher education dollar, as well as serving as the lead researcher on two iterations of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Leaders & Laggards report cards on the state of U.S. education. His has written on a wide variety of subjects ranging from charter schooling, to digital learning, to higher education innovation and has appeared in Education Week, the Huffington Post, and National Review.

Next week, Glenn Beck will livestream “We Will Not Conform,” to movie theaters across the country. Designed to be a “live national night of action against the Common Core,” Beck and his compatriots hope to unify Common Core critics against implementing the new standards.

It’s possible, of course, that “We Will Not Conform” will be a dispassionate, sober-minded critique of the Common Core that empowers participants to make coherent arguments about why the standards will be bad for our nation’s schools, and to propose realistic alternatives. Given past history, though, there’s every reason to believe the event will spiral into an unruly diatribe, more invective than informative. And this is bad news — not for the future of the Common Core, but for conservative education policy.

There are real debates, involving conservative principles, to be had about the Common Core: that an initially state-led effort has been commandeered by an overzealous Obama administration, that the standards will involve very real (and very costly) changes to tests and teacher training that cash-strapped states can’t afford, that many parents haven’t even heard about the Common Core. But these are not the kind of debates that are often occurring on the right.

Rather, the conversations border more on hysteria than reasoned discussion. Thus we have Michelle Malkin — one of the most vehement critics of the Common Core and a guest speaker for “We Will Not Conform” — declaring that with the Common Core, “Traditional literature is under fire. Moral relativism is increasingly the norm. ‘Standards’ is Orwell-speak for subjectivity and lowest common denominator pedagogy.” Or Phyllis Schlafly arguing that Common Core, “English literature selections are not read for the joy of reading and learning, but so they can be analyzed and critiqued by students using left-wing norms.”

It’s impossible to avoid contrasting such sentiments with another conservative Common Core critique out this week, Andrew Ferguson’s excellent essay in The Weekly Standard. “The conservative case” against the Common Core, Ferguson writes, “relies heavily on misinformation — tall tales and urban legends advanced by people who should know better.” He highlights in particular those who cherry-pick horror stories from one of the literally thousands of books on Amazon.com ostensibly aligned to the Common Core, despite the fact that “every educational product imaginable now bears the label ‘common core,’ whether it’s inspired by the standards or not.”

While the Beck-Malkin-Schlafly fury certainly has its appeal, it comes with one major downside: it allows conservatives to make intellectually lazy critiques and avoid the much harder task of offering viable solutions. Screenings of “We Will Not Conform” might channel populist angst on the right against the Common Core, but they do nothing to address the very real concern that inspired the Common Core in the first place — the fact that standards for what kids should know varied wildly across the states — or to propose alternative standards.