A few years ago, I met David Coleman for lunch and we talked about education. At the time, I didn’t know much about him, but I knew that he was deeply involved in the writing of the Common Core standards, which were then in the formative stage. We had a wonderful conversation about books and education, and David reminded me that he was a classicist, that he loves ideas and reading, and that his values were the same as mine. I left the lunch feeling that I had met a kindred soul.
I saw him once briefly since then, at a meeting of the Albert Shanker Institute, where he encouraged the AFT to endorse the CC standards. The board agreed, though I demurred. I remain agnostic.
I thought I knew David Coleman. I knew that he had created a data and assessment company that he sold to McGraw-Hill. I knew that he had been a Rhodes Scholar. I knew he had all the right credentials. I came to realize that David was the architect of the Common Core standards, not just one of many hands. I also knew—from the accounts of others—that he disdains fiction and personal writing. I don’t like the idea that some disembodied national agency tells teachers to cut back on the novels, poetry, and short stories and focus on informational text. That shows not only a hostility to imaginative literature but a disregard for teachers’ professionalism. I mean, he can have his opinion but why foist it on the nation?
Last week, the College Board announced that David Coleman will be its new president. One assumes that David will integrate the AP assessments with his prized Common Core standards.
But I just discovered that I don’t know David Coleman at all. I just discovered that he was the treasurer for Michelle Rhee’s Students First. (http://kenmlibby.com/?p=300) I assume that means he supports what she advocates. One doesn’t join the inner circle of a group with which you are not in sympathy. So I assume he supports her well-publicized war against collective bargaining. He supports her opposition to seniority and tenure. He supports her battle to base evaluation on test scores. He supports her efforts to privatize public education. He supports her contempt for experienced teachers.
Not only is he the treasurer, but the other officers of her board are (or were) part of his organization, Student Achievement Partners. One of the directors wrote the math standards for the nation. His organization seems to be integrated with hers.
In the version of this blog that I published this morning–very early–I wrote that I had heard that he stepped down from his role as the keeper of the accounts for Students First. But a friend called to tell me that this was not true. He did not step down. He is still treasurer of Michelle Rhee’s Students First.
Now I am certain that I don’t know who he is or what he believes.
Diane
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/education/david-coleman-to-lead-college-board.html
http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2011/10/kick-off-of-parents-as-partners-week.html
http://www.dailycensored.com/2011/10/18/the-crocodile-in-the-common-core-standards/
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Diane,
Thanks for all your advocacy. This latest entry on David Coleman sent shivers down my spine. Everyday new evidence reveals just how formidable the enemies of public education are. The same forces, that are driving the Common Core, are actively working to destroy our public education system and teachers unions.
We need to begin coordinating drastic and dramatic responses. The time is now.
OMG yes.
you already knew how intertwined various elements of the “reform” movement were – common funding by Gates and Broad, for example. It is not at all surprising to find that we can see it among people as well.
That he does not like fiction should disqualify him, at least in my opinion. Real truth is often best exposed in fiction, be it short stories (he would reject Poe, Lafcadio Hearn, O. Henry, etc) or novels (would our understanding of the human condition be improved if we never read War and Peace, or Love in the Time of Cholera, to name just two very different yet profound works of fiction?).
This is perhaps another issue we should address in our panel next month.
This business about the common core’s emphasis on reading non-fiction really concerns me, since it means literary fiction in poetry will be covered much, much less.
The argument that fiction is less challenging, and doesn’t promote critical thinking is bizarre. Students often find it tougher to read James Joyce, than say Thomas Payne’s essay “Common Sense.”
Furthermore, many of the “informational texts” (love the Orwellian phrasing) recommended are also covered in social studies. So, students might read essays by Orwell, Martin Luther King, and others twice — and may not get around to the Shakespeare and Melville at all, because non-fiction is only supposed to comprise of a small part of the assigned readings.
As a social studies teacher, I’m well aware of how essential primary source readings by luminaries like Dr. King and Gandhi are. But the argument that these kinds of readings should replace literary fiction? Why should one literary form be privileged over another?
Well — these architects of the Common Core might pick up a copy of Moby Dick, and notice there’s a lot of “information” about whaling, and some essays by Orwell might actually be less informative, and more persuasive. I didn’t get to read Ellison’s Invisible Man until after college, but that novel forever changed my grasp white liberal racism in a way that not even the most eloquent essay by Dr. King could.
Students who haven’t read important works of fiction simply won’t get a well-rounded liberal arts education, We are already cutting the arts enough — less music, less art. I would never give back my high school discussions of Walt Whitman’s “Barbaric Yawp!” and Holden Caulfield’s ducks in Central Park. Fiction and poetry help students dream, and give them an outlet in their lives. And yeah — it challenges them to think, too. Thinking, dreaming, critically analyzing — these are not mutually exclusive learning objectives. Can really afford these utilitarian reforms — which don’t make much sense, anyway?
Teacher ken: Well said. This morning, I’ve been flooded with fond memories of fictional stories and poems we read aloud in class, like “The Illustrated Man” and Shakespeare’s Sonnets. That our kids would miss out on that…would be sad.
What really scares me is that Randi Weingarten seems to support David Coleman since she supports the Common Core Standards.
What scares me is the passivity of the union at all levels.
Diane,
I saw your e-mail about this yesterday afternoon, and I was composing my response to you when you published your post. Please let me try to clarify several points:
1) Regarding literature and the common core, I think there is a very clear picture, and one that is very consistent with your recent work and writing, as well as the face to face discussion we had.
To clarify, when we say there is an increased focus on “informational text” which I agree is not the most beautiful word, we mean that in elementary there is more time for history, science and the arts – along with a rich exploration of literature in those grades. In later grades, a great deal of informational text is explored in classrooms in history, social studies, science and technical subjects. In 6-12 grade ELA, the only change is that there is more room for literary non-fiction, although the classroom remains focused on literature. A little more detail:
a) Elementary School (K-5): The Core Standards ask for a 50/50 balance between reading, writing, listening and speaking about literature and texts in science, history and the arts.
Perhaps the most striking evidence is that in elementary school it is critical that students read and write about books in history, social studies, science, and the arts to build their knowledge of the world. A strong general knowledge and vocabulary gained through reading, writing, speaking, and listening is essential for later reading growth and achievement. However, today students read overwhelmingly stories in elementary school; students do not read nearly enough rich nonfiction. The Standards require that all students equally read rich literature in elementary school as well as rich nonfiction. Literature plays an essential role in cultivating students’ reading skills and developing their love of reading, and the Standards celebrates the role literature plays in building student knowledge and creativity. However, the Standards also require that in these early years students build rich knowledge of history, science, and the arts to deepen and widen their vocabulary and prepare them for success in every academic subject.
Before the Common Core Standards, in elementary school the curriculum has been narrowed by leaving little time for texts in science, history, and the arts. The Common Core Standards in this way restore elementary teachers to their rightful role as guides to the world. I must say I was surprised by this criticism because I believe you, as well as the non-profit Common Core, have argued strongly that the elementary school curriculum must change to include rich experience of texts in history, science and the arts.
b) Middle and High School (6-12): Literature remains the core of the ELA classroom in 6-12. What is new are two things. First, the Core Standards require that students in history and social studies can analyze primary and secondary documents, as well as reference documents and experimental results in science/technical subjects. The main reason the reading of informational text expands is that there is a requirement for the analysis of content rich non-fiction in history/social studies, science and technical subjects. The only change in the ELA classroom is some increased attention to literary non-fiction, such as the founding documents of this country and the “Great Conversation” that emerges from them. The Common Core Standards make these monuments of American thought and writing proper objects of study within ELA as well as history/social studies. Students can now encounter these texts to explore their rhetoric, reasoning and ideas in richer ways. Once again, I thought you were delighted by this.
To clarify, when we say there is an increased focus on “informational text” which I agree is not the most beautiful word, we mean that in elementary there is more time for history, science and the arts – along with a rich exploration of literature in those grades. In later grades, a great deal of informational text is explored in classrooms in history, social studies, science and technical subjects. In ELA, the only change is that there is more room for literary non-fiction, although the classroom remains focused on literature.
I am sorry if my rhetoric has obscured the vibrant role literature plays in the Common Core and in learning. But the Standards do require content rich non-fiction to play a more central role in student reading, writing, listening and speaking than it has in the past. The evidence of this need is very clear, which is what led states to adopt the Standards so widely.
2) Regarding Students First, our service during the formation of the organization was always understood to be temporary, and Students First told us long ago that a new board would be named in June. I have clarified this in a Tweet today. We told Students First months ago our service would end, before any news or public comment on our involvement.
Thanks,
David Coleman
David,
Thank you for your lengthy and thoughtful reply.
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, I have heard from two professional journalists who attended a workshop at Columbia School of Journalism, each of whom independently told me that your presentation there seemed to disparage the value of literature. Your colleague asked the question, “What job requires you to read a novel?” and you did not take issue. They were both shocked (neither knew that the other reported the same story to me). I think you need to be very public in letting the world know that you value reading literature for its own sake, that it need not be instrumental or useful, and that the reading of literature is an important part of developing as a full human being. That message has not been communicated.
I don’t understand your close relationship with Students First. You and your two associates appear to be the only members of Michelle Rhee’s board. Would you mind explaining what part of her agenda you support? Since you are treasurer of her organization, I assume you are fully in accord with her agenda. When I stopped agreeing with organizations, I dropped out. You have not.
So do you agree with her support to end collective bargaining rights for teachers? Do you support her campaign to end seniority and tenure? Do you agree with her support for politicians who base teacher evaluations on the test scores of students?
Please explain. I would like to know more about what you believe and who you are.
Diane
I am grateful that Mr Coleman or anyone like him was not in charge of education was I was a student. In order to analyze his answer one has to have background in literature, especially reading the excellent George Orwell. It is interesting to see how he implies that ‘the Standards’ as a God given that he and all of us have to follow. ‘The Standards’ are Orwellian in the sense that he presents them as a faceless metaphysical elements which no one can change control or question. Over and over again in order to defend the undependable he uses ‘But the Standards do require’ just like the “Ten Commandments” require us not to murder, and of course no one can argue with God, not even Coleman.
Any Orwell reader – few of the poor souls who were educated under Coleman’s Common Core – might observe is that he is very concerned with the wording “informational text” acknowledging that it has to be sold in a better way. It’s not the content but rather the PR that might have changed our minds regarding this rotten egg he is trying to sell us.
Coleman also conveniently avoid referring us to any research, bulk of facts or perhaps an experience from other country or continent. The Coleman discourse stays in the US and happens in his own mind. No need to consult experts, professionals or look at research. God forbid see what teachers and parents think of his ideas, for they are the one who will be affected the most. In his and Ms Rhee’s world ignoring evidence is crucial in order to push the same profit making failed education cult of “reform” (Orwell again, reform is euphemism to dismembering and privatizing )
His mission is clear – to eliminate tools of critical thinking. That is why he is part of Rhee’s anti-intellectual, anti-teachers group who hates democracy and try to produce what is called; ‘Manufacturing Consent’ . Joseph Goebbels’s first act was to burn books.The process of transforming intelligent educated and creative German society into an obedient mass had to start by eliminating any ideas that might make people think and challenge. Coleman and Obama do the same but with a smile, and well spoken words, telling us how concerned they are with our future.
Well, Mr. Coleman,
It is great to hear you say that, but that is NOT what is happening in my district, nor in other districts, I would surmise. I teach high school English in the Sweetwater Union High School District in south San Diego, and all the “rich literature” you speak of is being completely squeezed out… along with all of the creativity. We are all non-fiction, (almost) all of the time. It’s really depressing, and it’s NOT the reason I became an English teacher. I have, in fact, been pondering a new career because of it.
Respectfully,
Mary
Mr. Coleman, your response inspired a blog post seen here http://seeingshadesofgray.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/defending-captain-underpants-against-david-coleman/
My favorite half truth: “The evidence of this need is very clear, which is what led states to adopt the Standards so widely.”
The truth is states adopted the CCSS in order to get federal funding.
Exactly right! some of us were eyewitnesses to that fact and were there during the process
How very disturbing that the creation of Common Core is so closely tied up with destroying public education and forcing teachers to be robots who read scripts instead of inspirational and motivational to their students!
Coleman doesn’t believe that science and social studies content knowledge are relevant to college or career readiness.
Coleman does not care about the importance of preparing future citizen in the purpose of schooling.
Coleman has a rather reductive vision of the purpose and nature of schooling in America.
And knowing that tells me just about everything I need to know about David Coleman.
[…] old and he is NOT a current board member (would that matter, really?) and Diane Ravitch saying, no, he is a current board member. You’ll come to your own conclusions with or without pre-reading activities I’m […]
Click to access Whydowereadfiction.pdf
This article will be handed ou at my parent night. This is why we read fiction. Fiction makes us human. The effects of read fiction is about the long term. It is about thinking. And reality, the workforce needs thinkers and problem solvers. Not test takers.
Mr. Coleman: Thank you for responding. The reality is that stories and poetry will be barely covered, while the emphasis is placed on non-fiction. You mentioned the need to cover primary sources. I’m a high school social studies teacher, and I can tell you, my students read a rich array of primary sources, from Dr, King, Gandhi, Gorbachev, Vaclav Havel…I could go on, and on. There is nothing new about covering primary sources in high school! This is what social studies teachers have already been doing.
I can tell you that principals are scrambling, out of fear, to make sure their curricula is aligned with the common core, or else get in trouble with their network/superintendent. We are now attending professional development meetings, and told that fiction will become far less central to the English curriculum, and when I challenged that fiction is no less challenging, I was told to “stop fighting and let’s do what’s right for the kids.” I certainly wasn’t being combative, but trying to advocate on behalf of my students. As someone who taught for 11 years, I feel it’s my duty to do so.
I’m sure you would never supply such a dull response , but these are the kinds of answers people under the gun to “align or else.” I always felt that one of the reasons I am a good teacher is because I expect my students to challenge assumptions, and even challenge me, when they disagree. Yet, my capacity to think critically isn’t valued in this system, when teachers are provided with precise percentages of what literary genres should be covered. When we cover the Soviet Union, we discuss overly large, state-controlled bureaucracies that hindered creative progress. I can’t help but discover some continuities with what’s going on in the US system of education.
I’m considering slipping in some historical stories, into what is already an overloaded curriculum, because I hate to think of my 9th graders missing out on epic poetry and fiction. So, as a history teacher, I might well cover stories I love anyway, by Homer, Gilgamesh, — because I know that our English teachers are under serious pressure to mainly cover non-fiction, and those works would lend themselves to a rich discussion in history classes. And I’d hate to think about our students missing out.
I just do not understand what Coleman is talking about. The textbooks kids have been carrying around to study math, science, and social studies are technical and non-fiction. A suggestion that ELA is dominated by fiction excludes the reading of biographies and autobiographies, also non-fiction. I do not know what information has been used to come to this conclusion. Words matter and so does a precise description of what is meant and frankly, this explanation does not enlighten.
I can say that Florida’s agreement on common core standards did not include the views of parents, community members, and taxpayers.
Mr.Coleman, I think your view of public schools and our curricula prior to your Common Core is skewed and based on ‘common’ myths.
As a Primary school teacher, I struggle with how I am going to teach Kinder through second grade kids to read with your Common Core as my guide. And please don’t quote the old ‘learning to read and reading to learn’ time frames. Your standards don’t effectively address the fact that some kids continue to learn to read long after others.
It is abundantly clear that you did not consult with public school teachers before laying down your standards.
You call the Common Core ‘non-profit,’ but publishers have much to gain by selling guides, books labeled ‘Common Core’ of any type, including newly aligned textbooks and professional development courses. And then there will be the tests and the computer software and hardware and more and more and more. You may not directly benefit, but profits are already being generated on the backs of districts that cannot afford these expenses.
And like Inverness (see above), I have attended professional development and I have been told I must align. If you are changing some of your rhetoric, you’ll need more than a tweet or two to communicate that to the companies publishing and teaching Common Core principles.
Believe me, we already teach with non-fiction and fiction, with authentic documents and literature. Our curriculums are already ‘rich.’ But our leaders have been convinced by the Common Core trainers that we have to be in lock-step with your ideals. This is happening across the nation and it is strangling excellent teachers.
I invite you to visit my Title I high-poverty, high ESL, K-6 school – not to just peek in, not to observe – but to TEACH for, not a day, but for a week. Then do the same in a middle school and the same in a high school. You might have a change of heart about what REAL kids need and what REAL teachers are already providing.
I do appreciate that you responded to Diane. I hope you really follow up on these comments.
I believe that your Common Core is flawed in some ways and that it is being bastardized and misinterpreted by publishing companies and educators. I challenge you to visit us, rethink your philosophy of education based on your new knowledge and then publicly put a halt to the misinformation being touted by publishing companies as mandatory Common Core requirements.
Mr. Coleman, I find your comment to be a canned response. You actually repeat yourself in your “clarification.” My personal experience with my own stepson has shown that fiction is a powerful way for children to connect with history. His love of historical fiction at an early age allowed him to pursue his own interest in history on his own time. Though I don’t believe in big tests, he scored 5’s on several AP exams including history. I do not believe reading primarily informational texts (which will be the practice due to the intense focus you suggest) related to history at the elementary level would have provided a similar passion.
Stating that the Common Core is a non-profit is a guise for a connection to a textbook industry hell-bent on narrowing and profitting from education.
Who are you? What are your interests in all of this? How will you benefit (profit) from all of your work with the Common Core?
Why read fiction?
Well, I watched first-hand as it was FICTION that truly brought together all the “informational text” that my son had read about The Russian Revolution. His Global History teacher had done a wonderful job of providing her students with TONS of informational texts. She used primary sources, textbooks and the like. He apparently “learned” the information, as he did well on the Regents exam. However, when he read “Animal Farm” as a choice book for his English class, he said “NOW I get it! Now I totally understand the Russian Revolution!” As he worked on a Powerpoint Presentation for his English class, it led to discussions at home about CONFLICT. My husband and I talked with him about “Animal Farm” and how he saw it connecting to nearly any conflict – past and present. When his powerpoint was done, he not only connected the FICTION to the Russian Revolution, but also to the American Revolution, the Protests in Wisconsin, Vietnam, Solidarity in Poland, and Protests in Greece!
Why read fiction? Well, because it connects EVERYTHING!
Dear Mr Coleman
Your response is quite disturbing. It appears that your canned answers lack much thought and seem to be more of a defense for a warped agenda.
You state,
” Perhaps the most striking evidence is that in elementary school it is critical that students read and write about books in history, social studies, science, and the arts to build their knowledge of the world. A strong general knowledge and vocabulary gained through reading, writing, speaking, and listening is essential for later reading growth and achievement. However, today students read overwhelmingly stories in elementary school; students do not read nearly enough rich nonfiction”
What evidence are you citing? You leave out the the importance of reading rich realistic non- fiction. Do you discount novels such as ‘Number The Stars” or ‘Friedrich’? Is there any knowledge gained from reading
“The Giver”? Do you have any idea of what really goes on in the classroom? How do you account for non- fiction pieces that are skewed? Look at the recent problems selecting textbooks in Texas?
What really is the most disturbing is your comment that,
“… increased attention to literary non-fiction, such as the founding documents of this country and the “Great Conversation” that emerges from them. The Common Core Standards make these monuments of American thought and writing proper objects of study within ELA as well as history/social studies. ”
Are you suggesting that teachers have ignored these documents? Are you suggesting that an indoctrination of “American thought’ be undertaken in our classrooms?
Makes one wonder, what the Common Core writers really mean when they say students must be exposed to informational texts. What’s next.. only certain informational texts approved by some committee?
No, he has no idea what goes on in the classroom because he has never taught. Yet another expert who hasn’t the faintest idea what it is like to engage, motivate, and inspire students
on a daily basis.
Mr. Coleman, thanks for taking the time to respond. Your explanation was akin to what I heard regarding the CC ELA standards when I attended a session on the forthcoming PARCC assessments.
The session was a pre-cursor to several meetings involving selecting new literature textbooks for our district. Not surprisingly, all the publishers claimed to offer books aligned to the Common Core. You wrote, “The only change in the ELA classroom is some increased attention to literary non-fiction, such as the founding documents of this country and the “Great Conversation” that emerges from them.” However, the twelve-year-old textbooks we’ve been using offer an entire unit on rationalism and the writings of our Founding Fathers, including Hamilton’s speech to the Virginia Convention, Jefferson’s first draft of the Declaration of Independence paired with the final draft, and extensive excerpts from two Paine essays and Franklin’s autobiography. In short, we’ve been covering such texts for some time.
Naturally, textbook companies see the new standards as a lucrative opportunity. Still, besides some new bells and whistles and an incorporation of Common Core language like “craft and structure,” the new books are much the same as their aged counterpoints, even when it comes to the literature they offer. With one exception: The new books contain far more informational texts.
If literature is to remain the heart of ELA, why the increased non-fiction and informational texts? It could be textbook companies are capitalizing on the perception (misperception) that the CC downplays literature, knowing districts will pony up big money to adapt. Or it could be they understand what English teachers wary of the CC understand too: It all comes down to what can be tested. Whatever shape the PARCC assessments ultimately take, though the students will be asked to analyze a few pieces of literature, more of the tests will be geared to non-fiction. Therefore, given the high stakes imposed on standardized tests, teachers will feel compelled to spend far more time on non-fiction whether the CC explicitly dictates to do so or not.
I truly wish Dr. Coleman would follow his own standards and “Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text,” because much of what he claims is required or even implied by the standards simply is not.
For example: “in elementary there is more time for history, science and the arts.” This is outside the scope of the ELA/Literacy standards.
“The Core Standards ask for a 50/50 balance between reading, writing, listening and speaking about literature and texts in science, history and the arts.” Actually, this is accurate. They ask for it, in the supporting texts. No standard requires it.
“Standards celebrates the role literature plays in building student knowledge and creativity” Really? Which standard celebrates student creativity?
Which standard requires “rich knowledge of history, science, and the arts?”
“The Common Core Standards in this way restore elementary teachers to their rightful role as guides to the world.” I see standards that require elementary teachers to focus on textual complexity and analysis. Where is the “guide to the world” standard, exactly?
“The main reason the reading of informational text expands is that there is a requirement for the analysis of content rich non-fiction in history/social studies, science and technical subjects.” Is this requirement part of the ELA/Literacy standards or part of the science and history/social studies standards and/or curriculum? What exactly are the practical limits of the requirements of these standards? Can the science standards make English teachers responsible for students knowing how to use a two pan balance? If more informational reading is simply an organic outgrowth of higher levels of education, why are we even talking about it?
“The Standards do require content rich non-fiction to play a more central role in student reading, writing, listening and speaking than it has in the past.” Which standard requires this, compared to what standard?
When these standards were released, one reaction I had was “Whoever wrote this is not very interested in the discipline of English, or standards documents, or how standards are used in American schools today.” Dr. Coleman seems much more interested in how much time is spent doing what than what students should know and be able to do. Only the latter is the proper domain of “standards” as they are used in 21st century America.
Ultimately this controversy will fade away as more people realize that there is no particular reason to listen to curricular commandments from Dr. Coleman or anyone else about the “right” way to teach to the Common Core. The entire point of standards-based reform is that whatever works is the right way, and today, what “works” is whatever raises test scores.
If you want a longer-running hobby-horse, start asking why the Common Core ELA/Literacy standards were never internationally benchmarked, despite the requirement to do so for any standards used in RttT applications. The answer of course is that they are nothing like those used by any high performing country.
I think that, like E.D. Hirsch, Coleman and cohorts reached beyond their areas of expertise in declaring what each chlld should know in every grade and discipline, and in omitting education experts at each level from the decision-making table –unlike when specialized professional association and state standards have been developed. “Core” in education has become synonymous with “outsider prescription”.
rich, rigorous, robust, deep, meaningful… all of these words thrown out with all the nonesence and deception of common core are odious. who is Mr. Coleman to decide what meaning is to be made, or what constitutes depth? Some people like Matisse and some people like Piss Christ. Who decides which is deep? Mr Coleman?
We need to rewind, let kids read a great book, and write what THEY
want about it. Enough of this moribund rubbish.
Tom Hoffman is my new hero.
Can’t wait for Coleman to formulate a response.
[…] (5/21): Over the weekend, Diane Ravitch posted a blog with a differing perspective on David Coleman in which she detailed his work with Students First […]
Mr. Coleman.
Have you ever actually read books geared to children who are of primary and pre-primary ages and that are commonly used in classrooms across our country, as well as analyzed the vocabulary found in them? I taught Kindergarten and Preschool for decades, and I mentored/coached teachers in Early Reading First, where both fiction and non-fiction were used, though not at a 50/50 ratio –most often, storybooks and nursery rhymes were read. Rich language can be readily found in many storybooks and poems, not just in informational texts.
In the early years, what is critical for the development of language and literacy skills is frequent exposure to the use of sophisticated language, as well as the techniques that adults use to help children understand and use new, rich words. This includes regular and repeated readings of high quality literature, the systematic use of comprehension asides, questioning to promote higher order thinking skills, including making inferences, print referencing and analysis, promoting phonological awareness, meaningful uses of oral and written language, and informal conversations, where sophisticated language is modeled and encouraged throughout the children’s day. We trained teachers and parents in using such strategies in Head Start and, as a result, I personally witnessed many economically disadvantaged preschoolers who began to use rich language regularly and correctly, such as the directional words “horizontal” and “vertical”.
Since the Common Core is impacting preschool programs throughout our nation, not just K-12, I hope you will take the time to read children’s storybooks and poetry, as well as the plethora of research on this matter, such as that of David Dickinson: http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2011/08/preschool-language-literacy/
Prof W, ECE Teacher Educator
David Coleman’s alignment with an anit-labor, anti-tenure organization, despite his current denouncement of his affiliation is in no way surprising. Think critically about the effects of ACHIEVE as a renegade, umbrella supervisory organization for nationalized curricula. Think about is correlations to Pearson and the text book industry at large, and the potential profits there for affiliates. Think in the ways that the authors of the “shifts” assert that America is incapable of thinking. Who has the power, and how did they get it? Why has education’s focus shifted from teaching to improve achievement to scurrying about to adopt low-level tests so that teachers can be expediently evaluated. Why are primary children tested more than ever while funding is drawn from our educational budgets to pay Pearson 38 million dolllars to develop even more ridiculous tests! Check out the countries performing better than us on the NAEP and PISA. They are doing the opposite!! They are not as data and testing-crazy. They are teaching and learning-crazy.
I too am puzzled by David Coleman’s involvement as treasurer of the board of Rhee’s Students First organization. He did not denounce his affiliation. Nor did he resign. He said that his term on the board comes to an end in June, at which time he leaves the board. The two other board members are part of his own organization, Student Achievement Partners, and one of them–Jason Zimba–had a leading role in writing the Common Core math standards.
Diane
Literature is civilization’s collection of stories about being human. Literature requires meaning be brought to it by the life experiences of the reader. Thus, the same stories change over time for the reader. Fiction is what initially make people independent readers. It also teacher us that while all fact is true, not all truth is fact.
Thank you for this article about David Coleman. Our local school system is about to fully implement the Common Core standards and I am deeply disturbed by the over-emphasis on informational text and the marginalization of good quality young-adult fiction which teaches students so much about life. I have also watched David Coleman’s presentations on the Common Core and his teaching technique is far from engaging. He sets a poor example as a presenter. One can tell that he has very little actual experience teaching anyone, much less school-age children. The middle school students I work with would “have him for lunch”. I really have wonderful students but they have an aversion to boredom. Common Core = Common Bore? Please … spare me and my students!!!!!!!
If you pay attention to the Common Core State Standards as required by the authors, (verbatim treatment, no menu-like choices, close reading), you will see that Mr. Coleman and others expect all students to meet 1158 lteracy and ELA standards K-12 (that total includes parts a,b,c,,d, and so on for each standard).
Kindergarten kids and their teachers have 64 “college and career ready (CCR) standards to meet. Third graders and their teachers 79 CCRstandards to meet, and that quantity jumps to 115 CCRs for grade 7, and 116 for grade 8.
The standards were marketed as “fewer” (fewer than what?). Now add at least 462 CCRs for mathematics (177 of these cramed into grade 9), to say nothing of new standards in science (not developed in tandem with the the math standards), also new standards for a bunch of other subjects including the arts where, as in other subjects, education entails more than just reading texts.
The Common Core State Standards initiative is an expensive farce. and the initiative is
mislabeled. These are national standards. Mr. Coleman and others have amplified on a flawed concept of education and in spite of early claims to the contrary, now assert unearned authority over curriculum decisions, publishing criteria, new national tests, and “best” teaching methods.
As the key orchestrator of all of these dicta, Mr. Coleman has not been called upon to explain why the initative was launched with no significant input from experienced teachers and no credible concept of what it means to be “be ready” for a career and/or college. How does he justify the token and poorly rationalized attention to international standards? Why is there so little regard for peer-reviewed educational research? Bureau of Labor Statiscs projections on jobs/careers?
What we have is a nationalized stucture for education in two subjects, with federal funds flowing to the 46 states where legislators “adopted” the standards (close reading not required). The structure is still being marketed as if it can function as a complete curriculum for studies in the arts, sciences, and humanities, not only in grades K-5, but by making every teacher in every subject devote time to close readings of texts and writing about the content in the texts. And the texts must be selected to fit a formula for “complexity,” other criteria are secondary.
The standards also forward a truncated view of education as preparation for college or work. Schools should not foster in students a more ampleview of what lide offers and requires beyond book-learning, test-taking, reading for information more than pleasure or empahy or to satisfy curiosity, regurgitating and reframing information in strictly conventional machine-scorable writing.
By the way, have you looked at the 376 standards for writing?
Diane wrote, “I knew that he had been a Rhodes Scholar. I knew he had all the right credentials”
That fact, in my opinion, is telling enough. It makes him part of the elite establishment.
Note:
“According to Professor Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University, “The scholarships were merely a facade to conceal the secret society, or more accurately, they were to be one of the instruments by which the members of the secret society could carry out his purpose.” ..
“…the way the secret society would recruit its future leaders from among the Rhodes scholars was to dangle before them the prospects of future advancement in whatever field they chose to pursue, be it education, politics, government, foundation work, finance, journalism, etc. Thus, if you understood the implicit message being given to you by your sponsors you might one day become president of Harvard, President of the United States, a Supreme Court Judge, a US senator, or president of the Carnegie Foundation. The road to fame and fortune was open as long as you played the game and obeyed the rules. The Association of American Rhodes Scholars has an alumni membership of about 1,600. They have become leading figures in the new ruling elite in America.” (http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/research/rhodesscholars.html)
And this:
“Rhodes was also, of course, a dirty, rotten imperialist who, with financial support from Lord Rothschild and Alfred Beit, monopolized South Africa’s diamond mines as DeBeers Consolidated Mines and built up Consolidated Gold Fields. Let Quigley take it from here:
“These purposes centered on his [Rhodes] desire to federate the English-speaking peoples and to bring all the habitable portions of the world under their control. For this purpose Rhodes left part of his great fortune to found the Rhodes scholarships at Oxford to spread the English ruling class tradition…”
Thus was born country-club liberalism and from these Round Table Groups came the Council on Foreign Relations and what is called in America “the Eastern Establishment.” (http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/leftwing_conspirators.htm)
Thank you Diane. What exasperates me is that we hear constantly that everything we do needs to be “research driven.” Where’s the research behind this man’s ideology? There isn’t any. It just sounds right to the corporatists.
We need to declare all out war on this before we’re all turned into mindless drones.
A lot of really good comments on here but here is my gut response: I assumed (remember ass-U-me) the the CCSS were a team effort by a group of well credentialed professional educators. NO! This is ONE MAN’S FANTASY, much as Scientology is the fantasy of L. Ron Hubbard. You should distrust CCSS as much as you distrust Scientology.
Diane, just WAIT till you see what Dr. Bonaparte is doing to the SAT!!! You’re going to cry.
It is understandable why Mr. Colman believes his own “Malarkey” ( my new fave since VP Biden ressurected it as catchall denial colloquy), after watching his mother, Bennington College President, Liz Coleman’s TED talk. OMG she must have done a number on him.
She used every propaganda slogan and buzzword, and hegelian dialectic, fascilitatorspeak. it was incredible, her carefully modulated soviet style psychosingsong ( ” you are getting sleepy” ) recitation ( reading) illicited clapping at carefully chosen points, reminiscent of Angela Lansbury.
it all stinks to high heaven, hiding test questions from parents, using foul language and disparaging forms of literature, wow David, tell parents how you really feel? Imagine if the true agenda was out…. condescension and vulgar slang aside, hiding curiculum and test questions from teachers and parents combined with the company Mr. Coleman keeps, oh yeah and his Mother’s veritable testimony make Common Core an enemy of every caring Mother and teacher I can think of, and an enemy of State. Take another meeting with Jeb Bush and maybe you guys can conjure up Robert Muller and Alice Bailey and L.Ron to help you think up some more ” Malarkey “.
What concerns me is that the CC is being adopted by some (many?) school districts without proper evaluation. When I asked my local superintendent for the school curriculum, I was directed to the individual schools. The K-6 principal provided me with photocopies of the CC from the State of CT printed off the Internet. But CC is NOT a curriculum, but a set of guidelines requiring development of an implementing curriculum.
I was shocked that the superintendent’s office didn’t have the curriculum for the entire district available in the central office. Personally, I would like to see the implementation of E.D. Hirsch’s Core Knowledge Sequence in our schools because it restores the subject content that “Progressive” educators stripped from education over the 20th century, and does so in a logical, sequenced way.
Like you, Diane, I am an agnostic on the CC. I believe that it aims to restore some content and rigor into curriculum by providing guidelines. But its top-heavy implementation threatens local control, particularly when adopted wholesale by local districts who think it is a substitute for carefully designed curricula. I find myself in agreement with CC opponents to a degree, but fear that their opposition doesn’t find room for Core Knowledge, which, I believe, addresses the educational bankruptcy of what we have been fed under the rubric of “Progressive education” since the 1920s, as you have so carefully documented in “Left Back.”
I would much have preferred that local school districts recognize and implement the Core Knowledge Sequence on a voluntary basis, free from national or state pressures, but I have little faith in the ability of many school administrators to recognize its significance, having been products of schools of education that are the root cause of our educational deficiencies.
The irony is that the Hirsch-inspired Core Knowledge Sequence addresses the problems created by Progressive education, which should enlist support of conservatives who have decried its dumbing down effects for years. But, now, CC comes along, and is endorsed by Hirsch, but educational conservatives are lining up against the CC, which might have had some value as a vehicle for introducing Core Knowledge as an implemnting curriculum. It’s gotten very confusing and leaves many well-meaning people not knowing where to turn.
You cover so many important points. I especially appreciate what you have to say about Hirsch and his surprising support for Core Curriculum. Thanks a lot.
What concerns me is that the CC is being adopted by some (many?) school districts without proper evaluation. When I asked my local superintendent for the school curriculum, I was directed to the individual schools. The K-6 principal provided me with photocopies of the CC from the State of CT printed off the Internet. But CC is NOT a curriculum, but a set of guidelines requiring development of an implementing curriculum.
I was shocked that the superintendent’s office didn’t have the curriculum for the entire district available in the central office. Personally, I would like to see the implementation of E.D. Hirsch’s Core Knowledge Sequence in our schools because it restores the subject content that “Progressive” educators stripped from education over the 20th century, and does so in a logical, sequenced way.
Like you, Diane, I am an agnostic on the CC. I believe that it aims to restore some content and rigor into curriculum by providing guidelines. But its top-heavy implementation threatens local control, particularly when adopted wholesale by local districts who think it is a substitute for carefully designed curricula. I find myself in agreement with CC opponents to a degree, but fear that their opposition doesn’t find room for Core Knowledge, which, I believe, addresses the educational bankruptcy of what we have been fed under the rubric of “Progressive education” since the 1920s, as you have so carefully documented in “Left Back.”
I would much have preferred that local school districts recognize and implement the Core Knowledge Sequence on a voluntary basis, free from national or state pressures, but I have little faith in the ability of many school administrators to recognize its significance, having been products of schools of education that are the root cause of our educational deficiencies.
The irony is that the Hirsch-inspired Core Knowledge Sequence addresses the problems created by Progressive education, which should enlist support of conservatives who have decried its dumbing down effects for years. But, now, CC comes along, and is endorsed by Hirsch, but educational conservatives are lining up against the CC, which might have had some value as a vehicle for introducing Core Knowledge as an implemnting curriculum. It’s gotten very confusing and leaves many well-meaning people not knowing where to turn.
Conservatives are lining up against Common Core because of the DATA MINING it involves. read the DOE’s agenda via Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance:
Critical Factors for Success in the 21st Century February 14, 2013. In addition, these Standards doesn’t promote good literature over nonfiction and reading rules and regulations that the Federal Govt. produces. Additionally, the standards ignore calculus and delay learning algebra.
All this BS is built on names to make you think they are a good idea this is an American traitor.
I fear that the CCLS will take the joy of discovery out of reading for young children needing it most. The only common core should be one of a shared mission of that discovery for as many kids as we can possibly bring it to-not for either preparing widgets for the machine or “choicing” away the ones that would cost us a little more up front.
Diane, how do you suppose any of these facts changes your (or our) opinion on CCSS? Does it make them any less right or wrong? If there is too much of an emphasis on informational text, is that now worse because David Coleman personally likes information text, or is it wrong without needing to know that?
Let’s stick to the relevant facts and not try to get personal with folks.
Diane’s notice about Coleman’s personal predilections seem relevant to me. The presence of literature is time-honored and correct, therefore there would be a high burden on Coleman to change that in the typical school curriculum. Is he trying to impose based on his personal likes or dislikes. It’s a way of reprimanding him for overreaching. Totally fair play.
Mr. Coleman is a wicked, self-centered educator. Dr. Ravitch you don’t know how much hurt is in my heart reading about the changes to be made in the SAT. After 50 years as an educator in colleges and secondary schools. His philosophical base is all wrong. The new SATs will discriminate against achievement, against math and language standards, and favor certain ethnic groups over others — all points completely against SAT philosophy since its inception. It is a revolution that will produce even more confusion and chaos than we have now (is that possible?). Further, Mr. Coleman is one of those politically correct individuals who is always mouthing off about our becoming more internationally competitive in education. Yet, with further diluting of the SAT (the “readjustment” of the mean score a few years ago was the first diluting step), we shall actually be less competitive. I do not consider myself to be a maudlin or sentimental person, but when I read about the changes, tears literally came to my eyes. I have dedicated most of my life to the intellectual development of students of all races, religions, and creeds, and regardless of their economic standing. My own father was a blue collar worker, and I had the opportunity to obtain degrees from Ivy League institutions. Like Mr. Coleman, I am Jewish. I read about his bar mitzvah. I also was bar mitzvahed. What did he learn from being Jewish? I learned that you shall not bear false witness (it’s one of the Ten Commandments). Watering down a standardized test is bearing false witness. It’s saying that your score is just as valid as someone else’s who received the same score but answered more difficult questions. Is that not a lie no matter how sophisticated your defense of the change might purport to be?
One other point …. Mr. Coleman’s longtime association with Michelle Rhee is, as you clearly state, a “red flag” regarding the philosophical foundations of his educational goals. Michelle Rhee lacks educational values and ideals and sees education as a form of marketing rather than as a system of passing on knowledge and values. The teacher is not a mere facilitator, nor is he or she to be evaluated according to cost-benefit parameters. Rather, the teacher is the key to unlocking student achievement for a better future and for independent thinking. Further, Michelle Rhee and her ilk are reversing the time honored ideal of in loco parentis where the teachers being placed under the control of the master puppeteers of the Core Curriculum and administrators, teachers, students, and, lastly, parents are under the control of an impersonal system run by technocrats, software engineers, and arch-manipulators, not by loving adults who care about kids. So, to coin a phrase, we now have in loco educationensis where parents must submit to the values and premises of the schools, and the schools must submit (all personnel) to the values and premises of the master controllers. It’s Plato’s Republic, Book VII, writ large. Or, eventually (tomorrow?) will be 1984 or Brave New World.
Thus, when hydroquinone is not so good with acne marks cure, what are other choices.
Terminologically the right options for you are natural acne marks
treatments. See, as they have multiple advantages over other acne
scars cures. They are not costly than others. Also they do
not have side effects such as hydroquinone has. This is a big benefit because you never would want a treatment that on
one hand is trying to solve one problem of yours and on the other hand seems to give
one more problem. Also these natural solutions for acne marks are very quick and productive will provide you outcomes in weeks.
Urine therapy is one such medication. This is very beneficial, all
you need is apply your morning pee with some cotton on the scars.
Ok, I feel it might be bit hard for many of you to try it.
Therefore, we will some easy acne marks medication choices.
See the link given here.
pimples removal