The school leaders of New York City, Newark, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., convened a meeting to tell publishers that they would not buy their textbooks unless they were closely aligned with the Common Core standards.
Now bear in mind that these districts are in the forefront of corporate reform. Washington, D.C., Newark and Chicago are among the nation’s lowest performing districts.
Bear in mind that the Common Core standards have never been implemented or field-tested anywhere. No one knows how they will affect student achievement or whether they will widen the achievement gap between students of different races and income groups. If the standards are as rigorous as claimed, they may well worsen the achievement of students who are already struggling, as so many are in these districts.
One must wonder why the districts that have so many students who are at risk of failing are so ardent to promote this untested set of standards.
I note that Jason Zimba, the author of the math standards, attended the event. Zimba is–or was until a few weeks ago–a member of the small board of directors of Michelle Rhee’s StudentsFirst. The other members were David Coleman, the architect of the Common Core standards, and a third person who works for David Coleman. Coleman, recently named to be president of the College Board, created an assessment company called the “Grow Network” which was sold to McGraw-Hill in 2005, for a rumored $81 million.

My first guess…one company Pearson’s Mc Graw Hill, is in the process of creating aligned texts. Therefore, they have an edge that, because this mandate was announced, will not look like collusion between the reformers and Pearson.
Second guess, because they are the big buyers, all texts will be created their way, forcing that kind of text on all of us. I well remember the Texas textbook wars from when I lived there. This embeds their version of CCSS.
Third guess. This was theater between the groups. At a time of the tightest budgets, schools will feel compelled to buy these texts, so the publishing houses will get big profits from investing in their creation.
Thank goodness Mr. Coleman was there! He will make sure they take those first-grade stories about Dick and Jane riding their bicycles for adventure and turn them into informational texts on how to repair Dick’s bicycle.
LikeLike
It may be easier in few years when the have decimated the teaching profession by implanting a CCSS microchip in the brains of the revolving door of Stepford test prep drones monitorng the children via bubble sheets and biometric bracelets.
LikeLike
Oh my gosh; you are hilarious! What is your blog url?
LikeLike
I don’t have a blog. I just read and comment. If we don’t laugh we will cry…actually I have cried. I am hoping to survive 6-7 more years. We all need to stick together somehow.
LikeLike
We all know how well Pearson did creating New York State tests this year. What a fiasco!
LikeLike
Who has money for new textbooks? The Andrew Cuomo’s( Mr. Student advocate) tax cap has taken care of that concern
The Perils of One Size Fits All http://rlratto.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
Diane: Beware becoming too attached to the conspiratorial mind set — especially when your enemies may turn out to be conspirators for the good…. In this case, for example, the coalition (much more suitable a term) is probably a brilliant move to offset the well documented influence of Texas and California officials who have had much too much impact on curriculum content and delivery through control over textbooks for years. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the publishers (or at least the editors) themselves were in cahoots with this particular conspiracy….
LikeLike
I wrotea book in 2003 called “The Language Police.” I’m well aware of the politics of textbooks.
My question remains: why no field test? Why the pressure to foist unproven standards on everyone?
LikeLike
Because these reformers do not believe in field testing and research. They move from the certainty that they are right and scoff at educators and researchers who know that even the best ideas sometimes do not work when implemented. They have a corporate mindset. If from field testing we find the direction is wrongheaded, how will we profit from our investments in all of this? Diane, it is the new real estate bubble.
LikeLike
It’s all of a piece with the lies that have informed the Education Wars going back to the attack on Whole Language in the ’80s and the subsequent Math Wars in the ’90s: 1) demand that your opponents give “data-based” evidence to support their materials, pedagogy, educational philosophy, etc.; 2) simultaneously ignore any positive data your opponents produce and rail against “mad scientist” experiments on “innocent children”; with this sort of Catch 22, how can you lose? and 3) when the tables are turned and its YOUR ideas and materials that are being implemented and sold, ignore the need for field trials, data-based evidence, and when confronted about that, change the subject.
If I hadn’t predicted just about this exact scenario after fighting with self-proclaimed “Math Warriors” from groups like Mathematically Correct and NYC-HOLD in the last two decades, I wouldn’t believe it myself.
LikeLike
Since Virginia received their NCLB waiver without adopting the CCSS they will not be obligated to purchase these textbooks. I suppose many years from now we can compare all the lemmings to at least one state (maybe two – Vermont) and then we can compare the results.
LikeLike
Two wrongs don’t make a right! Using other inappropriate curriculum to “get at” the Texas issue means using children as pawns too. Not appropriate.
LikeLike
I found this article curious as well….could it be the beginning of buyers remorse or are they just pretending to be critical thinkers?
LikeLike
Found this to be a curious story…..could it be the beginning of buyers remorse, or ate they just pretending to be critical thinkers?
LikeLike
This is indeed quite strange and interesting. My takeaways and speculations:
1. Texas has traditionally “owned” textbook production due to the $22 billion Permanent School Fund that makes them one of the biggest customers on the block. Smaller players have always resented this and looked for ways to circumvent the Texas influence. This is a nice platform to steal Texas’s thunder.
2. The Texas State Board of Education is notorious for the radical rightwing religious choices it makes on what is acceptable for inclusion in the books and this has grated on the more liberal city school systems and bluer states for quite a while. Now they can have a dominant presence in the textbook market.
3. Texas has declined adoption of the CCSS claiming it is not “rigorous enough” for their needs. By forcing publishers to produce CCSS-focused textbooks the reformers can attempt to bring in the CCSS through the “back door” on the holdout states because publishers may balk at the expense of producing separate books for Texas, Alaska, Virginia, Minnesota and Nebraska. Chances are they will simply take the CCSS textbooks and rebrand them as they always have the Texas textbooks for the other states.
4. The principal as CEO is the promoted, preferred model of the reformers; much of their legislative work is geared towards removing power from teachers, parents, and school boards and increase the power of the weakened principal who is a victim of the evil teachers’ unions and the political machinations of school boards. NYC’s Walcott mentions in the article that they let many of their principals decide what materials to purchase for their school. This could be very problematic if a rogue principal purchases a non-CCSS aligned set of textbooks and raises test scores anyway. Think of the bad publicity.
5. School districts are notorious for giving lip-service to new top-down initiatives and working to create an appearance of compliance without making any real systemic changes. Sometimes this is a good thing but it’s very problematic for the reformers who seem to share the silly philosophy that their unproven, untested ideas can never fail — they can only be failed by lack of fidelity in implementation. Controlling the textbooks gives them an edge here and makes it harder for districts to fake compliance.
6. Publishers have a history of taking existing inventory and rebranding it to fit the current reform fads to make it more appealing to purchasers. Hey look! This textbook is aligned to the standards of your state! (Even though those standards were nowhere in sight when it was written). It’s pretty easy to retrofit current materials to fit standards because standards are generally vague and generic enough that you can connect them to almost anything in a textbook. Anything that you can’t find in your current inventory is another sales opportunity: produce and sell supplements!
7. Money. Lots and lots of money. The CCSS have created an enormous opportunity for the textbook publishers to cash in and make billions. The urban leaders are all political appointees working simultaneously at making their boss look good, proving a political ideology, and trolling for future campaign contributions. This is a win-win scenario: they appear to the public and a gullible media to be taking a “tough stance” against the big publishers. Then they meet in closed-door, back-room settings and make sweetheart deals with the publishers in order to encourage campaign donations.
8. They really think that the CCSS will work and they care enough about teachers and students to fight to give them the necessary materials to be successful. No, I can’t swallow that one even with extra sugar and cream! LOL
LikeLike
7. Sounds most likely to me!
LikeLike
Sorry, Diane, there is nothing strange about it. It all comes down to money, and the fact that they are getting push back from schools and more importantly, parents, that this test, test and more test crap is starting to collapse on them. They are trying to get this put in under disguise. You even pointed it out yourself, the connections, Rhee, Pearson, which of course, means Murdoch/Bloomberg/Klein. All of the others. The only thing they can’t fight is an informed populate, and that is starting to happen. Now they have to shove their plans through before the whole thing collapses. The only individual that can stop it right now is President Obama. If he comes out and says, something like, “after much soul searching, I have come to realize the full bodied education my kids get, with plenty of art, music, PE and they are not subjected to the constant testing the rest of the country seems to be falling in love with, is the type of education we should want for all students. My kids reap the benefit of small class sizes and much more personal attention from their teachers, so should yours, and it is my goal in a second Obama administration to start moving education policy in this country back in that direction.” That is the only way that it will stop immediately. Otherwise the parents are going to keep fighting the good fight.
LikeLike
Pfh64,
You just gave me an idea and we need Diane’s help.
How can we collectively draft a letter to Obama that says just that? I know of others who have written individually and they either get no response or a generic form letter that is fluff.
I have to think, but could we write a plea for Obama to consider the concerns of The Real Teachers of the USA and it would be signed by Diane and her readers, followers, whatever you want to all all of us?
We can send it to Michelle and Arne, too?
I find two things very ironic. The education the Obama girls are receiving vs. what is being shoved down our throats and the fact that many city schools are more segregated than ever and all of this is happening under the command of our first minority/partially African American president. Don’t you?
Diane, I know you are busy, but will you think about it?
LikeLike
Don’t bother with Obama. He is aligned with the corporate interests – Arne is just carrying out his policies. Obama: get over him. He doesn’t support public education and public school teachers.
LikeLike
Linda, I am all for it, but how do we make sure that the letter is read by the president, and understood in context? If you want to “cc” to the first lady & the secretary, I am all for it. As for the segregation, I do not doubt it, it has been one of the great things about the building I have been in for the last 15 years, the mix is incredible. All of this “Race to the Top & SIG crap” have threatened and probably has already, to destroy it. But I am all open for any ideas to get it read.
LikeLike
Great idea, Linda. Save our Schools is trying and Teachers’ Letters to Obama is/are trying. This try might be actually get his attention!
LikeLike
What Linda said re: what pfh64 said, above. I’m ready to sign.
And what about forwarding him the resolution? http://timeoutfromtesting.org/nationalresolution/inds?p=99
LikeLike
Good idea, but how on earth does anyone get anything actually to the President?
LikeLike
More experimentation on minorities. Please read my article “Experimentation on Minorities”. Click on pdfs at http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com
I served as Sr. Policy Advisor in U.S. Dept. of Education, OERI, under President Reagan and was fired for leaking a grant to implement computer curriculum (Project Better Skills Through Technology) to the press. This Project went into all the states.
I am the author of The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, now out of print, but revised, updated version is now available at Amazon.com
LikeLike
White Chalk Crime is becoming more and more apparent. Using children as guinea pigs for a curriculum that benefits a business interest is a great example of White Chalk Crime. Using false accusations against dedicated teachers is another example of White Chalk Crime. Actually, these two examples are connected at the hip. Dedicated teachers tell the truth about what benefits children and are in the way of businessmen, I mean White Chalk Criminals – those who want money and power while pretending to care about children. Join us at EndTeacherAbuse.org so we build a voice for the truth about how education is no longer about educating children and rather a gold mine for the greedy. Getting rid of public schools will exponentially increase this opportunity for greed since not even those of us who love children would risk speaking out and being sued, something White Chalk Criminals cannot do to dedicated teachers who speak out in the public schools. All they can do to public school teachers who care is end our careers, not our voices.
LikeLike
Also check out WhiteChalkCrime.com!
LikeLike
Pearson, having had a seat at the Common Core table and thus an unfair advantage, already has one of the few CC-aligned math books, enVision Math, for elementary students. It is an incoherent constructivist/”fuzzy math” series, that has created an onslaught of new students at my local Kumon center. In Indiana our Dept. of Educ. released two lists of approved series: those that align to the CC and those that align to our previous standards. In most grades, enVision was one of the only CC-aligned choices. Naturally, this enticed many districts to simply adopt enVision over other books, such as Saxon. Thanks to the Common Core, Pearson’s “fuzzy math” has blanketed our state!
LikeLike
Please, Heather. I thought I wouldn’t run into Math Warrior baloney here, but I guess I was wrong. Pearson and other publishers have no philosophy of mathematics education. What they have is an interest in selling textbooks. What you’re seeing here is paralleled by what happened during the “New Math” in the late ’50s/early ’60s. There were various curriculum projects running, but the textbooks that got out first were the (depending upon your viewpoint) famous/infamous Dolciani books. Some people who are generally critical of both New Math and the so-called “New-New Math” – an early epithet for what you call “fuzzy” math – swear by the Dolciani books because they were so “rigorous.” Others think that Dolciani destroyed the “Golden Age” of US mathematics education (which of course just happened to be when THEY were in K-12). As someone whose math education straddled these two periods (I started Kindergarten in 1955) and whose own experiences in high school mathematics made me despise the subject until I was in my early 30s (I now have a graduate degree in math education from the University of Michigan), I can only say that what I experienced nothing that made me want to do math, even though until 9th grade I was an A student in the subject.
I firmly believe that we need a new direction in how we present mathematics in K-12. I don’t believe the Common Core is that direction (nor do I believe any national curriculum or standards will get us to where we need to be). I don’t trust Pearson or any of the other giant players in the CCSS/Ed Deform debacle. But if you don’t get yourself clear on what constructiivism is and isn’t, you’re going to continue to post silly attacks on programs SIMPLY because they have been labeled “fuzzy” or “constructivist,” or something equally useless.
Constructivism is a theory of learning that I challenge you to refute: namely that every individual learns by taking whatever new information s/he encounters and constructs new KNOWLEDGE by filtering the new data through whatever framework of ideas and information s/he’s previously constructed. Hence, you cannot and never will be able to simply pour what you know into anyone else’s head, because that person ISN’T YOU. They will process what you think you’ve stated unambiguously through the filters of their prior understanding. You can say it 1,000 times, but until the individual is able to find a way to connect it with what s/he already understands (some or even much of which may well be faulty), your basic understanding won’t make it across the chasm between individuals.
When someone says that everyone constructs his/her own knowledge, that is all that is meant. It doesn’t mean, “You have to pot around with math until you reinvent/rediscover every bit of mathematical knowledge thus far known.” That’s a ridiculous parody of what constructivist theorists say.
However, there are various pedagogical approaches that have been advocated in the last couple of decades that are often labeled (rightly or wrongly) as “constructivist.” These include discovery learning, guided discovery learning, student-centered learning, inquiry learning, project-based learning, and other ideas. Much of this includes to some extent or other using small group and pair work, though it is perfectly possible to do either of those things without
doing any of the first-named things, and to do the first-named things without small-group or pair work.
Furthermore, you can use any combination of these, with various books (or with lessons teachers cull from the Internet, craft themselves, or borrow or adapt from colleagues and texts and videos), that are more in keeping with constructivist learning theory or less compatible with it. What won’t change is that even the most traditional lecture – examples – seatwork -homework lesson structure still results in students learning as constructivist theory claims. If you have a refutation for that, I’d love to read it. But in my experience as a learner and educator, that’s the way humans work. That’s why someone can say, after giving a “wonderful” lecture, “I taught it perfectly, but they didn’t learn it,” something one hears all the time. What such teachers/professors forget is that you’ve not taught effectively if no one (or very few) learns. So it is incumbent upon educators to do MORE than lecture. Nothing WRONG with lecture, as long as you don’t fool yourself into believing it suffices.
Similarly, traditional texts (and, sadly, many “progressive” ones, which might include the one you’re dismissing as “fuzzy”) forget to actually engage students in mathematical thinking. Some just give examples and then plunge into problems that carefully parallel the worked examples. Others claim to be giving students “investigations,” but scaffold everything so incrementally that there’s virtually no free thought going on. Students are never asked or allowed to struggle. But doing mathematics is, in no small part, about struggling. It’s about figuring out what to do when you don’t know what to do. Effective mathematics instruction helps students build up tools, strategies, and habits of mind that help them actively confront new ideas and new problems, instead sitting like lumps saying pathetically, “You never taught us this.”
If mathematics depended upon only what we already knew, no progress could ever occur. And if we insist upon infantilizing students in school when it comes to math, they’ll NEVER think mathematically. They will, in fact, be like the vast majority of students have been in this country for decade upon decade, who take no risks, exert no energy, and ultimately learn almost nothing.
Of course, this goes beyond mathematics, and similar wars have gone on regarding reading and literacy, and are now going on regarding science. It’s a safe bet that we’ll see it in history/social studies in due time.
If you insist on cheap labeling to reject any sort of approach to mathematics that differs from what you may personally have had (whether it worked for you or not), I’m afraid you’ll be holding back opportunities for real improvement for the majority of students. And I say this whether the text you’re attacking as “fuzzy” turns out to be good, bad, or indifferent. The next math text I see that is essentially flawless and should be used by teachers and students mindlessly and without careful consideration of the fit between the lessons it offers (and the order in which it offers them) and the individual teacher and students being asked to follow them will be the first. It still comes down to INSTRUCTION, not books (indeed, we would do well to minimize our dependence upon textbooks). Great teachers will do wonderful things no matter what texts they are handed. Indifferent ones will screw things up with even the most creative books. And constructivism will still apply to how we all learn, no matter what epithets you throw at it.
LikeLike
Thanks, Michael for your thoughtful reply to Heather. Hope she reads it and constructs a better understanding of constructivism.
LikeLike
I will check out EndTeacherAbuse.org and WhiteChalkCrime.com. I hope you will check out http://www.saveourschoolsmarch.org. Our march last summer was a start. I’m frustrated that we still haven’t gotten the President’s attention, but I’m encouraged that there are more and more groups of parents and educators trying to do so.
LikeLike
Diane,
You state
“Bear in mind that the Common Core standards have never been implemented or field-tested anywhere. No one knows how they will affect student achievement or whether they will widen the achievement gap between students of different races and income groups.”
Kentucky had the distinction of adopting CC before they were even finalized, and have been working with them now for about two years. This past school year was our first year of testing CC standards.
Stay tuned for test results, which will be released in September or October, to get an understanding of how these may affect gaps. Something to remember when seeing these is that KY has also worked with large teacher groups across the state around a common understanding of these standards.
So….we shall see how they may work.
LikeLike
That is good information to know. Are the state tests already aligned with the Common Core standards?
LikeLike
It always comes down to MONEY, no matter what you think…someone is benefitting from this, our whole country is setup like this now: Crony Capitalism. It is a shame we have devolved to this state. I served the country for 26 years and have watched from sh!tholes around the world as ‘you’ people have destroyed MY REPUBLIC…thank you.
LikeLike