This reader has done a close reading of the Common Core standards and concludes they are “an expensive farce.”
| 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. [David] 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 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 foster in students a more ample view of what life 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 Ravitch's blog 
Excellent points! And from what we are being told, the science and social studies standards ARE being written by Coleman or his cronies. States have been scrambling and spending to write those standards based on the Common Core, but what they have come up with will be thrown out as soon as the new standards for those subjects are sent down from Mount Sinai.
It’s not just standards that are being handed down. There seems to be a continuous stream of “clarifying” documents, like their Publisher’s Criteria, which double down on unverified approaches to learning, teaching, and curriculum design. These aren’t just academic standards anymore. Because writing standards involves a committee of multiple stakeholders, agreement is reached by allowing room for interpretation. But now, after the CCSS have been adopted, any room for interpretation and innovation that was created during the standards drafting process is being eroded by three men, two of which are handily available for consulting services. States may love this guidance. But understand what it does: dictates major curricular choices. Check out the math criteria. Among other things, you’ll see a mandated narrowed curriculum with rationale peppered with the same alarmist buzzwords common to the corporate reformers. You’ll also see where they demand instructional time follow the same proportions set by the national assessment consortia — making teaching to the test another mandated reality. You’ll see other things, too. Their sense of authority is stunning. It’s worth a look.
Click to access Math_Publishers_Criteria_K-8_Summer%202012_FINAL.pdf
Born on the cusp of the New Math, where I first got catechized in the Old Math and then had to learn the New Math in order to help my succeeding siblings through their homework, I am the survivor of more national curriculum reforms than either fashion of Math taught me to count.
But the one thing that distinguished all those Old Style reforms was the question of who was in charge of reforming the curriculum. No matter how much textbook publishers may have had their hands in the till and their thumbs on the scales, it was the professional educators who ran the show.
That is the main thing that no longer holds true today, and that is making all the difference.
Professional educators need to quit fussing over the red herrings in this current kettle of fish. Curing the Common Core will not happen unless the professionals who still have a clue what education is start asking who has now captured control of the ever-continuing process and start taking control back from those who know nothing but how to cash in on other people’s bees-wax.
Such truth in this message. I was exposed to the new math when I was in college, via television. Was never so confused in my life. Definitely did not find it to be a way to teach math once I had my own classroom. So glad it quietly and in time went away. I don’t think CCSS will go away so quietly, but do think they will eventually go away.
Reblogged this on teacher1blog and commented:
Diane Ravitch is a highly respected educational advocate with a lot of good information for teachers.
Diane, I just spent 8 hours going through the training and rubrics for the ELA / history anchors and standards. Mr. Coleman waxed on about the virtues of the common core in our introductory video. The group listed the benefits the CCSS will bring: rigor, equity, and everyone on the same page nationally. Then we started looking at the anchors and standards and how to incorporate them in the classroom. Halfway through the training I turned to my colleague and asked, “How will any of this bring those items listed there?” Mr. Coleman should know just because you say something will bring a result doesn’t mean it is true. The CCSS have not changed the fact that my textbook is old enough to buy cigarettes, class size varies across school districts, and some principals can run schools while others cannot. It is an expensive new program that puts more money in Pearson’s coffers and might actually increase the achievement gap.
The state is one of those 45 states that have adopted the unverified Common Core Standards. Our district is in he process developing a “bridge” between the Next Generation Sunshine State Standards (NGSSS) and the Common Core Standards. We, as teachers, were just completed the “required” training (professional development) for the bridging of the two sets of standards. What I found the most disturbing from basically two days of inservice training was not that were are being forced to implement CCSS but that one of the presenters informed us the major difference between the two sets of standards was the CCSS take out the fluff so that our curriculum guides can better focus on preparing the students to take “the test.” Needless to say I was absolutely appalled.
I should have proofread before posting. The first sentence should read “The state of Florida . . .”
Would just like to add another thought. The creation of these “new eand improved standards” adds plenty of political jobs, at least in my state. In addition, many of these jobs are awarded as retire-rehire in the guise
of “consultant .”
IMO, we need a place where analyses like these of Common Core can be posted together, and where a lively discussion can take place. There is much to think and talk about. For example, who’s making what money from the national application of these standards? What’s Pearson’s role? On the other hand, does Common Core adaptation mean that students in more needy places will have a better chance of getting a strong education than otherwise might happen (as discussed in an interesting issue of American Educator a year or so ago)?
I am a concerned parent in NJ and have seen the shift towards CCSS in my 2 childrens’ curriculum. While I can see some benefits to the new standards, I (as well as several other parents and teachers) are dissatisfied with the program, mainly for reasons mentioned within the posts and comments above. We are going to be addressing our local Board of Education regarding possible changes, but do you have any suggestions on how we can potentially start a grassroots effort to have a broader dialogue with those in charge of implementing the program?
It is difficult to value any of the points made when there
are so many typos and grammatical errors in both the author’s post
and some of the comments.
Any thought on this? If seems to contradict much of what I have read about CC elsewhere;;;;
Click to access PolicyPoints_Common_Core_State_Standards.pdf