Marc Tucker says I am wrong for saying I cannot support the Common Core.
Unlike me, he says they need no field testing, no trial.
He doesn’t worry–as I do–that they are developmentally inappropriate for the early grades.
He doesn’t worry–as I do–that the rigor-rigor-rigor that is so widely hailed might widen the achievement gap and discourage struggling students.
He doesn’t worry that reactionary groups and entrepreneurs are excited about the prospect that Common Core will cause test scores to plummet. In every state.
How can he be so sure that the Common Core will do no harm?
I don’t know.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Graduation standards — the end goals — don’t need to be field tested. They are what they are.
If you are creating a yearly sequence of goals, that should be tested, because the sequence may be wrong.
Most other countries don’t have yearly “standards,” at least in ELA. They have culminating standards, maybe at each level of school, but the yearly goals are part of the curriculum.
Kinda like having to pass the Affordable Care Act before we know what’s in it. Educators have been deluged with new, smarter curriculums for decades. We never know how effective each will be until we field test it in the classrooms. One thing that doesn’t change is the development of a human child, however. With the Common Bores, we are tinkering with the minds and hearts of children without considering the harm that may result from pushing such nonsense. Sigh. What goes around, comes around. This, too, shall pass…hopefully before too much damage is done. I have a closet full of curriculum guides, maps and plans that go way back to 1974. There’s plenty of room for the discarded Common Bores, too. Take what is good from it, and let go of the rest. There’ll be something new coming down from on high sooner or later.
Follow the money. Always follow the money.
Cui bono?
Yes, exactly. Tucker is President and CEO (man, am I tired of hearing opinions on K-12 ed issues from people with THAT particular job title!) of the National Center on Education and the Economy. Take a look at the group’s “Funders” page and you will see all the usual suspects in terms of corporations and foundations that have been causing mischief for awhile now: http://www.ncee.org/about-ncee/funders/
So, he’s in favor of the CCSS. If that isn’t a “dog bites man” story (i.e., nothing surprising) I don’t know what would be…
Our Deb Gist here in RI has decided to forge ahead with her new VAM based teacher evaluation system in the final years of NECAP. I wonder how concerned we should be that we are about to switch to a new test that will likely cause scores to plummet? We have heard absolutely nothing about how the switch to the new test will be accounted for in our evaluations.
Marc Tucker has been wrong about nearly everything for 3 decades. Just another shill for the so-called “elites.”
Interesting. He’s not very happy with the US Dept of Education on a whole range of subjects.
The ones that don’t benefit him…don’t forget Joe…it is all about the kids!
Fool us never!
Valerie Strauss of Washington Post just posted this about 3 commitments she says US Dept of Ed has made:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/03/15/three-commitments-u-s-ed-dept-made-at-teaching-summit/
“support the implementation of common core state standards through an emphasis on more effective use of time and professional collaboration, and on better curriculum and resources”.
Thank you for linking Joe, but they are not state standards and every time he repeats that he is lying. They are national standards and states were forced to adopt them or risk losing their waiver.
We will need a waiver to our waiver as the expenses will far exceed the money coming from Arne. It is an unfunded mandate from the Feds.
He is adjusting his teacher evaluation piece because of a push back on testing, but that’s all they care about.
I wouldn’t trust Arne to walk my dog. Fool me never!
The pushback is far from over. This is just the latest propaganda from the Gates USDOE.
If Marc Tucker actually knew ANYTHING about curriculum development, he wouldn’t have written the following statement:
“I can understand why we would want to know how well a strategy for helping students reach our aspirations worked before we asked all our teachers to use it, but don’t understand why we would field test our aspirations.”
Rigor is great , especially when supported by strategies for students with developmental delays, English language acquisition, or for students who need more practice. Well said, the likelihood exists in a widening of our achievement gap. Is this just another example of institutionalized racism?
It isn’t about Tucker being sure CC won’t do students harm. It’s about a bunch of politicians being led by their noses and campaign coffers at the behest of gazillionaires that want to profit from school/taxpayers dollars. We need to reject these schemes outright, not give them any consideration, even if there is a shred of value, when the motivation is greed, not kids. CC is another diversion to keep educators dancing in circles while the vultures attack. We will never get a public education back until we stop reacting to their nonsense (masked in just enough reason) and take the offensive route.
I guess they gave up on converting the U.S. to the metric system and invented this. I would liken the common core to a very expensive banana hook.
Diane,
Your recent disagreement with Mark Tucker caused me to reflect on why I am so dissatisfied with the standards debate. There is too much conflation of the complex issues surrounding standards, standardization and high-stakes assessment as an improvement tool. They seem inseparable in practice, but nonetheless, it’s important to sort them out.
I’ll use the example of the Kindergarten math standard, “ Count to 100 by ones and by tens.” This is a marked departure from current expectations, at least here in the US. I am not taking a position on whether it is appropriate or not. But, I know this expectation has generated a lot of heat. Why has it? First, it is clear that many people do not know whether this is a common achievable expectation for most students based on evidence from around the world, an aspirational expectation based on small samples under experimental conditions or an experimental research proposition. If the US is just out of step, why is this not common knowledge across math and early childhood educators? If not, why is it situated in the standards as an expectation for which teachers will be held accountable?
In my view, it the looming threat of consequential assessments that is undermining consideration, or when necessary suspension of disbelief, of standards that might push beyond current practice. Without the threat, educators might embrace challenges and new ideas about the limits of student understanding. With the threat, educators reasonably hear, “You must accomplish outcomes with your students that you mistakenly believe is not possible. If you don’t accomplish them (and excel in comparison to your colleagues) you will be blamed, and risk promotion.”
Engaging students and teachers in stretching their limits is not just about, “stepping up our game,” as President Obama suggested on Education Nation. Maybe that was just rhetorical and he really understands complexity, but he hasn’t said so. The Standards could engender healthy debate about the evidentiary basis of various learning propositions and the repertoire of effective strategies necessary to achieve them. We might even be able to consider new assessments if they were meant to be exploratory rather than a sledgehammer.
Arthur
VERY well put, Arthur.
I could not open the link, but I can safely assume that Tucker never worked with young children. Those who like to tell us what young children (or any child, for that matter) are capable of doing never have any experience working with them.
You should read some Congressional testimony ON MARC TUCKER: http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/OtherPDFs/Hyde_Cuddy_testimony.pdf
Simple: Children are no better then lab rats and parents the genetic contributors.
Therefore: Why should Marc Tucker show caring?
Simple: Country before individuals rights and opportunity, and allegiance now being sought by all for the race to another planet.
Therefore: Best and Brightest, value-added, elite and grit centered brainiacs accepted and sought for, the rest get the heck out of the way.
Simple: Workforce needed by multi-national corporations, Harvard elites hyping each other and Pearce feeding at the education dollars.
Therefore: Money talks and integrity walks. Denial is greatest with self interest..called greed.
It is not rocket science to run a rocket company so says Sir Branson….Dyslexics are global thinkers it is a shame that we will sort them out early and lose their vision and their genius.