A joint statement by the American Association of School Administrators, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National School Boards Association, and the National Association of Secondary School Principals expressed support for the Common Core standards, but called for more time to prepare teachers, students, and schools for the new standards. Their polling showed growing concern about lack of resources, lack of professional development, lack of public understanding, and an unnecessary pressure to assess students online without adequate preparation. A sizable number reported declining support in their state for the Common Core and the costs attached to it. Mentioned briefly is concern that the widely predicted drop in proficiency rates will undermine public support for public education.
Their bottom line: Slow down and get it right.
Here is their statement:
School Leadership Groups Urge “Adequate Time” to Implement Common Core Standards
The undersigned groups, representing AASA, NAESP, NASSP, and NSBA, release the following statement
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) have started to move our nation’s schools in a more positive direction as it relates to ensuring all students are striving toward high, rigorous learning goals. Overall, local school board members, superintendents, principals, and teachers believe in the CCSS and their ability to lead to deeper levels of learning for our nation’s students. In fact, the majority of respondents of a recent NAESP survey of 916 elementary and middle-level principals from 14 early adopter states—states that both adopted CCSS into policy before other states and also enacted ambitious efforts to heighten awareness and implementation of the standards—believe that the CCSS will increase students’ skill mastery across subjects, and provide a curriculum frame for deeper conceptual understanding of math and English language arts.
Undoubtedly, the corresponding online assessments, currently under construction, stand to play a very important role in the education arena, but only if we get it right. With more federal involvement and less state leadership, we are concerned that the momentum of the online assessments could derail the good work already in place through the CCSS and deny the assessments the opportunity to provide the same academic benefits. It is imperative that all educators and education stakeholders who support the new standards initiative have the time necessary to get it right and make it work in schools. We should move with all deliberate speed; in this case, “deliberate” is more important than “speed.”
While assessment has an important role to play as one of multiple measures for evaluating student learning and achievement, the continued reliance on one-time testing diverts attention away from content and the substance of what is being taught. This is especially problematic when the one-time tests are brand-new, recently aligned with new standards, and schools have had insufficient time to prepare teachers to meaningfully incorporate the standards and aligned assessments into their teaching. Principals report that, despite having received some related professional development over the past two years, they largely lack preparation to lead and sustain the CCSS. School district leaders and principals need more time and adequate professional development to manage the change process in schools; evaluate teachers’ use of the new standards during instruction; align schools’ instructional focus; make key decisions on the best types of professional development to support teachers; and develop extended learning opportunities to sufficiently address CCSS implementation. Further, they need sufficient allocation of financial resources to implement this array of school-based activities.
The momentum toward online assessments and the pressure to meet another arbitrary target (implementation in the 2014-2015 school year) should not get ahead of the very real obstacles states and districts face in aligning the curriculum with the new standards and implementing the tests. It is imperative that we all consider the implications for bandwidth, infrastructure, and professional development as it relates to online assessment. We must make adequate time for a thoughtful conversation about how assessments can be used to provide instructionally useful information to schools in a timely manner. This conversation must address the additional time that is needed to allow states and districts to properly address data collection issues, which have dogged states since the inception of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) more than a decade ago. Educators also need time to adjust to the seismic shift in practices and expectations of CCSS and the related assessments. And the conversation must address granting our schools and districts the time to identify, acquire, and implement the essential technology infrastructure and equipment that is sorely needed, especially at the elementary level, to support the delivery of new online assessments. Finally, school districts need time to educate the community, including media, about the reasons CCSS are important; to inform them about the changes in content and instruction the CCSS will bring about; and to manage expectations when early results on new assessments will likely be lower because of higher standards, new instruction and curriculum for teachers and students. Getting this transition right can mean the difference between getting and keeping public and educator support for the Common Core or a loss in confidence in the standards and even the public schools, especially if as expected the first-year scores will disappoint.
If we have learned anything from NCLB, it’s that while assessments and the related data have the potential to be powerful tools in an educator’s toolkit, they easily can be reduced to a simple mechanism of punishment that bears no meaningful impact on student learning. The research tells us that true accountability of student learning is more complex and cannot be reduced to a test score alone. Test scores are but one indicator in robust accountability systems that should be used to inform instruction—not serve as a punitive instrument that serves as the sole driver of state, school district, and schools’ efforts to improve student learning. If the momentum of the testing consortia is to stay on track, federal policy should use tests for information for parents, educators, and policy makers. Further, the tests are necessary but not sufficient for use in teacher and principal evaluation and sanctions for students, schools, or school systems; state and local evaluation systems will never function to build the capacity of educators without sufficient, accurate, and timely data in addition to test scores. The prudent course is to avoid over-reliance on the assessments for federal accountability purposes until the CCSS are fully implemented, instructional materials and professional supports have been offered, schools have the technical capacity to implement the assessments, and communities are informed. Failure to consider this reality will result in the test-and-punish cycle being repeated, with the same disappointing results of NCLB-era accountability.
These philosophical considerations are compounded by real-world obstacles to implementing both the Common Core Standards and the related online assessment. AASA’s latest economic impact survey included items related to the standards and assessments, and the respondents delivered a clear message: State support for the Common Core Standards is holding steady at best, if not declining, and states and districts are woefully lacking as it relates to infrastructure and connectivity capacity to support the online assessments:
• 74% of respondents indicate that the level of funding/fiscal support provided by the state for implementing the Common Core Learning standards is “inadequate.”
• 57% of respondents indicate that the level of professional development provided by the state for implementing the Common Core Learning standards is ”inadequate.”
• With many states more than a year in to the work of implementing Common Core, school-based practitioners reported a very clear trend in DECLINING state support for Common Core implementation:
o 33% indicated State funding support has decreased.
o 23% indicated State professional development support has decreased.
o 31% indicated State leadership support has decreased.
o 23% indicated My state has considered legislative proposals that would decrease state policy/funding support for Common Core learning standards.
• In detailing their state, district and school capacity to implement the online assessments, respondents indicated:
Schools in my state are, on average, not ready to implement the online assessment.
58.4%
Schools in my state, on average, lack the infrastructure to support the online assessments.
50.5%
My school requires additional infrastructure to fully support the online assessments.
46.5%
Schools in my state, on average, lack the bandwidth/connectivity to support the online assessments.
44.3%
My school requires additional bandwidth/connectivity to fully support the online assessments.
35.0%
My school is fully prepared, in terms of funding and bandwidth capacity, to implement the online assessments.
17.7%
My state has adequate bandwidth capacity/the ability to support adequate school connectivity but lacks the funding to fully implement the online tests.
13.7%
My state is fiscally prepared to implement the assessments, but lacks adequate bandwidth capacity/the ability to support adequate school connectivity.
9.1%
Schools in my state are, on average, fully ready to implement the online assessments.
9.1%
My state is fully prepared, in terms of funding and bandwidth capacity, to implement the fully-online assessment.
3.6%
* This analysis reflects 497 responses from 46 states.
About AASA
AASA, The School Superintendents Association, founded in 1865, is the professional organization for more than 13,000 educational leaders in the United States and throughout the world. AASA’s mission is to support and develop effective school system leaders who are dedicated to the highest quality public education for all children. For more information, visit http://www.aasa.org. Follow AASA on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/AASAHQ or on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/AASApage. Information on AASA Children’s Programs on Twitter @AASATotalChild.
About NAESP
Established in 1921, the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) is the leading national association representing elementary and middle school principals in the United States, Canada, and overseas. NAESP supports principals as the primary catalysts for creating lasting foundations for learning through policy development, advocacy, and resources for effective instructional leadership. NAESP seeks to advance the principalship and address issues in pre-K–3 alignment, principal preparation and evaluation, and building the capacity of new principals. http://www.naesp.org
About NASSP
The National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) is the leading organization of and national voice for middle level and high school principals, assistant principals, and all school leaders from across the United States and 36 countries around the world. The association provides research-based professional development and resources, networking, and advocacy to build the capacity of middle level and high school leaders to continually improve student performance. Reflecting its longstanding commitment to student leadership development as well, NASSP administers the National Honor Society, National Junior Honor Society, National Elementary Honor Society, and National Association of Student Councils.
About NSBA
Founded in 1940, the National School Boards Association (NSBA) is a not-for-profit organization representing state associations of school boards and their more than 90,000 local school board members throughout the U.S. Working with and through our state associations, NSBA advocates for equity and excellence in public education through school board leadership. http://www.nsba.org
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Some enlightening info on AFT’s pro-CCSS survey result reporting:
Still haven’t heard back from Hart about the results.
Thanks for the update, Duane. We’ll see what they do. I reported them to the National Council on Public Polls.
I urge all to read what Mercedes has written in the link-very valuable information.
Diane,
While it is good to hear that multiple organizations are calling for increased time to “get the standards right,” I am concerned that not enough attention is being given to a core distinction. Valuing standards, general agreements about what learning we value collectively, is not the same as valuing high-stakes assessments as a lever for standards implementation. Certainly, a delay in testing is preferable to rapid implementation. Certainly, we need ways to measure what students learn. Certainly, we should keep our eyes on the extent to which race and class explain differences in student learning. But as long as policy makers cling to the unsupported notion that high-stakes assessment will be a principal driver of improvement – now or in the future – we won’t make real gains. Only attending to improving the professional culture of teaching and schools in concert with mediating the effects of poverty in families’ lives will do that. I elaborate on this here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/05/29/how-school-reform-preserves-the-status-quo-and-what-real-change-would-look-like/) and propose some alternatives.
Thanks,
Arthur
Exactly Arthur…There is obviously need for testing to determine the effectiveness of teaching curriculum, but not for firing teachers and terrifying children.
As a university educator of public policy, I have thought long and hard about Common Core and the fallout of testing for standardized math and language, but not subjectively testing for critical thinking and humanities subject matter, as with humanizing philosophic thought.
I believe, at least at this point in our free American public education system, that it is imperative to have schools in each community in each state have the same basis of education (with the ability of each district to enrich the core curriculum) but the testing for “new Math” is not realistic.
There should be studies at grade level ability in government, science, economics, history, and current events, these subjects also included in blanket national tests to be assured that all American public schools are teaching all students to not only be good cogs in the machine of industry, but also how to be activist citizens to preserve our freedoms. If districts can do this, their students will be also able to earn a living in their hopefully chosen, rather than imposed, work life.
A nation of unfeeling, non-introspective, cogs for support of plutocrats, will ultimately fail. It takes a reading of recorded history to see how this comes to pass.
addendum…forgot to thank you Arthur for the great link to your absolutely on-target article Hope everyone reads it and forwards it.. I am sending it to my colleagues…and to my family who must decide what to do about schooling my 3 year old grandson.
“that it is imperative to have schools in each community in each state have the same basis of education (with the ability of each district to enrich the core curriculum)”
Hello, central command and control, we have a rogue educator who is not following the script! And if he/she doesn’t, off to the re-education camps called “Flippin Burgers”.
“these subjects also included in blanket national tests to be assured that all American public schools are teaching all students to not only be good cogs in the machine of industry, but also how to be activist citizens to preserve our freedoms. If districts can do this, their students will be also able to earn a living in their hopefully chosen, rather than imposed, work life.
Yep, standardized education has really allowed the country to survive and prosper up until. . . what?. . . you say we have never had standardized education, that the brilliance of the American public school system was its diversity to respond to the local needs of the local citizenry. MY, OH MY!!!
What you are promoting is a top down command and control system that would be the final nail in the coffin, no actually the last bucket full of dirt on the grave of American public education.
No Duane…I am not proposing top down imposing, but rather a system that will guarantee that some districts with an urge to do away with Brown v. Bd. of Ed, would be mandated to teach academic subject matter instead of their local school board being able to determine that their students learning how to pick cotton in vocational ed.
As a researcher nationwide, I observed in schools in various states that might really like their students to be only the under class in perpetuity. Their ‘don’t make waves’ attitudes were fore runners to the Tea Party philosophy.
Ellen,
I’m not proposing to regress to those awful times of segregation. Please show me where there are “some districts with an urge to do away with Brown vs Board of Ed”. Seems to me to be a bit of “the sky is falling” argument.
“Their ‘don’t make waves’ attitudes were fore runners to the Tea Party philosophy.” I don’t understand how this statement makes any sense. The PotTea Partiers (or is Teapot) have very much made waves. The astroturf Tea Party was specifically designed by folks like the Koch brothers (father member of the the John Birch society, sometimes apples don’t fall far from the tree, especially in this case) to regress to some supposedly “golden era” of American life. And to regress they have to “make waves”. I’ve personally encountered this phenomena.
Cue HU now!!
“No Duane…I am not proposing top down imposing, but rather a system that will guarantee that some districts with an urge to do away with Brown v. Bd. of Ed, would be mandated to teach academic subject matter”
I tend to agree with Duane on this one. I think you are proposing “top-down imposing.” I don’t see how we could ever arrive at something that resembled national standards (or as you put it, “to have schools in each state have the same basis of education”) without that kind of model. Lots of people in favor of national standards said the same thing in the 80s and 90s — that the standards should be voluntary rather than imposed, and that national standards didn’t mean “national curriculum,” but it pretty much turned out the opposite.
Sent your article to many Arthur..well done, superb!
Mr. Camins,
While your analysis of the issues is among the most lucid that I have read, your solutions are, in my view, unrealistic. Regarding your suggestion that schools should be integrated; I refer you to another of Diane’s posts today, Dare They Send Their Child to the Neighborhood School?
It illustrates the results of decades of busing on schools in San Diego. Sadly, this has done little to affect the outcomes for low-income students and has mostly led to the flight of middle and upper income families from their neighborhood schools. Regarding your other suggestions, how would you suggest that we pay for them? Even good public schools are struggling to maintain programs and personnel. With tax caps and mandates increasing, tax dollars are decreasing. Quite simply, there is no money now and Americans aren’t going to be willing to put forward the enormous amounts of tax dollars necessary to implement your suggestions in the future.
“Quite simply, there is no money now and Americans aren’t going to be willing to put forward the enormous amounts of tax dollars necessary to implement your suggestions in the future.”
Horse manure! There is plenty of wealth (money) in this country to properly fund public education but, unfortunately, most citizens in this country seem to think that illegal wars of aggression are more important. Cut the War Departments/CIA/HSA/NSA’s budgets by half and we’d have more than enough to provide a “world class” education for all by enacting programs that could help even the poorest of the poor to learn. Most citizens seem to think it’s okay for the plutocrats to squirrel away money in off shore tax havens avoiding paying their fair share for the upkeep of this country.
In the world’s top economic country it is an absolute abomination that 1/4 of the children live in poverty (cue teachingeconomist here). Why might that be? Because those at the very top want all the more than they already have, the avaricious bastards.
“Cut the War Departments/CIA/HSA/NSA’s budgets by half and we’d have more than enough to provide a “world class” education for all by enacting programs that could help even the poorest of the poor to learn.”
How much money would that be? I’m feeling lazy today with this heat.
I poked around a little bit and this seems more or less consistent with the government’s budget numbers:
http://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/the_true_cost_of_national_secu.php?page=all
It puts the total figure for what you could call the “war” at just shy of $1 trillion. (It also includes the debt costs for the financing of war, but I would omit that if we’re talking about reallocating spending rather than eliminating it.)
So half of that budget would be $500 billion per year.
According to the National Council for Educational Statistics, public school districts had total expenditures of around $610 billion in 2008-2009. The Census Bureau’s most recent report, from this year, says that total public school spending was $600 billion in 2011.
I think given the pressure state and local budgets are under, it’s a safe assumption for our purposes that the figure’s still somewhere around $600 billion today. So Duane’s proposal would mean that the U.S. DOE would be distributing money that would almost double education budgets.
The idealist in me likes the idea. The cynic in me is picturing an unprecedented feeding frenzy by the education commerce industry and unions, with everyone later wondering how class sizes could still be so darn high.
But regardless, I think this is the kind of conversation people should be having if we actually want education to be what we claim we want it to be. This is probably the proper scale of the discussion. Enough of this idea that there would be plenty of money in education budgets if it weren’t for Bill Gates, Murdoch, Bloomberg, Teach for America, hedge funds, the privatizers, the profiteers, and water fluoridation. There’s plenty of money to keep doing what we’re doing now, and that’s about it.
Sorry, meant to type “the war industry,” not “the war.”
Common Core and InBloom need to be elimninated. When administrators say that they need more time to prepare, they are really saying that they need more time to condition everybody to go along with it.
Hear hear!
Agree
Thank you everyone for your great replies!
I’m opposed to CCSS but I support this stance because I think if we slow down the implementation eventually the lunacy of the standards will become obvious. Or is that just wishful thinking?
It’s wishful thinking!
How can deep thinking come from a program where the people running it can’t think straight themselves. Step one, funding. Until the state legislatures pass $10,000 per student to do the training and buy the materials, all they have is another unfunded pipe dream.
I have mentioned my learning disabled son before. Math this year under CC has been a nightmare. He took pre-algebra last year, and is now in CC math that has elements of calculus in it. We have hired tutors for him, but he’s still getting D’s. The problem is that special education is SO far behind his level, but he’s not at grade level either, and there’s nothing in between. As my state sees it, there are only 2 types of math with this core: grade level and honors. No allowances for disabilities. The teachers were told that the only allowance they needed to make for struggling students was to, “give them a calculator.” As if that would solve the problems.
At a meeting yesterday with the district about my son’s placement next year, I complained about this chasm that students are falling into. I was told that they’re “building the plane while it is flying.” It was such a flippant answer, and I was really disgusted. These are people’s lives they’re playing with. My son may not graduate because the math is such a struggle for him, and no one seems to care. His class is a guinea pig for all of this nonsense. But, “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!”
The implementation of the CC is, simply, child abuse. I wish I knew a way I could sue to get my son the help he needs. I have no money and no lawyer, and no one would probably take the case, but he needs help and I can’t figure out how to give it to him. And no one else seems to know or care what to do, either.
Get a lawyer. You don’t have to sign onto their IEP for your son. Parents/Guardians have to sign off on the IEP. Force the issue with them.
Does your school district have a SEPTA (Special Education Parent Teacher Association)? If so, you might start there. You might find that there are other parents who share your concerns and could provide you with information and resources to address your problem. Our SEPTA once had a law professor from a local university speak at our meeting. He specialized in Special Education law. I was able to pass his name and number on to some friends who were having difficulty getting services for their children. I have found that other parents, particularly those with children who need academic support, are an invaluable resource for support as well as information regarding resources in our district and community. Another resource might be your state or the national SEPTA. Hang in there and good luck!
If your son is failing math and the school district’s response is that they are “building the plane while it is flying”, it may be that they are reluctant to provide the resources to help him be successful due to the cost. It has been my experience that the first step for you is understanding what services your child may be entitled to. The hard part may be getting your school to provide the services to which your child is legally entitled. It has also been my experience that sometimes bringing an advocate to the IEP meeting can be effective in getting the district to provide the appropriate services. The advocate need not be an attorney, though it may be, but it needs to be someone who understands Special Education law in your state and how they apply to your child and the services that he should be receiving. The most important thing for you is to be informed so that when you attend the IEP meetings you are clear on what your child is entitled to under the law, and then you need to demand that and make sure that the district complies. In addition to SEPTA, there may be additional advocacy and resource groups in your area that could help. From your username, I am assuming that your child is attending school in Louisiana. Below are links to some Special Education information and advocacy groups in that state, Advocacy Center and Louisiana Parent Training and Information Center. There may be others as well. Keep digging, keep fighting for your son and know that you are not alone. There are parents all over the country who have to fight again and again so that their learning disabled children receive the education to which they are entitled. Hope that this helps. Once again, good luck.
http://www.advocacyla.org/
http://laptic.org/staff/
“In fact, the majority of respondents of a recent NAESP survey of 916 elementary and middle-level principals from 14 early adopter states—states that both adopted CCSS into policy before other states and also enacted ambitious efforts to heighten awareness and implementation of the standards—believe that the CCSS will increase students’ skill mastery across subjects, and provide a curriculum frame for deeper conceptual understanding of math and English language arts.”
That’s the fact Jack!! We say it, you believe it!!
“And the Survey says. . . ”
“. . . believe that the CCSS will blah blah blah. . . ” And I believe that I am Satan. Belief in something doesn’t make it true.
Mercedes,
I went to the site and couldn’t get to the survey. Do you have any information?
Thanks,
Duane
Hi, Duane. I have no info on the NAESP survey.
Probably why there is a good reason we can’t seem to find that propaganda, oops I mean information, eh!!
The CCSS are untested. The paired PARCC assessments are a nightmare. They go hand in hand. They both must go.
I do not want my children to be part of this Common Core experiment. The focus is on developing the process skills, the Habits of Mind ( http://www.chsvt.org/wdp/Habits_of_Mind.pdf) in school – as if parents have no part in this process. We have already been told that our middle school wants to de-emphasize grading and focus more on making students aware of their learning “journey.”
How does one test all these skills on a computer -based test? Will they be taking our children’s “cognitive disposition” every year and capturing that data?
This is not respectful of the potential of a child, but rather serves to mold and shape the children into some preferred state of being, and ignores the core knowledge that they need to learn.
We will have some very ignorant, albeit self-aware individuals who will know very well how to question (argue) and persevere!
Oh my!! You have nailed it!!
“COMMON CORE EXPERIMENT”
More on this please.
That is exactly what is happening..
Your children are being used as Guinea Pigs.
Teachers have been thrown under a bus.
The very first line in their statement spells it all out:
“The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) have started to move our nation’s schools in a more positive direction as it relates to ensuring all students are striving toward high, rigorous learning goals.”
Really? Where’s the evidence for this? So far, it’s been embarrassing and chaotic. And I still await the answer to what these “goals” are, specifically. What is the actual definition of a high school grad who is ready for the predetermined “careers” and “colleges”? What does this legendary creature look like? Behave like? And why do we want every kid in America to be that one, perfect being?
I’m being a little snarky, but that’s because it’s humid and hot. 😉
Be “snarky” all you want. The Common Core, and its process, and its chief supporters (and funders) all deserve snarkiness.
You wouldn’t stand a chance against David Coleman in a snark contest. The difference is that your questions have substance, while his arguments tend to be specious at best.
I may have missed it, but the National Council of Teachers of English has has joined the chorus for the Common Core moratorium.
http://www.ncte.org/governance/hayes5-28-13
I hope the chorus turns into a requiem.
I find this whole process rather strange. How do you assess standards and why would you want to? This whole process seems rather featherbrained. We are being forced to accept CCSS, which apparently had very little input from educators or states, on which we are then going to be tested on the basis of anonymous tests that we are told will measure how well our students are learning these standards from curriculum that is being developed on the fly to align with and therefore be magically accurate representations of these standards. And then, teachers and schools are going to be rated on how well they were able to figure out how to teach to these standards based on the scores of their students. What ever happened to nurturing a lifelong love of learning?
“How do you assess standards and why would you want to?”
Well, one can’t assess standards as shown by Wilson in “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700 . (still working on a more concise summary of that)
What is an educational standard? (never seen a good definition) Is it the benchmark or holy grail to be attained? (appears to be more of a “holy grail” type search) Is it the measuring device itself, i.e., a standard inch? (question has never been satisfactorily answered by the proponents) Is an educational standard measurable as all the proponents contend? (Absolutely not). How does one know that the standard is being “measured” correctly? (one can’t)
And your “why” part of the question has never been answered to my satisfaction by the proponents of this claptrap.
Whatever happened to promoting democratic citizenship as a core, THE core, purpose of public schooling?
EXACTLY! All of this focus on JUST English and Math has taken away from that core mission. Not that English and Math aren’t important, but they’re not the only things. And yet science, history, civics and other important subjects are relegated to an addendum in the CC. Ludicrous!
It’s June, my budget for next year is due, and I still have no idea what I am supposed to be teaching next year. Oh, I’ll still be in grade two, but we are in the process of tossing everything but do not yet have something to replace it with.
The joint statement issued by the National School Boards Association, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Association of Secondary School Principles, and the American Association of School Administrators makes clear that public education in the United States is in deeper trouble than many thought. The problem, though, is not one of pedagogy or teaching personnel. It’s a serious lack of leadership.
The “leadership” groups’ statement on the Common Core standards shows that these “leaders” just don’t get it. They know no more about the Common Core than they did about No Child Left Behind.
Indeed, they say that the Common Core “tests are necessary” for “use in teacher and principal evaluation,” but those tests must be coupled with “sufficient, accurate, and timely data in addition to test scores.” Huh? Say what? After more than a decade of tests and “data-driven” instruction and evaluation, we need even MORE of it? Are they serious? This is like saying the economy needs more tax cuts for corporations and the rich to “stimulate” job creation. Or like a doctor saying he needs to bleed more “bad blood” from the patient in order to cure him.
The “leaders” state that “the prudent course is to avoid over-reliance on the assessments” UNTIL the Common Core standards “are fully implemented…” Then they add this nutty conclusion:
“Failure to consider this reality will result in the…the same disappointing results of NCLB-era accountability.”
Sigh.
Did these people never grasp that the “proficiency” requirements of No Child Left Behind were impossible to achieve? That the projections for 2014 were that 99 percent of California schools would be labeled as “failing,” with “failure” rates of 95 percent in the Great Lakes states and elsewhere?
A former assistant secretary of education in the Bush administration said that NCLB was really a “Trojan horse…a way to expose the failure of public education…to blow it up a bit.” Is the Common Cre really so different?
Look at who supports the Common Core standards: Margaret Spellings, former Ed Secretary, who infamously called NCLB “99.9 percent pure;” Jeb Bush, who is pushing charter schools and vouchers across the country; Bill Gates, who funded the Common Core, and who wants more H1-B visas for his company despite the fact that American education churns out three times as many STEM graduates as there are jobs; and, the Business Roundtable and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who lobbied aggressively for unfunded corporate tax cuts that spawned huge deficits and debt, and for laissez-faire regulatory policies that aided and abetted massive fraud and corruption (especially on Wall Street) and that blew up the economy.
And now public school “leaders” are lending their support?
Public education in the United States is a foundational cornerstone of democratic governance. Both are in greater jeopardy than many of us thought.
Excellent commentary, democracy!!
This whole “leadership” crap really started getting heavy in the late nineties and early aughts. The education administration literature started to veer towards the “leader” “taking charge” and away from a more democratic governance of the schools. It started to take on a more business top down/militaristic slash and burn all who stand in our way of imposing our ideas onto the peon teachers and students.
Whatever happened to a principal being a “principal”/main teacher? Where along the way did we lose sight of wisdom of democratic governance?
“Both are in greater jeopardy than many of us thought.”
Quite correct sir/maam (I don’t know your gender, not that that makes any difference). We are a fascistic oligarchical plutocracy. Or is that a fascistic plutocratic oligarchy? I’ll let you all decide.
From wiki: “Throughout history, oligarchies have been tyrannical (relying on public obedience and/or oppression to exist) or relatively benign. Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich,[4] for which the exact term is plutocracy, but oligarchy is not always a rule by wealth, as oligarchs can simply be a privileged group, and do not have to be connected by bloodlines as in a monarchy.”
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1iXXKmq58g for a cogent explanation!
Next week I will finish my first year teaching the CCSS to Title I primary students, most of whom were ELL and about a third ESE students.
Asked last August by my then principal to take on a “remedial” class of all the students who had failed to meet the end of year requirements of the previous primary grade the year before, I was concerned about the long-term effects on my employment due to VAM but interested in the challenge of helping these struggling children.
My overall assessment of the CCSS for primary grades is that although the standards themselves were not far from my own expectations and traditional teaching style nor were they impossible to use for planning, teaching, and assessment, the stated outcomes were not developmentally appropriate nor realistic and there’s the rub.
Coupling these standards with high stakes testing will lead nowhere but to disaster. I was able to bring the majority of my students to what used to be considered an acceptable part of the continuum for “end of grade” in reading and mathematics. All but 2 of my students made an easily measurable “year’s growth” as determined by 3 separate and different assessments required by my state and district. But they were not at the CCSS determined level. So where does that leave us?
My district created an end-of-year computerized math assessment to pilot with the primary cohort that taught CCSS this year, basing it upon the coming PARC assessments that will be in place in 2 years. Unsurprisingly, most students in the district fell into the middle range of around 50% or below.
Leaving aside the problematic nature of devising some questions for 5 – 7 year olds that were written to trick the students (higher order thinking? please. . . it’s just trickery to these literal-minded little ones) what, exactly, did this assessment do? Did it “prove” that the students had or had not mastered the mathematical standards? Impossible since for many standards there was only one question. Did it “condition” the students to the process of taking online tests? Maybe, if you think that a primary student can understand what that process is or care what it is. Why, exactly, are districts and schools doing this kind of assessment? Can anyone say?
We were encouraged to review the test questions after the fact. My students eagerly dissected the questions and were able to select the correct answers quite readily in the atmosphere of the classroom workshop, which we had used all year, and they were able to articulate their reasoning without issue. So did they “master the standards”, as evidenced in our classroom work routine or did they fail to “master the standards” as measured by the one shot, computerized, multiple choice test? I think we all know the answer the reformers would give despite the fact that I have 10 months of work assembled in portfolios that do show the “mastery” of the standards quite clearly. But those portfolios don’t count, do they?
Reading was no different. Using measures that for the last dozen or so years placed them squarely where they should be at the end of grade but now, due to CCSS decree, says they are way below expectations, tells me what? I already knew quite well, from many years of experience, that children learn to read at different rates and times. CCSS makes no allowance for that at all. They made a year and a half of growth yet they are still considered a half-year behind. Hmmm.
CCSS declare that “students will . . . .” So we are left with a system that reforms by fiat. And students who last year were considered at grade level are suddenly half a year or more behind, simply by declaration of the CCSS authors, with no consideration given to the fact that they weren’t subject to the ruling by fiat levels of success the previous year. How is this declaration and raising of the bar differ in any way from the misguided fiats of NCLB that declared all students would read on grade level by 2014?
The authors and supporters of CCSS are not willing to “weaken” their vision in any way nor are they open to revision, discussion, or compromise so I don’t see how it would be possible to maintain any kind of moratorium to “get things right”. I’m disappointed and saddened that so many professional organizations seem to want to ignore this simple fact and pretend that their calls for moratoria will have any effect at all.
By the way, I’m very proud of my students and I feel that we accomplished more than we set out to do this year, no matter what the CCSS say. My children love science and reading and math and writing and are leaving me with their sense of wonder and excitement about the world and their own learning intact. I wonder myself if that means that I’m the endangered species here? CCSS says “yes”.
@ Chris:
You write that “I wonder myself if that means that I’m the endangered species here? CCSS says ‘yes’.”
And sadly, that’s true. Although I may value what you do (along with your students, their parents, your colleagues and many in the community), the “reformers” most certainly do not.
Take, for example, the Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These groups have pushed incessantly tax cuts for corporations and the rich, and laissez-faire regulatory policies ––both of which caused a huge pile-up of deficits and debt, and led to a shattered economy. The supply-side policies these organizations pushed so hard to have enacted led to increases in poverty, millions of lost jobs and houses, a corporate culture that fosters off-shore tax evasion and funds oligarchic ideology, and gross income inequality. And they point the finger of blame at public education. The Chamber
says the Common Core standards “are essential to helping
the United States remain competitive” in the global economy.
But as I’ve noted a number of times in a variety of venues, the U.S. already IS internationally competitive.
The World Economic Forum ranks nations each year on competitiveness. It uses “a highly comprehensive index” of the “many factors” that enable “national economies to achieve sustained economic growth and long-term prosperity.”
The U.S. is usually in the top five (if not 1 or 2). When it drops, the WEF doesn’t cite education, but stupid economic decisions and policies.
For example, when the U.S. dropped from 2nd to 4th in 2010-11, four factors were cited by the WEF for the decline: (1) weak corporate auditing and reporting standards, (2) suspect corporate ethics, (3) big deficits (brought on by Wall Street’s financial implosion) and (4) unsustainable levels of debt.
Last year (2011-12), major factors cited by the WEF are a “business community” and business leaders who are “critical toward public and private institutions,” a lack of trust in politicians and the political process with a lack of transparency in policy-making, and “a lack of macroeconomic stability” caused by decades of fiscal deficits, especially deficits and debt accrued over the last decade that “are likely to weigh heavily on the country’s future growth.” The WEF did NOT cite public schools as being problematic to innovation and competitiveness.
And this year (2012-13) the WEF dropped the U.S. to 7th place, citing problems like “increasing inequality and youth unemployment” and, environmentally, “the United States is among the countries that have ratified the fewest environmental treaties.“ The WEF noted that in the U.S.,”the business community continues to be critical toward public and private institutions” and “trust in politicians is not strong.” Political dysfunction has led to “a lack of macroeconomic stability” that “continues to be the country’s greatest area of weakness.”
But where does the finger of blame get pointed? At public schools. Seriously, you’d almost have to be a moron to buy into this stuff.
Or someone who wants to shift the blame, And capitalize on it. Or someone with a real hatred of public education.
Take Jeb Bush, for example. He recently gave a speech in Michigan in support of the Common Core, and ended it by saying “We can’t just outsource public education to bureaucracies and public education unions and hope for the best.”
Think about that for just a second, and discard the obvious lies. We cannot afford to “outsource” public education to, well, the public. So, in Bush’s mind, we should outsource to charters, and to for-profit companies, and to the College Board. And initiate vouchers.
So, in a very real sense, the “reformers” –– Bush et al, the Chamber and the Roundtable –– do not care one iota for you.
You and countless other educators like you are, in fact, “endangered.”
The Curriculum has been thrown in one Gigantic Pile.
For Example..My friend had it right.
THE CURRICULUM
Throw all of the “Everythings Needed” to build a house in one BIG 100 FT Disorganized -Chaotic-Muddled Pile.
TEACHERS
Teachers take workshops on How to Read the Common Core Standards….
What a bunch of Muck
Teachers must Dive into the Big Pile to pull the “EVERYTHINGS NEEDED” out to build the house…
STUDENTS
Students will be tested on the entire Pile of Muck regardless of how much the teacher pulls out.
CRITICAL THINKING
H*ll NO
DISCOVERY
BullSh*t
“Leading National Groups”??????????????????????????????????
My teacher friends do not give a Happy Hoot about any so-called Leading National Groups as all they do is make waves and eventually fall over the fence to join the rest of the Political Guru Bunch and the Testing Hierarchy Saints!!
The rush to implement the CCSS as fast as possible is so that the resulting failure can be blamed on the schools to further attack them while trying to solidify CCSS as an established policy in the public mind. More time and money will then be needed for “the fixes”. Slowing down the process in an attempt to “do it right” will not prevent the failure of CCSS, but will show that the policy failed because the CCSS itself is fatally flawed, not because the implementation was bad or that the idea of a set of standards is impossible. This is nothing more than a rush to solidify market position while making the market pay for the failure and the alleged cure. AKA, a leveraged buyout.
Where are the leaders? Clearly, they are not to be found among these “leading national groups.”
And when this whole standards and accountability fiasco fails utterly, as it inevitably, they will be the first to say that they knew that it would, all along, and fought heroically against it. Toadies, cowards, and sycophants, all of them.