Stotsky: Why I Oppose Common Core

11 Comments Post your own or leave a trackback: Trackback URL

1. Deb says:

   August 1, 2013 at 10:30 am

   Well, I believe that my district had the view that the state standards and the common core standards are merely a framework on which to build the district’s demand for a rigorous curriculum. So, we had to use the standard as a broad reference followed by the specific areas being covered and then tie it into our own district’s curriculum demands. So, in some ways, the common core by itself isn’t efficient.

   The problems I have with the common core are that it has been infused horizontally, not allowing time for students to be prepared prior to be slamnned with ridiculous tests. Then, using the AYP scores to judge and ruin teachers who have been hit with the requirements put forth, while their students haven’t had adequate preparation, is unfair and unconscionable.

   It is amazing what classism and greed have done to the United States. Amazing and sad.

   Reply
2. jean sanders says:

   August 1, 2013 at 11:06 am

   Sandra Stotsky has co-authored publications recently : one of them details advantages and disadvantages of technology (it depends on how the tools are used). I will look up the reference and tag it here. Several people who worked on the Mass frameworks are colleagues (but a few have already retired) ;

   Reply
3. jean sanders says:

   August 1, 2013 at 11:18 am

   References: these are the conversations we need…
   These can be downloaded from the Pioneer institute.org

   Why Do They Lie? And Why Do Others Believe Them? (by Sandra Stotsky)
   Steps to Upgrade Teacher & Administrator Prep Programs (by Sandra Stotsky)
   …(References National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008).Final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Sandra Stotsky. (2012).

   Common Core’s Cloudy Vision of College Readiness in Math (by Sandra Stotsky)

   Dr. Sandra Stotsky, Professor Emerita, University of Arkansas, former Senior Associate Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Education, describes some of the problems with the quality of the Common Core national education standards….[…]
   09 Apr 2013

   More Than One Fatal Flaw in Common Core’s ELA Standards (by Sandra Stotsky)
   There isn’t just one fatal flaw in Common Core’s English language arts standards: its arbitrary division of reading standards into two groups: 10 standards for “informational” text and 9 for “literature” at all grade levels from K to 12. Based on these numbers, school administrators have told English teachers to reduce literary study to less than 50% of reading instructional time.”

   Do “cold” readings of our historical documents “level the playing field”? (by Sandra Stotsky)
   Two of the many bizarre ideas that the “chief architect” of Common Core’s English language arts standards has mandated in our “national standards” or told teachers outright are the notion that teachers should do “cold” readings of historical documents like the Gettysburg Address and that doing so “levels the playing field.” Both ideas suggest the thinking of someone who has never taught in K-12. Worse yet, they contribute to historical illite…[…]
   24 Apr 2013
   A stress on informational reading in the English class will not develop “critical” thinking (by Sandra Stotsky)
   One of the sales pitches for Common Core’s English language arts standards is that a heavy diet of informational reading in the English class will increase “critical” or analytical thinking. But how are teachers and parents to know that black is white and freedom is slavery? Reading researchers know there is absolutely no research to support the idea that increased study of “literary non-fiction” or “informa…[…]
   01 May 2013

   Reply
   • Spanish&French Freelancer says:

     August 1, 2013 at 5:54 pm

     These articles are great, thank you! & readily available by googling article & author name.

     Reply
4. Dawn Hoagland says:

   August 1, 2013 at 11:24 am

   So the truth comes out by someone who actually worked on creating the CCSS. This article needs to be sent to every superintendent and principal in America. How can we continue to justify pushing lower standards into schools to “close the achievement gap?” Teachers need to stand up and question the local leadership. School administrators in NY need to question John King….and the state legislators….and the leaders of the teachers’ union as to exactly how they justify steam rolling this thing through at this point. Oh yeah, I forgot. Bill Gates gave Randi Weingarten’s AFT $5 million. There is lots of other Gate’s money sloshing around. And then there is the 39% tax credit that Wall Street loves to advertize for investing in charter schools. So we shouldn’t expect a change in plans any time soon. Will we really have to dumb down an entire generation of children before we get this albatross removed because people in high places love money?

   Reply
5. Alabama teacher says:

   August 1, 2013 at 11:37 am

   I have been considering for a while now to print articles such as those mentioned and slip them in my principal’s school mailbox.

   Reply
   • Duane Swacker says:

     August 2, 2013 at 11:52 pm

     Hey now, my subterfuge systems are patented. I expect royalties!! Do I need to get FLERP! involved???

     Reply
6. M.Schneider says:

   August 1, 2013 at 6:57 pm

   Sandra Stotsky is another of my heroes. As a member of the CCSSI Validation Committee, Stotsky stood for quality teaching in the face of being ignored by the real authors of CCSS– David Coleman, ACT, and College Board. (What arrogance it takes to ignore on CCSS someone who has collaborated on the Massachusetts standards.) Stotsky asked for the “research” upon which CCSS was supposedly constructed; she was ignored. She testified as much in Texas and Indiana.

   I appreciate Sandra Stotsky.

   Reply
7. Robert j. Manley says:

   August 1, 2013 at 9:49 pm

   If we view the common core standards as a set of basic criteria for student success, then we must recognize that they are not a curriculum. Also, if we understand they are not a curriculum, then school leaders and teachers must come together to design curriculum beyond the basic expectations of the CCSS. This design and local assessment level of creativity should be fun. As more and more of us help students exceed the CCSS, our students will not have to worry about the narrow and wrongful designs of state tests of the common core standards. Bob Manley

   Reply
   • Dawn Hoagland says:

     August 1, 2013 at 10:30 pm

     “In fact, the U.S. Department of Education has already started a Common Core “technical review process” of test “item design and validation.” The test writing stage is where the specifics of content, or in this case progressive ideologies, are inserted. Test questions need content and context, and since Common Core is about subjective processes, the content can be added without ever notifying the public. After content is tied to test questions, textbook manufacturers can write the necessary content into their products, the teachers will have to teach from the progressively-driven textbooks, and the circle will effectively be complete. Herein we see the dirty little Common Core secret: If the government can control what is tested then it controls the curriculum.” -Dean Kalahar
     http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/common_core_nationalized_state-run_education.html

     Reply
8. Duane Swacker says:

   August 2, 2013 at 11:55 pm

   “She certainly believes in standards and testing”

   Well, in that case I need to get a hold of her and try to straighten her up. Anyone know how to contact her please let me know!

   Thanks,
   Duane

   Reply