Lately, I have noticed that defenders of the Common Core are smearing critics as Tea Party fanatics and extremists. That is what Arne Duncan said to the nation’s newspaper editors last month, when he claimed that opponents of the Common Core are members of “fringe groups,” people who don’t care about poor kids, and people who falsely accuse the federal government of having something to do with the Common Core. When interviewed on PBS, New York State Commissioner John King also said that the Tea Party was behind the criticism of the new standards.
They would like the public to believe that there is no responsible, non-political, non-ideological opposition to the Common Core standards.
This is not true, and I wrote this piece to explain why reasonable people have good reason to be concerned about the overhyping of the Common Core.
I understand that there are good elements to the standards.
In many states, they may be better than existing standards. In others, they may not.
But I don’t see why they are being rushed into production without a fair trial of their strengths and weaknesses.
No set of standards, no new product, emerges straight from the minds of its creators without seeing how it works in the real world of fallible human beings.
Until we see what happens to real children in real classrooms, the “standards” are words on paper without meaning.
It is only when they are tried out by real teachers in real classrooms with real children, when they are improved through trial and error, that we will know how they work and whether they can be called “standards.”
I cross-posted this piece on Huffington Post so it would reach many more readers.
I print it here for your reaction and comment.
I invite you to open the link and leave comments on Huffington Post.
Boosters of the Common Core national standards have acclaimed them as the most revolutionary advance in the history of American education.
As a historian of American education, I do not agree.
Forty-five states have adopted the Common Core national standards, and they are being implemented this year.
Why did 45 states agree to do this? Because the Obama administration had $4.35 billion of Race to the Top federal funds, and states had to adopt “college-and-career ready standards” if they wanted to be eligible to compete for those funds. Some states, like Massachusetts, dropped their own well-tested and successful standards and replaced them with the Common Core, in order to win millions in new federal funds.
Is this a good development or not?
If you listen to the promoters of the Common Core standards, you will hear them say that the Common Core is absolutely necessary to prepare students for careers and college.
They say, if we don’t have the Common Core, students won’t be college-ready or career-ready.
Major corporations have published full-page advertisements in the New York Times and paid for television commercials, warning that our economy will be in serious trouble unless every school and every district and every state adopts the Common Core standards.
A report from the Council on Foreign Relations last year (chaired by Joel Klein and Condoleeza Rice) warned that our national security was at risk unless we adopt the Common Core standards.
The Common Core standards, its boosters insist, are all that stand between us and economic and military catastrophe.
All of this is simply nonsense.
How does anyone know that the Common Core standards will prepare everyone for college and careers since they are now being adopted for the very first time?
How can anyone predict that they will do what their boosters claim?
There is no evidence for any of these claims.
There is no evidence that the Common Core standards will enhance equity. Indeed, the Common Core tests in New York caused a collapse in test scores, causing test scores across the state to plummet. Only 31 percent “passed” the Common Core tests. The failure rates were dramatic among the neediest students. Only 3.2 percent of English language learned were able to pass the new tests, along with only 5 percent of students with disabilities, and 17 percent of black students. Faced with tests that are so far beyond their reach, many of these students may give up instead of trying harder.
There is no evidence that those who study these standards will be prepared for careers, because there is nothing in them that bears any relationship to careers.
There is no evidence that the Common Core standards will enhance our national security.
How do we know that it will cause many more students to study math and science? With the collapse in test scores that Common Core brings, maybe students will doubt their ability and opt for less demanding courses.
Why so many promises and ungrounded predictions? It is a mystery.
Even more mysterious is why the nation’s major corporations and chambers of commerce now swear by standards that they have very likely never read.
Don’t get me wrong. I am all for high standards. I am opposed to standards that are beyond reach. They discourage, they do not encourage.
But the odd thing about these standards is that they seem to be written in stone. Who is in charge of revising them? No one knows.
When I testified by Skype to the Michigan legislative committee debating the Common Core a couple of weeks ago, I told them to listen to their teachers and be prepared to revise the standards to make them better. Someone asked if states were “allowed” to change the standards. I asked, why not? Michigan is a sovereign state. If they rewrite the standards to fit the needs of their students, who can stop them? The federal government says it doesn’t “own” the standards. And that is true. The federal government is forbidden by law from interfering with curriculum and instruction.
States should do what works best for them. I also urged Michigan legislators to delay any Common Core testing until they were confident that teachers had the professional development and resources to teach them and students had had adequate time to learn what would be tested.
Do we need national standards to compare the performance of children in Mississippi to children in New York and Iowa? We already have the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which has been making these comparisons for 20 years.
Maybe I am missing something. Can anyone explain how the nation can adopt national standards without any evidence whatever that they will improve achievement, enrich education, and actually help to prepare young people — not for the jobs of the future, which are unknown and unknowable — but for the challenges of citizenship and life? Thebiggest fallacy of the Common Core standards is that they have been sold to the nation without any evidence that they will accomplish what their boosters claim.
Across the nation, our schools are suffering from budget cuts.
Because of budget cuts, there are larger class sizes and fewer guidance counselors, social workers, teachers’ assistants, and librarians.
Because of budget cuts, many schools have less time and resources for the arts, physical education, foreign languages, and other subjects crucial for a real education.
As more money is allocated to testing and accountability, less money is available for the essential programs and services that all schools should provide.
Our priorities are confused.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Richard Kipling would be proud.
The reformers speak of “research” and of “knowing what works”: the reality is closer to a bunch of “just so” stories.
Rudyard
I think there are bigger fallacies than that.
We should not fall into the trap of accepting these alien measures as standards of value in education.
“Our” priorities are indeed confused. I just attended a conference for NY elementary – grade teachers and most told me they no longer cover social studies subjects such as history, geography, tolerance, citizenship and civics. All the carrots set up by the states and USDOE are for math, English and STEM. Dumbing down the coming generations as to their rights and duties as US citizens. If you think recent voter suppression attempts are scary now – wait and see what happens as the Common Core generation reaches voting age!
Say I am designing a fastener for a product. I can VOLUNTARILY choose a standard fastener for less cost off the shelf. That will guarantee interchangability. I also have a certain degree of confidence as to the characteristics about the fastener in terms of strength and corrosion that the standards give me. But I also limit my design to that fastener. If I need to innovate or the standard fastener cannot fit my particular design because it is unique, then I will design my own fastener. But I must build it carefully to match my individual needs and I must test it thoroughly in prototypes before rolling into production on a large scale. I will likely have to modify the original design from my testing. Why should our MOST precious resource, our children, be afforded less concern than a nut and bolt?
When I was working in tech, a standard was rolled out called SGML. It was promising but was unwieldy, bloated, restrictive, and impractical. Companies that tried to force it into designs found failure. An innovation called XML (or HTML for that matter) spontaneously evolved from SGML that was VOLUNTARILY adopted and proved very successful. That standard was nimble, extensible, and allowed companies to use it as needed and innovate.
Common Core is lemmings going over a cliff. The standards are unproven and overly restrictive. They specify HOW teachers must teach in addition to what and when. The wide spread adoption is more political and economic than educational. The associated tests are flawed, too objective, and imprecise as a measurement tool.
Common Core should be a diagnostic standard. It is time to declare a moratorium on testing to these standards, cleanse them of politics, and require further study.
I’m not sure that you have read the standards. At no where in the entire text does it say how to teach. That’s why I accept them for myself and my students.
Dr. Anderson, please see my notes, below, about some of the many, many ways in which the standards affect both curricula and pedagogical practice.
I have read them. For example, geometry demands use of transformations to teach many of the concepts including similarity and congruence. Great for kids that can spatially visualize, but why not allow teaching the concepts directly for other students? You may say “you still can” but if the assessments use transformations, then I have no choice but to teach that way.
I do not blindly accept these standards as the sole measure of student learning. I question and take a critical view – particularly since the standards are UNTESTED and have no verification as to effectiveness. Do not assume because I disagree my view is to be dismissed out of hand. There is s fable called “The Emperor has No Clothes” that is another good read.
Just Lift Harder
Headlines across the nation warned that our children had become “soft’ – they had somehow grown much weaker than youngsters in other countries. In fact, objective tests of physical strength proved that children in other parts of the world could bench press much more weight than those here in our country. Overlooked was the fact that all of the other countries culled their weakest students before lifting tests were administered, yet we insisted on testing every child, even those with severe physical disabilities. Despite this important difference, the media, parents, and the general public became quite alarmed that we had fallen so far behind these “stronger” countries.
Obviously physical education standards for weight lifting in our country lacked the necessary rigor; our entire approach to weight training was questioned. What was a nation to do? Enter the lobbyists – and our prayers were answered. The apparent solution to this national emergency was a new set of laws intended to increase the strength of our children. Every student, K to 12, would now be required to bench press 20 times their grade level (4th grade = 80 lbs., 8th grade = 160 lbs., 10th grade = 200 lbs., etc.). Finally we had the rigorous standards required to beat those other countries in this important test of strength. As most personal trainers already knew, the solution to increasing a person’s physical strength is to simply add more weight!
As coincidental as it may seem, the lobbyists that pushed for these new standards also worked for a multi-national company that sold specialized, state-of-the-art, hydraulic weight lifting equipment (required for the new high stakes lifting test), dietary supplements, protein shakes, and weight training DVDs –all guaranteed to help our children meet these rigorous new standards in physical education.
In weight rooms across our great land, most students struggled mightily to lift 20 times their grade level. In one physical education class, a 4th grade student with a fractured right arm asked her teacher, “What about me? How am I supposed to lift 80 lbs. with a broken arm?”
The teacher under much pressure to increase his student’s strength scores simply responded, “Just use that good left arm and try twice as hard.”
In a physical education classes across the country, students started to complain to their teachers:
“We’re tired of this endless weight lifting, how come we don’t play basketball anymore?”
“Yeah. What about floor hockey?”
“This is getting really boring; I hate gym more than ever!”
“Quit complaining and just lift harder.” their teachers replied irritably. “Don’t you realize that students in other countries are significantly stronger than us?”
A concerned 8th grader asked her teacher, “What happens if I can’t bench 160 lbs. by April? Does that mean I won’t be able to move on to high school?”
The phys ed teacher paused , “Actually, no. The amount you lift in April doesn’t affect grade promotion at all. As a matter of fact you probably won’t get your lifting score until sometime next year, maybe.”
“Then why is everyone making such a big deal about these bench press tests anyway?” asked the middle school student.
“Well,” answered the teacher, “if you can’t lift 160 lbs. by April I will probably be labeled as an ‘ineffective’ teacher – if enough of my students can’t make the lift I could be denied tenure and lose my job. People will also realize that our building principal had failed to provide the leadership required to make you all just want to lift harder. Before you know it, many parents will enroll their kids in private weight training centers.”
“Really? You mean we can get back at you for working us so hard?”
The teacher merely shrugged.
“Maybe the lobbyists will change the law to make the new weight lifting standards more realistic”, sympathized the student, “We’re only kids you know and we’re all different.”
“I don’t think so” said the teacher, “their company is making a fortune selling hydraulic weight lifting equipment, protein shakes, and DVDs. Besides, don’t you realize that students in other countries are significantly stronger than us?”
“Whatever.”
Good analogy! Can I tell another?
A study was done and found that some other industrialized nations were healthier than the U.S. The political leaders in America paniced and declared that all patients of doctors must now be healthy to the same standard. A group of companies pushed the state governors to devise a set of standards based on waistline measurements and, since the drug companies had the most influence, cholesterol levels. All patients will now be tested and their data kept in a national database called ThinSoon. The drug companies would maintain the database including patient personal information for “future reference”.
It was decided in state legislatures that to improve nationwide health, all doctors would be graded once a year as A-F based on the collected patient data. For doctors labelled “ineffective”, they would lose their license to practice medicine.
“Foul!” cried the doctors. “We are very effective IN OUR OFFICES, but we can do little to control our patients when they leave. Plus body chemistry varies and some patients naturally are thin and have lower cholesterol. And there are other health factors that measure overall health that you are ignoring. Besides, we work very hard to help patients, but it is difficult to overcome the influences of fast food and media.”
“Too bad.” said the Reformers. “You just need to work harder. After all, most of us developing these standards have been to a doctor for a physical and some of us even had our tonsils out so we are experts and know more about medicine than you do. After all this is a matter of national security.”
The doctors just shook their heads. Some quit. Some just accepted patients that genetically had lower cholesterol or were already thin. Many good doctors were labelled ineffective even though they bravely worked with the sickest patients.
In the end, nothing changed for the better. The Reformers, after blaming the doctors and floundering with constant revisions to the standards, threw up their hands and walked away muttering “we tried”. At that point, the remaining doctors gathered, picked up the pieces, and continued on.
excellent!
Thanks. There’s a lot of money in health care, too (18% GDP compared to 6% GDP for education). After Reformers get done with teachers, doctors are next.
If CCSS were pilot-tested, from start to finish (including assessments), the outcome would be that of an appraiser reviewing a completed home constructed on a cracked foundation: the problem with CCSS rests in Day One, when David Coleman quit McGraw Hill to in 2007 expressly to start a company for writing national standards. From there, the democratic process has been continuously slighted in the CCSS “process”
Agree. Nothing redeeming in Common Core. Spawn of Satan.
http://atthechalkface.com/2013/08/23/haslam-bush-wgu-and-mcgraw-hill/
Common Core is not developmentally appropriate for the early childhood grades. I also find it perturbing that Americans were told that our national security was at risk if the Standards weren’t adopted. Come on…have we really been at risk all these years that we’ve not had a national curriculum? I suppose President Regan would agree. Well, somehow I graduated with honors from college without taking any remediation courses despite not taking Algebra II/Trig, Pre-Calculus or Calculus in high school, maintained a 4.0 while earning a Masters degree and even scored in the above average category on the PRAXIS years after graduating from college so I could be labeled Highly Qualified….all without Common Core!
In a call to NGA/CCSSO they informed one of my collegues that the standards must be followed 100%.Also they stated that the ACT AND SAT WILL BE written to be in TOTAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE CCSS..This means , in my opinion , that the states are NOT in control of education. Also some of the local teachers have told me that the “instructional coaches” who have been doing the so-called professional development are being told that this is the way they MUST teach. Additionally our state has available ( I think they purchased them as opposed to developing them themselves) what I would call canned lesson plans for the teachers to follow. So much for the flexibility and creativity of the teacher. I tried to get on our Sate DOE website to review these materials, but am
blocked unless I get a password from the Department. So much for transparency.
This information above is just the tip of the iceberg. If these standards are so great–why not tested, why not more flexibility, why not the educators and public allowed significant time to vet them,etc… This smacks of tracking, big brother data collection, federal control of education as evidenced by the Race to the Top grants for STATES, DISTRICTS, EARLY LEARNING CHALLANGES and now possibly COLLEGES! Do not forget the Waivers either and the changes in FERPA regulations which give less control to the family of the information which is tracked and shared with outside intities on their children from ages 2/3-to the workforce.
i think you all get the picture. Commonl Core is a power grab using false information , flawed standards and overreaching school control. LET US STOP THEM!!!
Guest column
Common Core questions should be answered first
By Joan Harris and Phillip Harris Special to the H-T
February 11, 2013, last update: 2/11 @ 5:34 am
This guest column was submitted by Joan Harris and Phillip Harris of Unionville.
The state of Indiana adopted the Common Core Student Standards as a part of the waiver from No Child Left Behind requirements. These new standards are currently being piloted in several Indiana school districts.
Yet, there have been few opportunities for the general public to participate in a discussion about whether this is good for Indiana, and there have been no discussions about the cost associated with implementation and acceptance of a national curriculum, a likely outcome of adopting the Common Core on a national scale.
The Common Core mission statement says: “The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them. The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers. With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy.”
It’s appropriate to ask supporters of Common Core to provide evidence that the standards do what they are purported to do. This would involve providing the information about how the standards were developed and validated.
Other questions also need to be answered:
Are we prepared to give up the limited control we have of our state educational system?
Are we moving toward the standardization of the individual through the education experience?
Who will design, carry out and pay for the evaluation system?
These are just some of the issues that need to be resolved as we consider how Common Core will enable Indiana’s schools to provide successful learning opportunities for all students.
Imagine the Food and Drug Administration being presented with a new drug to cure cancer. How would we know that it works? The pharmaceutical company might say so, but the FDA would not merely accept that opinion, no matter how expert. The FDA requires confirmation with actual research data.
Similarly, it would be wise for Indiana’s citizens to pause and take a look at the data before committing to something as sweeping as Common Core, which will cost millions of dollars without any evidence it will improve a student’s educational experience.
The assumptions that have driven the development of Common Core are based on the belief that our public schools are failing.
National and international comparisons are being used to support this belief. But what if these international comparisons are themselves flawed, as there is good evidence that they are?
Who will be held responsible for a generation or more of citizens that have been subjected to an educational experience built on false assumptions and beliefs?
Will the new Common Core ensure that more of our students succeed, or will it be the giant sorting system for our society?
Facts and evidence are so 20th century. The readers of this blog need to realize that our Overlords from Oligarkia would not be where they are today if they weren’t superior in every respect to the chump peons who actually have to work in the schools. Their immense wealth is the only evidence you need.
As for the kids, they are being trained for their role as patriotic consumers and future units of human capital.
The geniuses behind The Common Corporate Standards – ask David Coleman: he’ll be glad to tell you he is one – are doing it all for our own good, so we should all just accept the loss of democracy and professional autonomy as a necessary trade-off for their selfless paternalism.
I think there is a misunderstanding, at least reading this as a teacher in Michigan. The CCSS replaces Michigan’s mile-wide, inch-deep GLCEs. Most of us believe the CCSS to be a positive thing for the education of our students. it promotes more inquiry-based, real-world learning. At least that is what I’ve seen in my own classroom.
I’ve personally been involved in research surrounding CC implementation. The research I was a part in was 3 years of piloting CC-based curriculum written by teachers. This is happening in every county in our state. It is a grassroots initiative that I’m proud to be a part of, because the results are more prepared teachers and successful students. Not only did standard scores go up in our school, but the qualitative results are outstanding. I will only do what’s best for my students. I will only do what will encourage the highest learning potential and create a culture if compassionate, intelligent life-long leathers. Until you can show me something with better results, I’m a proponent of CCSS.
I am a bit surprised that the results of these CCSS pilots are not being widely distributed. Where is the data on these early pilots published? I think there would be less criticism, in general, if the public could see the numbers. As they say, “Show me the data.”
Links to pilots and teacher created curriculum:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yBubzrVI3jd4HZhCnEM7lGQyMgrf3cXjsT1Ji2ezErE/mobilebasic?pli=1#id.wk3t0pnso2ld
http://Www.mielanetwork.weebly.com
Yes, where’s the evidence?
How many states and districts have been permitting the implementation of “CC-based curriculum written by teachers”? That’s news to me.
Data can always be manipulated to show WHAT ever you want it to show.
Thank you for sharing those websites. They have a lot of information on professional development resources and professional practices based on CCSS, but I didn’t see any quantitative or qualitative data that came out of those pilot tests, that verifies the effectiveness of the Common Core. I even started searching the web myself for said data. So far, I’ve had no luck.
Your links were broken or did not reference a pilot and appeared to be notes from a meeting?
Can you please post a controlled study or observations that correlate CCSS to learning? I would be very interested in that and a peer review.
The assumption underlying all the CCSS is the validity of the assessments. Are they complete and consistent? Are they free of cultural and gender bias? Do the accommodate all learning styles?
Something better would be less focus on meaningless statistics and students as data points and a focus on individual learning. CCSS should be ONE tool as a diagnostic aid. But teachers should be allowed to innovate and develop AT A LOCAL LEVEL. A “small teams” approach.
Diane,
States were required to adopt 100% of the standards verbatim. They were permitted to add an additional 15% on top, but not take away from the core. Please see MCREL’s “State Adoption of the Common Core Standards: The 15% Rule” http://www.mcrel.org/~/media/Files/McREL/Homepage/Products/01_99/prod17_15PercentRule.ashx
Did you take this into account when speaking to the MI legislature, or were you saying that home rule trumps the federal rules?
I am a bit surprised that the results of these CCSS pilots are not being widely distributed. Where is the data on these early pilots published? I think there would be less criticism, in general, if the public could see the numbers. As they say, “Show me the data.”
This reply was posted to the wrong comment. Sorry
I know of no pilot studies on the CCSS. That’s the problem.
All too often, the rush to implement preferred policies by education “reformers” is faith based, with a sense of urgency cited as the reason for diving in head first. –Very risky when you don’t check to see how deep the water is.
And those are the same folks who call for data-driven practices based on scientific research for everyone else.
These are not standards. They are ideals. Well, someone’s vision of what the ideal would look like (certainly not mine). And that’s just it. You would think that standards would have broad agreement. These do not, no matter how much they want to paint opponents as all being far fringe tea party types (the idea that tea party members are far fringe is ludicrous, but that’s a topic for another day). Rather, there is a broad range of disagreement, particularly among the people who have to actually implement these “standards.”
As for the claim that students need these in order to be college and career ready (my district throws “life” in there – college, career, life ready), that’s just absurd. There are more college graduates now than in any other time in history. How ever did they manage without ccss?
On janressinger blog a comment was made as to the Sandia Report that came out after Nation at Risk and it was “hidden” . Edutopia has a title and short desription of the Sandia report (It was in the Journal of Educational Research).
Here is the title of Edutopia article:
Education at Risk: Fallout from a Flawed Report
Nearly a quarter century ago, “A Nation at Risk” hit our schools like a brick dropped from a penthouse window. One problem: The landmark document that still shapes our national debate on education was misquoted, misinterpreted, and often dead wrong.
BY TAMIM ANSARY
——————-
I’m heading out to the library to find the Jrnl of Ed Research so I can download the entire article; I remember the Nation at Risk and it had one big political message “Beat the Japs” (it was still the cold war and Japan had made some improvements in the economy so the hype was “beat them” like beating the Russians at Sputnik etc… it was highly political …..
I have an original copy that predated the AERA publication of the Sandia Report. If you would like a copy I can make a copy and send it to you. Let me know your address.
Joan
Thanks, Joan. Actually I might take you up on that. I found it on the computer at library for $41 dollars…. but then I found something even better by David Berliner. He cites Lawrence Cremin as saying we must fight this with that Cremin brings out from history :
example: 1907 Atlantic Monthly — schools are failing)
and he gives examples through time “we have been told relentlessly that we are at risk because our schools and our teachers have failed us.” Cremin’s book title Popular Education and Its Discontents.
David Berliner article (free access on line through EPPA February 2, 1993. He gives the Sandia study a reference: Carson, Huelskamp and Woodall with Huelskamp offering testimony in 1991.
This passage from the Ansary article is really key:
“Getting Educators Out of Education
In 1989, Bush convened his education summit at the University of Virginia. Astonishingly, no teachers, professional educators, cognitive scientists, or learning experts were invited. The group that met to shape the future of American education consisted entirely of state governors. Education was too important, it seemed, to leave to educators.
School reform, as formulated by the summit, moved so forcefully onto the nation’s political agenda that, in the 1992 presidential campaign, Bill Clinton had to promise to out-tough Bush on education. As president, Clinton steered through Congress a bill called Goals 2000 that largely co-opted the policies that came out of the 1989 Bush summit.”
That explains so much, I had never understood why, in the early 90s, Clinton focused on how wonderful Teach for America (TFA) was, which he linked to his new AmeriCorps program. I recall feeling totally discounted at the time, because he talked about TFA as if they were Peace Corps volunteers out to save the children of America, when they had only 5 weeks training, committed to only two years of teaching and most were earning more money than I was. I don’t remember hearing him say anything remotely similar in praise of veteran teachers who commit our lives to America’s children.
Now I get it. Clinton jumped onto the bandwagon of Bush I just as Obama got onboard Bush II’s NCLB. In reality, in regard to education, we have had only one political party for a very, very long time. And, since the policies are all based on promoting a manufactured crisis, disdain for and alienation of genuine educators are primary components of the PR campaign against education for these RepubliCrats.
Bush III did even more damage, with his push for vouchers and privatization. We cannot have one more Bush as president. And aren’t there like two more Bush brothers and a sister? God save us.
And wasn’t it Jeb who was behind the organization of governors and superintendents promoting the CCSS?
As ominous as I think it would be to have Hillary as prez, because I’m afraid she’ll just do more of what Bill did in support of big business, if it’s between her and Jeb, then I may not vote third party just to keep Jeb out of office, (We really should get Elizabeth Warren to run though.)
David Berliner wrote extensively about this matter in his enlightening 1996 book with Bruce Biddle, “The Manufactured Crisis: Myths, Fraud, and the Attack on America’s Public Schools”
Could you please provide links to the articles mentioned? For starters, here’s one to that very insightful Edutopia article by Ansary: http://www.edutopia.org/landmark-education-report-nation-risk
Here is a link to a free full text copy of, “A Nation at Risk” http://datacenter.spps.org/uploads/sotw_a_nation_at_risk_1983.pdf
One thing that should be noted is that there are absolutely no citations provided, neither in-text nor in a reference list at the end, so you can’t link the information that is provided with its source. In fact, it says on the Introduction page that
“the Commission has relied in the main upon five sources of
information:
• papers commissioned from experts on a variety of educational issues;
• administrators, teachers, students, representatives of professional and public groups, parents, business leaders, public officials, and scholars who testified at eight meetings of the full Commission, six public hearings, two panel discussions, a symposium, and a series of meetings organized by the Department of Education’s Regional Offices;
• existing analyses of problems in education;
• letters from concerned citizens, teachers, and administrators who volunteered extensive comments on problems and possibilities in American education; and
• descriptions of notable programs and promising approaches in education.”
In other words, scientific research scrutinized in published peer-reviewed scholarly journals was NOT the basis for this document.
When it came out and it was very apparent that Reagan knew nothing of its content, a lot of educators thought it was a self-serving promotion of the Department of Education, because Reagan had been planning to dissolve the Cabinet position and the federal DoE. This shock doctrine served to make all parties who would have been affected by that indispensable and effectively saved them, the DoE and the Cabinet position.
CCSS may go down as the biggest scam in U.S.history. David Coleman is making Bernie Madoff look like John D Rockefeller.
I also don’t understand the big rush to implement the Common Core. I teach in Ca., and my district can’t answer my question of whether we are still taking the CST or the Common Core this year. We have had no professional development beyond glancing at the standards. It’s very clear the admisistration in my district really doesn’t know what to do. Yet they look at us like we should just go ahead and start teaching the Common Core just because we are suppose to. It’s a mess.
Funny. Same thing in Ohio. We don’t know if the OGT or PARCC tests will be required. Right now, it is BOTH.
In Utah, the standards were adopted over a weekend, yet the state office of education keeps insisting that the standards had “plenty” of comment time. We’re not in either consortia, so we’re paying tons of money to have some group write the tests. I have no idea who it even is. Ridiculous!
@DianeR and Alabamateacher: I think we are missing the point. I have heard this undercurrent for years.
Let me explain. There is a misunderstanding of and disagreement as to what a degree in education is and should be. There is an abiding disrespect for teaching, even at the college level. My son was excited to work on his PhD at Temple. He taught some classes and did very well, the students liked his approach and willingness to help them understand what he was delivering. His masters thesis from DAPP in Cincinnati, OH, had been about improving the way Ohio funded its schools and his idea of a solution for determining more equity. But when working on his PhD in Philly, he found that they pooh-poohed small-time places like Ohio and shot down his ideas. They told him they only cared about their research, not his ability to teach well. And they were all about their own ideas. (You see how well Philly schools are doing now!)
Point being: this is not uncommon. Universities are all about bringing in money, not teaching. Departments of education at universities are not viewed with the same respect as math, science, medicine, engineering, and law (or sports). They are deemed as more rigorous fields than mere education courses. After all, if one is smart, one should be able to read, research, and teach oneself. To get a masters degree in teacher education, there is no need to take a test (GMAT) to qualify for entrance at most schools. This adds to the disrespect that teachers and departments of education receive. It is easy to get masters degrees online without taking a final exam or orals these days. Many view that as the only way to move up the salary ladder if one doesn’t want to be a superintendent or principal. This is viewed as an unworthy degree by many who are in other fields.
The reform team now act as if it has to be stopped simply because they don’t want to pay higher salaries. Once women had negotiated middle class wages this war began. Yes, there are male educators, but the attitude towards teachers and nurses is that they are not professionals because they are predominantly and traditionally female occupations.
So, on to my point. Since our degrees aren’t respected, the goal is to re-examine the so-called rigor of education programs, replace child development theories with data bases and self-guided modules. The reformers place no value on the degrees bestowed by the education establishment and would prefer that the whole certified profession would evaporate so they can make profit based on data, however harmful this may be.
Add to this the fact that the general public, meaning those with only a high school education or less, often view elementary teachers as doing little more than daycare! After I got my masters degree in elementary math education, I was asked if I now knew enough to teach high school. Ridiculous, but true. Public perceptions are truly not informed as to how the current system works.
I will add , in brief, what I stated before: elementary education has long been perceived as “woman’s work” and therefore, less worthy of more than a supplemental wage. The fact of the nurturing atmosphere of elementary schools further harms the image of teaching when viewed by the more paternalistic, too-down corporate world whose goal is competition and survival of the fittest, not the “best” but the illusion of the best as defined by themselves.
We are witnessing the return to dominance by the male, paternal attitudes of 60 years ago. Anyone who chooses to serve others is viewed as inferior. I guess we must become alphadogs or die out.
It amazes me how mesmerized people have become with “profit as bottom line” in all things. This isn’t the society I believed in and it is not the one I want. As Goldie Hawn says, paraphrased, take a brain break, focus on tiny things of interest, and be kind. Life is too short to waste on mandatory regimentation. Nurturing matters.
I have never thought of myself as a feminist. But I whole heartedly believe that The attack on education is an attack on women. It is an attack on our minorities and our disabled. I want to know why groups supporting minorities, women and the disabled are not all over this. I do believe it is discriminatory.
I have two bachelor’s degrees, a BA in Humanities and a BS in education. I know that Humanities is looked down upon as well, but before STEM it was considered historically as the best well rounded education. It is the study of comparative literature, philosophy, theology, history, art, art history, music and language. The degree is used as a jumping off point for business, medicine and law. I became bilingual speaking both German and English. My second degree is in early childhood/ elementary education with endorsements in special education and ESL. I am currently enrolled in a Master’s program, not an online paper mill program. Before I was accepted into my undergraduate education program, I had to have a GPA above 3.0. Mine is actually higher. I was required to pass college algebra, biology and a second science class as well. I chose nutrition. I was required to take a national exam to prove that I actually had academic skills. I passed in the 99th percentile. To exit the program, I had to take a series of national board exams called Praxis. I did two full semesters of student teaching, one semester in junior high and a second in an elementary school. Three years later, I was required to take the PL2. This is the second exam required in my state to become highly qualified. These were the requirements imposed on teachers through NCLB. I did everything that was asked and required and now they want to say that none of it mattered. My education was just a joke!? I find this to be disingenuous. I am sick of hearing how an education program is all fluff. I took the same math, English and science classes as those in pre-med, technology, computer science, chemistry, biology and physics. Education majors then add another 6 hours of upper level math courses. We also take classes in statistics. We are not stupid or lazy. Get over yourselves, you wouldn’t be where you are today without teachers!
I agree with you 100%. I have said for several years that teachers have become a replacement for the previous disrespect for women. I am no feminist either, but this top-down mandated change which is now discrediting all that so many have worked so hard to attain is a kick in the gut and a slap in the face. I would never attend college to become a teacher in today’s world. I couldn’t fight it any longer. So I retired. Good luck to you!
It is a mess. All sorts of “trainings” going on, but who really understands what teaching to these standards means? My seventh graders are now supposed to possess the ability to “analyze how tow or more authors writing about the same topic shape their presentations of key information by emphasizing different evidence or advancing different interpretations of facts.” Well, they already possess this ability –if they texts are simple enough and deal with familiar topics. Our brains are naturally outfitted to analyze: no teacher imparts this ability. But there are many texts on which kids could not perform this operation –and I daresay many texts on which I and most adults could not perform this operation. How do we empower humans to be able to generalize this ability? This is a fundamental question to which I have not heard a good answer.
Obviously, the reformers have no analytical thinking skills since they can’t think the problem through to its logical (disastrous) end.
Reblogged this on Transparent Christina.
I’m with you on this one, Diane!
I am surely no Tea Party person and I find the implementation of Common Core to be despicable.
My criticisms of the CCSS in ELA apply also to the state standards that they supplant, and they are not primarily ideological but very practical. These days, when I get an assignment from an educational materials provider, it always comes with a list of the standards that every lesson must cover or with a list of the standards I must chose from for the lessons. Often, these lists take the form of three or four particular standards for this lesson, three or four for that. The standards drive, to an enormous extent, what I am allowed to do. Typically, that means that I am not free to think about what kids ought to learn from this lesson, what the outcomes ought to be, because that’s already been decided, not by someone who actually thought about, say, what one should know about writing a press release or reading a lyric poem but by someone who was thinking about ELA outcomes in general and in the abstract. And typically, those decisions that have already been made for me are not ideal. The standards commonly leave out important outcomes. They commonly force an emphasis on stuff that shouldn’t be emphasized. They commonly do not reflect in a balanced or complete way what is being studied.
Every day of my working life, I am forced to write lessons that are CONSIDERABLY worse than they might have been had I been free to a) consider the standards merely as guidelines and b) to think about what the specific outcomes ought to be for the lesson given, specifically, what and whom I am teaching.
And the publishers don’t want to see extraneous stuff. The standards are all-important because they are what kids and teachers and schools are going to be judged on. The publishers want to see that THOSE and ONLY THOSE, for the most part, are covered. Content that I consider essential or really valuable or engaging is often cut or not written by me in the first place because I know that it will be cut because it isn’t related to a specific standard.
Supporters of the CCSS in ELA often make the claim that the standards are not a curriculum and are not pedagogy, that teachers and others are free to develop their own curricula and pedagogical practices as long as they have these outcomes. But to an enormous extent, my practical experience is that the standards are to a large extent driving curricula and pedagogy and distorting both tremendously and for the worse.
It’s good to have an insider’s view of what’s going on in educational publishing. The picture you paint isn’t pretty. How do you subvert a captive market that’s been set up to sell poor quality products?
I think you got right to the meat of it with this one. Thanks.
Well said. Funny enough, the curriculum my district has been using in elementary school for reading (Treasures – McGraw Hill) often teaches a skill that really doesn’t apply to the story that goes with the lesson but that might go very well with the next lesson’s story or the one after it. It’s almost like they decided on the structure of when each skill would be taught but then randomly assigned stories to go with the lessons.
True of Houghton Mifflin as well.
Same goes for Pearson/Scott Foresman’s Reading Street.
And typically, these days, educational materials publishers will give their writers predetermined lesson designs based upon their reading of what the material ancillary to the ELA standards (the Publishers’ Criteria, the introductory notes, the Appendices to the standards, Coleman’s videos, etc) say or suggest about pedagogical approaches. So, one gets a rigid, predetermined pedagogical design and is no longer free to choose or develop a pedagogical design for a given lesson that works for that particular material and its particular audience or audiences. There are thousands and thousands of ways to structure lessons. I once outlined but never got around to writing a big book on this topic–the astonishing variety of types of possible lesson designs. But now, typically, one can’t match the design to the material, the kids, and their teachers. Instead, one has to follow some rigid, predetermined formula based on someone’s reading of what the standards call for. And so, the resulting lessons, the ones that actually get written, are much worse than they might have been if one had been able allowed to think freely about the appropriate pedagogical design for the circumstance.
One lesson topic and intended use and audience might be ideal for a Socratic seminar. Another might require modeling a series of deductions from general principles and then having kids duplicate the steps in the deduction using different inputs. Yet another might be best approached through hands-on experience followed by inductive inference based upon that experience. One might require a lot of background information before a kid can even begin. Another might require, up front, some higher order thinking. One might require metacognitive activity. In another, such activity might really get in the way. But typically, these days, one will be handed, these days, a predetermined formal design. These lessons must all involve step-by-step close reading of the text; have close reading questions linked to these particular standards for each chunk of text; have limited prereading material; delay asking of higher order questions until the end; and so on–all this because of some publishers’ reading of the Publishers’ Criteria put out by the Common Core State Standards Initiative group. As a practical matter, one ends up not choosing the pedagogical approach that best suits the particular lesson. And this is just one of the ways in which the CCSS in ELA and their accompanying materials end up distorting pedagogy.
Common Core is the “New Coke”. Those with gray hairs will know just what I’m talking about .
I remember the “New Coke” ! Yuck! And I don’t have gray hair yet.
Interesting analogy. How long will it take for “State Standards Classic” to show up? Which state will be the first to actually get rid of Common Core? I really, really do believe that once one brave state does, others will follow!
Robert,
I agree that the semi-fluid situation now is going to ossify into a rigid and disfiguring dogma like what you describe.
I’m interested in attacking the root of the problem: the fuzzy thinking at the heart of American education. Can we even teach skill standards like these? Can we teach reading, writing and thinking skills? And if so, how? These seem like stupid questions, but I have never heard a convincing answer. We can elicit analysis, but can we impart the skill? Does eliciting it strengthen one’s ability to do it in future situations? One thing that is not fuzzy to me: we can teach knowledge. I can teach kids that cacao trees only grow within 20 degrees of the equator, but can I teach all-purpose analysis skills? I may be able to impart the HABIT of analysis, but that’s different than teaching the skill. I feel impelled to become a sort of Socrates and start engaging my fellow educators in a dialectic that asks them to prove they understand what they’re talking about. It seems to me that we’re plagued by Sophists.
Well said, Ponderosa!!!
It’s often the case in ELA that one is dealing with skills that are MOST NATURALLY AND EFFICIENTLY taught not by explicit instruction in the skill but, rather, by putting the student into circumstances that provide inputs for unconscious mechanisms of the brain to act upon. The brain has innate mechanisms for doing the learning that are MUCH, MUCH more powerful than are the silly explicit mechanisms that we often try to substitute for those. This is true, for example, of cognitive mechanisms for developing grammatical expertise, for learning vocabulary, for learning the ins and outs of various forms of inference, and even for learning most discourse structures (which draw upon innate structures in the brain for pattern recognition). Often, explicit instruction in skills can actually get in the way, just as when, if you are learning to ride a bicycle, you will get into a lot of trouble if you start thinking too much about what you are doing. Try walking not automatically but, rather, by thinking precisely when the heel of the left foot hits the ground, when the foot pivots, when the ball of the foot hits, when you bend a leg, when you left a leg and move it forward. If you think about this stuff, you will find yourself having a LOT of trouble doing something that is pretty simple GIVEN THE EXTRAORDINARY MECHANISMS in the brain for automatizing most of that activity.
We commonly do a much, much better job teaching skills if we IGNORE THE SKILLS and concentrate, instead, on exciting, engaging, appropriately sequenced CONTENT and having kids do things with that content that involve the skill. I am NOT arguing that it is ALWAYS a bad idea to do explicit grammar instruction, teach vocabulary explicitly, etc., only that we must recognize that kids have machines in their heads that do a LOT of things much better if those machines are NOT being interfered with by “higher-level” thinking. The skills mania instantiated in these standards is incredibly unscientific. The almost exclusive emphasis on explicit instruction in skills, instantiated in these standards and in the state standards that preceded them, flies in the face of a LOT that we now know about how minds work. Human minds are, for example, incredibly sophisticated machines designed by evolution for doing unconscious inductive and abductive reasoning, and while it’s very useful to have explicit training in induction and abduction, using these terms and talking in abstract skills language can very often get in the way of the a kids’ actually doing these things well. Often, it’s better for the kid to be thinking about the content and relying on those internal mechanisms to do what they do.
And, yes, I know that the CCSS do not say that one must always do explicit skills instruction, but when you draw up a list of abstract skills and say these are what matter, these are what we’re going to test, then lots and lots of teachers and publishers are going to start doing lots of lots of explicit instruction in them, and sometimes, that will be the wrong approach. We know that explicit instruction in sound-symbol correspondences (phonics) works, for most kids. We also know that most vocabulary is not attained through explicit instruction. So, we should “teach” these differently. One-size-fits-all standards tend to drive a kind of approach to education that treats everything as though it were the same.
I am reminded of a picture I once saw of a control panel in a nuclear power plant. The engineers who designed the panel liked order. Every lever on the panel was identical. The workers in the plant had found some beer taps (Bud, Miller, etc) and put over the levers so that they could easily tell them apart just by glancing. This one means raise the fuel rods. This one means lower them. Sometimes education planners have the same sort of inclination that the engineers who designed that panel had to make things TOO orderly. Here’s a list of standards. They all have the same sort of form, whether they deal with learning to read, with reading literature, with writing, with speaking, which history and technical subjects. . . .
Ponderosa, Robert –
You have explained very well what I have always believed to be true. That children do not need to be taught HOW to think they just need to be encouraged TO think. The rest will fall into place.
Thank you!
Some learning is best done through explicit instruction. Some isn’t. Some activities benefit from a lot of thinking about them. Some do not. Often, one benefits from initial explicit instruction followed by practice that automatizes. Sometimes one benefits from looking back critically at what one has done based on running out previously automatized schemata so that one can adjust those. What works for learning A doesn’t necessarily work for learning B.
Often, in ELA, the most effective pedagogical procedure is to structure a lesson carefully so that the student experiences something that will become an automatized schema–something that will be repeatable–without having the student do a lot of conscious reflection on what is being done. A simple example: If students memorize and recite passages that have certain unusual grammatical constructions, those constructions will become part of their own grammatical repertoires at a fairly high rate of adoption WITHOUT THE STUDENTS’ EVER HAVING BEEN EXPLICITLY TAUGHT THE CONSTRUCTION (e.g., “This is an example of a parallel elements joined by a coordinating conjunction; this is a nominative absolute”). Now, there are valuable uses for explicit knowledge of rudimentary parsing and phrase structure, but if one’s goal is to expand the sophistication of a student’s active grammar of the language–the variety of constructions that he or she actually uses in speech and writing, such implicit methods are typically much, much more effective than explicit ones are.
Fordham has a site just dedicated to the State of Ohio where they tell the parents that John King is right in New York….. quote from Fordham site: “This year’s analysis also examines how Ohio’s move to the Common Core and the PARCC exams in English language arts and math will impact the pass rates on standardized tests. The fall in pass rates is likely to be dramatic in 2014-15, and could stall the implementation of the Common Core. Despite this initial fall in test scores–and the shock that may ensue–Ohio must remain faithful to implementing these higher academic standards and more challenging exams, in order to ready all of its students for success in career and college.”
I would hope that people who read janresseger and Diane’s blog would go to the Fordham OHIO page and describe the perspective that we share here…. so that taxpayers and parents in Ohio won’t be fooled. Fordham is pumping a lot of staff and funds into OHIO.
Fordham Institute is making a hero out of John King when they write for Ohio taxpayers and parents.
quote: “Ohio schools will receive a jolt as their proficiency rates plummet. This report projects how painful this transition will be in 2014-15. But once this initial pain subsides, there will be longer-term gain, as the faithful implementation of the Common Core will put all of Ohio’s youngsters onto the pathway toward success.”
they are over promising again!!!!!
Fordham Institute received a lot of money from the Gates Foundation to evaluate the Common Core standards. They are one of the CC’s biggest supporters.
Fordham wants to “JOLT” Ohio students and parents with “shock and awe”
quote: “When the going gets tough, students, schools, and public must embrace higher standards. Our analysis indicates that the Common Core and PARCC assessments will jolt Ohio’s K-12 educational system when they arrive in 2014-15. But Fordham’s recent report Future Shock indicates that educators are not shying away from embracing the rigor of the Common Core. We urge the public, as well, to embrace the Common Core—even in the face of shocking proficiency rate falls. “
Is Checkers Finn trying to diassociate himself from the “mess” created up and down the east coast with test scores???? He lambasts California for doing nothing right but then he starts to back away…
quote: “Getting all of this right is proving hugely difficult for the twin consortia (PARCC, Smarter Balanced) now developing Common Core assessment systems from scratch—but at least they appear fully committed…….. How many state officials are test-savvy enough to evaluate such claims? And how many may quietly be heading to a back-door exit from the real challenges of the Common Core, settling for assessments that won’t ever prod the education system itself to raise its sights or teachers to make the demanding pedagogical changes that are needed if their pupils are truly to be prepared for college and career? In the middle of 2013, we’d be wiser to focus on these challenges than to keep fussing over the standards themselves. And—let’s face it—states that aren’t prepared to scale such mountains might be better off not pretending that they’ve embraced the Common Core.”
————
he’s preparing himself to be distanced from Arne Duncan so he can blame everything on Obama and Arne …… the same “stuff” Finn originated!!!!
Sounds like Cheney and terrorism deja vu
“As more money is allocated to testing and accountability, less money is available for the essential programs and services that all schools should provide.Our priorities are confused.” Agree, as far as I see it the only test that matters is the SAT. The students know this as well as the educators. The only reason to continue with testing and accountability is to continue to weaken the system. “What is best for Students”, went out the window with NCLB and RTTP. As Diane said, let get our priorites straight.
Great post as usual. I’m hoping more of your readers will go even further, and question the particular assumptions the Common Core Standards are based upon. For me, there’s plenty in there that points to failure.
One of my objections is that they’re partly written in reaction against some of David Coleman’s pet peeves about the way he imagines English is currently taught. With respect to literature study, he claims that teachers over-emphasize reading strategies (pre-reading activities, prediction during the reading, metacognitive prompts, and so on) and ignore the actual content of literary works. I taught high school English for a long time, and I don’t know any English teachers who actually did that. Research has shown, however, that such strategies can and do help kids comprehend new and difficult material. Yet under the new regime, they are supposed to be de-emphasized or eliminated.
According to Time Magazine (January 6, 2011), “Coleman wants students to learn to think by analyzing what they’re reading. Sounds obvious, but it’s a radical departure from today’s prevailing practices in classrooms.” Is that true in some places? I don’t know. But I’ll bet anyone who attended high school in a well-funded suburban school would say otherwise. I always had kids who complained that we analyzed too much, and they often had a point. Yet this imagined lack of attention to the text was part of Coleman’s sales pitch (or rather, his elaborate straw man argument) in favor of new standards. Now it’s one of the reasons teachers are admonished to study a literary work through “close reading” “within the four corners of the text.” This is a personal preference (or an ideological stance) that has no basis in either reading research or literary theory. Sure, close reading is crucial and even fun for teenagers (especially once their abstract thinking abilities start to kick in), but to force it on young children day after day, year after year? To make it the primary reason to study literature? Horrible ideas.
And it doesn’t matter that by its nature a text doesn’t have four corners. Coleman seems to think that when you talk about a work, you should pay attention only to the words on the page. He is personally in favor of what Susan Ohanian calls “the New Criticism on steroids.” As a result, teachers are going to be required to read poems, stories, and “informational text” wholly OUT of context.
I could go into Coleman’s preference for argumentation over narrative (even in the face of evidence that narrative and metaphor are at the heart of human cognition and therefore deserve more, not less, attention in English class). Or his dubious claim that ninety percent of the writing students do in school involves either personal narrative or personal expression (and his infamous quip that nobody in this world cares about what you think or feel). Or his insistence that testing really is teaching.
Suffice it to say that the personal and ideological preferences of the main author of the CCS, along with his misreading of current practice, have been built into the final product. And that many of Coleman’s assumptions and beliefs are questionable (including the unproved assumption that written standards actually do make a positive difference in student learning). That’s why I have a feeling they’ll be a success for the people getting paid (promoters, test makers, publishers, consultants), and a disappointment for almost everyone else.
Here’s one simple way to know that the push behind getting CCSSI implemented and irrevocably in place is grounded in a good deal of malarkey:
First, you have no doubt read more than once that one reason we need NATION-WIDE (if not officially “National”) standards, that is a “common core” of topics that will be taught in each grade level on a nation-wide basis, is so that when a child’s family relocates from, say, Michigan to New York, there will be so much continuity between the curriculum in one place and that in the other that the transition for the student will be relatively seamless, and no important topics will be missed. Sound reasonable? (Well, frankly, I think it’s total nonsense for a bunch of simple reasons, but let’s pretend, shall we, that these folks are serious and that they’re right, for the sake of argument).
If that is such a compelling concern for those who insist that we must have these common standards, then riddle me this: by rolling out the standards across K-12 in a single year, as is being done at various points across the states that have adopted the CCSSI, here is something that is absolutely guaranteed to happen to countless children – say a child is entering 5th grade this fall. There are mathematics topics that previously were taught in 5th grade that are now pushed down to 4th grade. (Looking at the totality of the K-12 math content standards, topics are more likely to have been pushed down than up, though a few do get pushed to higher grades). But this child was in 4th grade last year and didn’t get that topic. It follows that s/he will never get that topic, because it was lost in the transition from whatever the state had before to the Common Core.
Because this system is so rigid, despite the propagandists trying to assure the public that it is not (all it takes is working closely in high-needs districts with math teachers and curriculum specialists to see that things are being taken as quite absolute when it comes to the Content Standards), many children (and teachers) are going to be caught in multiple “switches” of this sort in mathematics. How, exactly, the brain trust behind CCSSI expects these children to be served to avoid problems because of missed topics is unknown, since the issue isn’t addressed anywhere that I’ve seen or heard tell of.
But wait: isn’t this in fact guaranteeing that the very disorientation that was supposed to be avoided for some small subset of children (those whose families move during the school year) will impact virtually every student in K-12 on a national basis? Seems like bad planning on someone’s part. . . doesn’t it?
Could this have been avoided? Of course. Implement the Kindergarten standards in Year 1, then Grade One standards in Year 2, and so on. Virtually no one gets lost in any shuffles. And the HUGE advantage on top of that is that educators get to weigh in a year at a time, adjustments can be made based on feedback, and at the end of the full rollout, we actually have something that might not completely suck. Kind of like Japan and other countries that do have national curricula and texts, but which also have a well-constructed feedback system on a national basis.
But of course, “There’s no time!” When you’re in a rush to get your foot in the door before folks realize what you’re up to, And when you’re eager to start making a fortune, you don’t want to risk that by going slowly, there might be a chance for folks to say, after a year or two, “You know, this isn’t working out. Let’s rethink the whole thing.”
So naturally, despite the “concern” for all those children whose families move, the wise folks at the USDOE and elsewhere have chosen instead to ensure that EVERY child is left behind on one or more mathematics topics for at least one year, possibly more.
Heckuva job, Duncanie, Colemanie, et al!
I have been saying the exact same thing all along. Forget for a moment what the standards are, I think the implementation shows exactly how much they care about the child’s needs. Anytime there is a rush to put something in place, it is about power and control!
Great article, Diane. Thank you for all that you do!!!
I attended seven different schools in my K-12 academic career. I don’t believe I was harmed by any gaps in my education as I hold advanced degrees. I developed valuable life skills by learning to adjust to these new learning environments. If I was ahead of students in my new school, I helped the students who were struggling. If I was behind, I learned to ask for help from my teacher and other classmates. Unless the standards are being taught in every school at the same time with the same pacing there will be gaps. I don’t believe a transient population is a compelling argument for common core standards.
these are 4 points from the blog “Horace mann League”
“A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Creative Destruction in Education
what is lost in this creative destruction?
First and foremost, kids lose. Since charters are not public schools, they will lose their constitutional rights. Many more kids will lose art, physical education, music, journalism, debate, dance, creative writing, a variety of foreign languages, and any other class that is not tested, not considered “essential.” Students will profound special needs will be further segregated from non-disabled peers because so few schools will want to take on the additional responsibility.
Parents lose their voice. They are granted a voice as customers, but this is illusory. If they are dissatisfied, they move to another school. This is rough on the kid and on the parents who now have to shop for this other school, possibly in a neighborhood they of their child can’t get to easily. If the school is not satisfied with the student, the student can be booted out in spite of parental protest.
Teachers lose their voice. the market will dictate wages and hours. The private school, either for-profit or not, will have incentive to remain competitive, trimming the fat wherever possible.
Ah yes, history will remember the cult of the common core. The grading and failing festival held every year at the temple at Corenak.
The results of the Common Core testing in NYS proves that the tests are invalid. A typical test should have a fairly balanced bell shaped curve for the majority of schools, but these results were skewed towards failing grades for the almost all of the students who were previously identified as proficient (or better). Next year the tests will be “corrected” by weighting the results for a better distribution of scores, indicating improvement, but really just playing with statistics.
The same thing was done to the Regents exams. In the 70’s you got the score, right or wrong, but when everyone was required to take the Regents, the results were “adjusted”, so that a score of “47%” correct on the Living Environment Exam(formerly known as Biology) was upgraded to a 65% passing average.
How relevant is all this testing in determining the actual ability of our children? Or are we just testing to see how well they do at taking standardized tests? And do these scores actually predict how successful the student will be in the job market post education?
Check this out. “Urban Districts Win Support to Pilot Common Standards”, Education Week Website, http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2011/08/weve_been_telling_you_in.html
They are just starting pilots now, after the Common Core has been adopted and is being implemented. I think you are correct, there is no data. I wrote a cool post about it on my blog, called Common Core Design: A Crumpled Timeline.
Bring back the good ol’ Iowa Test of Basic Skills . . . who’s with me? 🙂
The 25,000 BATs, as they call themselves, are pushing back against the national standards with Twitter strikes, town hall meetings and snarky Internet memes. They have no qualms with the theory behind the new benchmarks, but they fear the larger movement places too much emphasis on testing and will stifle creativity in the classroom.
“It’s not just the Tea Party that’s skeptical of the Common Core,” said Bonnie Cunard, a Fort Myers teacher who manages the Facebook page for the 1,200 Florida BATs. “We on the left, like the folks on the right, are saying we want local control.”
The BATs represent a new wave of liberal opposition to the Common Core standards, which includes some union leaders, progressive activists and Democratic lawmakers. They are joining forces with Tea Party groups and libertarians, who want states like Florida to slow down efforts to adopt the new benchmarks and corresponding tests.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/08/24/3583858/for-common-core-a-new-challenge.html#storylink=cpy
Why?
To pave the way for Pearson’s power and profits . . . . . . . . . . .
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130821/NEWS0102/308210094/Curriculum-targets-Common-Core
He who owns the test, rocks the cradle.
It is the supreme irony that the Common Core Standards selling point is its insistence on evidence and the people who are pushing them are rushing them without the evidence that they work. It must be that evidence is not their main agenda.
Virtually every one of the policies that “reformers” push today is not grounded in evidence that it will lead to improved student learning, from charter schools and vouchers to CCSS to increased testing and data mining to voodoo VAM, firing teachers and trashing unions.
Everything promoted is designed to reinforce the false narrative that “our schools are failing” and thus, result in shutting down neighborhood schools and handing them over to private enterprises, so that public monies fill private pockets. $$$$$ is “their main agenda,” not what is in the best interests of children and our nation. “Reform” has rapidly morphed from a school improvement plan to a business plan.
These cut-throat business leaders and the politicians they have bought are not humanitarians. If they were truly intent on implementing policies based on scientific research, they would have recognized long ago that there are converging lines of evidence indicating that poverty, and all of the out-of-school factors that contribute to it, leads to deleterious outcomes for children –especially the unlivable wages they promote for the parents of poor children.
How about this for evidence: I taught for 41 years-middle school algebra. It is appalling the amount of mathematical content that students don’t know and more tragically don’t understand. And I taught in “good” and even “independent” schools. Are the Common Core Standards the answer? Maybe not. But, to continue on the path that we are on, where students need but don’t have the background, knowledge, or understanding of mathematics to gain admittance to the careers of the future, where they can actually earn a livable wage, is really criminal. We can do better. But, unfortunately doing better sometimes makes political waves that we are unwilling to work against, and the losers are the students. Adults will quibble about Common Core when in reality they really know little about the actual standards themselves. And again students are caught in a never ending cycle of adult dysfunction. I thought we cared about young people. I guess not as much as making sure that our own “political” agenda is addressed.
So, what has congress done lately that is positive? They should go back to school and learn how to solve a problem, how to work together, how to compromise for the good of all. What the heck! We are doomed because of the polarized idiocy that runs this country. Yuck!
That’s not evidence – that’s your opinion. There is a difference my friend.
Great response! As a reading interventionist, I spend so much time over emphasizing reading strategies on passages and stories that students become uninterested in reading for enjoyment. The students are now in a mechanical manner identifying text features and figurative language without connecting, interpeting, and relating to the text to receive the full benefit of reading.
Great article Diane. Bland articles and passages can’t compete with the dazzling lyrics of Jay z, the dynamic figurative language use in comic books, and the expansive video content of YouTube. How do we expect our students to be innovators when we are so eager to restrict and contain organic approaches to learning.
This is a wonderful post! I am a researcher in the area of Government-Business Relations and Regulatory Policy. As far back as the early 1980s I was hearing in field interviews with corporate Washington offices and business lobby organizations that American education was broken and non-competitive…it was only years later that I began to se the connection with education reform and corporate consternation over the quality of our schools. There is an important narrative to uncover about education reform, business, and privatization.
Is there a connection between the text book companies promoting Common Core lessons and the actual questions found on Common Core tests?
Also, the question of revision is critical…what is the plan?
Chris, some of the questions on NY’s Common Core tests were based on stories in Pearson readers. Those who used the Pearson textbooks had an advantage.
There is no process in place for revision of the Common Core. None that I have heard of.
Thanks for your quick response. Both answers exemplify a small segment of a much larger paradox. In my early teaching career I read a book about the collusion between textbook companies and testing. Very disturbing.
My 2nd grade daughter’s teaching is “not allowed” (no typo) to teach long addition and subtraction vertically w the one, tens & hundreds columns…ISN’T ALLOWED…
Yeah…that’s effective. ..NOT
Explain.
I understand your skeptism. To try and explain why, in the economic world your child will face (compared to yours), is computers and programming going to be more or less important to your child’s career? Hope you answered ‘more’! The method of teaching addition you criticize is a better foundation for creating a programming logic…that new element is learning to do addition by means of a ‘recursive’ algorithm. Get a computer science text and look it up. Consider if you will, the initial question I posed…learning to think ‘recursively’ was one of the most difficult learning challenges when taling about any task involving programming….and I don’t mean pressing buttons (icons) as you do now.
See my post further down if you want some better reasons to be skeptical of Core Standards, this is not one of the better reasons.
I am a Geometry teacher in California and my district is in the process of implementing common core. After almost one year of this program, the educational process is in chaos, there are few resources available to teachers from the district (we are told to find materials on the internet), we are teaching to the tests which minimizes breadth for small pockets of almost superficial concepts and the level of learning is decreasing, not increasing. Add to that the fact that kids who have failed Algebra I are now being passed on to Geometry in spite of that shortfall, and you now have the perfect storm of substandard education. I am just glad my kids got through school before this fiasco hit – they both survived the “poor” education system and now one is in medical school at Penn State University and the other is in a Phd program (cellular and molecular biology) at Stanford University. Go figure!
While I sympathasize with the author (Diane) and what I assume to be her point, the title of this post is technically ‘circular logic’ at its best. There can BY DEFINITION be no evidence of a ‘new’ ‘standard’ because until it is used no such data can exist (unless you are a time traveller and have even more serious problems). What would be a better criticism of these so-called Core Standards is that they are based on a very bad (invalid) selection of evidence.
It seems no one looked at the actual evidence they say they used, nor do they tell us HOW they used it. The best example of bad or no evidence is that they say they used important international data sources (schools in Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan are cited presumably as positive examples). In a proper investigation a set of pre-considered (note I do not use the term ‘objective’ here) criteria would be established for BOTH ‘good’ school systems, AND ‘bad’ ones. The methodologies of science (any field) have established since the 19th century that both are needed as a basis for sound investigation and discovery of underlying regularities worthy of further investigation and formulation of hypotheses and testing. Much ‘scientific discovery’ is useless in making a useful change in its target. So, whatever you think is relevant, may be, but it is also likely to be ineffective as a basis for positive change. Like, does building more more and ‘tougher’ prisons really reduce the incidence of crime? Really?!? Did stronger drug dealing penalties really drive down drug-dealing? Really?!?
Further criticism of the developers of these so-called Core Standards is that they made no apparent provisions to examine these foreign exemplars for indications of cultural factors that would obscure what might be worth consideration.
For example in Japan, high school students are driven by parents remorselessly nearly 18 hours a day (including 6 hours in private ‘tutoring’ programs) to achieve acceptance to Tokoyo University, the most selective institution in the country. Once there with the guarantee of middle-to-upper management career we see that absenteeism and alcohol consumption are very high as is partying. 60-Minutes did a very good story on Japanese education several years ago. Singapore has other ‘horror’ aspects that would never be allowed in US higher education. What happens in Japan is the admission to Tokoyo University is a pre-ordained class ‘filter’ for their society. The USA says it wants a more individual merit based society, not a class based society. If we really scrutinize the details of how these Core Standards were created we are once again spending great sums of money and wasting a lot of valuable teacher resources pursuing still another pipe dream of better education. In the US anyone accepted to Yale or Harvard (for generations in many families) is virtually guaranteed a high status career…no matter how much they drink or skip classes (or snort whatever)…just look at the real data example of George W. Bush, instead of what he says.
My doctorate was in social reasearch methodology and I profoundly object to most of the conduct of standards development in education because it has no validity and should not be considered reliable in any existing form. Similar to the now discredited notion of IQ as debunked by the legendary Stephen Gould in ‘The Mismeasure of Man.’ I also object to the obvious staging of the presentations because they appeal to the (poorly informed) prejudices of ‘parents.’ In this respect the introduction ‘for parents’ on these Core Standards does make a vitally important point–children have to be raised and educated for the world and careers that are coming, not the world their parents faced at their age. Simply astonishing how few parents not only fail to comprehend this, but also react quite vigorously to any such suggestion.
It is a common but highly questionable notion that Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong have superior school systems or standards. Much of this aura is due to American companies hiring their graduates for pennies on the dollar because they can exploit graduates from these countries to work 80+ hour weeks at tech jobs (without any concern about niggling things like working conditions or overtime). The original plant for GE (outside Albany NY) today makes power generator turbines and has almost NO Americans working there because foreign hires can be subtlely extorted to work much longer hours for much lower wages. A most interesting and diverse place to work where engineers come from all over the world (Mexico, India, Pakistan, Hong Kong, Japan and many more). I was actually working there briefly in 2006 and saw the huge majority of employees were outside contractors’ foreigh workers, while the only American citizen engineers I could find were over-50 white men within a couple years of retirement.
The key difference is the clearly communicated managerial expectations were that performance must be perfect regardless of how many off-shift hours you have to put in. If you try this with people raised here in American you eventually get class-action lawsuits (like Bank of America over gender discrimination), foreign graduates only get sacked and sent back to their country of origin if they don’t put in all the extra hours (for free, essentially). Much of the appeal of foreign educated professionals comes from a completely invalid system for evaluating the quality of an educational system based on hiring trends in the US, which the developers of theses Core Standards apparently failed to appreciate.
In science research we deem such factors as creating a fatal challenge to the validity of the research and its conclusions. There is much to suggest that well-investigated, well-considered education standards may contribute to greater and more relevant learning acheivement, but to date, I doubt anyone currently living has found it. I can suggest many people whose work is very worthy of consideration on this subject of standards, but all of them have long since died. If they were still alive I also very much doubt they would elect to participate in the effort.