Professor Bill Schmidt of Michigan State University told the Education Writers Association that most textbooks claiming o be aligned to the Common Core are not. The publishers slapped a sticker on the book and changed very little or nothing. Most textbooks he reviewed were a “sham,” sold by “snake oil salesmen.”
“Hoping to boost their share of a $9 billion annual market, many publishers now boast that their textbooks are “common-core aligned” and so can help spur the dramatic shifts in classroom instruction intended by the new standards for English/language arts and math.
But in a Feb. 21 presentation of his research at a seminar in Los Angeles hosted by the Education Writers Association, William Schmidt, a professor of statistics and education at Michigan State University in East Lansing, dismissed most purveyors of such claims as “snake oil salesmen” who have done little more than slap shiny new stickers on the same books they’ve been selling for years.
“Mr. Schmidt, who also co-directs the university’s Education Policy Center, and his team recently analyzed about 700 textbooks from 35 textbook series for grades K-8 that are now being used by 60 percent of public school children in the United States. Of those that purported to be aligned with the new standards, he said, some were “page by page, paragraph by paragraph” virtually identical to their old, pre-common-core versions.
“University of Southern California professor Morgan Polikoff, meanwhile, reached a similar conclusion after analyzing seven 4th grade math textbooks used in Florida. Despite publishers’ claims, the books were “only modestly aligned to the common core” and “systematically failed to reach the higher levels of cognitive demand” called for in the new standards, Mr. Polikoff said in a presentation to the EWA.”

Common Core Costs Too High, Failure Guaranteed
http://radicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/common-core-costs-too-high-failure-guaranteed/
LikeLike
Also to be considered is another part of the edubusiness where teachers are forced to submit lesson plans as part of their annual evaluations that are then scrubbed of authorship and repackaged and sold by megapublishers. Profiting on educators intellectual property. Shameful.
LikeLike
You are correct. That is exactly what happens. Some states want you to not only make lesson plans but also share all of your work…graphic organizers..notes…worksheets…quizzes..with other teachers in the state. They want to put it on a common website for all to use…NOT
They got none of mine and they will never get any of my work unless they pay good money..equal to their salary..
Teachers will not share anymore..Some work together but they do not share all and will never share under this evaluation system.
it is Dog eat Dog..
LikeLike
Profiting on educators’ intellectual property
Yup. A LOT of that going on!
LikeLike
This is what Randi’s union is doing by collecting their lesson plans and paying the union millions.
LikeLike
It was always the case that publishers did very loose “correlations” or “alignments” to standards. So, Prentice Hall or McDougal, Littell would develop a textbook and then make up charts showing its correlation to fifty different sets of state standards. In rare, rare cases, they would have to make a few adjustments and issue a state-specific version–a Texas edition or Florida edition. The publishers then saw that having “Florida edition” on the cover made a difference, so they started doing runs of many products in which the ONLY differences were the stamp on the cover and, perhaps, in the Teacher’s editions, some state-specific standards labels next to activities/exercises. So correlating anything to anything is an undertaking that publishers have been up to for YEARS. Let me just say that those correlations were often extremely “loose.”
The folks who are big supporters of the Common Core State Standards seem to be the ones who, ironically, don’t do a close reading of them. To these people, what the CC$$ mean are a few generalities like a) close reading of texts, b) doing higher order thinking, c) reading connected texts, d) reading foundational texts, e) asking text-dependent questions, and f) reading substantive texts of appropriate complexity. These people are REALLY ANNOYING because they seem to think that these truisms are the freaking Second Coming. Oh, gee, no, we never read closely or thought about what we read before, and we tried to have our kids read nonsubstantive texts that we way off grade level. $#*($*(#$@&!!!! These general ideas are to be found, for the most part, in the material ancillary to the standards themselves, and when people say that materials are not ALIGNED WITH the Common Core, they usually mean “not aligned with these general principles,” for that’s what they think the Common Core means.
But the Common Core is also a grade-by-grade and domain-by-domain bullet list of specific standards. And here, thinks become problematic because we’re no longer dealing with truism. The bullet list, consisting almost exclusively of abstract, vague descriptions of formal skills, often metacognitive ones, does not stand up to scrutiny, to close reading. Now, correlating to that bullet list is an altogether different story. The fact is that every educational publisher in the country is now beginning every project by making a spreadsheet with this bullet list in one column and the places were the each standard on the list is “covered” in the next column. SO THEY ARE DOING A GREAT JOB OF COVERING THE BULLET LIST.
What the supporters of the CC$$ in ELA do not realize is that meeting those general goals and covering the bullet list are incompatible. IT WAS INEVITABLE THAT PUBLISHERS WOULD TREAT THE BULLET LIST AS A CURRICULUM and start issuing programs chock full of exercises that treat the “standards” in isolation (this multiple choice item is about standard RL.4a. This one is about RL.5 and 7). THAT WAS ABSOLUTELY PREDICTABLE.
The fault lies not with the publisher BUT WITH THE CRAPPY, AMATEURISH STANDARDS THEMSELVES. Putting out the bullet list inevitably leads to narrow teaching to that list that subverts larger goals. THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE WITH STATE STANDARDS AND WAS ABSOLUTELY PREDICTABLE WITH THE CC$$.
If you read my entries on this blog from two years ago, you will find that I was saying then that this was exactly what would happen.
LikeLike
Bob..You get it right every single time…every single time…and again..
“The fault lies not with the publisher BUT WITH THE CRAPPY, AMATEURISH STANDARDS THEMSELVES. “
LikeLike
Sorry about the many typos in that hastily written post!!!
things, not thinks, etc.
LikeLike
Common Core is, and always has been, a marketing scheme. Delivered by a crafty, snake oil salesman. Pulled together a little of this, a little of that, a few catchy phrases and – voila! – cutting edge “education innovation.” Oh yeah, and billion$ in profit.
LikeLike
The Common Core was part of a business plan. There is a reason why the educational materials monopolists and would-be monopolists paid to have these created. The educrats who are pushing these national standards [sic] do not understand that THEY HAVE BEEN PLAYED.
LikeLike
So, what should have been done?
Well, instead of issuing the bullet list, the “deciders” for the rest of us at Achieve should simply have issued their general guidelines (read closely, read substantive texts) and NOT THE BULLET LIST. Doing that would have allowed for the degrees of freedom within which actual innovation in curricula and pedagogy could have occurred. It would not have led to this absolutely predictable creation of incoherent, PAINT BY NUMBER curricular materials that have as their sole purpose “covering” the bullet list.
LikeLike
Bob, I can remember you writing about/describing/predicting this very thing a year or more ago on this very blog.
LikeLike
Yes. This was absolutely predictable. But not, for some reason, by a lot of very well-known educrats.
LikeLike
@ B.S.
“If you read my entries on this blog from two years ago, you will find that I was saying then that this was exactly what would happen.”
I have read your entries. At times, it seems you are saying the
Emperor is naked and the benign “Assistance” from above, has
nothing in common with transforming the disempowered to the
empowered.
“The fault lies not with the publisher BUT WITH THE CRAPPY, AMATEURISH STANDARDS THEMSELVES. Putting out the bullet list inevitably leads to narrow teaching to that list that subverts larger goals. THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE WITH STATE STANDARDS AND WAS ABSOLUTELY PREDICTABLE WITH THE CC$$.”
Pretend, if you will, that I am a student, and you are an Educator,
stoked up on the isigoria (equal say) of Democracy, and hold no
predudice, or prejudge me to be unworthy of a response.
If this is a Democracy, what influence do the majority of people
have on social policy or political decisions on their behalf?
If the goal, of the Government established Public Education, was to empower the disempowered, where the developement of ALL rests
on the developement of EACH, WHY does secular stagnation exist?
A site to discuss better education for all…
LikeLike
Social mobility in the United States is effectively dead. Participation of citizens in their own rule at all levels of government is effectively dead. Income and wealth inequality are at levels that we haven’t seen since the robber baron era. The current education reforms, like everything else here, are more distant, centralized, authoritarian control. We live in an oligarchy. Democracy has long been sleeping. But an awakening is occurring.
The oligarchs are putting into place unprecedented mechanisms for surveillance and control, but the young people coming up are brilliant, aware, socially conscious, and looking for real change. They are not in the slightest fooled by the marketing slogans of the two criminal gangs, the Dimocrats and Repugnicans, that pass for political parties.
We’re in for interesting times. I suspect that a lot of beauty is about to be born.
LikeLike
@ B.S.
I see you see, as opposed to merely looking. Seeing, questions the
perceptual interpretations validated by lookers. Lookers are the practitioners of controlled folly. Seeing is a “Key”. (Carlos/Don Juan)
LikeLike
Oddly, we have just been told in our district that we have to “faithfully” follow the standards, not just things that “tangentially” tie to the standards. So, even though my 8th graders are supposed to learn about the U.S. government in U.S. History, we can’t talk about current legislation or what is going on in today’s world because we’re only supposed to teach to Reconstruction in 8th grade. I guess if a kid asks a question about a current issue, I’m supposed to tell them to wait until they get to current U.S. issues in 11th grade.
Of course, I do it anyway, but it’s appalling that we have to be “faithful” to these awful standards when the textbooks don’t. That’s one reason I refuse to use my textbook. We read primary sources instead.
LikeLike
One of the most basic methods of effective teaching is to make learning relevant. The easiest way to make history relevant is to relate it to current events which have more relevance to students today. I also thought the main reason for teaching history was so we could understand our world and why things are the way they are today. We are supposed to learn from the past so we do not repeat past mistakes and can make a better future. So I do not see how teaching current events is not teaching about the Reconstruction. A lot of the issues going on then are still going on today.
LikeLike
I Pledge allegiance, to the Core, of the Common States of America.
And to reform, for which it profits, one nation under Coleman,
college and career ready, with testing and standards for all.
LikeLike
hehehehe…Good Morning Laugh 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
Amen. Neanderthal, please report to Room 101 for rectification.
LikeLike
Sorry B
I have to take another test.
LikeLike
Well done, Comrade Neanderthal!
LikeLike
OK NY Teacher…Now do the preamble
LikeLike
We the Reformers of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Core, establish Sameness, insure college Readiness, provide for the common thinking , promote the general Standards, and secure the Blessings of David to ourselves and our Plutocracy, do ordain and establish this de-facto Curriculum for the United States of America.
LikeLike
You need to copyright that..today! 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
LOL, NY. Well done!
LikeLike
NY, that is hilarious.
LikeLike
Bob
Don’t forget what Freud said.
“There’s no such thing as a joke.”
LikeLike
Wow. Indeed, NY. That really applies here!
LikeLike
I don’t know if I should laugh or cry.
LikeLike
Laugh so hard that the laughing makes you cry..
I am having to spit these cores out..they are driving me insane..
Sorry for the crass use of the word spit…
But..
Scrap the Common Core so I will not have to try to force it down.
LikeLike
Wow! That is good!
LikeLike
Scary but true ; not funny but funny!
LikeLike
It figures. Money has supplanted in importance our children’s and our country’s future. How long can this go on? These blogs show that many people are fighting back. Hopefully common sense will prevail at some time. My hope is that it will not be too late.
LikeLike
Some DJ in New York went on a rage about his first graders hw. He was P……Oed…big time. Do not know who he was but the rant is out there.
People like the DJ could help..
LikeLike
the picture of the math hw is going around on facebook and twitter.
LikeLike
Gordon
We have already wasted 2 years..Have 2 years of children being used as Lab Rats..enough is enough.
LikeLike
That’s ok. THE FREE MARKET IS WORKING!!! It will solve everything. The competition between vendors will bring out the BEST!! HA!
LikeLike
So, no surprise here.
EVERY PRODUCT EVER PUBLISHED BY ANY EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHER WAS, ACCORDING TO THAT PUBLISHER’S MARKETING DEPARTMENT, PERFECTLY CORRELATED WITH EVERY SET OF STANDARDS EVER PRODUCED.
I can tell you for a fact that every K-12 publisher in the US is correlating to the CC$$ bullet list. Doing that is leading to DRAMATIC distortions, to DRAMATIC narrowing of curricula and pedagogy and is ruling out lots of better approaches. And, ironically, it’s keeping them from meeting the more general goals of the CC$$.
That’s because the CC$$ is schizo at its Core. It is self contradictory.
LikeLike
OMG……You need to be on the big shows and really tell them like it is…as they still..on every show skirt the true issues..
Do it Bob..write for the big people…
LikeLike
I wish I had a dime for every time some editor or writer has said to me in the last year, looking at some “standard” that had to be covered in some lesson, ”
“Gee, they [the standards authors] couldn’t possibly have meant that” or
“They didn’t think about this” or
“This concept isn’t covered anywhere but is really important” or
“Do you have any clue what this might mean?” or
“The standard as written doesn’t really apply here,” or
“This standard is just wrong,” or
any of a few dozen other similar statements.
If I had a dime for each of those times that I’ve been privy to some editor’s or writer’s frustration with these amateurish “standards,” I would have more money to spend that Gates does and could end the ed deform assault on U.S. education.
The Common Core State Standards in ELA are the work of amateurs. They should be scrapped.
LikeLike
I AGREE and so does 98% of every parent, teacher, and administrator in these United States..
So why the H*ll are they not listening?
They need to be trashed TODAY!!
LikeLike
Sorry
98% of all of the parents,teachers, and administrators..
Not 98% of the individuals..that is a cc mistake..
LikeLike
“This concept isn’t covered anywhere but is really important”
My greatest fear realized. Their copyright includes a vast null curriculum.
LikeLike
One could drive entire curricula through the lacunae in these “standards” for ELA.
LikeLike
We are signing on to a largely content free program PK to college.
Those Finns must be licking their chops!
LikeLike
I am confused about this copyright.
We use the principles of great mathematicians everyday. Copyrighted? No
They do not have original ideas in this CC$$
In what way can we not use them.
LikeLike
we are signing onto a content free program
Yup. That’s just what the CC$$ in ELA are. They make mastery of abstractly formulated skills the be-all and end-all of education in the various ELA domains. Fine-scaled alignment to standards so conceived makes for curricular and pedagogical incoherence and reduces content to insignificance. The problem is compounded many times by the backwardness of the particular formulations to be found in the CC$$ and by the ways in which the learning progressions instantiated in the standards preclude saner, more evidence-based approaches to both curricula and pedagogy.
LikeLike
Two of the biggest problems with the CC$$ in ELA are
lack of coherence in the learning progression across grade levels
instantiation of a learning progression across grade levels that rules out MANY much better progressions and approaches, both existing ones and ones that might be developed
These are ENORMOUS problems with the new “standards.”
LikeLike
The new site should be
“SCRAP THE COMMON CORE”…..dot whatever..
Not just STOP.. ..
LikeLike
“University of Southern California professor Morgan Polikoff, meanwhile, reached a similar conclusion after analyzing seven 4th grade math textbooks used in Florida. Despite publishers’ claims, the books were “only modestly aligned to the common core” and “systematically failed to reach the higher levels of cognitive demand” called for in the new standards, Mr. Polikoff said in a presentation to the EWA.”
So if one were concerned about Florida school children, what one would take out of this is that Florida school children aren’t being given the material to prepare for the Common Core tests.
Not being given proper material to prepare for a very difficult high stakes test seems brutally unfair to the students.
But everyone’s making a good buck off this, so who cares about them, right?
I am dreading this in my state. It is going to be a wholly commercialized, quick-buck feeding frenzy on scarce public ed dollars.
LikeLike
I know for a fact that every K-12 publisher is correlating his or her products in intensely close detail to these crappy new standards. These correlations are so close that they apply at the level of every single numbered question asked in a program. In this set of activities, question 4 correlates with standard x.
Of course, the first thing they all did was to put out new editions of the same old product accompanied by correlation charts and with “New Common Core Edition” stamped on the front. But since then, every publisher has started following the procedure above.
And so, yes, every new product is being aligned with/correlated to these crappy standards. AND THAT’S THE PROBLEM!!!!!
LikeLike
Textbooks are usually reviewed by committees of teachers before they are purchased. The evaluation forms are often provided by the district or the state. This means that the “approved” and “not approved” judgments are no better than the knowledge base that informs the pre-sale evaluation process, to say nothing of the pre-publication process.
Textbook publishers cannot turn on a time any more than teachers can, especially since there are 1,620 common core standards (including parts a-e) and most of the standards have specific illustrations on how to teach.
Claims by CCSS proponents that these specifications are only standards, free of pedagogical restrictions, reflect a fundamental ignorance of, or disregard for, the inseparability of means and ends in education..
In any case, I have written texts for the el-hi market and understand more about the whole process than I ever wanted to know, but that work was for a small publisher, over a decade ago, and not in a subject like ELA or math where there is really cut-throat competition for market share.
RecentlyI have been tracking how the CCSS rebranding process has worked with existing curricula (E.D. Hirsch’s Core Knowledge program) and start-up curricula such as Lynn Munson’s Curriculum Maps. The bandwagon is full of rehashed ideas, including the CCSS where some of the illusttrations for grades 9/10 ELA are directly “appropriated” from exisitng college courses.
LikeLike
Claims by CCSS proponents that these specifications are only standards, free of pedagogical restrictions, reflect a fundamental ignorance of, or disregard for, the inseparability of means and ends in education.
AMEN.
See this:
LikeLike
Many systems are no longer buying textbooks. Saving tons of money. Spout new innovative cutting-edge education.
Using only old books for in class use. Not to be sent home or signed out to parents. They tell parents to access eBooks on systems’ websites. Once on the websites, the eBooks are not the books used in class. They are slightly similar, but very confusing.
Then, teachers have to scrounge around to fill their daily lessons with materials connected to their content. They spend hours looking for content materials online.
As a parent, we all prayed we would end up with a smart, highly organized, always-on-top-of-it child who makes her bed, folds her clothes, never forgets her homework, studies without reminders and gets straight A’s.
Must be those #whitesuburbanmoms Arne Duncan was talking about.
If your child is a typical kid who needs a caring and organized teacher in a school with books and materials, then this could work. If you have one of those schools, more power to you. Many of our schools have been gutted! Limited books, computers, materials and 22 year olds TFAtypes who know everything about everything. Get my concerns?
Kids come home, don’t have access to info, texts, notes, models, disconnected worksheets…and need help! Kids are lost, parents are lost and teachers are spent! Principals look at parent as if this whole thing makes sense. To whom? This is not good for anyone. Only frustration and chaos! New teachers will experience this and view it as the norm.
I don’t even recognize the profession I just left 2 years ago. Seriously!
Yet, we want to compete with Finland? Finns are not even in the competition game. They just educate their children with values, consistency, common sense and care that work and let teachers teach.
Now, there is a novel idea!
LikeLike
The amateurs who wrote these standards and the educrats promoting them do not understand how educational publishing works and what the driving force behind the creation of these standards was.
For a long time, the few monopolist publishers have wanted to have a single set of standards so that they wouldn’t have to do multiple correlations and could achieve economies of scale that would wipe out any emerging competitors. They also wanted a bullet list so that they could do the automatic but somewhat finely grained correlation in adaptive software programs.
However, the invariant bullet list as conceived for the CC$$ in ELA is incompatible, at its Core, with the general goals of the standards. That doesn’t matter to the publishers because the bullet list is what they needed to meet their goals.
So, the new products being developed are keyed to the bullet list. They are doing an OUTSTANDING JOB of pumping out products in which every item on the bullet list is covered and covered and covered.
And those products lack any curricular or pedagogical coherence or sense. They also violate the overall goals of the new “standards.”
But that was completely predictable and was a problem inherent to the standards [sic] themselves as they were conceptualized.
LikeLike
Again, when the standards [sic] were first promulgated, the publishers IMMEDIATELY did “correlations” to those and issued new editions of the same old books with “Common Core Edition” stamped on the cover. So, these studies are of texts produced in that way.
The publishers then turned to doing their actual Common Core editions, which took longer. Those are just now rolling out. And they are A LOT WORSE because they are minutely correlated to the bullet list with no thought to overall curricular coherence, pedagogical effectiveness, and, of course, with no real innovation.
The primary effects of the Common Core are to enable monopolist providers of materials to secure their monopoly positions and to provide those publishers with some marketing slogans: rigorous, contains texts of appropriate complexity, now with text-dependent questions, blah blah blah blah blah.
And, as always, all the new products are perfectly “correlated” and almost perfectly incoherent because the procedure followed (designing products to the bullet list) was wrong from the start.
LikeLike
Bob Shepherd: but inquiring minds want to know—
Why are the self-styled “education reformers” mandating this for OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN but not for THEIR OWN CHILDREN?
A very short list of the schools the “leaders of the new civil rights movement of our time” send or have sent THEIR OWN CHILDREN to shows that those schools are stunningly out of step with the greatest advancement in education the world has ever seen:
Link: http://www.harpethhall.org [Michelle Rhee]
Link: http://www.sidwell.edu [Barack Obama]
Link: http://www.delbarton.org [Chris Christie]
Link: http://www.lakesideschool.org [Bill Gates]
Link: http://www.ucls.uchicago.edu [Rahm Emanuel]
Link: http://www.spenceschool.org [Michael Bloomberg]
Any thoughts on this? Or is it just that Common Core is just, well, for the commoners?
You know, Leona Helmsley’s “little people”?
I don’t do much closet [er, close?] reading because I am so busy hewing wood and drawing water, so I could use some help here…
😒
LikeLike
Exactly, Krazy. Common core is for the common people. It’s “good enough” invariant training for the children of the proles. There will be an educational system that exists alongside this for the children of the oligarchs.
The Executive Vice Provost of Arizona State University recently told an interviewer that in 3 years’ time, 80 percent of classes at his university will be taught via computer. Canned classes for the commoners.
LikeLike
Of course, the specific standards for ELA don’t hold up to close reading. The CC$$ for ELA is basically a list of hackneyed, backward, and often prescientific notions about the teaching of English. But they serve the purposes of the educational materials monopolists. They wanted one bullet list to which to correlate all the new worksheets on a screen that they are producing for the transition to digital learning.
LikeLike
This should come as a ZERO surprise (“Shocked, SHOCKED!. . . “) to anyone even vaguely familiar with the educational publishing industry over the last 50 years. NCTM came out with standards volumes (which carried no legal force, by the way) in 1989-94, and then a major revision/compression in 2000. In some instances, there were books being show/sold at the vendors’ booths, at the very Chicago conference in April 2000 where Principles & Standards of School Mathematics (PSSM) was being launched, with “aligned with PSSM” on the cover(s).
Well, we MIGHT have expected some improvement over such chicanery with the rollout of CCSS-Math given that publishers’ guidelines appeared in conjunction with the new curriculum standards (and which ostensibly carried legal imprimaturs given that these new documents were, bullshit to the contrary aside, FEDERAL mandates that 45 or so states & territories had officially adopted. WIth the threat of Race to the Top money ever-looming, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to figure that states and local districts were going to be DAMNED cautious about what books they chose to purchase.
But then, that would underestimate the willingness of publishing giants to keep on with business as usual and the laziness of adapters when it comes to exercising full due diligence in their selection processes. And let’s not forget the deep pockets of publishing megaliths and their willingness to spend relatively little money to influence department chairs, assistant superintendents, regular faculty members, etc., compared with the cost of actually developing a thoroughly innovative curriculum that meets the publishing guidelines, the content standards, and the practice standards.
Of course, the federales have had to at least give the impression that they aren’t sticking their Pearson etc.- greased hands directly into actual textbooks, teaching, or precise curriculum choices, so having some sort of oversight groups in place on a federal level that would see to it that for once publishers couldn’t get away with the many games they are so adept at playing was probably out of the question from the inception of Common Core (though I wouldn’t be completely surprised to see such groups empaneled down the road, particularly if Common Core roll out goes more smoothly than it has been. But one irony of the CCSSI is that the more the public resists the intrusion of the Federal government into public education policy, the better things may be for the corporatists. They get to continue to play their little labeling games, and if worse comes to worst, they still get to publish NEW books that public schools will be buying a few years down the road. The conclusion might simply be that in the corruption of corporate capitalist America, the big winners continue to be . . . corporate capitalists.
LikeLike
Our district has said they will never order textbooks again, instead they will go digital. All kids now have chrome books in class for the CC$$ tests, so they will soon be ready for 100% digital. What committee will review these digital books for accurate content? How will the parents ever see anything their kids are studying? I’ve already opted my kids out of the test and test prep, but now I’m considering opting out of “chrome books,” hoping to force the district to provide textbooks. I’m sure the teacher would just copy and print worksheets off the chrome book and give those to my children.
LikeLike
My principal has just asked me as the ELA chair what novels I wanted to maybe give to the middle school as they don’t have the proper rigor for common core and which textbooks we will need to replace. I have told him none. Despite the roll out of common core, we still have 9th graders reading at the 4th grade level who need easy novels for independent reading, and Shakespeare is still Shakespeare. I have beautiful out of print world lit textbooks I will keep forever. We use nonfiction constantly from newspapers, magazines and the internet. I am incensed we will be spending so much money on these new computerized tests and new textbooks when the main problem in my district is the large population of ELL students with little support, the huge class sizes, and the teacher turnover as so many are retiring early or fleeing a profession they once loved.
LikeLike
Kids differ. Standards bullet lists do not. You speak sense, Reg. Good teachers and competent administrators will continue doing what’s best for their students DESPITE these standards and the associated tests and VAM.
LikeLike
It’s important that people recognize that ELA is a special case. The new math standards and the new science standards are basically curriculum outlines. The new ELA standards are something completely different. They are a list of skills, and a very poorly conceived list at that.
LikeLike
I suspect that the second generation of Common Core math texts and online materials will reflect more of the ideas in the new standards because the math standards are basically a curriculum outline, as E.D. Hirsch, Jr., pointed out on this blog months ago. (Of course, the USDOE is prohibited by law from promulgating curricula, but that hasn’t prevented it from creating the conditions under which most states had no choice but to adopt this outline.)
In ELA, it’s a different story because the CC$$ for ELA is not a curriculum outline; it’s a list of skills, abstractly formulated. The second generation of texts and online materials will be finely correlated with the bullet list. And they will be incoherent and backward, as the standards are. I’m seeing this in almost everything now being produced in ELA.
LikeLike
cx: The CC$$ in ELA is a list of skills, abstractly and AMATEURISHLY formulated.
LikeLike
Having successfully purchased the federal government, state governments and the mayors of large cities, they’re now buying small-city mayors:
“This week, I will have the privilege of attending a “Mayors in Education Convening” hosted by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in Washington, D.C.
The convening will start with a dinner conversation on March 13, followed by a day-long meeting on the 14th featuring a conversation with Bill Gates – founder of Microsoft and the world’s richest person in 2013, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires list.
The foundation has zeroed in on mayors as the most influential public officials positioned to wield influence in pursuit of better schools. They call the convening a “thought partnership” on the challenge of improving education.
I look forward to the opportunity to learn from each other, and hear about resources that could benefit our city. The foundation is paying all expenses, and encouraged each mayor to bring a colleague as well.”
http://www.gloucestertimes.com/opinion/x1387851015/The-Mayors-Desk-Sharing-mayoral-ideas-on-schools?utm_content=buffera6140&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
How much you wanna bet she comes back with an agenda of charters, vouchers and “blended learning” in return for the money she’s getting?
Why would adults think these foundation gifts are “free”? How do you reach adulthood believing things of value are given “free”?
I mean, my 20 year old son would look that gift horse in the mouth. These mayors don’t? They think they’re getting millions of dollars with no strings and no cost?
LikeLike
Schmidt is right but he should have known better than to sign on to crappy standards to begin with. When will people learn?? The FEDS destroy, they don’t help anything!
LikeLike
Hmm. “The Feds” changes every four or eight years. You think there’s something going on in the federal government that isn’t going on in many, many state or local governments?
What about those entities whose power elite doesn’t change with each election cycle – corporations? And the billionaires who own, control, and/or run them? Think they may have more influence over what goes on in our classrooms than this week’s flavor of president, Sec. of Education, et al?
LikeLike
And if we think the textbooks are a sham, just wait until 20 million students and their parents get to feel the full brunt of Pearson, PARCC, and SBAC testing.
I have developed a Pearson ELA simulator. Try this on for size and you will experience the emotions of NY third through eighth grade students on April Fools Day:
Read carefully and answer test items 1 – infinity.
A pair of centuries and some late wickets put South Africa in a strong position with Australia 4 for 112 at stumps on day two of the second Test in Port Elizabeth. South Africa was bowled out early in the final session for 423, after AB de Villiers (116) and JP Duminy (123) both ground out tough, vital centuries for the home side. Nathan Lyon finished with 5 for 130 after bowling tirelessly all day, while Australia’s fast bowlers uncharacteristically struggled on a lifeless pitch. Wayne Parnell’s (2 for 19) first three balls featured the wickets of Doolan and Marsh, as the left-armer made the most of his Test recall. Parnell coerced edges out of the Australia pair with fine line-and-length bowling, needing only a fraction of movement to earn the scalps. Warner and nightwatchman Nathan Lyon (12 not out) faced a number of close scares to reach stumps unbroken. De Villiers grassed a regulation chance behind the stumps when Warner was on 39, while Lyon was also dropped by the usually safe hands of Duminy and given not out when replays proved he nicked one behind to the keeper.
1) Which best describes the “fraction of movement” needed to earn scalps in this cricket match?
a) nicking behind the keeper
b) edging out a lifeless pitch
c) breaking fine-line wickets
d) stumping vital centuries
LikeLike
What the Heck? and
e) Who cares?
LikeLike
OMG. Well done!!!
LikeLike
The point you are making here about the importance of content and context–of relevant knowledge–is extremely important. Thank you. Very, very well done!
LikeLike
There is none. For many sped, ELL, and struggling students the passages and response options in Pearson items seem just like the cricket lingo to us – foreign and undecipherable.
LikeLike
Thanks Bob. I got the idea from an old column written by Al Shanker.
LikeLike
And Shanker learned this trick from pieces written by E.D. Hirsch, Jr. to make the point that a primary determinant of reading comprehension is what the author assumes that we as readers already know. The “and now for something completely different” approach to ELA curricula encouraged by the Common Core bullet list of ELA “standards” formulated as abstract skills is precisely the sort of content-free instruction that Hirsch spent half a lifetime arguing against, and so it is altogether shocking that his Foundation has embraced the amateurish Common Core skills list. I hold out hope that Hirsch will repudiate that.
The mere mention of Hirsch’s name raises all the old culture wars stuff, and that’s a great pity because Hirsch was careful to point out, all along, that what he was looking for was about half of the curriculum to deal with shared content, for he understood the importance of a kid’s being able to hit upon a passion and pursue it beyond such an introductory level. And Don Hirsch was never insistent on his particular list. I don’t remember whether the Mahabharata and the Ramayana are on his list, but I’m certain that he would be quite open to adding them, given their importance to 17 percent of the world population. And Hirsch never argued for turning schooling into rote memorization of facts. He understood that content is what we think about and with. Hirsch thinks that community resulting from shared knowledge is important, and I agree with him, though I am am quick to say that we should be talking about WORLD community, and not promoting provincialism in that shared content. At any rate, Hirsch has always stressed this essential aspect of reading–command of the background knowledge necessary for the understanding of texts, of that which writers take for granted, and that’s an important key to comprehension that a lot of reading curricula miss entirely, including, of course, most of the new CC$$ reading curricula. Another piece that such curricula commonly miss is the importance of syntactic fluency of an implicit kind–of the kind developed by the child IMPLICITLY via exposure to syntactically rich SPOKEN language at very early ages. The language gap, there, among high- and low-SES kids coming into school is ENORMOUS, and little progress will be made until people figure this out and start addressing it, which we are not doing AT ALL now. Hirsch doesn’t stress this, but it’s essential, and Reading First and most of the professors of reading in the education schools missed that part of the reading puzzle entirely.
One of the reasons why it’s important that we repudiate the amateurish CC$$ bullet list is that such key innovations are not envisioned in that list and are effectively precluded by it.
LikeLike
The silly mid-off, of course.
LikeLike
love this example- I may need to use it. But I have no idea which is the correct answer.
LikeLike
Oops. Reply above.
LikeLike
Worrying about the correct response would be missing the point. Read Bob S above.
LikeLike
The planned implementation of the Common Core was to be so rushed (from appearance of the standards to implementation) that it was always a mystery how the textbooks, curriculum materials, teacher training, and assessments could conceivably be aligned in time.
Bill Schmidt is one of the premier researchers and mathematical statisticians in the world. One of his specialties over the years involves analysis of curriculum and texts internationally. I believe he generally supports the concept of the Common Core. It is significant that after a very careful analysis of some 700 texts he’s reached these very dramatic conclusions. The academic world tends to avoid terms such as “sham” and “snake oil salesmen.”
James Harvey, National Superintendents Roundtable
LikeLike
Racing Racing..Racing… to the bank with the $$$$$$$$$$$$$
LikeLike
It’s a good time to be a publisher. Teachers can also make lots of money on popular websites. So are they to blame for CCS materials they generate?
LikeLike
Common Core will do nothing to advance the education of students. Teachers have many concerns regarding the validity of Common Core. Those responsible for this mandate are unwilling to listen to educators and have allowed these companies to make millions of dollars. In many cases,Common Core only benefits their bottom line.
LikeLike
As we move ahead, teachers may become unruly with the discipline required to crush the free spirit of children with the Common Core. Parents expect their children be treated with respect, but that was before the mind numbing curriculum materials. It is not only the “content” of these materials but the format and design of the pages and the “smartboards”. They are very uncomfortable with high density, and not user friendly. No research for their use was ever done. The medium is the message too. Teachers just march though these presentations. Simple problems and ideas are made more difficult for no apparent reason. These are problems and formats that no adult will see in the real world. This is why removing these materials should be the highest priority.
LikeLike
Check!!
LikeLike
Letter for parents to opt out of testing:
Jeanette Brunelle Deutermann
Get your letters in!! We have the power to bring this machine to a grinding halt!!
Dear (name of administrator)
We are writing today to formally inform the district of our decision to refuse to allow our child (name) , to participate in the ELA and math standardized assessments imposed on children across the state for the 2013-2014 school year. Our refusal should in no way reflect on the teachers, administration, or school board. This was not an easy decision for us, but we feel that we have no other choice. We simply see these tests as harmful, expensive, and a waste of time and valuable resources.
We refuse to allow any data to be used for purposes other than the individual teacher’s own formative or cumulative assessment. We are opposed to assessments whose data is used to determine school ranking, teacher effectiveness, state or federal longitudinal studies or any other purpose other than for the individual classroom teacher’s own use to improve his or her instruction.
We will be encouraging other parents to stand up against the testing fad and, more importantly, the corporate and government takeover of our schools. We believe in and trust our highly qualified and dedicated teachers and administrators. We believe in the high quality of teaching and learning that occur in our child’s school. We hope our efforts will be understood in the context in which they are intended: to support the quality of instruction promoted by the school, and to advocate for what is best for all children. Our schools will not suffer when these tests are finally gone, they will flourish.
(Name of School District) should have a unified policy in place to address children who are refusing these state assessments.
We do apologize in advance for the inconvenience or scrutiny that this decision may cause the administration, the school, and staff.
Sincerely,
(your name)
LikeLike
excellent
LikeLike
Two economists at the Brookings Institute, Joshua Bleiberg and Darrell M. West, write, in a piece published March 6, 2014, on the Brookings website:
“The Common Core should vigorously enforce their licensing agreement. In the past textbook writers and others have inappropriately claimed that they aligned course content. Supporters of standards based reform should recognize that low quality content could sink the standards and enforce their copyright accordingly.”
Let’s be clear about what they are calling for here:
They are saying that the CCSSO should be a censorship organization that reviews curricula and gives it their “nihil obstat.” In effect, such a policy would create a national curriculum censorship organization, for if a state has adopted the Common Core, a publisher will not be able to sell product in that state without it being Common Core aligned, and in order to say that the product is Common Core aligned, the publisher would have to get CCSSO approval.
When I first read that the Common Core had been copyrighted, a disturbing thought occurred to me: “Were they planning, in the long term, to set up a national office to preapprove curricula?”
Now, that’s exactly what Brookings is calling for.
The Thought Police.
If you don’t find this REALLY CHILLING, you aren’t thinking AT ALL.
LikeLike
This is what totalitarianism looks like, folks.
LikeLike
Bone chilling Bob.
How ironic that they are worried that “low quality content could sink the standards” Maybe if they included some serious content in their standards they wouldn’t have this concern?
LikeLike
I had a brief email exchange with Darrell M. West, one of the authors of this report. It became clear that he is clueless about the origin of the CCSS, who paid for them, who wrote them, and what’s wrong with them.
He is imagining the CCSS test scores as irrefutably valid, reliable, and an uncontested source of “big data” for his real interest; namely, learning analytics.
He envisions number-crunching software designed to provide real time decisions on the best way to improve learning. He is thinking in the same way that proponents of “teaching machines” did in the mid-1960s and writers of the USDE technology plan did, vintage 2004.
On page 51, the USDE report says: “Open source tools for adaptive learning systems, commercial offerings, and increased understanding of what data reveal are leading to fundamental shifts in teaching and learning systems. As content moves online and mobile devices for interacting with content enable teaching to be always on, educational data mining and learning analytics will enable learning to be always assessed. Educators at all levels will benefit from understanding the possibilities of the developments described in the use of big data herein (p. 51)”
The breathless prose on page 61of the USDE plan illustrates where enthusiasts, including West, want to go.
“Develop decision supports and recommendation engines that minimize the extent to which instructors need to actively analyze data. The teacher in a truly automated classroom would have much more than access to student scores on state and district tests. Diagnostic real-time assessment tools and decision support systems would enable the instructor to make decisions ‘on the fly’ to improve instruction for all students. But conscious labor-intensive processing is not possible under the time constraints of efficient classroom management. To support teachers in the act of instruction, we need decision supports and recommendation systems that link student learning profiles to recommended instructional actions and learning resources. We give such tools to physicians and military decision makers: education is no less complex and no less important (p.61)”
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/2004/edlite-xplan-sdm.html
LikeLike
Yes, when I read the USDE tech blueprint, at the beginning of Duncan’s term, I found it chilling. It was quite clear that these folks have a vision that involves plopping the student down at his or her starting position in an invariant programmed learning matrix, like a rat in a maze.
LikeLike