The pundits of the New York Times are united in their love of the Common Core standards, and none seem to understand why anyone questions the standards. In order to explain a point of view, one must make the effort to hear the voices of critics without caricaturing them.
Unfortunately, David Brooks has no idea why anyone would not embrace the Common Core standards. All he knows is what Arne Duncan says about them.
He actually believes that CCSS was a response to some sort of economic crisis (surely not the one where financial institutions nearly collapsed our economy in 2008, a catastrophe that was not caused by the schools or their standards). He is under the impression that having a diversity of state standards causes low academic performance, despite the lack of evidence for that assertion.
He does not understand how the standards were written or funded or quickly adopted.
He writes:
“This was a state-led effort, supported by employers and financed by private foundations. This was not a federal effort, though the Obama administration did encourage states to embrace the new standards.”
The standards were in fact written behind closed doors by a group of 27 people, a group that included a large number of people from the testing industry but not a single classroom teacher, not a single person knowledgeable about early childhood education or children with special needs or English language learners. The writing, development, evaluation and everything else was financed by the Gates Foundation. The Obama administration did not just “encourage states,” but told states they would not be eligible to compete for $4.35 billion in Race to the Top funding unless they adopted “college-and-career-ready standards,” which everyone understood to mean Common Core. Why else would 45 states suddenly adopt these unknown standards? why else would Massachusetts drop its own proven standards for untried new standards?
Brooks, like Duncan, ridicules those who are skeptical about the CCSS. He scorns them as clowns of the right and the left.
Aaron Barlow, an English professor at the City University of New York, wrote the best critique of Brooks’ naïveté. Writing on the blog of “Academe,” Barlow describes Brooks’ column as “backseat driving in the clown car.”
Barlow writes that Brooks believes that
“….those who disagree with him…have the red noses and squeeze horns. He mounts a defense of Common Core State Standards (CCSS) based on the idea that those he shills for are the wise and considerate and caring–and that everyone else is either raw material or the lunatic fringe (both left and right).
“Education, to Brooks, “is to get students competitive with their international peers.” What the students need in their personal lives, or want, these don’t matter. What communities need, in terms of citizens and contributing members, doesn’t matter. And anyone who disagrees with Brooks and those he advocates for is a nut. A clown.
“As he does with his own person, Brooks does a good job of dressing CCSS in gowns of gravitas, covering the pretense and parody at its heart, hiding the large, floppy shoes and bulging, striped pants.
“If it weren’t the result of clowning, CCSS would have been developed in an entirely different way. As it is supposed to prepare students to be “college ready” and as potential employees, creation should have been in the hands of college professors and representatives from business–as well as public-school teachers and administrators, providing both understanding of needs and goals and of the practical aspects of education. Parents should be consulted, as well. As it is, CCSS was the creation of politicians and their lackeys, as even Brooks describes it:
“The National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers set out to draft clearer, consistent and more rigorous standards.
“Politicians and their top appointees: that’s who created CCSS. These aren’t people who understand either the needs of education, its goals, or the ways students learn as they grow. And… ha, ha, ha… “consistent and rigorous standards”? That’s like calling a clown’s yardstick adequate measurement. Only a clown can tout “standards” developed by people with no knowledge of the subject matter as “consistent and rigorous,” at least not with a straight face. The rest of us should simply laugh–and would, if this weren’t so deadly serious.”
He adds:
“The tragedy of all of this is that Brooks actually believes what he is writing. He has no idea that it is he who is the real clown. And not even a significant one. He’s simply another red nose crammed into the back seat.
“This is too bad. Education should not be a circus.”
Read it all. It is a terrific column.
Now this is a great line: “The tragedy of all of this is that Brooks actually believes what he is writing. He has no idea that it is he who is the real clown. And not even a significant one. He’s simply another red nose crammed into the back seat.”
yup
That is hilarious. Diane, you inspire me as you continue to be able to see humor amidst all this insanity.
OMG, I had some hope for this guy. Totally clueless.
It’s perversely amusing to see that Brooks speaks so ignorantly as though he were defending the obvious against attacks by nutcases.
“These crazy people believe that the Earth is not the center of the Universe! What a bunch of wackos!” LOL.
David,
“Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beame out of thine owne eye: and then shalt thou see clearely to cast out the mote out of thy brothers eye.” Matt 7:5
Reblogged this on Lloyd Lofthouse.
Let’s all comment on the NYTimes.com site. I did: Why do people keep pretending that anyone who opposes Common Core opposes higher standards?
David Brooks has written a perfectly logical narrative. The only problem is that it isn’t true. The whole column is so full of spin, it’s like a talking points memo from Arne Duncan. Pretending that opposition among liberals is simply to harder curriculum and competition misses a much more important discussion that is happening by educators and parents across the country. I’d expect more from Mr. Brooks.
Thousands of professional educators have expressed clear and fundamental concerns about the CCSS: inappropriate developmentally (that does not mean “too rigorous”), narrowed curriculum, scripted lessons, etc. As a parent, I’ve seen few if any political issues that have brought together liberals and conservatives to the extent that the CCSS have. While some Tea Partiers might oppose it simply because it has Obama’s name on it, for the most part, opposition is not ideological at all. There is deep, substantive discussion about this issue happening on education blogs across the country. Mr. Brooks would do well to understand some of that before dismissing it as “the circus”: http://www.laprogressive.com/fighting-common-core/
It kills me when I hear someone refer to this drek as “higher.” What a joke.
Karen Wolfe:
I read your article and liked it. Hope you keep working on the subject.
Another point of objection that needs more press: there’s no evidence that formal written standards, high or otherwise, make a difference in student “achievement” (always defined by test scores, of course, not actual achievement) or post-high school “readiness” (not clearly defined at all). Carol Burris dared to bring this up in a great piece published by Valerie Strauss in The Answer Sheet:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/04/18/arne-duncan-dismisses-critics-lots-of-drama-lots-of-noise/
Wow! Can you spell “pundit”? What a perfect example. I read his article twice and found even more errors of thinking the second time around.
“To err is human, to persist in error is diabolical.”
― Georges Canguilhem
Arne Duncan and his lackey reformers buddies in a nutshell in regard to CCSS
I posted the following to the NYT yesterday: “How does it feel to get just about everything to do with education wrong? Not just Brooks, but the NEW YORK TIMES as a “paper of record.” What it’s been recording is some of the most ignorant, greed-oriented neoliberal bullshyte imaginable, given its alleged status as a “liberal” paper. Of course, real progressives aren’t fooled by the NYT’s rep, and its supposed left-of-center views on education have been exposed as a sham for about a dozen years or so.
Imagine if Brooks didn’t need to analyze who is opposing the Common Core from the Left without such obvious, lame bias. But that’s simply above his paygrade. The only thing that would make this piece worse was if Thomas Friedman had written it.”
Good for you. I second your motion. The NYT – All The Neo-Liberal Propaganda That’s Fit to Print.
Reporters, editorialists, pundits, consultants, and politicians are all cut from a mold that allows them to pontificate with mere shreds of knowledge and understanding – and the do it with pride and without remorse. Its that well known blend of arrogance and ignorance.
What say ye Bob Shepherd?
I give Brooks 9.7 Colemans for this column.
Definitely 9.7 Colemans.
usage note: Colemans is correct, not Colemen. See the Rheeformish Lexicon, Subsection 10, Prosody and Style of Financial Statements, Data Charts, and other Rheeformish Poetry.
Of course, in Rheeformish, the Coleman is a measure of ideological purity of paid work-for-hire. See “Technocratic Philistinism, or the Reformish Faith Rheevealed.”
in Standard English, the Coleman is, of course, a measure of the co-incidence of arrogance and ignorance
So, interestingly, Brooks’s piece registers 9.7 Colemans on BOTH SCALES! Now, that’s the work of a MASTER! No wonder Brooks makes the big bucks.
Hey, they have a track record to keep up. They didn’t get anything right on Iraq either.
In his book, George Tenet says that they did find chemical weapons in Iraq–a building full of them that had been sold to Iraq by the United States back in the collaboration days. Tenet says that they promptly blew up the evidence.
David Brooks is an almost perfect barometer of mediocrity, received, unexamined “hale fellow well met Rotary Club” notions trickling down from the planning sessions conducted by the oligarchy. And because of that, he has an audience among those who like having their unexamined ideas parroted back to them. That’s all too bad, because he’s actually a nice guy and CAPABLE of thinking. But as this column illustrates, why bother when propagandizing pays so well?
no, worse than propagandizing–passing along the propaganda unfiltered by the tiniest bit of examination. In other words, Brooks is a completley permeable membrane for total hogwash from the press releases of the PR firms of those in power.
What say ye Bob Shepherd?
I give Brooks 9.7 Colemans for this column.
cx: completely
yeah, that column almost tops out the Coleman scale
Coleman. n. (Weights and measures) Measure of co-incidence of arrogance and ignorance
He is a comfortable, wealthy American who doesn’t really want to educate himself about the real issues. It must be difficult to get a taste of new ideas when that silver spoon fills most of your mouth.
I’m agnostic on religious matters, but there are times when I’m really pulling for reincarnation. What karma if Brooks, Rhee, Duncan, etc., etc. all came back as public school children, particularly in urban districts.
Or public school teachers…
Did any of the creators of common core actually have expertise in the field of curriculum? If not, it would seem that they were completely unqualified.
The only two subject specialists, one math and one ELA, refused to sign the report.
You got it, Joe. Unqualified and clueless. And they admit it.
Still – CCSS stands as written.
Diane,
You do David Brooks a grave injustice.
He gets paid quite handsomely for his right-on-cue but clueless d’Oh-pinions … and that entitles him to all the respect due a Professional Cheerleader.
But my guess is he’s only taking his marching orders. Follow the money and I’ll bet you’ll find interlocking financial (conflicts of) interest between the CC$$ hucksters and the NYT-pikers.
I made a quick post on this earlier today. It is really illustrative of how little some highly respected people bother to even poke the dirt a little when writing on this issue. Brooks, Bruni, Nocera and Keller have all repeated press releases without doing the least due diligence on this issue. It is not merely disheartening. It is abjectly depressing. And none of them seem to realize how easy it is for readers today to learn what blanks they have failed to fill in as well. I guess it suffices to them that people who are Masters of the Universe like these “reforms” and call them up to talk about it.
The great part about it is, the complete lack of due diligence is always coupled with a stern, finger-wagging lecture on hard work and critical thinking.
Oh, the irony!
Well said, Chiara. That’s the part that takes this beyond simple incompetence and into the area of outright hypocrisy.
Now, now, don’t be rude. The media only hire the finest stenographers.
This should send a chill to politicians. Here all candidates for Governor of Connecticut bashed Common Core and no one used the word “implementation”.
No wonder they are trying to re-brand the Common Core. It clearly developed a very negative image for many, especially those white suburban Moms. EngageNY certainly contributed to this image problem. The college and career ready bit does not resonate with suburban families with already excellent schools, with most kids getting accepted upper end or even elite colleges.
This will be very interesting to watch here in NY. Can’t wait to hear Cuomo try to squirm/lie his way out of his early support and rush to implement. Astorino will certainly put some pressure on Cuomo with his opposition. Talk is cheap however. I want to hear exactly what they plan to do and when they will do it. This will be a bigger issue than Cuomo had planned. He probably will win, just hoping for a much closer race than he needs for his jump onto the national stage.
NY teacher,
I agree. Cuomo has underestimated potential backlash. And he has no clue how toxic the tax cap and gap elimination adjustment are north of the city. While I can neither vote for him nor Astorino, I do hope the Working Families party runs a credible candidate. Or that the Green Party opposes CCSS. Otherwise, I will only vote for assembly and senate candidates. And I refuse to buy a subscription to the NY Times. And Joseph, thanks for the video link. If there is hope….
Agree completely Nimbus. I can’t vote for Astorino either, but I will enjoy watching him expose Cuomo for the ruthless lying snake that he is. I do not think Working Families will endorse either one. I am at the point where not voting at all may be my best option.
I participated in an over the phone survey on NYS policy and whether I approved of Gov Cuomo’s stand on various issues – but only one question was on education, and that was on universal PreK.
Oh, this is beautiful.
This video is SOOOOOO WONDERFUL!!!!!!!
The tide is starting to turn.
Here we actually have some candidates who know what they are talking about. SOOOOOOOOOOOOO refreshing!!!!!!!!!
This video is like cool water after crawling through the desert of Education Deform. Yes yes yes yes yes!
Joe
This video IS MONEY baby! Thank you so much.
The column was a huge hit with the former Chief of Staff to the Secretary of Education:
Joanne Weiss @JoanneSWeiss 21h
@mpolikoff Yes…it’s a good one…now if the circus would just mosey on out of town, we’d all be good!
Who are “we all”, I wonder?
David Brooks and the former Obama Administration official?
Millions of children who are taking the tests, David Brooks, and the former Obama Administration official?
Ms. Weiss:
Circuses don’t “mosey.” Improper word choice. Consider “trundle” instead.
C-
David Brooks strikes me as a man looking for his soul.
He should no where it is because he dam well knows who he sold it to.
Smarter Balanced @SmarterBalanced 4h
@SmarterBalanced #assessments performance tasks allow #students opp. to demonstrate analytical skills: http://bit.ly/1i1UoKT
#fieldtestfact
That’s a field test FACT 🙂
Godwin’s Law holds that the first person in a political debate to compare his opponent to Hitler and the Nazis loses. We need something like a Ravitch’s Law, where the anyone who praises Common Core testing without having tried taking the tests him or herself not only loses the argument but has to take a week of standardized tests on top of it.
Or anyone who loudly proclaims the excellent excellence of CCSS and standardized testing, but sends their own school-age children to schools that are not subjected to it.
Thank you, Alan; that point has to be added. Automatic fail.
I knew we should have picked Smarter Balanced. It has “smarter” and “balanced” as a title, so it’s probably better:
“Tennessee’s state legislature voted Thursday to delay new tests based on Common Core state standards for a year and start a new competitive bidding process for assessments.
The legislature’s decision, if approved by the governor, means Tennessee schools will continue implementing the Common Core state standards, which have been adopted by 46 states, but will not use an assessment based on the standards to gauge students’ academic performance in the 2014-15 school year.
The PARCC assessment was supposed to be used in Tennessee schools next year. The state’s legislature considered delaying implementation of both the test and the state standards for as many as two years.
As the Tennessee Education Report notes, PARCC could again be selected through that competitive bidding process. But other states that had initially signed on to use the PARCC assessment, including Kentucky and Florida, have also changed their plans.”
http://tn.chalkbeat.org/2014/04/17/state-legislature-votes-to-delay-common-core-aligned-assessments/
Slightly better. But still junk.
It should be referred to as the “Only Slightly Smarter and Still Totally Imbalance dand No Smarter Consortium.”
Smarter Balanced has a flashier website 🙂
The level of over-the-top hogwash about how their magic tech versions of bubbling in bubbles is a little less over the top, a little more clearly stated, using a little less EdSpeak gobbledygook and hype.
But these folks still have no clue that they are using the wrong tool for the job and that the whole enterprise of standardized bubble-style testing for higher-order skills is a) invalid, b) demotivating for cognitive tasks, as extrinsic punishments and rewards generally are, and c) distorting of curricula and pedagogy because of the high stakes for student promotion and teacher and school evaluation.
Diane,
You keep outdoing yourself! This is hilarious. Too bad it’s just so true.
It is terrific.
The best thing about the Brooks’ column was the set of comments which had a clear majority of responders intelligently countering.
David Brooks’ comments now call into question every commentary he has made in the past. If he could get this so wrong and by using talking points handed to him we must now call him to task for evrything he has written. As well as question his support for others.
He is now damaged goods.
He’s been pretty much has been wrong about everything else too, including his support for the invasion of Iraq. He’s a hack.
I tried to post the following to the New York Times web page yesterday evening, and I had to send them a request asking them why they refused to post my rebuttal to Mr Brooks.
This morning I received an e-mail from them almost eight hours later, (after other postings had been submitted and posted) they allowed for my challenge to Mr Brooks.
I’d like to thank them for finally allowing my post…
Steve B
NY 2 hours ago
Mr Brooks…
The Common Core standards are not superior standards. If they were, then why are the children of the affluent attending schools that have not incorporated them…why would Gates, Obama, and Duncan choose not to be “touched” by the Core, which you state replace a problematic system.
Secondly, wouldn’t it have been better to select standards from, let’s say Massachusetts, New York, or Indiana…states that consistently had superior standards and would clearly meet any “international benchmarks”, rather than foist an untested, unproven, highly inappropriate, profit-driven set of “standards” that leave much to be desired by educators, students, and parents. Since the standards of these three states were already in existence and performing at credentialed levels, wouldn’t this have saved the entire nation from the nightmare that Common Core is putting it through…in terms of a curriculum that leaves much to be desired, and the unprecedented costs associated with it?
It’s obvious, that since the plan that I put forth to you wasn’t implemented, that a hidden agenda exists here…a dark plan…one that Americans across the nation are up in arms against.
I welcome your response.
Steve – the testing in NYS has made our students dumber each year. Please note my grand daughter’s progress:
Grade 3 – solid 3s
Grade 4 – high 2s
Grade 5 – 1
Grade 6 ( just this year) opted out = 0
The dumbing down of America – literally
Diane,
You wrote: “The standards were in fact written behind closed doors by a group of 27 people, a group that included a large number of people from the testing industry…”
I would really like to understand this point a little better. The initial two work groups announced in mid-2009 were comprised of 24 people (several did double duty on both working groups):
http://www.nga.org/cms/home/news-room/news-releases/page_2009/col2-content/main-content-list/title_common-core-state-standards-development-work-group-and-feedback-group-announced.html
NGA/CCSSO said at the time that the work groups would be expanded as the process moved forward, and they were. The final work groups had over 50 members each, and the testing company folks were mainly gone by that point:
Click to access 2010COMMONCOREK12TEAM.PDF
I have asked numerous CCSS critics (including at the Heartland Institute and Truth in American Education) to explain to me what happened here. Were the standards mainly written by the original 24, and the others were brought in for window dressing? The people I have talked to don’t seem to think it was just window dressing, and I know for sure that Dr. Louisa Moats had a large role because she has discussed it publicly.
So do you have specific, credible information that counters this? I myself have in the past echoed the charge you made, but I stopped after I couldn’t really back it up. If you have good info proving the original 24 were the real authors, I would love it if you could share it.
Jack, the following press release names the people who served on the “work groups,” that is, the writers. A few people served on both work groups. These are the people who wrote the Common Core standards: http://www.nga.org/cms/home/news-room/news-releases/page_2009/col2-content/main-content-list/title_common-core-state-standards-development-work-group-and-feedback-group-announced.html. Please note that none describes himself or herself as a classroom teacher. No one comes from the field of early childhood education, yet they are writing standards for K-3. None of the writers has a background in educating children with disabilities. Also, be sure to notice the statement that ” The Work Group’s deliberations will be confidential throughout the process.” There is much added about the Feedback Committee, then the Validation Committee, then reviews, etc., but it is not clear what, if anything, was changed by these committees. The writing of the standards was on a very fast timeline. I have participated in developing state standards, and they typically involved teachers and subject-matter experts, and took two-three years.
Diane,
I’m not defending the process at all. And I am familiar with the release you linked to because that’s the same document that was in my first link. But please note the second link I provided which shows the final work group configuration at the time the standards were released. I just haven’t seen anything that substantiates the idea that the work groups as originally configured wrote the standards, as opposed to the much larger “final” work group membership.
I don’t know if this video will help, but you should watch it: http://www.commoncoremovie.com
I believe it has to do with the validation committee.
The validation committee did not write the standards. The work groups did.
I know. That’s why I included that comment after posting the link to the video.
Frankly I don’t care who or how many people actually wrote the CCSS. Standards like these are pure garbage:
5. Analyze how an author’s choices concerning how to structure specific parts of a text (e.g., the choice of where to begin or end a story, the choice to provide a comedic or tragic resolution) contribute to its overall structure and meaning as well as its aesthetic impact.
6. Analyze a particular point of view or cultural experience reflected in a work of literature from outside the United States, drawing on a wide reading of world literature.
They were to inexperienced to realize the hole they dug by writing ambiguous, abstract, and subjective, skill-based standards. Their master plan of using standardized testing to measure mastery is unworkable. The result, as we’re already seeing in Pearson tests here in NY, are some of the most poorly developed test items in history. These CCSS aligned tests will go down in the books as an abject failure and probably the main reason the reform movement implodes. It will not be until the complete rollout in 2015 the supernova meltdown occurs .
I was an English Major in college and I barely understand what those two standards mean. I definitely don’t see their relevance for the average student, unless they are taking AP English.
Since the first work group of Achieve, ACT, and College Board work in secret, we don’t know how much of the standards they produced. And interesting Achieve is just a front for the Chamber and NGA looking at their web site. The follow on group had only one true K12 teacher. Most likely they simply could just comment. But if not, it still doesn’t explain the lack of K12 representation nor the absence of a draft or trial standard first put into practice on a limited scope.
But it doesn’t matter. Throw these musings from ivory towers and business titans away. It is the tests that are the true standards. And we can’t see those.
If the invited real, experienced K -12 classroom teachers and allowed them a true voice they would have rejected most of their standards. Crap like these would not fly with real teachers.
5. Analyze how an author’s choices concerning how to structure specific parts of a text (e.g., the choice of where to begin or end a story, the choice to provide a comedic or tragic resolution) contribute to its overall structure and meaning as well as its aesthetic impact.
6. Analyze a particular point of view or cultural experience reflected in a work of literature from outside the United States, drawing on a wide reading of world literature.
Yes Mr Brooks…the Circus has finally come to town…
After reading the article you have written, your credibility now resides at the center of three rings.
As a former clown, let’s not malign them. They have little in common with Mr. Brooks. They actually do know what they are doing, why they are doing it, and they truly do believe in what they do. They also do it on purpose. David Brooks just can’t help himself. Oh yeah, clowns actually do have behavioral codes.
Another clown here! I partly paid for college with it. And yes, don’t malign clowns! (:
I love clowns, but I don’t love David Brooks.
I am willing to bet that David Brooks has not read the Common Core State Standards. However, he has heard from sources he trusts, a story.
David Coleman has denigrated the teaching of literature. He thinks that our students ought, instead, to be reading really important stuff like reports on securing right-of-way for electric power transmission lines via eminent domain.
But storytelling is one of the primary means by which we humans make sense of the world.
The propaganda mills of Achieve, the CCSSO, and the NGA cooked up a story, and it goes like this:
Our schools are failing. We need accountability. We need national standards and tests of those, to whip the teachers who have been failing into shape. And now we have them–new “higher” standards, and some crazy fringe types want to scuttle all that because they are [fill in the blank–leftists, Tea Partiers, shiftless union members].
It’s a simple story, so it plays in the press. One might even call it simple-minded.
Of course, it’s false all around. But explaining why isn’t simple. It can’t be done in a sound bite. And in a sound bite culture–in a culture that serves up fast food ideas–that’s a problem.
The Common [sic] Core [sic] State [sic] Standards [sic] were paid for by plutocrats who needed a single set of standards to key the educational software to that they planned to sell nationally. That’s the why.
And the standards are in no sense “higher.” They are backward, received, amateurish, pedestrian, unimaginative, and often prescientific. They preclude important curricula and pedagogy and important innovation in both areas. They are full of gaps so large that one could drive whole curricula through these lacunae.
But that’s can’t be explained in sound bites either. For Mr. Brooks and others to understand just how bad these “standards” are, first, they would have to read them. Then they would have to consult with people who actually know what the problems are. There would be a great deal for them to learn.
But here’s the brief version: one would have gotten similar results if one had handed David Coleman a copy of the 1858 Gray’s Anatomy and sent him to the woods to write new “standards” for the practice of medicine.
The new standards are a national disgrace. They are a joke. The authors of them should have long ago been hooted off the national stage. They are already grotesquely distorting curricula and pedagogy in reading, writing, literature, vocabulary, grammar, and other areas of the English language arts.
The opportunity costs of using these amateurish “standards” are enormous. And the consequences for our kids and our nation, dire.
He seems to live in an all too common bubble of nationally syndicated journalistic laziness. So disappointing.
So I believe only Dowd, Collins and Krugman have NOT come out in favor of some kind of market-based ed reform. Damn, it is getting so hard to justify my subscription.
Hate to disappoint you but Krugman did. Can’t recall the exact date but he definitely wrote a pro CC piece.
That’s a great post by Aaron Barlow. Brooks does come across as clownish. There’s another way of looking at Brooks’s role, though. Together the two articles remind me of the brilliant circus scene that serves as comic relief in Chapter 22 of Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. It’s possible that Brooks isn’t playing the role of clown in the Common Core Circus, but that of naive audience member (and naive narrator).
Huck eventually realizes that the “drunken” rider was actually part of the circus act all along. He never figures out, though, that the clown’s jokes were scripted, or that the ringmaster was playing a role in an orchestrated spectacle (which is what the promotion of the Common Core amounts to). Huck does figure out that the King and Duke are frauds, and instead of continuing to abet their schemes, he takes courage and turns against them.
Will Brooks ever realize he’s been fooled by the circus? More to the point, will he catch on that the Kings and Dukes of the Common Core are frauds? Assuming he does find out at some point, will he do the right thing and recant, then use his platform to help overthrow the project? Hey, it’s possible. But it probably won’t happen till a lot more Americans stand up and cry, “Sold!”
http://www.online-literature.com/twain/huckleberry_finn/22/
Is there are Pulitzer for the perfect confluence of ignorance and arrogance?
H-m-m-m. An award for one’s own exaggerated sense of one’s lack of knowledge. Perhaps pompous fool describes the ideal award winner better.
Pulitzer Prize for ignorance+arrogance?
The Pulitzer Prize is an award for achievements in newspaper and online journalism, literature, and musical composition in the United States. It was established in 1917 by provisions in the will of American (Hungarian-born) publisher Joseph Pulitzer, and is administered by Columbia University in New York City.[2] Prizes are awarded yearly in twenty-one categories.
I would suggest that instead of tarnishing the image of the Pulitzer that we try this,
The Common Coleman Award:
is a prize for the reckless expression of one’s absolute ignorance and inexperience through especially brash, arrogant and pompous writing which is typically glows with self-importance. The CCA is awarded in the only country where people can actually make boatloads of money through this behavior. It was established in 2009 by a true American master of the English Language Arts, test promoter and education reformer extraordinaire, Lord David Coleman. It is administered, ironically enough, by his chief nemesis, Bob Shepherd through the auspices of the Diane Ravitch blog. The ability to use one’s ignorance as a springboard for arrogant expression has also been quantified by the Sytem de International and is represented with the SI unit known as the Coleman (C).
LOL! I would be honored to administer the Common Coleman prize, but there are so many contenders for this honor. No mean task!!!!
Perhaps Diane will do the honor of presenting the Common Coleman annually.
You have more than earned the honor my friend. I do believe Bill Duncan of NH fame is bucking for a Common Coleman in bloviated blogging. But hey, it will be your call.
The Pulitzer Prize is awarded in 21 categories. No reason that the Common Coleman Award could not have a number of categories as well. TV analyst? Newspaper columnist? Blogger? Poster? etc.
As chief administrator of the annual CCA – you call the shots.
A few years back, David Brooks wrote a column on the continuing fallout from the George W. Bush years that, in essence, amounted to this: “C’mon guys. Let the past remain in the past. Let’s make amends and share ideas.”
What Brooks never said was that those years were basically a lost decade.
They constituted a political and economic and moral failure of epic proportions. Budget surpluses that might have been used to pay down previous supply-side-generated debt, to strengthen Social Security, and to invest in the nation’s future were squandered. Wars were started unnecessarily, were managed terribly and were left unfunded. Torture was “legalized.” Child poverty increased, as did income stratification. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer and the middle class got squeezed. Government officials turned a blind eye to the neediest, and helped Wall Street become one huge casino with private profits and taxpayer-subsidized losses. Millions of people lost jobs and homes. The economy was broken. And the fall-out continues today.
Brooks evaded the truth. Purposefully. But he’s not alone. The perpetrators of the economic quagmire caused by those years have refused to take any responsibility for it. Worse, they want more of the same flawed and failed policies that caused it. And they’ve pointed the finger of blame at public schools and teachers.
David Brooks is merely one of their puppets. His Common Core column lays out (again) the big lie that American public education is ‘in crisis’. Brooks says that prior to Common Core, state standards were “a complete mess” and “lax or wildly confusing” and “huge numbers of students were graduating from high school unprepared either for college work or modern employment.” Brooks apparently forgot all about No Child Left Behind, and he obviously knows nothing about NAEP or TIMSS scores or the Sandia Report.
According to Brooks (and his puppet masters), the purpose of the Common Core “is to get students competitive with their international peers,” thus ensuring American economic competitiveness in the global marketplace. Indeed, that is the explicit rationale given for the Common Core by its chief advocates, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable. But it’s not true. They merely want to shift the blame for income stratification, job losses, and economic dislocation.
People like Brooks are their mouthpieces.
So, you have to wonder. Why does the Obama administration go along with it? And why are so many educators still attached to Advanced Placement programs and SAT and ACT tests, when the College Board and American College Testing, Inc. were such important players in the development of the Common Core?
Reblogged this on Transparent Christina.
Solid points, as usual, Bob and ‘democracy’. Can we all keep in mind that Brooks’ ‘job’, is NOT to present a balanced analysis: his job is to advocate, carry the water, for an ideological position. Brooks hangs his pundit coat on the coat hook of pedagogy (Common Core), only insofar as it sustains and bolsters his omnipresent free market ideology. To have any expectation that Brooks is capable of ‘taking a step back’ and honestly attempt to understand the opposition to Common Core, goes way beyond Brooks’ job description , as well as his intellectual and emotional capacity.
He is what he is and ain’t what he ain’t. Let’s stop whistling down the wind. We must rely on our friends and allies and cultivate citizens who demonstrate a smidgen of intellectual honesty. Should there by chance occur conversions on the road, then let us welcome them with open arms.
Brooks writes: “A large survey in Kentucky revealed that 77 percent of teachers are enthusiastic about the challenge of implementing the standards in their classrooms.” A good journalist will cite to references so that we good-for-nothings can review it and come to our own conclusions. If you actually go to the source of this so-called “large survey,” you will see that David Brooks has COMPLETELY, BUT COMPLETELY, mislead the public with this statement. First, the survey was taken by 6,700 Kentucky teachers. I don’t know about Kentucky, but 6,700 teachers is a pittance in NYS. Second, we have no idea who those teachers are, how they learned about the survey (were they purposefully systematically excluded and cherry picked the way low-performing schools used to systematically exclude low-performing students during the pre-NCLB days of standardized testing?), how the questions were constructed, etc. Also, this supposedly “large” survey was open from mid-November to mid-December. It is now mid-April; wonder how those teachers would respond now? Here is the source of David Brooks’ information: http://education.ky.gov/…/R%2014-013%20KCAS%20Survey.pdf
p.s. The reference to the Primary Sources survey of 20,000 public school teachers nationwide last summer was actually a survey conducted in July 2013 by Scholastic and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. When the results of that survey were posted last year, it defied logic (to me), and so I immediately reached out to the woman in charge of the survey and asked her some pressing questions about the timing of the survey, how the survey was conducted, the fairness of the survey, etc., and why such a small sampling of teachers nationwide (20,000) was used. In the end, she agreed with me (this was via telephone) that a follow-up survey needed to be conducted and that more teachers needed to be included. We’ll see. We’ll see. You can check out the full Summer 2013 Scholastic report here, where it is broken down by state. http://www.scholastic.com/primarysources/
Deborah
It probably wouldn’t be a bad idea to initiate a survey of ALL teachers in NY regarding CCSS and APPR. Think NYSUT could handle this?
I actually addressed that specific concept with the woman at Scholastic. In fact, I suggested to her that NYSUT would afford her all the teachers she could stand, and that getting NYSUT involved would be sure to yield a more balanced survey result. I was met with the following indignant paraphrased response: “We have sufficient access to teachers right here within Scholastic. We don’t need NYSUT’s help.” I told her I begged to differ. I think it would be amazing if NYSUT could conduct their own survey, so long as they could assure the teachers that their responses would be anonymous; too may scared people out there right now.
p.s. If you know someone within NYSUT, why not posit this idea to them?
Try their website. Must be a way to enter comments or suggestions. I think its a touchy subject given the new leadership. I wonder if Karen Magee would allow it? Would be a good way see exactly where she stands. Maybe a phone call. If each TA conducted the survey it would not be too hard to pull off. NYC might have some logistical issue but I bet they would want their voices to be heard.
Its time to burry the old meme that 75% of teachers support the CCSS.
Just had an idea. The poll questions could be listed like a referendum on the spring ballot for local TA officers. ????
We really only need two, “yes or no” questions to find out:
“Do you support the use of the Common Core standards as reasonable targets for ELA and math instruction?”
Do you support the use of high-stakes testing aligned with the Common Core standards?
NY teacher: I’ll see what I can do…. I am not a teacher, but I am very involved in the LI Opt Out movement and “know people in high places” there! Let me see if I can get that ball rolling. Got any other suggestions?
I went to the NYSUT website and I could not find any direct way of submitting suggestions. There were phone numbers; I might try calling with the idea. A referendum on the officer ballots would be a very easy way to poll the teachers.