Sol Stern of the rightwing Manhattan Institute is a fierce advocate for the Common Core Standards. He is a journalist of great rhetorical skill, not a classroom teacher or a scholar or researcher. Stern is a devotee of E.D. Hirsh Jr.’s Core Knowledge curriculum, and he thinks that Common Core will install CK in every school in the nation. He cant accept the reality that CCSS is not the vehicle to impose CK. It must be puzzling to him, if not infuriating, that his arch-enemy Lucy Calkins and her colleagues have written the best-selling book about the Common Core, called “Pathways to the Common Core.” That sort of thing can make a person cranky.
In his piqué, Stern wrote an article excoriating me for abandoning this great national experiment. He didn’t seem to notice that my major objection to the CC was not substantive but procedural–that is, the absence of participation of knowledgable parties in the drafting process, the lack of any effort to include early childhood educators or experts in educating students with disabilities or any classroom teachers, the absence of any means of appealing or revising the standards, the failure to try them out before imposing them nationwide–all of which made their implementation speedy but built distrust. Process matters. Democracy matters. I have consistently maintained that it is better to go slowly and get it right than to move fast and sow dissension and suspicion. Back when I was on the dark side, Sol was a friend, so I decided not to be offended by his unprovoked attack on me.
However Mercedes Schneider, who probably knows more about the Common Core than anyone else, decided to respond to Stern and set him straight. He responded to Schneider, dismissing her, a mere classroom teacher in Louisiana, with disdain. And here, in this new post, Mercedes Schneider–who is not only an experienced classroom teacher but holds a Ph.D. In research methods, again corrects Stern’s fundamental misunderstanding of the Common Core.

Amazing, how many journalists are experts in education. Most journalists have a 4 year degree and suddenly become experts in just about everything. Just read or listen to them on TV.
We may actually improve education by demanding RIGOR in Bachelor Degree Programs in Journalism, Political Science, Public Policy Studies and computer technology!!!
We have had to defend teaching to 22 year old journalists for decades. Enough already! Go get an education! Putting down teachers, many with grad degrees, is a US past time fueled by such dimwits! I’ve had it! Pick on doctors or lawyers….
LikeLike
I have never understood how national standards or a national curriculum could be truly “voluntary” or be implemented by states without substantial incentives put in place by either the federal government or a private consortium. It’s never made any sense to me, and I can’t imagine that anyone ever honestly believed that could happen.
LikeLike
Alright, Zach Galifianakis. Thanks for the forthright, almost trollish, reflection.
Meantime, it’s happened. The standards are here and Stern’s initial point -that they were voluntary by state- is, according to the rules of rhetoric, accurate. States did, in fact, had a choice.
But what strikes me about these recent blog exchanges is the sharp tilt toward rhetoric -from both sides. My experience during moments of extreme finger pointing is that there isn’t a whole lot to be gleaned in terms of useful information.
LikeLike
That has struck me before, too, in my trollish moments of reflection.
LikeLike
What’s that, you say, the truth? I’m sure some have always wondered how that struck you.
LikeLike
Not a lot to be gleaned in terms of useful information??
Follow the links. The “usefulness” is in exposing CCSS for what it is: hardly “voluntary” for the millions required to be “standardized” by it.
CCSS is top-down, imposed by those whose lives are not directly affected by the consequences of token “voluntary adoption.” Now the masses are pushing back. They are “volunteering” to resist being “standardized.”
If all you see after reading the numerous links in my post is “finger pointing,” then you aren’t comprehending the gravity of the situation.
LikeLike
Wow. is this what our own side does to those who don’t fall *perfectly* in line with the talking points of the moment? Wow. Very nIce. Very ..wow …
Here’s what I didn’t say in my last comment….
… That I think Stern and you have one thing in common…that you’re both guilty of card-stacking on the issue of whether or not CCSS was voluntary across the 45 states…that his perspective -that we can call it voluntary because each state legislature got to decide- willfully ignores the way governments work … and that your perspective -that we can’t call in voluntary because teachers must use it in the classroom- willfully ignores that we’ve been dealing with standards and curricula over the course of our careers and that at each implementation, that curricula has been implemented from the top down .
Admittedly, all I saw as I read your post was your words. I followed the links after but I pay attention to the words when I read (I’m must be the only one on Earth).. You mentioned Stern, by name, more than 30 times over the course of the post. Did you realise that? I’d say that sets the gold standard for finger pointing. Not that I disagree with it in spirit. I think if you want to go ahead and engage in a blog war, Stern is about as good a person to make war on. All I was saying was that during such times as when finger pointing becomes the method, there isn’t much by way of actual information to be gleaned by following the discourse (or, in this case, lack thereof). Again, old fashioned here; I think that’s lamentable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
FYI, NYCurbanEd, state legislatures were NOT involved in the decision to sign the Memorandum of Understanding; it only required the signatures of the governor and state superintendent, and that decision had to be made within a few weeks–far or short for most legislatures to deliberate–and sight unseen.
LikeLike
FLERP, deutsch29 & Lisa Smith: what you said.
Finger-pointing?
😳
Homer reminds us:
“Words empty as the wind are best left unsaid.”
But there is a plus side. We’re making good use of our time. Because—
“A day without laughter is a day wasted.”
¿? Charlie Chaplin, a Doctor of Laughology.
😎
LikeLike
Then again, Poor Richard wrote something about lying down with dogs leads you to come up with fleas. Look, I just happen to think that this side of the argument is better than Sol Stern’s side of the argument and that the people who propagate it should be, I don’t know, better. I think it is lamentable when that doesn’t happen.
And I think it’s hilarious that you gave a shout-out to one of the most infamous trolls of comment sections there is just so you could take a swipe at me -the guy who took umbrage with finger pointing and with tilting too much to the rhetorical!! Charlie Chaplin moment indeed. Hey, go ahead and take whatever last word you’d like here. I won’t reply.
LikeLike
urbaned, there is some irony here. I was agreeing with you, albeit while perhaps cheekily re-using your characterization of my “trollish reflection.” By my count, you’ve taken three swipes at me on this thread (so far).
LikeLike
The non-reply reply? Touché!
😉
“Humor is mankind’s greatest blessing.” [Mark Twain]
Thanks!
😎
P.S. As for those pesky critters + penetrating observation, Bertolt Brecht put it well:
I fled from the tigers,
I fled from the fleas.
What got me at last?
Mediocrities.
LikeLike
Legislatures were not required to approve of CCSS. Two signatures. That is how “voluntary” CCSS was. Period.
Call it “card stacking” if you like; however, it is hard to “stack” two cards.
LikeLike
What a wonderful and eloquent writer!
LikeLike
Great article. I’ve been mentioning Diane’s work in emails to Congress. I’m going to start mentioning Mercedes Schneider. More Congressional staffers need to visit her blog. Maybe they’ll get the hint that “ed reform” and the Common Core Standards are not as advertised, and maybe they’ll pass along this newsflash to the people they work for.
I’m planning to buy two copies of her book. One for me and, for what it’s worth, one for Senator Durbin.
LikeLike
Here’s a related post from Valerie Strauss’s The Answer Sheet that features and article by Carol Burris. The topic is Arne Duncan’s dismissal of critics of the Common Core. The main focus is the complete lack of evidence that “rigorous standards” will improve student achievement.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/04/18/arne-duncan-dismisses-critics-lots-of-drama-lots-of-noise/
LikeLike
Brilliant rebuttal….so full of facts and references. Eloquent. To the point. Refreshing. Thanks, Mercedes, for taking the time to inform Mr. Stern……again.
LikeLike
“the absence of any means of appealing or revising the standards”
But Bill Duncan insists they can and are being revised! By real teachers! Right now! Every day! In a state near you.
LikeLike
Ms Ravitch,
You once wrote that…
“We are betting that schools with curricula like Core Knowledge produce better educated students…”
Is it now true that you do not support CK?
If so did you drop your support for CK because the content of CK changed, or because the associations of the CK Foundation changed?
If you do not support CK, could you at least point out to the thousands of teachers who do read your blog examples of coherent and thoughtful content-based curriculums that do work.
After all it is the number one point on the NPE agenda.
“- We support schools that offer a full and rich curriculum for all children, including the arts, physical education, history, civics, foreign languages, literature, mathematics, and the sciences.”
If you feel that CK no longer offers this, than help teachers find a curriculum that does.
LikeLike
Why do you think DR. Ravitch has rejected CK? What she clearly rejects is the CCSS because of the way it was developed and implemented, plus the lack of a process for appeal and revision.
LikeLike
Mr. Stern said she did. I was asking for her confirmation or denial and some pointers to curriculums that are full and content-rich. Again, it is the number one agenda item for NPE. Surely Ms Ravitch and NPE can show the readers of this blog some exemplars of the curriculum choices they support, otherwise it is just empty rhetoric.
LikeLike
So no reply Ms Ravitch? You cannot tell us if you support CK as an example of a strong curriculum? You cannot tell you readers about other strong curriculums that you support?
LikeLike
You still don’t respect this woman enough to use her proper title? Why should she bother to respond to you when she has already stated her position before? Methinks you are trying to bait her, and she is too smart to stoop so low as to take the bait.
LikeLike
Sol Stern,
I am probably the kind of teacher you want for our kids. I am an ardent fan of Core Knowledge. I have a Great Books education and my eccentric mission is to imbue my 13 year old students with as much core knowledge as I can in a year. I’m currently making sure kids learn a lot of juicy details about the Inferno, the dates of the Renaissance, the meaning of “humanism”, the differences between medieval and Renaissance art…. I have them memorize a sonnet and understand how Shakespeare’s work reflects the spirit of the Renaissance, etc. But, because I’m down here in the trenches, I see what you cannot: that Common Core is imperiling the kind of teaching I do. Administrators are panicky creatures. Tests are tsar to them. All the Common Core standards mention skills, not content. We are to “teach the standards”. Content seems superfluous, and their instinct is to jettison anything that might be superfluous. One look at the new tests (have you looked at them?) justifies their hunch. The tests test skills, not content. More reason to jettison content in lieu of constant practice on sample test items. Mercedes Schneider is right: there is little reason to believe that most of the ed reformers really care about the skills vs. content battle; they’re agnostic. What they care about is dismantling the old system and installing a new one. They may sincerely believe that their new, more corporate system will yield better education, but this seems to me to be a leap of faith. The new order I see emerging is a very, very far cry from the liberal arts ideal that I, and probably you, hold dear.
LikeLike
^^O^^ is all I have to say….
Sent from my iPhone
>
LikeLike