The following statement by three Louisiana teachers was distributed by Mary K. Bellisario of the Louisiana Coalition for Public Education.
From: Mary K. Bellisario, Coalition for Louisiana Public Education
Re: Real teachers’ concerns with Common Core in the classroom
Attached is an unsolicited letter I received from three Louisiana classroom teachers describing their concerns with the Common Core standards.
They have requested that I share this letter with the media to get out concerns that classroom teachers are having with the Common Core standards.
Unlike organized groups such as “Stand for Children,” they do not have national backing and funding to run ads in newspapers or hire lobbyists. Theirs is the daily experience teachers are having trying to implement standards which didn’t have input from professional educators. (Please note: This can be verified by checking the list of 60 individuals who created the standards as listed on the CCSS website. There was not one K-12 educator or specialist among them. There were, however, several individuals who worked for the same corporations which market the curriculum, testing and evaluations connected with the adoption of the standards.)
The Letter from the 3 Louisiana classroom teachers runs just over 300 words. They selected their own headline.
For verification purposes prior to running their joint letter, the three teachers from the Sulphur, LA, area schools are:
Marla Baldwin, Calcasieu Parish 337-304-0882
Deanna Russell, Beauregard Parish 337-274-3499
Leslie Truax, Calcasieu Parish 337-912-0085
Thank you for sharing their letter in an attempt to provide balanced coverage on this controversial topic.
On behalf of the three teachers listed above,
Mary K. Bellisario
Coalition for Louisiana Public Education
______________________________
Common Chaos
By now we have all heard the claims that Common Core “State” Standards (CCSS) purport to achieve for our children. Advocates of CCSS have been quick to insult the opposition, accusing them of being conspiracy theorists, tea party affiliates, extremists, religious zealots, ineffective and irresponsible teachers, or political game players. But what if no evidence supports any of these accusations?
Teachers and parents have valid concerns with CCSS. We understand the connection of standards with standardized tests and curriculum. As teachers have been implementing these standards over the past two years, numerous concerns have surfaced. Educational leaders respond, “Stay the course,” with no modifications allowed. Their only remedy is more training and resources, neither of which addresses the actual concerns.
The recurring local and national concerns experienced with CCSS are:
· Developmentally inappropriate standards K-2nd grades
· Students unable to master the standards according to the proscribed pacing
· Little time for mastery of basic math facts, with over-emphasis on visual math strategies
· Too light on basic phonics, with over-emphasis on whole language
· Parents alienated from helping children with their homework
· Students exhibiting unnecessary, unhealthy levels of stress and frustration.
As professional educators we request:
· Developmentally-appropriate high standards
· Implementation of researched, tested and proven educational practices
· A balanced approach to instruction (more phonics and basic math facts)
· Math strategies and critical thinking skills to supplement, not replace, instruction
· Flexibility to individualize instruction for individual students, and challenge students within a healthy stress zone
· Acceptance of students’ uniqueness, rather than attempted standardization
· More autonomy in developing lessons
· The use of data to guide, not define, us
Our educational future is too important to blindly accept controversial, experimental education reform. Our children do not deserve to be treated as guinea pigs. If CCSS were as effective as claimed, why are they the center of national debate?
As professional educators, it would be irresponsible to NOT bring our concerns to public attention.
Teachers: Marla Baldwin, Calcasieu Parish
Deanna Russell, Beauregard Parish
Leslie Truax, Calcasieu Parish
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I caught the tail end of a common core discussion on PBS the other day, and once again the pro-CC advocate started with the trope that these standards came from each and every state, from “educators” all across the country, working tirelessly to fashion excellent standards for the whole country. No one challenged this portrayal! If they had even asked for the names of actual classroom teachers on these committees, they could have poked holes in the oft repeated canard. If they had quoted a few of the standards expected for the little ones, the public might know why teachers are worried – not just for their jobs, but for the impact on our students. I am not anti-all CC standards, and I like some of the approaches we’ve been allowed in California, but the breadth and depth of the second grade math standards are daunting, to say the least.
I have also been very disappointed with the biased portrayal of Common Core issues on public television and radio
(Sorry, I posted this in the wrong place previously.)
What I find so tragic is that there are some teachers who play into this PR machine. Who among us has not heard a teacher say this, ” I am not against common core, I am against all the testing. Common core is actually great when you separate it from all the testing…”
This is SO NOT TRUE. Common core was created by non educator’s and it is so clearly developmentally wrong on so many fronts and so inappropriate in so many ways. It shackles teachers and certainly does not give teachers freedom to teach. Common core is tied into testing and now linked to how teachers “can reflect and improve their craft” a la Charlotte Danielson’s personal approach to her own improvement when she was a teacher (great for her but not for all the teachers that reflect and improve in different ways). There is absolutely no room for teachers to have any professional autonomy and common core is the main impetus. And then there is the unnecessary stress it puts on the children…
Melissa Walsh,
NPR is sadly unbalanced when it comes to discussing CCSS. They should present different perspectives but all too often they give only the cheerleaders time. This happened recently on NPR’s Marketplace. I checked the program notes and learned that Marketplace is subsidized by two foundations. One is Gates.
Good for you LA teachers. I retired as a LA teacher after 32 years. After one year with Common Core, I saw there were real problems with it… the same as you mentioned. I’ll never forget the first day back to school for teachers back in 2012. The teacher coach told all of us that CC was research-based. A red flag went up with me. Well, show us the research. There was none.
Then, at Open House, I asked the parents if they had ever heard of Common Core. Not one hand went up. Keep in mind that these standards were implemented in 2010. A second red flag went up. Why were they kept so secret? Why did the teachers/parents not know anything about CC until the first day back?
Soon, I quickly realized that the work was definitely developmentally inappropriate. I had a little boy put his head down on his desk the first day of pretests and cried. It was so sad. He cried during the entire test.
There was definitely not enough emphasis on phonics. These children needed that.
So, I take my hat off for you coming out to make this public. Good job, ladies!
I have also been very disappointed with the biased portrayal of Common Core issues on public television and radio
In Louisiana, it is very difficult for teachers to have true freedom of expression. I applaud these teachers. Also, I am going to be watching how this plays out, since one of these teachers is a member of the NEA- and well the new president is quoted to have said ” I love the common core”. With some kind of luck and tenacity, here in LA we won’t have it much longer . But that new president may soon regret making that public statement.
Thank you for making this public statement. I think we are tired of hearing that teachers were involved in the development of the Common Core and that almost all teachers like it. Courageous of some real teachers to tell the truth. I especially like your list of requests,
It’s a terrible mistake to politicize these matters. Standards are not holy writ. They are not party dogma. They are a) statements of the outcomes that will be measured by standardized testing b) with implications for curricula and pedagogy, and it should be a matter of vigorous, ongoing discussion whether particular standards should in fact be tested at various grade levels and whether the entailments of particular standards for curricula and pedagogy make sense.
Consider a standard at random–this one, for example:
CC.8.L.1.a Conventions of Standard English: Explain the function of verbals (gerunds, participles, infinitives) in general and their function in particular sentences.
Because this standard exists, there will be questions on standardized tests for 8th-grade students that ask them to “Explain the function of verbals (gerunds, participles, infinitives) in general and their function in particular sentences.” Because it exists, teachers will have to teach 8th-grade students to “Explain the function of verbals (gerunds, participles, infinitives) in general and their function in particular sentences.”
However,
1. Being able to explain how verbals function in sentences requires a great deal of prior knowledge of syntax. Consider one of the three kinds of verbals mentioned in this standard. How does a gerund function in a sentences? Well, it can function in a way that any other substantive can, as a subject, direct object, indirect object, object of a preposition, predicate nominative, retained object, subjective complement, objective complement, or as an appositive of any of these. It can function as a subject, complement, or adjunct. So, clearly, being able to explain how a gerund “functions” in a sentence requires a sophisticated explicit understanding of syntactic structures generally, and so, if the standard is to be met, students must have learned, before 8th grade, that general, explicit, broad body of syntax, but the standards as written do not specify the necessary prerequisite instruction for them to have done that. We must always ask, how is this standard supposed to relate to the rest of the learning progression. Why verbals at this particular level? Why not case assignment or the complement/adjunct distinction or explicit versus null determiners or theta roles or X-bars or varieties of complement phrases or any of a long list of other equally important syntactic categories and concepts? And why, in the new standards, are all those left out of the learning progression as a whole igiven that they are key to understanding explicit models of syntax which, evidently, the authors of this standard considers important for some reason or another?
2. Because students are required by the standard to “explain” the functions, and because there are many such functions, that necessary prerequisite instruction would require a great deal of prior explicit instruction in syntax generally. In other words, this single standard has VAST entailments for curricula and pedagogical approach. There is a difference between implicit competence in using a syntactic structure gained via the operation of the innate linguistic acquisition device and explicit knowledge of that structure via learning of an abstract model. So, this standard entails and requires an explicit approach to instruction in a large body of syntax that has little relevance and few consequences for actual performance–for student speaking and writing–as research has consistently shown for many decades. The first large metastudy of the influence of explicit grammar instruction on frequency of errors in student writing and speech appeared in the Encyclopedia of Educational Research in 1935 and showed, way back then, no correlation! So, the standard entails a commitment to a vast amount of instruction of dubious value and shows a lack of understanding on the part of the drafters of the standards of the fundamental distinction in linguistics between knowledge and acquisition–a lack of familiarity with the relevant linguistic science.
Clearly, the standard was not thought out, and it’s our duty, as educators, to point out where such is the case. And, in general, it is our duty to subject standards and their implications for our curricula and pedagogy to informed critique based upon research, experience, best practices, our knowledge of our students, and the whole of the learning progression that we are implementing.
Treating these “standards” as holy writ or as party dogma and squelching critique of them does our students a grave injustice.
I seem to be replying again in the wrong place. Bob, my reply about CC.8.L.1.a was to your post.
Thank you, Diana, for wading through that comment! Warm regards!
Bob, I always enjoy reading what you write.
Bravo. Such importan concepts. Your point no. 2 is particularly insightful. I am a veteran 8th grade language arts teacher, and I had to laugh (or cry) at the thought of wasting so much class time to “meet” this standard. Do I ever rely on direct instruction to teach conventions? Of course. But I rely much more on student directed and selected reading and writing, along with discussions. I’m planning on forwarding your post to the other L.A. teachers in my building. It effectively skewers those who claim these standards raise the bar.
I am also extremely concerned about the CCSS. I am concerned about their appropriateness in the early years (preschool to second grade). I applaud the three teachers for their professionalism and courage. However, I would liked to have seen reference to math concept development which precedes learning math facts.
Marie, retired early math teacher
“So, this standard entails and requires an explicit approach to instruction in a large body of syntax that has little relevance and few consequences for actual performance–for student speaking and writing–as research has consistently shown for many decades.”
As an eighth grade Language Arts teacher, this was my thought when first encountering CC.8.L.1.a. Of course the slew of new “Common Core ready” books we are being inundated with include direct instruction on this which must now be used to “cover the standard.” Pretty much a waste of the valuable learning time that remains after the hours for testing have been subtracted. My students, most of whom are speakers of standard English, are already able to and do use verbals correctly in their speaking and writing. My honors level students are mostly able to understand what verbals are and to identify them in their reading and writing, and some might find this interesting. I wonder how many educated adults are able to explain the function of verbals, and why in the world they would need to do that.
I would find it amusing to grill the authors of the CCSS on their explicit knowledge of the functions of verbals. I suspect that it is minimal. I’ve actually studied this stuff because I think it interesting in and of itself. But few people have and almost no one needs to. I do think that it would be of great value for prospective English teachers to get a lot more education in linguistics than they are currently getting so that they can understand the kinds of problems they are encountering in their students’ work. That explicit understanding, however, is very, very different from competence in using the forms.
I also find the study of language intrinsically interesting, but I don’t really expect my 8th graders to share this interest. And I seriously doubt that my husband, who is a professional writer and an excellent one, could explain the function of verbals.
Also, the standard CC.8.L.1.c, Form and use verbs in the indicative, imperative, interrogative, conditional, and subjunctive mood poses difficulties. Students at the 8th grade level can do this, for the most part (except for the subjunctive, which is rarely used today anyway) But again, there will be explicit instruction in identifying and distinguishing among these moods even though the standard says “form and use.” More time wasted, especially as students (and teachers) struggle to distinguish between the conditional and subjunctive moods. Again, how many well-educated and even well-spoken adults can do this? I only started to understand it when I took a foreign language (French) in high school, and recognized that what I was learning operated in English as well.
When I first read 8.L.1.c, I thought of one of T. S. Eliot’s essays in which he wrote, flat out, that there is no subjunctive in English! Eliot had a rage for order, and he was responding, I think, to the fact that, as you say, the subjunctive barely exists in English and doesn’t exist at all in some dialects of it. Eliot evidently thought that we should jettison it entirely!
And, of course, you are absolutely right that distinguishing subjunctive and conditional forms is a complex matter and that most people (including, I suspect, the authors of these standards) aren’t up to it. And if what you want to do is to teach children to use subjunctive and conditional forms correctly, the way to do that is to expose them to language that models those forms. Teaching them the names of the forms and rules for using them is almost completely useless. That’s not how people gain syntactic competence.
Clearly, these standards weren’t thought through. And clearly, there are opportunity costs. Why should I waste class time teaching students definitions for the terms subjunctive mood and indicative mood when I could be teaching them something that’s actually going to be of value to them, such as what a counterfactual is? That’s a powerful concept—a lever for thinking. Counterfactuals deal with possibility, what might have been or might be. Very interesting stuff at the heart of creativity and innovation and critical thinking. But you won’t find the term counterfactual used ANYWHERE in the new standards. Why not? Why is the existence of a grammatical form known as the subjective worth knowing about and the existence of counterfactual statements not worth knowing about? The truth, I think, is precisely the opposite. The former will be learned, if it is learned, automatically, with or without explicit instruction, and any explicit instruction in the concept will be promptly forgotten by most students, whereas the latter will not be automatically learned and will have to be taught explicitly if it is to be learned, and it can be a powerful tool in kids’ conceptual toolkit to be used again and again.
These are complex matters, and the standards treat them amateurishly. The standards employ a kind of folk grammar that has little relation to modern scientific grammars of the language. Most of the schoolbook definitions of traditional grammatical terms–the ones used in the standards–turn out to be wrong if you think about them at all carefully. “A noun is the name of a person, place, thing, or idea.” and “A verb names an action or state of being.” Well, she names a person but is NOT a noun, and work, in the sentence “Work is good for you” names an action but IS a noun.
Back to this particular “standard”: There is a strong argument to be made that in English the conditional is NOT a mood at all, and if that is true, then the standard is in error in calling it a mood. That this error is commonplace does not make it OK for it to be enshrined in our standards.
Despite all that, as a result of this standard, there will be test items on this standard and explicit instruction and exercises on it in textbooks and online programs. Those materials will attempt to teach definitions of these terms and ask students to identify forms based on those definitions, and the chances are excellent that those materials will contain many inaccuracies about the language due to insufficient understanding by the writers of what they themselves were attempting to teach. In such a way, errors in the standard get propagated throughout our curricula and pedagogy.
The standards are full of items like this that were not thought about at all carefully—clear evidence that the standards were hacked together with little or no scholarly vetting. Anyone who has done a little “close reading” of the “standards” will see that.
Bob, you and Diana have done a masterful job of analyzing a particular CCSS standard and evaluating its usefulness for 8th grade students. I am fascinated by your analysis, yet keep thinking, as a 9-12 social studies teacher, my students just need to be able to use these verbals correctly. I’m not sure they need to be able to explain their function. I understand you’re not arguing this; you’re simply trying to show how little true pedagogy and even thought went into developing the ELA standards.
Even the supposed purpose of these standards has not been well-thought out, nor would, I suspect, be able to stand up to a thorough analysis. I was never asked to explain the function of verbals to any of my college professors (granted I was not an English major), but certainly had to be able to write a comprehensive and well-constructed essay and/or research paper correctly using those verbals for every one of them. I’d be willing to bet that most corporations, companies, non-profits, trade schools, or customers won’t ask for proof of that ability before giving someone a job either.
The average student needs to be able to write a coherent sentence in order to get his/her point across to another person. I would be appalled if a student could explain the function of a verbal, such as a gerund, yet not use one properly in a sentence. I would, however, be thrilled if they could do both!
The bigger problem with the CC$$ is not necessarily the one you’ve both analyzed so thoroughly, but the utter lack of applicability of most of these standards for either college or career readiness. These “standards” are a sheer waste of time, space and breath for the American teacher.
Unfortunately, Regina, there is profound and pervasive misunderstanding of language acquisition among people in policy-making positions. In particular, there’s a widespread fallacy of attribution whereby they attribute their ability to make grammatical judgments to their explicit grammatical knowledge, but it’s scientifically demonstrable that there is an enormous gap between people’s explicit grammatical knowledge, which is generally very poor, and their ability to make grammatical judgments, which is generally very good. So, for example, people can tell you that
the green, great dragon
is ungrammatical, whereas
the great, green dragon
is grammatical
even though they do not know, explicitly, the rules for order of precedence of adjectives that they have intuited unconsciously from their ambient spoken language environments. Furthermore, if you test people on explicit grammatical knowledge, you will find that often they make the correct judgment but ascribe to this judgment an incorrect reason. What happens with such judgments is that people make them automatically, based upon unconsciously acquired rules, and then they ascribe them to conscious motivation ex post facto. This is a pervasive cognitive fallacy. I have tested for its existence among folks with very high levels of grammatical competence (editors, of whom I am one). Our point above was precisely that people need to be able to use these forms correctly but don’t need to be able to identify the forms and their functions explicitly. Now, all that said, there are reasons for teaching explicit grammars in some circumstances for some purposes, but one of those reasons is demonstrably NOT to reduce the number of deviations from grammatical correctness in students speech and writing, which is almost wholly unrelated to knowledge of explicit grammar. Sadly, ignorance of what is known scientifically about language acquisition is widespread among policymakers, including standards authors, ELA specialists in state and district offices, and federal education officials, and such people are often extremely defensive about their entrenched position. The most difficult positions to challenge are those that are false but that people believe, because of a cognitive fallacy, to be matters of common sense.
Wonderful teachers from Louisiana who obviously understand the true nature of teaching and learning:
May I borrow your term “Common Chaos” and use it over and over and over again in my comments and articles?
Thanks,
Rich
One of my favorite teachers to read about was Torey Hayden. She is a special Ed teacher that has written marvelous books like One Child, Ghost Girl, Murphy’s Child, etc about the students she has helped. She taught in various districts, under the usual pressures to succeed. Her remarkable success in helping emotionally wounded and educationally disabled kids brought a professor and some students from a nearby university to see what her system was. The professor asked her, as she observed her class, what system do you follow, who have you read that inspired your behavioral model etc. And Tory simply said I use whatever works. Aw such wisdom. Is it politically acceptable, Is it the latest thing from the university, Is the district sponsoring it and the texts that go with it. Nope. She used whatever worked. The common core, eliminates common sense, it’s really that simple. We can’t do whatever works because teacher’s hands are tied to what doesn’t work. I
How about Common Corpse?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
–Voltaire
Bob, I. love your Voltaire comment. It is short, sweet, and to the point. If only Arnie Duncan and Obama could understand it, and follow it, our students and teachers might not be in this matrix of destruction we are in now with the CCSS.