A poll commissioned by “Education Next,” a conservative journal, finds that the public supports the idea of common standards but the support drops sharply when asked about Common Core. See the Edweek account here.
The biggest declines from 2013 to 2014 were among teachers and Republicans. Support among Democrats remained steady at about 63-64%. The proportion of Republicans supporting Common Core dropped from 57% to 43%. Certain prominent Republicans continue to promote Common Core, including Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Other Republican governors.
The biggest decline in support was among teachers. Support dropped from 76% to 46%. This sharp decline is notable not only for its size but for two other reasons: first, both national teachers’ unions have endorsed Common Core and reiterated their support for Common Core at their national conventions just weeks ago. Second, of the various groups questioned, teachers are the most knowledgable about the Common Core since almost every state is training teachers to Implement the new standards.
Peter Greene explains the decline of support among teachers with this phrase: “Familiarity breeds contempt.” He says, “I’m hoping leadership in both unions takes a good hard look at this result. Again– a group that is committed to promoting CCSS, that has a vested interest is being able to say that people and teachers love the Core, has determined that teachers do not love the Core much at all. Please pay attention, union leaders.”
The editors of “Education Next” are known for their hostility to teachers’ unions and teacher tenure and their advocacy for school choice, including charters and vouchers.
Lots of interesting results in the poll.
I wish that the poll had reported teacher support of the CCSS by discipline. My sense is that mathematics teachers are generally much more supportive of the CCSS for Math than ELA teachers are for the CCSS for ELA.
I think I understand what you are saying, but your statement may be too general. I don’t see the same enthusiasm at lower grade levels for the math standards, and I have heard complaints that the standards for the upper grades are both too easy and too hard. It really is hard to pin down a consensus opinion. I really wish they had handed the CCSS as a draft document to teachers, perhaps the associated professional organizations, to “unpack” (the currently hot term), tweak (although tweak may be too weak a term), and field test the standards. Then the results could be used to GUIDE instruction and enhance the development of curriculum that met the needs of each state. The whole process has been much to heavy handed and patronizing.
2old2teach,
I wish there was something more specific to say. The discussions of the math common core standards here have generally had a much lower hostility level than average.
There does seem to be a more benign atmosphere around the math standards. That may be the most that can be said at this point.
Lower hostility. LOL! Maybe math teachers just drink less caffinated beverages. But seriously, no teacher of K12 mathematics I’ve talked to seriously considers CCSS as a magic wand for improving math instruction. Most seem to just be playing along knowing the standards are flawed and unproven. Instruction compensates for what is yet another fad imposed upon teachers by those outside a classroom and far removed from reality.
MathVale,
I have no idea about the math instructors you talk with. I was thinking of the civilized discussions here about mathematics education. The mathematicians that I talk to generally don’t talk much about mathematics education except to say that our international students are generally speaking much better prepared than our domestic students.
Hi TE, Just a bit of data for you — in my successful urban district, among myself and my math department, a group which includes some pretty bright people, including a Rhodes scholar, it is 0% like the Core, 100% do not.
I liked it when I thought “oh good the mathematical practices” from NCTM, and not so much the more I learned — it is the same old same old, maybe a bit more of it, and still just as useless for kids. I think Gary Rubenstein has got this issue right — if the Core wanted to actually be “fewer topics studied more deeply” we could definitely find some useless stuff to give up, but since it is “same old same old but a little more of it done a lot earlier in school but-with-the-finish-line-in-the-same-place”, none of us is in support of it.
I’ve grown more dissatisfied by NCTM as an organization that has lost focus on the realities of teaching. Membership canceled. They no longer seemed relevant in their publications with what I face every day.
TeacherJulie,
You might see my response above.
I naturally supported Common Core. Why wouldn’t I?
Then I learned about the testing and the other issues.
Most teachers, I believe, will also have second thoughts.
Why did you “naturally” support the CCSS?
Why wouldn’t you? Because of all the epistemological and ontological errors inherent to the process that renders them invalid as proven by Noel Wilson in his never refuted nor rebutted “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error”.
I advise you to read and understand it.
Educational Standards and the Problem of Error
Noel Wilson
Abstract
This study is about the categorisation of people in educational settings. It is clearly positioned from the perspective of the person categorised, and is particularly concerned with the violations involved when the error components of such categorisations are made invisible. Such categorisations are important. The study establishes the centrality of the measurement of educational standards to the production and control of thee individual in society, and indicates the destabilising effect of doubts about the accuracy of such categorisations. Educational measurement is based on the notion of error, yet both the literature and practice of educational assessment trivialises that error. The study examines in detail how this trivialization and obfuscation is accomplished. In particular the notion of validity is examined and is seen to be an advocacy for the examiner, for authority. The notion of invalidity has therefore been reconceptualised in a way that enables epistemological and ontological slides, and other contradictions and confusions to be highlighted, so that more genuine estimates of categorisation error might be specified.
Epistemology-the study of knowledge and justified belief.
Ontology-the study of existence and the nature of being.
This was a worthless article, and it mentioned NOTHING about funding schools more with federal tax dollars instead of spending it on war or about reforming our tax code to bring tax levels back to what they were in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
The authors are a groups of high gloss morons.
Diane, You and Randi are the only ones left.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/08/19/poll-common-core-support-among-teachers-plummets-with-fewer-than-half-supporting-it/
The only ones left to do what? Diane does NOT support the Common Core and hasn’t for two years.
Joseph, you are really absurd. You think I support Common Core? What world do you inhabit? Dreamland?
For Joseph, who needs help reading this: https://dianeravitch.net/2013/02/26/why-i-cannot-support-the-common-core-standards/
Dear Dr. Ravitch,
Thank you for the 2013 link why you don’t support CCSS. I’d read Death and Life GASS (& recommended to educators) after hearing you interviewed on NPR. Found your thought-provoking blog winter 2014 (thanks to all the snowstorms) but hadn’t read back to 2013. I fervently hope that your rehab from knee surgery is progressing well.
nothing wrong with the aim of common core standards, it’s the implementation – high stakes testing and teacher evaluations tied to the testing – that’s objectionable.
The problem with Communism was the implementation. They could never get it right.
So sad Diane, the “implementation”, you are the problem.
Joseph,
Diane is not a proponent of the CCSS. Please seek reading remediation to improve your comprehension skills. I recomment Reading Recovery. It is a wonderful program and could empower you.
Joseph–also improve your manners. It’s bad form to be showing disrespect to Diane on her own blog.
Thank you, Threatened Out West.
The interesting question is if humans could ever implement a centrally controlled society successfully. Certainly many here think it impossible in education.
I would guess, TE, that the amount of centralized control in a democratic society, depends on how responsive that agency is to its constituents. The larger the constituent base, the more likely that wants and needs will vary according to disparate beliefs and circumstances.
2old2tch,
I think you are right that large organizations have trouble responding to individual needs, thoughts and desires. Perhaps that is part of the reason why some parents like to have their students in charter schools rather than as one of the 1,100,000 students in the New York City Public School system.
That’s also why they like to have their children in a neighborhood public school.
2old,
I was thinking this is why they like to have their children in a school which is not part of such a large bureaucracy.
Read Wilson to understand why all is wrong with all educational standards including CCSS.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Yes everybody hates the implementation, but how ’bout the stds? ‘nothing wrong with the aim of’ gives you wiggle room- perhaps you like these stds, or perhaps you mean that national core std is a good aim but CCSS falls short?
As for me, I find little to like & much to loathe in CCSS-ELA, but that’s been done far better than I could on this blog (esp by Robert Shepherd). I cannot comment on math, glad to see others have. Agree w/TE that there’s less hostility, perhaps because as TeacherJulie says, CCSS-math differs little from the mediocrity which was already out there.
I think there is something wrong with the goal– creating uniform Nat’l ed stds. Yes our stds previously varied widely, which reflects a wide variation state to state in where ed sits in cultural/ financial priority. Trying to wipe that out by establishing a middle ground all should meet is folly. You can’t change culture, nor financial realities/priorities by fed fiat. Best to keep fed involvement very spare & tied to the constitution– let fed jump in w/both feet when warranted, i.e. when a state blatantly uses its ed dept to deny access to certain races. Leave the fine points of which ed milestones are reached when to the states.
Standards should be aspirational. Standards should govern equality of opportunity. Standards should not be handcuffs or a recipe.
Watching the gyrations of CCSS supporters is amusing. So far, there has been little justification for the math principals and order of importance other than some person’s belief. Math supporters, above all others, should be demanding proof of effectiveness beyond conjecture.
I see some confusion between standards and teaching strategies. CC$$ uses strategies in place of standards. Close reading is just one example. The math standards have many.
firstgrademonkey: there is also confusion among (a) lists of objectives (b) strategies and © standards …. a lot of confusion in how this is explained and described….
a commenter called Shiprock wrote this example at the Fordham Institute site yesterday. quoting Shiprock: “For instance, one of the essay questions equated Romeo and Juliet’s dilemma with AIDS among teenagers. R & J is about obsession and love and hatred, not about two kids doing stuff they are not supposed to be doing and dying of disease. The political predilection of the writers was evident in the form and content of the questions. ”
I had heard about the “hobby lobby ” curriculum they want to place in OK school; sounds like the common core /tests are infiltrate? I have no idea what state this came from as it was posted in an anonymous fashion.
The findings of this Education Next survey regarding the Common Core are evidence of the eroding support for this top-down and outside-in “reform”… but the major findings of the survey are unsettling:
1) While Americans asked to evaluate the quality of teachers’ work think, on average, that about half of the teachers in their local schools deserve a grade of A or B, they think that more than one-fifth deserve a D or F; even teachers give these low marks to more than 1 in 10 of their peers, on average.
2) More than one-fourth of all families with school-age children have educated a child in a setting other than a traditional public school.
3) The public thinks less money should be spent on class-size reduction relative to the amount spent on teacher salaries or new books and technologies, if they are told the relative price of each intervention.
If 25% of children in this country are no longer educated in a “traditional public school” we may be approaching a tipping point, especially given that those surveyed believe that 20% of the teachers warrant a D or F grade and the public is unwilling to spend more money to provide small classes for children in public schools. Those who support public education may be winning the battle against the “government imposed” NCLB, RTTT, and CCSS but we may also be losing the battle to gain support for “government schools”. Who wins as a result of this diminished support for RTTT and the CCSS? Maybe not public schools. http://waynegersen.com/2014/08/20/rttt-schadenfreude/
Since NY is two years ahead of the CC curve, I would love to see the survey result of New York teachers. Two straight years of abysmal scores with no end in sight. Let’s not forget that ESEA related testing has been a grade 3 to 8 program. Up until now, less than 50% of teachers have had any direct pressure to produce proficient tests scores. That of course is changing, especially regarding high school teachers. Here in NY, students took the CC aligned algebra I (grade 9) and ELA (grade 11) for the first time this June. We are still waiting on these scores which will, starting next year, determine graduation.
while listening to the radio in the car, NPR, someone noted that Algebra scores were placed on a curve that adjusted up 15 points but I neglected to write down the state and I didn’t keep the names of the interviewees in mind. Just curious if anyone knows which state so that I can follow up (for my own personal interest)… I follow Jack Hassard’s explanations of the Georgia State testing data and Helen Ladd (et al) wrote an interesting data report on the North Carolina tests and differential impact depending on context and circumstances so I just like to keep informed. Thanks
It might well be New York. NYSED has stated that they will set the cut scores on the new CC aligned algebra I exam so that the new test produces the same passing rate as the old Regents test (about 74%). The cut score on the old Regents required a raw score of 35% (30/85) to produce a passing score of 65%. Now I can only imagine how low the cut score will be to produce a passing rate of 74% on the new CC aligned, and much more difficult algebra test.