Mercedes Schneider analyzes the recent polls on Common Core and spies an effort to rescue the CCSS from the wreckage.
The bottom-line, she says, is that the development of Common Core was top-down, not state-led.
“Here’s the reality: CCSS was conceived, organized, produced, monitored, and promoted by “the few,” the most obvious CCSS “top downers” being the two organizations that drafted the CCSS MOU (memorandum of understanding) and that hold the CCSS license: The National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). And these two groups were clear in their positioning an NGA-corporate-run nonprofit, Achieve, at the center of CCSS development, as well as two testing companies (ACT and College Board)– and in tapping the federal government for undeniable involvement in funding all but CCSS creation– with the feds forking over $350 million for the steering wheel of the CCSS venture– the CCSS consortium assessments. Moreover, even though it was drafted and signed by governors of 45 states, DC, and three territories prior to the formal launching of Obama and Duncan’s Race to the Top (RTTT), RTTT is mentioned in the CCSS MOU.
“So, for the public to have the perception that the federal government “initiated” CCSS (PDK/Gallup wording) or “requires all states to use CCSS” (EdNext wording) reflects not only the federal government’s notable role in the CCSS “venture,” but also the very public efforts of US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to 1) instruct the press on how to report on CCSS, 2) blame “white suburban moms” for CCSS resistance, and 3) threaten to revoke No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waivers when states choose to be “state led” away from CCSS.”
She predicts:
“CCSS will fall, and it will not be because a grass roots, ground-up education reform died from “political polarization.”
“CCSS will fail because no matter how much one fertilizes and waters AstroTurf, it cannot change it into real grass– with roots.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Hi Diane, love your blog! going on in Newark NJ now, hundreds of parents trying to get their child registered for school under the One Newark Plan, total chaos! Lawless Cami Anderson along with Chris Christie has really done a number on this school system!
Polls. When you want to know what people think, you conduct a survey. You measure opinion. You quantify.
What could go wrong?
😳
Plenty!
😱
But, but, but, it’s just like high-stakes standardized testing. IQ tests. Charter school graduation rates. Taking students from the 13th to the 90th percentile. These are hard data points like 98% of all teachers get a perfunctory “satisfactory” on their evals [thank you, Mr. Bill Gates!]. What mere mortal can argue with that?
😒
I refer readers of this blog to the astonishing results of a ‘scientific’ poll of teachers that ‘proved’ that 75% of teachers supported CCSS.
The poll exists. Really!
The poll is meaningful, accurate, and trustworthy. Rheeally! In a Johnsonally sort of way…
😕
Link: http://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/weingarten-wants-me-to-want-the-common-core-state-standards/
Then there is the follow-up, on this blog, of 5/10/2013, “Hart Research Responds to Schneider: Correction.” In the thread are additional comments by the redoubtable Dr. Mercedes Schneider.
When it comes to charterite/privatizer math, “squishy” doesn’t begin to describe their numbers and stats. See this blog, 8/11/2014, “The Holes in the Chetty et al VAM Study as seen by the American Statistical Association” and an earlier posting on same of 4/12/2014 entitled “BREAKING NEWS: American Statistical Association Issue Caution on Use of VAM.”
If Value-Addled Modeling can’t stand close scrutiny, I fear AstroTurf poll numbers may meet the same fate.
😏
But then, the numbers/stats folks in the employ of the leading charterites/privatizers are focused on ‘large data sets’ and not silly things like ethics and honesty and transparency in research:
“Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.” [Mark Twain]
Go figure…
😎
This is for Mercedes. It’s the California plan to rebrand and resell the Common Core. They hired some sort of marketing company and the goal is to “reframe” the discussion and stop using all the scare tactics that have been used and adopt a positive tone that doesn’t trash students, teachers and public schools.
It’s actually pretty good. I agree with most of the suggestions. If you read the column on the left you’ll find the exact language that was used by ed reformers to sell the CC, then a critique of why that language was ineffective and unpersuasive with the public, and how to re-work it.
Some of it is funny.
For example. “The untested metaphor ‘building a plane in the air’ is unhelpful. Won’t we crash?”
They take ed reformers to task for encouraging a “consumerist” frame, when they should be using a “public good” frame. I don’t think they’ll make much progress there, since Duncan uses a “consumerist” frame almost exclusively as does his twin, Jeb Bush.
“A “public good”? What’s that?” 🙂
Click to access CCSS_FAQ.pdf
Chiara, thank you for this link.
It is priceless.
Here’s an excerpt of the suggested sell:
Our teachers are professionals who understand how to use standards in general and who can adjust to these particular standards with time and support.
If we think about these standards as a blueprint for
remodeling the way we approach teaching and learning,
all of us in education recognize have to roll up our sleeves
and get to work on this renovation. These standards are
asking teachers, and all of us, to build better learning
environments for our students.
Warm and fuzzy top-down.
It has taken them this long to determine that the “building a plane while it’s flying” metaphor is unproductive and misguided? Didn’t most of us know that the moment we saw the hokey video?
>Today the key issue for employers is not whether workers know certain content but rather how they go about finding, verifying, and applying information.<
Content free education. Oxymoronic. Will produce morons.
There is so much wrong in this sentence, yet it is the new foundation for teaching un-teachable thinking skills.
What astounds me is that you can tell from all the lies that they all seem to know how this should have happened. It should have been internationally benchmarked, designed by content experts and experienced educators. They had millions of dollars and a real opportunity to create something good and by their false claims you know they know what should have happened. I can’t figure out why they did it so incorrectly. I think if they had done it the way they claim to have done and created standards in an open process, the opportunity would have still been there to make money creating quality curriculum and providing teacher training.
Sarah5565, you’re right to be confounded. I’m convinced that they did it simply for expediency. I talked with someone the other day who is meeting with DOE officials for a program contract. He said everything is done with the rush knowing they have an extremely limited time to make an impact. Democracy be damned.
Sarah, those advocating test-driven reforms in general view the democratic process as too complicated (and too out of their control) to really follow it. They prefer a single person or small non-stakeholder group making decisions and passing along to stakeholders. It’s the “do as I say” method– no accountability for those at the top but all of the responsibility for shiny outcomes on the heads of those with the most to lose.
In order to sell their self-serving ideas, they wrap them in the false packaging of the “way it should be done.” It’s all a sales pitch to quell the masses: “If we tell them we did it the right way, they’ll believe us.” And when the cracks in their top-down impositions begin to show, they try to either blame the recipients of their messes or spin a message that the cracks aren’t really cracks at all.
When the collapse comes, those at the top (popular media included) turn their attention to repackaging– like RTTT– and let the failure flounder– like NCLB– or like constant charter turnover– or like a moratorium on high-stakes testing– or like merit pay– or like small schools.
Or like Michelle Rhee and her 2008 TIME magazine broom.
I could go on.
It was all ad hoc. Basically, just three people designed it. David Coleman and his two trusted, long-time associates, none of them educators or with the faintest notion of human (let alone child) psychology.
Was it just hubris and greed then. Are the folks who paid for real standards to be developed angry yet?
God, I almost get the chills when Mercedes lays out the facts like she has done–AGAIN–here.
Karen, I wrote a book on CCSS history/development/promotion this summer. It is due to be published in the spring of 2015. I found it difficult not to bring in some of the content in writing this post.
I once offered to raise the money to pay for an index for your next book. It was a sincere offer that still stands. You are providing a public service with your books Mercedes.
Thank you, Karen. My second book will have an index. The publisher will take care of it, and the cost will come out of the royalties.
Common Core does not seem to be failing in California. Does anyone know what it is going to take to make that happen in Vergara Land?
Smarter Balanced tests.
Thanks, NYT. I have a lot to learn.
Unfortunately, the principal who told us this morning she and the admin team were going to be in our rooms frequently this year, won’t be going away soon.
You and I talked about “presentation” the other day. I’m going have to teach her about reality.
Because it has barely been implemented in California. You wouldn’t know that because of the slick PR campaign that pretends all is going famously. The most blatant recent installment of that campaign was published over the signature of former and failed “education mayor” Antonio Villaraigosa in the Wall Street Journal. In the Op Ed, Villaraigosa claimed to have empirical evidence that prior to 2013, Common Core in California had already produced remarkable results. He had seen students who were “more engaged and motivated, thinking critically, solving problems and digging deeper into the issues instead of simply memorizing facts. They’re working individually and in groups and developing communications and research skills they will need to thrive in the 21st century.”
“As mayor of Los Angeles from 2005-2013, I met countless dedicated and hardworking teachers who were changing their teaching style to meet the new Common Core State Standards.”
Earth to Tony: Common Core was not implemented in California before 2013. What you saw back then was just good teaching.
Because CCSS aligned curriculum is still being developed in California, and teachers have had next to no professional development on the new curriculum, Governor Jerry Brown and State Superintendent Tom Torlakson fiercely rejected the use of Smarter Balanced assessments to measure achievement. Once those tests “count,” I predict the sleeping giant of parents and teachers with firsthand experience will be awakened like we saw in New York. Stay tuned.
I hope you can answer a question.
The district has begun training us to use methods that make the teacher the “guide” rather than the imparter of education. Some teachers do well with this style. Also, some of us feel pressure to teach as guides when our strength has always been direct instruction. If we use the “guide” method, it will take a few years to get good at it. Also, if our students don’t learn while we are transitioning, we will still be held accountable even though we used methods that were required by the district, and not our own.
What way of teaching would you advise based on the scenario?
Thanks.