I am not exactly sure what “Intelligence Squared” is, but it sponsored an interesting debate about Common Core. Here is the transcript. Here is the video.
Speaking for Common Core was Mike Petrilli, president of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute, and Carmel Martin, formerly assistant secretary for civil rights in the U.S. Department of Education and a strong enthusiast for Race to the Top as well as the Common Core.
Speaking in opposition to the proposition of embracing the Common Core was Carol Burris, principal of South Side High School in Rockville Center in New York, and Rick Hess of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
I found Burris and Hess far more persuasive than Petrilli and Martin.
Petrilli assured us that we need high standards, and that the Common Core standards are the best standards around. Martin offered an anecdote about a student she met who thought she was well-prepared but learned she was not when she got to college. Both said they had talked to teachers. They also insisted that the Common Core was not top-down, but was bottom up. They claimed that the standards could be changed, apparently unaware that they are copyrighted and allegedly cannot be changed, only added to.
Petrilli and Martin had the talking points one would use to persuade legislators. But it was clear that neither know much about the mismatch between the cognitive demands of the CCSS and the developmental readiness of children. They seemed to believe that school can never be “too hard,” that notated how high you set the bar, all children will reach it. This, if you push fourth grad material down to first grade or even kindergarten, kids will learn it.
Burris, the only real workaday educator among the group, said she initially supported the Common Core but turned against them as she realized that so many of them were just age-inappropriate and wrong. She had facts and experience. She gave examples from the standards, and the audience laughed. She spoke knowledgably about the math standards. She is an educator.
Hess expressed his doubts about the value of having a single way of teaching reading and math to 50 million students. I was impressed by his reasonable conservatism. He doesn’t hate the Common Core. He just thinks that too many people are embracing them without any real evidence that they will do what they claim to do.
From what I heard and read, this was a big win for Burris and Hess. They were right on the facts, right on the concerns, right on the cautions. Burris was especially informed, because she speaks from real-life experience as a working principal.
The studio audience voted for Petrilli and Martin. The online voters supporters Burris and Hess. Watch, read, cast your ballot.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I found it quite interesting that the Web votes during and the morning after the “debate” ran 89% against and only 11% for, while the audience vote ran about 2:1 in favor. It was also interesting to see that both sides nearly split their take of the undecideds.
Given the connctions between the sponsors, like Gates-funded NPR, and the Common Core, I would not take the audience polling too seriously. The Web poll, I would imagine is a better indicator of the pulbic mood, since both sides had identical access to voting.
I was there. The audience was filled with representatives from Education 4 Excellence and a few hardcore “Stop Common Core” supporters.
Petrilli did a good job, but this is something that he is does well
Carmel Martin was stiff, talked marketing points and when asked point blank if Common Core standards were under copyright, her response was “No, they are not” Fortunately, Carol Burris was able to correct that statement. She had other misstatements and the transcript edited out a couple of things that I clearly remember.
Carol Burris was the only professional educator with practical insight into what is happening in NY schools under Common Core. She scored many points.
Rick Hess was made some could points, especially about how easily cut scores can be manipulated.
Not surprised. Thanks for the details!
I just my earlier response. Please forgive all the grammatical problems! I should not post before at least three cups of coffee.
The audience was comprised of E4E members with clapping cue cards. This is the same organization that issued a script for the
Support the core twitter campaign that flopped. Evidently their members need guidance and cue cards to support the Gates led federal standards. Petrilli even joked that Gates bought the tickets for them. It was all so funny to him.
Then the “against” side probably did quite well to get what they could.
Clapping cue cards?! For real? So E4E members aren’t insulted by being treated like trained seals? I sure would be?
Dienne: what you said.
Just when you think the self-styled “education reform” crowd couldn’t possibly make itself look any more ridiculous—
“Clapping cue cards?!” to quote you.
I am almost speechless.
And these are the folks that hold as the highest truths “cage busting achievement gap crushing 21st century disruptive innovation” and castigate the rest of us for not using our brains to think of anything new and different?
By their own standards, the following fits them to a tee:
“Man is the only kind of varmint sets his own trap, baits it, then steps in it.” [John Steinbeck]
😎
Award winning, Mike Petrilli, who received the award from his employer? I noticed his bio on the Fordham site, no longer includes his ed credentials, a BS in Political Science. Education has been taken over by right wing think tanks and the grifters who work for them.
“Burris, the only real workaday educator among the group, said she initially supported the Common Core but turned against them as she realized that so many of them were just age-inappropriate and wrong. ”
How true ! JUst one example: I have a keen eye on my grandchildren as they move through the system- have different skills, abilities, talents and interests. My one four year old grandson was in pre- school last year and entered K this Sept. Last year was spent on drilling the names and the sounds of the alphabet. After looking at his homework this past week, I asked him the sound of a few letters- he didn’t know the sounds; he didn’t remember them from pre-school. Learning the sounds and names for a four year old was not meaningful to him. He has a phenomenal vocabulary, imagination, follows the directions on legos packs…but rote learning of the alphabet was meaningless to him as well as the sight words he brought home. There was no recall or transfer.
He has traveled extensively already for a four year old -to Equator and Colombia. He is very iPad literate. He can find his programs independently. The time in pre-school would be of far greater value if more time was spent reading good literature to the children -not just one story but many during the day; have them respond via dramatizing, role playing, singing, building, working with clay, playing outside building large muscles. … Singing and reciting nursery rhymes are a far better preparation for learning the sounds – developing auditory discrimination.
I was in the audience and would like to share observations about the way IQ2 determined who won the debate.
At the beginning of the event, John Donvan, the moderator, asked people to raise their hands if they supported the motion to embrace the Common Core. He observed that nearly everyone in the auditorium raised their hand. He then asked people to vote on the electronic devices by their seats.
At the end of the evening, people voted again. The winner would be which side convinced more people to switch sides.
The screens showed that 50% of the audience had supported the motion at the beginning of the evening, but now 67% people supported the motion! For anyone who watched Carmel Martin squirm when asked to present evidence for the Common Core, this result is laughable.
Afterwards, Leonie Haimson told me that Michael Petrilli had just informed her that Educators 4 Excellence had brought a large crowd. Did they know how the game would be scored?
No matter. Carol Burris was the star of the evening who explained, with detail and humor, how the Common Core wreaks havoc on schools.
Not exactly a fair match-up, was it? What’s that Kurt Vonnegut story where all the smart people have to have a bell going off in their ears to distract them and make them dumber to equalize things?
Of course, Carol Burris still could have trounced Mike Petrelli.
“Harrison Bergeron”
Thank you! I’m sure I would have remembered around 3:00 this morning.
It is exhausting to watch RealEducators continuously having to defend:
what we know,
what research tells us,
how experience guides us,
how children learn,
We have high expectations for children,
We know how to educate kids.
We are:
DICTATED TO BY just about EVERY Non-Educator,
Ignored & Discredited,
To Compete with GATE$ & Bottom-feeders,
To Compete with Flim-Flam Men setting up shop wherever there are children,
Replaced by Harvard Economists as EducExperts,
Voted down in televised popularity contests,
Living in a BAD Reality Show,
Waiting for Deformers to find another lucrative profession & LetUsTeach.
The ‘Debate’ was RealEducators vs Impostors & the audience chose – Impostors WIN!
Amen Brother….Preach it.
Testify!
“Close hearing”
Tell ’em what they want to hear
And you’ll win the public ear
Tell ’em that you have your doubt
And they’ll surely tune you out
Pitrllli heads Fordham and website, EdNext. Fordham was founded in Ohio and still has a presence. One of Ohio’s newspapers, at the time Kasich pushed for legislation to gut the unions, had an editorial page editor, who wrote the paper’s position in support of Kasich’s bill. At referendum, the voters defeated the bill by a 2/3 vote. The editor moved on and now, is a free lancer at EdNext. Small world.
The best Kasich-ism this past week was about if the Common Core standards are “goofy”, he’ll pull ’em. Goofy apparently the official analytical term now for evidence based education. I’ll bet Kasich’s handlers cringe whenever the gov gets in front of a camera.
The standards are talked about by a lot of people who have never read them,
are clueless about their practical implications, and are more willing to pontificate than learn about them. That has been true from the get-go when states signed up to “adopt” them.
I skimmed this video, but in the portions I saw, Rick Hess was very compelling.
Me parece Kabuki este “debate”.
I attended the debate. Much of the audience comprised teachers from Educators4excellence, which strongly supports CC, and hence the voting results from the audience. Also, I was troubled by Carmel Martin’s gratuitous comment that the student in her long story who received As in high school but then struggled in college was African-American, even though that had nothing to do with the story.
I thought it funny AEI complained about students reading EPA reports. While AEI is strange bedfellows, it is still the Chamber pushing CCSS. I don’t trust them.
The lack of evidence SHOULD cause people to reject the standards. What supporters are hoping now is that supporting evidence will come rolling in from this massive experiment.
I urge viewers of this blog to download the transcript so they can read it through at their own pace, with the opportunity to backtrack and skip forward as often as they like.
I agree with the posting as to the general tenor of the discussion.
One thing struck me in particular. So I double checked a line in the above posting regarding a critical point.
From pp. 45-46 of the transcript file:
[start quote]
Female Speaker: I have a quick question. I’m the mother of a special needs child. I am also a teacher of English language learners. But my question is, are these standards copyrighted? And as a result of that, can teachers veer off the script? That’s my question.
John Donvan: Let’s take it to Carmel Martin.
Carmel Martin: Yeah. They are not copyrighted. They’re open. And teachers — I think where we see Common Core being implemented effectively, teachers aren’t following a script. What we see is that the — as I said in my opening, the standards create guide posts, a destination. And teachers are able to then construct lessons so they can differentiate for the children in their class. We have heard very positive things from teachers of special ed students, that in some ways, they’re better than the old way because it allows you to get the answer through different methodologies — and math, for example, it’s — allows for different ways to get to the answer.
So, I would say that they should not feel scripted. I do think, in some places, with that — with those bad instructional leadership, they’re being given scripts and told to follow the script. But I don’t think that’s the right way to implement the standards. And I don’t think the standards themselves dictate that. I think the standards really try to shift in the direction of giving teachers more freedom, like the teacher that I quoted in my opening had mentioned.
John Donvan: Carol Burris.
Carol Burris: The Common Core standards most certainly are copyrighted.
[applause]
They are. And I really — all of you. Go online tonight and look. You’re going to see that they’re copyrighted. They’re not allowed to be changed. When they’re adopted by states, states may add 15 percent, but they cannot change any of the standards. That’s one of the problems. Second, in terms of scripts, if you look, in New York State, Engage New York, we spent over $28 million for curriculum.
And that curriculum is full of script. And those scripts — at Engage New York, at least you publicly praised when you’ve talked to — I think it was the Governor’s Commission, you said how wonderful Engage New York is. They truly are scripts. And we find so many teachers who are so afraid to go off-script, to not teach exactly what —
John Donvan: All right.
Carol Burris: — Engage New York says —
John Donvan: You’ve made the point —
[end quote]
The “copyright” issue is not brought up again.
For those who have not followed the rather complex ed debates for at least the last few years, it is possible to get lost in some of the rhetoric and charges/counter-charges.
But one thing is startlingly clear: leading spokespeople for the CCSS that don’t know they are copyrighted have zero credibility. This is not a small issue. This is not even the A of the ABC’s of CCSS.
This debate illustrates why stars of the education establishment like Michelle Rhee and David Coleman won’t debate or engage in a public discussion with Diane Ravitch. They not only can’t make their case; they reveal their own abject ignorance of the very eduproducts they are promoting.
And worst of all for them: their foolish statements are recorded for all to see and read.
😎
I watched part of it and read the transcript. The principal had the more difficult job, because her and her “partner” were making two different arguments against the CC and the “pro” side were making the same argument.
I thought the most revealing part was when one of the “pro” people said that states are using the EngageNY materials. That doesn’t surprise me at all, as a practical matter. The EngageNY materials are available and states were mandated to start this so they’re using what’s available.
It does go against the claim that this is “state specific” though. I personally don’t have any objection to Ohio using NY’s materials but if that’s what’s happening they should admit it.
They won’t, because that would be politically damaging but the practical reality is probably important to mention to people.
“Petrilli and Martin had the talking points one would use to persuade legislators.”
This is the part that bothers me most because it’s the legislators who are responsible for making the decision. If the “pro” side is the one making the persuasive arguments, then the rest of us won’t be heard. We need to start speaking the legislators’ language or we will be shut down every time.
I wish Burris would expand on the points she raised about how this was developed starting at “college and career ready” (12th grade, I guess) and then DOWN.
She didn’t have an opportunity to flesh it out in this forum, but I’m interested in that. if it’s true and I understand what she said, it’s a good argument to make to parents of younger children because that’s what they are saying. They are saying the level is wrong for younger children – I think they have clued in on that criticism themselves.
She made the point that children are at different points at different ages – it doesn’t follow a straight line – a third grader isn’t simply a younger 10th grader.
This is exactly what parents here are complaining about, although they don’t have the language and experience to describe it as well as she does (nor do I, actually) 🙂
Anyway, I think that would be helpful to parents, and it might also be effective because I didn’t hear any strong defense from the “pro” side on that point.
Did they start at what students have to know in 12th grade and then just work down in year by year (even) steps to 3rd grade?
“Is your district ready for the college and career readiness assessments to count this year? After years of debate, hand wringing, and detailed preparation, many students will be taking high-stakes tests this spring that will be used to assess teachers, students’ progress, and much more. Check in with our experts for this virtual event as they help you through a last-minute checklist, covering:
Getting students ready to take tests online
How to test your computers and connections for the big moment
What last-minute professional learning will help your staff
How to communicate the tests and results to your parents clearly”
Keep repeating, “it’s not about the tests, it’s not about the tests, it’s not about the tests” although that is OBVIOUSLY not true.
I love that kids somehow WON’T KNOW how high-stakes these tests are. Of course they’ll know. They spend all their time in school. They’re not idiots.
Why not just present this to them honestly? “We’ve decided as a country that you should take a high stakes test twice a year. We think that’s a good idea.”
I could respect that. They know anyway.
https://event.on24.com/eventRegistration/EventLobbyServlet?target=registration.jsp&eventid=845080&sessionid=1&key=CE062D4997A9FA837912256C3EBFDBD9&sourcepage=register
Intelligence Squared is a wonderful debating program where the current issues of the today are presented with pro and con arguments so that you can draw your own conclusions following the quality of the arguments and information you heard. It does not tell you what to think but it presents all of the convincing evidence on both sides. I like it because some of the debators are experts in that issue. It is carried on NPR but originated in England.
I was curious about the funders of the Fordham Foundation so I went to their site where they have 2012 data provided. In the Ohio Funding category, I found the Ohio Federation of Teachers, United Way of Central Ohio and United Way of Greater Toledo, listed.
One would think that funding from the Walton, Arnold, Harry and Lynne Bradley and Gates Foundations would be sufficient.
Correction-“Institute” replacing “foundation”. Namesake, the same.
More like “Embrace the Common Core.” A Debate?
I’m fascinated by this thread of “Common Core standards are the best standards around”… Here’s what CCSS supporters don’t realize:
It is mathematically impossible for Common Core to do more than elevate overall educational outcome by 1% to 3%. How’s that?
1. Educational outcome is what’s critical. But, a large portion of education is not strictly academic – like learning how to learn, learning how to research, learning how to investigate, learning how tow irk in groups. Etc. (I estimate this to be about 1/2 of what schools have to deliver.)
2. Of the academic, about half of the academics are social studies, sciences, arts, technology, engineering related, etc. (I figure this is about 1/2 of the academics.)
3. That leaves reading/writing/arithmetic. Important, but only 25% of education. And yet, standards and scores can only cover about 1/2 of any area (a truth we know clearly in business – tho’ many businessmen forget it often).
—->So bottom line: CCSS affects 12.5% of education. Suppose it has an amazingly large 20% improvement in this area… That would be a 2.5% impact on education.
Maybe I’m wrong – maybe CCSS covers 16% of education. We’re still down in tiny numbers.
Or a CCSS enthusiast might suggest that CCSS is so fundamental it drives everything. But I don’t see it. My boys don’t learn reading by focusing on reading. They learn reading because they’re passionate about social studies. The standards based reading instruction has been a bust. But loving social studies my oldest has elevated his reading by vast leaps.
I’ve laid out this logic in a video on the Oregon Save Our Schools YouTube page. It also covers costs – and I estimate the net cost of CCSS et. al. in Oregon is about $300M per year.