The New York State School Boards Association is running a poll to ask parents their views about the Common Core standards.
When I last checked, the results were overwhelmingly negative, with 78% saying the CC “hindered” learning, and 85% saying that the CC standards were viewed unfavorably by parents in their district.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
We should have been having this conversation before the Common Core was adopted in New York. Better late than never, but it’s shameful how David Coleman, Bill Gates, Arne Duncan, and others tried to push this through before parents could react. Well, we’re reacting now.
New York has been one to two years ahead of virtually every other state on CC implementation. The blame for this rests squarely on the shoulders of Andrew Cuomo.
His lust for earning political points in his presidential pipedream had him signing on before the standards were even written. He has claimed that the APPR teacher evaluation system that is one of his greatest accomplishments. Iannuzzi pulled a fast one on him when he got Cuomo to agree to letting local unions negotiate their own version of APPR, some much more punitive than others. These difference could open the door for future litigation.
Hope you are right, NY teacher, about the litigation. Let the wild rumpus of lawsuits begin. I hear the board of regents wants to make us New York-essee (Tennessee) by having all teachers take math and ELA state scores as part of the “local” eval portion. Because rigor. And the Pearson tests are flawless. It’s interesting that all NY teachers must have a master’s degree to receive professional certification, so that whole teacher incompetence thing that reformers promote is suspect here.
As a current school board member, I took that poll. In my district students who started in kindergarten with CCLS and are now third grad students are amazing! On the other hand my grandson, who is currently in sixth grade struggles along with many of his classmates. It is hard for anyone to change their approach to learning in the middle of their education…and so the mid level kids struggle. My grandson just received his state ed test scores and I told my daughter not to show them to him. He and most of his classmates who took the test ( many opted out) received disgustingly low scores. Meanwhile we are the second top rated district in western New York State. Needless to say I scored this poll low for CCLS. Had the state consulted educators and implemented it from kindergarten up their results would reflect better results. That said, I taught at-risk students and know their struggles. Based on Bloom’s taxonomy the CCLS doesn’t start with understanding and comprehension. They start at interpretation and analysis and test them with synthesis. This is not learning appropriate, wise or sensible and it certainly does not reflect the learning ability of our mid-level students.
I will be attending the NYSSBA conference in NYC the end of October and can’t wait to see how both approach and legislation are addressed.
Judith,
Consider the fact that the architect of CC, David Coleman, is a brilliant Rhodes scholar but never taught at any level and has no children. Now he heads the College Board. CC was not designed for most children, certainly not for struggling learners.
Judith,
Can you elaborate on how the current third grade staid ends are “amazing”? It sounds to me that you are a big fan of the CCLS but think that the across the board implementation is a problem.
Diane,
You make a great point about David Coleman’s background. Do you think the CC is “normed” on private school populations? Most teachers in independent private schools hold masters degrees and work with advantaged children. So, the constructivist allusions in the CC might have worked well in such a population and yet, doesn’t easily cross over into an environment of large classrooms, with bachelors level teachers and disadvantaged kids or kids with LD. It appears to me that this community has catastrophic blindspot when it comes to public schools.
Sschmidt, I think the Common Core standards are a reflection of David Coleman’s belief that being college-ready means being Yale-ready and Oxford-ready. The tests are aligned with NAEP proficient, which is the equivalent of an A. They are designed to fail most kids. In the real world, most students don’t earn As.
My 6 year-old child scores in the 92nd percentile of reading and was effectively computing 1000s , 100s, 10s, playing Monopoly…he is baffled by the CC aligned math that asks him to “write a different way to make 2 + 3= 5 “(horizontal). Incidentally, he answered by writing 2+ 3= 5 vertically. I had to laugh! He understands the meaning of numbers and yet has to draw endless circles (“it’s boring and makes my hand hurt”) and occasionally miscounts the circles to a simple computation that he already knows the answer to by memory. The deeper learning argument is slowing him down and confusing him. My 12 year old with LD performs math much more effectively using traditional methods involving repetition. The diagrams and lattices have only confused her and enforce a belief that she is academically incompetent. Now we have a problem with school anxiety.
We didn’t show test results to our daughters either.
Not showing my daughter either, she’s always gotten 4’s, (down to 2) not that I take stock in those 4 scores though. More importantly she’s a high 90’s student who loves to read, loves her teachers, school and extra curricular activities, so I refuse to let NYS steal her self concept. Also a bit angry with our own “top rated” school who allow her to be used like this.
I asked, pleaded with her to opt out; however she was adamant about taking them along with her classmates; trusting her district like a student should be able to do, but being hoodwinked in the process.
Interestingly, LAUSD has chosen to borrow the controversial Engage New York math program, not in whole, but it has downloaded and distributed their tests for teachers to give as the quarterly mandated assessment. Is the vocabulary the same as in our district provided program? Why, no. Is the scope and sequence the same? Nope. But somehow this test is supposed to give me needed feedback on how my students are doing. Now we are assured this test will “not count” in either the students’ or teachers’ achievement rating…but then why are we mandated to give it? I sometimes think the district believes teachers won’t be teaching unless a mandated test is on the horizon, holding our collective feet to the fire.
Sorry to hear you are using the modules. One observation is that those who have used them, have students who score much lower than those who use Pearson or other more traditional methods. Someone is profiting from engageny, but it isn’t students.
Am I mistaken in thinking that the CC Standards and any assessments attached to the standards are two separate entities?
You are mistaken. The standards and tests are joined.
This is how PARCC is described on their own site:
“PARCC is based on the core belief that assessment should work as a tool for enhancing teaching and learning. Because the assessments are aligned with the new, more rigorous Common Core State Standards (CCSS), they ensure that every child is on a path to college and career readiness by measuring what students should know at each grade level.”
I see why the distinction between the CC and PARCC would matter to policy people or the people who developed the Common Core, but I don’t know why they keep insisting it would matter to parents or students.
This is the Common Core test in PARCC states. That’s a fact. Can they use another test? Well, I guess so. Are they? No.
The repeated insistence that one has nothing to do with the other seems weirdly legalistic to me. Are they two different things? Yes. Does that matter at all in a “PARRC state”? No, not really. Not if you’re a student or a parent.
The companion assessments (PARCC or SBAC or state equivalent) to the Common Core standards were a REQUIREMENT for Race to the Top and/or the federal NCLB waiver. In addition, teacher evaluations tied to the test scores and a student test data harvesting were also required. All four elements REQUIRED by Obama/Duncan. Siamese quadruplets conjoined at the wallet. All of this can be traced back to the ESEA which has languished in Congress limbo. Nothing can really change until the ESEA/NCLB is re-written and reauthorized, or repealed in its entirety.
Wendy Lerolland: CCSS and high-stakes standardized are not conceived of, or being implemented, by those in positions of authority as two separate entities.
This was explicitly made clear by Dr. Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, a true believer in self-styled “education reform” and a charter member of the education establishment, in a December 2013 posting on his blog:
[start quote]
And that brings us back to the Common Core. If the standards are better than those that many states had in place, swell. If more common reading and math standards make things easier for material developers and kids who move across states, that’s fine. But I don’t think that stuff amounts to all that much.
In truth, the idea that the Common Core might be a “game-changer” has little to do with the Common Core standards themselves, and everything to do with stuff attached to them, especially the adoption of common tests that make it possible to readily compare schools, programs, districts, and states (of course, the announcement that one state after another is opting out of the two testing consortia is hollowing out this promise).
But the Common Core will only make a dramatic difference if those test results are used to evaluate schools or hire, pay, or fire teachers; or if the effort serves to alter teacher preparation, revamp instructional materials, or compel teachers to change what students read and do. And, of course, advocates have made clear that this is exactly what they have in mind. When they refer to the “Common Core,” they don’t just mean the words on paper–what they really have in mind is this whole complex of changes.
[end quote]
The above can be accessed via the following link, which also contains crucial contextual information:
Link: http://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/the-american-enterprise-institute-common-core-and-good-cop/
😎
Coleman is now head of the College Board and plans to align the SAT to the CCSS. This will be cause from private schools to walk in step with CCSS too.
Sschmit, what a perfect scheme. Coleman–who never taught anyone anything except at McKinsey & Co.–is architect of the Common Core and then is conveniently made CEO of the College Board, where he can align the college admissions tests with his creation. Checks and balances? Nah!
Reblogged this on Femininican and commented:
When I, a New York parent, voted in the poll, the results were still overwhelmingly negative about the deplorable Common Core.
In NY, my son’s 1st grade teacher (13 year teaching veteran) had me drinking the Common Core Kool-Aid. She seemed that as our district teachers were angered by implementation issues. They are in the acceptance phase of grief and I was starting to buy in just a bit.
But then was reminded that my other role as a social worker for emotionally disturbed youth kicked in. I was reminded about just how unrealistic these new standards in New York are for them. Change is needed and thanks for advocating for us in New York.
Who knew that so many NY state parents were so ignorant about what was best for their kids? Good thing the wealthy Common Core backers are there to influence state officials, or this could degenerate into a travesty!
I don’t think President Obama, Arne Duncan, Bill Gates, the Koch brothers or the Walton family—and all the other billionaires driving the corporate Charter bus—care what anyone else thinks.
Explaining why is easy. The only people who count are these narcissists and sociopaths. To them, we are all fools because they have all the answers—-and more money and power. To them, wealth makes them right.
A good percentage of CC creators were tied to testing companies. They wrote the standards so they would be uniform and testable. The standards are limited by their test ability. Parents are realizing the game. They are opting students out and saying no to the Coleman SAT. If the CC was good for students -teachers would be the biggest cheerleaders. I don’t hear any cheering.
What’s worse than booing—much worse? That’s my reaction.
Someone asked what I meant by blogging that our k – 3 students who had known nothing but CCLS were amazing. The depth of understanding, their vocabulary they converse in, the questions they ask are clearly reflective of higher level thinking but a lot of scaffolding has to be done for challenged students. I am not fond of CCLS and I totally disagree with high stakes testing and the way it effects good creative teaching.
Judith,
You are not fond a curriculum that where students “…..who had known nothing but CCLS were amazing. The depth of understanding, their vocabulary they converse in, the questions they ask are clearly reflective of higher level thinking”?
What sort of curriculum would you be fond of?
As a parent of a child who has been taught under CC since K, I think there are many flaws, mostly in the excessive narrowing of skills that are being harped on over and over. The students may ask “high level questions” or demonstrate what appears to be “high level thinking,” but their immature, inexperienced and concrete brains do it in a way that reflects more parroting, rather than deep understanding.
They can’t possibly have deep understanding, as they are still percolating, they are still acquiring information like sponges. I removed my child from public school because, for those children who learn to parrot and mimic, I think it will actually close their brains down and limit the absorption of new content, because they are too busy thinking about “high level” demonstrations of their knowledge. It does not invoke creativity, or inspire true curiosity or lead them to search for more information at all. But rather they learn how to continuously validate their thoughts or opinions in a never-ending attempt to prove they are right, with supporting “evidence from the text.”
I think this will be one of those unanticipated consequences that we won’t get a second chance to fix once the damage is done.
“I am not fond of CCLS”
What does that acronym stand for?
Duane,
I think it is Common Core Learning Standards, but I am not sure.
For your attention…I just examined the Wikipedia description of Common Core State Standards Initiative. It is all propaganda. Would someone please take on the noble task to add the truth??