I have neither endorsed nor rejected the Common Core national standards, for one simple reason: They are being rolled out in 45 states without a field trial anywhere. How can I say that I love them or like them or hate them when I don’t know how they will work when they reach the nation’s classrooms?
In 2009, I went to an event sponsored by the Aspen Institute where Dane Linn, one of the project directors for developing the standards, described the process. I asked if they intended to pilot test them, and I did not get a “yes” answer. The standards were released early in 2010. By happenstance, I was invited to the White House to meet with the head of the President’s Domestic Policy Council, the President’s education advisor, and Rahm Emanuel. When asked what I thought of the standards, I suggested that they should be tried out in three or four or five states first, to work out the bugs. They were not interested.
I have worked on state standards in various states. When the standards are written, no one knows how they will work until teachers take them and teach them. When you get feedback from teachers, you find out what works and what doesn’t work. You find out that some content or expectations are in the wrong grade level; some are too hard for that grade, and some are too easy. And some stuff just doesn’t work at all, and you take it out.
The Common Core will be implemented in 45 states without that kind of trial. No one knows if they will raise expectations and achievement, whether they will have no effect, whether they will depress achievement, or whether they will be so rigorous that they increase the achievement gaps.
Tom Loveless of the Brookings Institution thinks they won’t matter.
The conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute, which received large grants from the Gates Foundation to evaluate the standards and has supported them vigorously, estimates that the cost of implementing them will be between $1 billion and $8.3 billion. The conservative Pioneer Institute estimates that the cost of implementation would be about $16 billion, and suggests this figure is a “mid-range” estimate.
The Gates Foundation, lest we forget, paid to develop the standards, paid to evaluate the standards, and is underwriting Pearson’s program to create online courses and resources for the standards, which will be sold by Pearson, for a profit, to schools across the nation.
Of course, every textbook publisher now says that its products are aligned with the Common Core standards, and a bevy of consultants have come out of the woodwork to teach everyone how to teach them.
In these times of austerity, I wonder how much money districts and states have available to implement the standards faithfully. I wonder how much money they will put into professional development. I wonder about the quality of the two new assessments that the U.S. Department of Education laid out $350 million for.
These are things I wonder. But how can I possibly pass judgment until I find out how the standards work in real classrooms with real children and real teachers?
Diane
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The CC with be detrimental because of all the money trailing it, more tests, more tests, more tests.
I am a fan of close reading, and I am actually enough of a dinosaur to miss the field of literary analysis’ focus on it, instead of literary theory. However, I know what will happen, especially in the lower grades, kids will no longer study the memoir, write creatively, or enjoy finding their own voice. It will, pure and simply, be all about what is tested. There will no longer be enough time for anything else.
In this highly analytical society, through video games, and the very act of negotiating electronics, kids already live in a world dominated by left brain thinking. Kids need more opportunity to develop creativity, play, dreaming, this is what makes American education exceptional. This is what always did, at least.
To give one answer to your question. It is easy to pass negative judgement on the standards. See Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” (1-abstract) at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577 . The concept of using “educational standards” is fraught with error. What is a “standard”? Is it the demarcation line that separates the good from the bad? Is it the “measuring device” itself? Is it a combination of the two and/or even more or less? What are the factors of error involved in using an educational “standard”? Wilson estimates that 1 out of 5 standardized test scores is miscategorized due to the various errors involved in the whole process. Is that an error rate we should accept? (Not in my mind.)
No, we shouldn’t accept educational standards because at face value the concept is invalid as shown by Wilson in “A Little Less than Valid: An Essay Review” found at: http://www.edrev.info/essays/v10n5index.html . Now that doesn’t mean that each teacher shouldn’t have curriculum guides (big difference from the concepts of “standards” which implies by definition “measurement”) that help the teacher throughout the semester/year. And that on a school by school basis that the curriculum not only is aligned across the grade level but also in conjunction with what came before and what will follow. But that can and should be a very local decision as it is only at the school level we can determine what needs to be done for the students in our care.
1-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 the 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 trivialisation 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.
Ironically states have opted out of NCLB because they know they can’t meet the requirement that all children read at grade level, yet these same states have opted into the Common Core which assumes all children read a grade level and if they don’t they must.
I’m afraid this latest great social experiment could be that perilous straw.
Check this out, read the transcript in which David Coleman lays out his outrageous assumptions about what happens in classrooms.
http://usny.nysed.gov/rttt/resources/bringing-the-common-core-to-life.html
Admittedly I skipped to the topic areas of his speech and then to the inevitable canned intro piece. The intro was about ethics and honesty and his gosh darn nod to how teachers are more time aware than those gosh darn standards writers. Not familiar with Coleman but I assume that he went to Stuyvesant, they must be so proud.
Taking “best products to scale” sounds efficient. Now, if only all children were equally prepared to go to school each day and practice the same skills on the same day.
Efficiency is not a viable goal for learning. Each child faces singular challenges in learning. Even twins from the same family are not the same and do not gain the same benefits from the same lessons taught by the same teacher.
Education can be kept “efficient” by offering the same materials for study to rooms of students, but any teacher who understands the job, knows that the questions needing answers will not be the same from child to child. There will be a slant that reflects the individual needs of the moment for each child.
Dealing with the similar questions first will help the majority (making it practical to ask children to raise hands and ask their questions aloud). After that, the questions will be more personal. When a teacher can get to the individual questions, the child may get the special answer needed. When a teacher cannot get to the child, frustration can build in the child. Over time, a sequence of unanswered questions may sour the affection for learning.
“Best products to scale” won’t solve the challenges faced by individual children. Quickly “trained” teachers won’t, perhaps, even know to seek out the individual questions after the hands go down. Children are not all alike as peas in a pod. Children are not a monoculture to be liberally sprayed with the best products so they grow to maturity and can be harvested from their school, all equally ready for college or the work force.
A “common core” sounds reasonable. “Back to basics” didn’t have the necessary ring to it. Back to basics had the sense of retreat built into it. Common core suggests there will be time and support for the addition of all the rich elements of learning found around the core.
Time will tell. As you note, Diane, this initiative is being rolled out in 45 states. Each state will implement their own curriculum. Each districe/school/teacher will add what is possible to the basics (oops, core). We can hope that there will be time and support for the civics lessons, the band practices, the application of brushes to the art canvas and a bit left over for the joys of running free during recess.
But, if due process is eliminated, will quickly “trained” teachers replace the seasoned professionals?
If the money from state and federal sources is determined by a school’s success rate only on the core, will districts find the money to support the arts, STEM, chess club, programming a computer (not just knowing Office)?
Will the core remain just the core, or will it be the whole since only the core will count toward maintaining the financial support from the state and federal level?
I urgently need the original source of that quote, “radically alters the market for innovation in curriculum development, professional development, and formative assessments. ” It came up on my screen in a box, when I opened this post!
It comes from the US Department of Education. It’s been reproduced so many times, it is impossible to track by Google.
I’ve been looking for it everywhere. And when I say urgent, I mean today. Help me out, everybody.
http://blogs.hbr.org/innovations-in-education/2011/03/the-innovation-mismatch-smart.html
http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2012/03/depressing-idiocy-of-common-core.html
That’s it! Bingo. Thank you everybody.
This might be a start:
Published at The Huffington Post on May 23, 2011 at: http://www.sabrinastevensshupe.com/2011/05/25/why_im_marching/
“The development of common standards and shared assessments radically alters the market for innovation in curriculum development, professional development, and formative assessments. Previously, these markets operated on a state-by-state basis, and often on a district-by-district basis. But the adoption of common standards and shared assessments means that education entrepreneurs will enjoy national markets where the best products can be taken to scale.”
– Joanne Weiss, chief of staff to Education Secretary Duncan and former CEO of the New Schools Venture Fund
http://blogs.hbr.org/innovations-in-education/2011/03/the-innovation-mismatch-smart.html
HBR Blog Network / Innovations in Education
The Innovation Mismatch: “Smart Capital” and Education Innovation
by Joanne Weiss | 8:00 AM March 31, 2011
It has been a while but when I taught special education, students were placed in a special education class based on one intelligence test, which did not tell the whole story. When I tried to explain this to the school psychologist, I was told that I did not know what normal was. So, excuse me if I note reservations about standardized tests and their uses. They obviously have a place but in conjunction with other measures. Sometimes they can do more harm than good if used improperly. Much of the effects of these standardized tests are discussed in terms of the faculty but we shouldn’t forget the affect these tests have on the students themselves. The students who are poor test takers can be affected negatively in relation to their self-confidence and how they are treated by their teachers and even other students. We can never forget that we are dealing with human beings and not “things” which have no emotions.
Guess we could call this a 45 state pilot program, Diane. I foresee a great deal of turbulence.
I’m surprised and slightly taken aback by this stance, Ms. Ravitch.
Yes,
Charter Schools/Vouchers: Choice. Options. Sounds reasonable.
Value Added Measures: Accountability. Performance based. Sounds reasonable.
Testing: Measure progress. Informative data. Sounds reasonable.
Common Core: High Standards. Uniform. Sounds reasonable.
until you put them together and realize what the sum of the parts equal.
Common Core State [sic] Standards are nothing more than a ruse to ensure a national market for curriculum (including online), testing, and to begin a national database on every person in our nation.
Wow. You are more cycical than I am. I think that this may very likely be the case. Follow the money.
What I see is not a pilot program but rather a clear plan to create good little worker bees. I am not interested in having my child standardized to support the needs of the 1%. The common core was the missing piece that was necessary in order to seamlessly tie high stakes testing to curriculum – very efficient and tidy – allowing the profiteers to control all aspects of public education. Not only will the common core help dismantle the public school system it will also assist in destroying the teaching profession. It will produce a generation of non-thinkers who cannot think creatively, conceptually or critically. No common core at Sidwell. Of course not.
the question left unanswered by policy forcers (not makers)-or as an act of omission by those pushing the standards is this: If they are untested, and we have no idea if they are good or bad (though I personally lead toward the latter), then WHY is it that they are being forced across 45 states? answer: CORPORATE PROFIT. Follow the money trail to see how ed reform works. The well being of all children is a distant second (if even that…). We must detach Common Core from high stakes testing if they have even a snowballs chance in hell of benefiting teachers and children.
Until there becomes a sea change in the American supremacist world view that money is God and powerful and elite white men are justified in disenfranchising the female, the poor, the folk of color; public education will continue to go down the path of “up for grabs for exploitation.” Most teachers will continue to walk with blinders on, and the beat goes on whether it is Common Core, RttT, or NCLB. After all, who really matters but the great white male and his money?
I oppose them because they are developmentally inappropriate. How can we ignore child development and expect learning to occur? It’s just insane. Expecting 3rd graders to compute fractions is as sensible as expecting them to master rocket science. And the 1st grade comprehension standards are even worse.
How much money do we have in California to implement this? NONE! We are struggling to simply keep classrooms staffed and schools open in an unprecedented and catastrophic budgetary climate (I had 41 students in my 5th grade classroom the year before last). We have ignored the curriculum adoption cycle now for years because there’s no money to buy new or more timely books. (Not an entirely bad thing, I suppose – the last rounds of “curriculum tailoring” by the publishers were for the NCLB shenanigans; these will be useless in two years when CC rolls around). My district is using its scarce support personnel to create what we THINK will be CC curriculum adjustments, while still juggling the current NCLB madness at the same time. This is yet another unfunded and untested government mandate that we will be forced to endure and make work somehow.
When Michigan implemented the “Michigan Merit Curriculum” and set standards for achievement of the HSCEs (“Huskies”–High School Curriculum Expectations), they also added an amendment that allowed for a Personalized Curriculum to be developed for a number of defined cases, including the case of students with special educational needs, to attain diplomas with a modification of the standards, in alignment with their career goals and their needs for accommodations due to the nature of their disabilities. (For example, modification of the P.E. requirement for those with physical impairments; or accommodations within the English requirements for students with dyslexia). This has become a “mare’s nest” of huge proportions for many students with learning disabilities, who are often required to fail courses to demonstrate their needs for accommodation beyond those available in the general curriculum. In their senior years, lagging behind in credits, they are granted Personalized Curricula.
Some students, facing the overwhelming challenges of making up lost credits, are able to continue in high school for additional years. Some take “credit recovery” courses online, and, at the zero hour–days before their classmates are to go through commencement exercises–are finally granted sufficient credit to get diplomas. Others–young people in foster care, for example–cannot afford the additional time in school, and simply drop out, or take the GED.
I anticipate a very rough road ahead for students with learning disabilities, many of whom have great potential, but suffer greatly with the demands made on them in a standards-based world. They are not sub-standard people, but are made to see themselves as such in a policy climate that expects schools to produce a uniform product.
  Diane: I think the standards will drive better teaching and promote deeper learning.
  I have been a high school English teacher for over 30 years and have adapted to many educational/theoretical/pedagogical changes. I have worked with CCSS at both the district level and the state level. I have incorporated them in my teaching. They are a positive step toward creating critical thinkers in our citizenry, being able to make better judgments from the grocery aisle to the political arena.
  One of the things students can benefit from is the focus on continually connecting texts, studying more nonfiction, engaging in peer discussion, performing differentiated tasks, and writing persuasively. This is not to say that good teachers have not previously provided students with this success toward better comprehension, but the Common Core will remind us that no individual lesson is isolated and that students are at the center. How we think and talk about learning is the real influence of the Common Core.
  The National Council of Teachers of English have several publications showing how the K-12 language arts curriculum is enhanced by core standards. In Sarah Brown Wessling’s “Supporting Students in a Time of Core Standards: Grades 9-12,” you can read how teachers in various schools have implemented CCSS showing the precise intersection of standards and practice.
  In addition you can view teachers teaching and students learning with Common Core in all subject areas at all grade levels at a website called the Teaching Channel (teachingchannel.org).
Darlene states: “but the Common Core will remind us that no individual lesson is isolated and that students are at the center.”
I just finished 39 years in the classroom. I never lost sight of the fact that (1) very few lessons are stand alone (2) that all good teaching makes connections between and among lessons explicit, and (3) that lessons must be connected in ofer for the cycle of instruction to make snse and be effective. I certainly do not need CCSS to rem9nd me of this. Really.
My district held a workshop for all related arts teachers on the CCS. The workshop was entitled, ” Supporting the Common Core.” Examples of some of the grade level changes were outlined in a chart that listed how specific concepts would be covered across grade levels.
When questioned as to why primary students were expected to have “algebra,” it was explained that primary grades would be covering algebraic concepts at age-appropriate levels, not algebra in the same sense that 8th or 9th grade students study the area.
The language arts curriculum was also outlined across grade levels. Here is where I have issue: The emphasis on non-fiction in the middle and high school grades was explained as a reaction to “today’s culture” where current students are inundated with text that is technical and informational more so than any other generation. While it is understandable that non-fiction has its place in the curriculum, fiction should continue to have a strong presence to help develop a sense of the real culture of humans and the stories they tell. We are what we learn.
I am inclined to agree with you concerning the need for a trial run before judgment is cast. But is it not enough to assume, simply by looking at the backers of CCS that it is a bad thing, yet another vehicle designed to bleed taxpayers’ money out of the public schools at there expense? I am wondering why there isn’t a push for a national curriculum rather than CCS, but perhaps that is next and CCS is laying the groundwork?
Given that the common core has never been field tested anywhere is definitely reason to stop the mass adoption because of the unknown consequences on the teaching and learning process. However, at this point, there is also a lot we do know that should help us all to understand that this adoption process should stop regardless of field testing or small sample research using the common core. It is painfully obvious that adopting the common core has much more to do with lining the pockets of education entrepreneurs and taking away local control of the public schooling process more so than providing a powerful educational experience for students and teachers. We know way too much about the process of creating the common core and the intended mass testing. And we also know that after 10 years of NCLB, forced accountability has been harmful. Therefore, although we may not know (empirically) how the common core will work in our public schools, we do know (qualitatively) that forced adoption (of any curricula or standards) and rigid accountability is harmful. For me the common core fails regardless of lack of field testing and research. If the original intent was “better learning” then field testing and research would have been part of the process from the beginning.
The literacy standards for high school science- there are literacy standards for all subjects- are vague until this one that would ask students to demonstrate in writing analogy, metaphor and similes for the science discipline. I have not checked out the math related ones but I hope there isn’t any such fluffy writing standards to demonstrate college readiness.
Science is to the world as puppies digging for bones is to the back yard. Science is, like, hard. Science is doing. How ‘m I doin’, Teach?
Very funny! Makes me think that maybe cats in boxes might fit with the analogy as well.
Science is like having a cat in the box, except sometimes when you look in the box, the cat is like, gone, and sometimes the cat is there again. 🙂
I don’t understand the fanatical emphasis on Common Core from Arne Duncan. For some states, with weak curricula, I can see the point. For a state like California, with its own strong standards, I see no point in rushing to implement the change, even if we agree it’s a good idea in the long term. Will it make California 5th grade in 2012-2013 better if we adopt Common Core now? No… and arguably, by taking attention and money away from classrooms that are extremely resource scarce already, it can only make things worse *even if it is slightly “better” as a curriculum.*
Every time we change standards and curricula, we add extra work and burden to the teachers and students, and make the teachers slightly less effective for a year or two as they adapt to new materials. Every time we do this, we introduce holes in student learning that will have to be patched in some way. If I have to choose between using a staff member to implement Common Core versus giving the kids extra reading support… I’m going to choose the reading support. The reading support is for the kids. Common Core is for the convenience of adults outside the school.
I have no problem with implementing it eventually. I think implementing in it a year when our legislature is also contemplating a 160 day school year to save money is uhm… “misguided” … to use a safe-for-work euphemism.
Having a common curriculum for each grade, across the country, means that students who move into a new school district will be assured of having already been taught the relevant prior material for this year’s courses, and that this year’s material will the relevant next step after last year’s material. For school districts with high levels of transiency, having such consistency across states serves a very important purpose.
True, but this CCSS is commone standards–not common curriculum. I like the idea of a statewide curriculum. We have had that in K-8 science since 1998-2000 and it has been great. Except for the fact that many elementary principals told teachers to cut way back on science instruction and spend more time on reading and math–the tested subjects.
That is definitely an advantage, and the one reason I think there’s value to it.
On the other hand, the most transient population in the US is the household of college graduates. Those are the people who move across state lines. They’re also the families whose kids for the most part are doing OK.
There will still be holes, especially if you’re foolish enough to move in the middle of 4th grade when local history is taught.
Intrastate transients, most stereotypically migrant farmworker kids, still seem to have dramatic disruption in their lives even sharing a state curriculum from school to school.
It’s also worth noting that while some districts and areas have large numbers of transient kids, others have very few. I wonder if it really works to the benefit of all kids to impose something across the board to solve a problem that isn’t a problem everywhere. I’m not saying it doesn’t, but I’m wondering if the analysis has really been done.
In LAUSD, they’re proud to say that every 4th grade classroom is on the same topic the same day. They have a high percentage of transient students and so that may be the most intelligent, responsible choice. But, to be honest, it makes me sad and even concerned. There’s no room for a teacher to do her own special demo of a concept, no room for the kids to ask an unexpected question. No room for the teacher to look around and say, “These kids aren’t getting it; I need to go back over this tomorrow and work it out.”
California wanted the Race to the Top money. They sold you guys out for $$$$
No, actually, it’s why California never was accepted statewide.
California education funding crisis led to six ( maybe seven?) years of mass layoffs. The teachers ought to strike if money goes into these standards instead of keeping consistent funding for teachers in their respective districts.
How many states grant the teachers the right to strike?
My understanding is that the Common Core Standards hew very closely to the longstanding standards used in Massachusetts – that, in fact, Massachusetts demanded that their standards form the basis of the Common Core, because we did want to adopt a worse set of standards than those we were currently using.
Couldn’t one look at the performance of the Massachusetts public schools since the adoption of these standards, and use that as a pretty-good proxy for the “new” (to the other 44 states) standards?
Sandra Stotsky, who was in charge of the standards in Massachusetts, disagrees. She wrote a comment on this blog. I’ll try to find it.
This was a comment a while back from Sandra Stotsky, who was in charge of standards in Massachusetts. She was responding to a post about David Coleman:
Submitted on 2012/05/21 at 1:41 pm
David Coleman makes false claims about the major influence on Common Core’s literature and reading standards (e.g., “the literature standards are much indebted to Massachusetts”). Only in a perverse way could that statement be true. He misparaphrased and misplaced almost every literature standard he may have taken from the 2001 MA ELA Curriculum Framework.
I regularly showed during the spring and summer of 2010 the mismatch between what was in the MA standards and what was in CC’s ELA standards. In a series of White Papers (# 56, 61, 63. and 65), released by the Pioneer Institute in 2010, I provide a variety of systematic comparisons of the two sets of standards showing how inferior CC’s ELA standards were to the MA 2001 standards in ELA for both K-5 and 6-12, and to even its proposed revision of these standards.
I was told that Coleman and Sue Pimental had visited the MA Department of Education several times to consult with the staff there on the ELA standards. Never once did they ask to speak to me privately or publicly (by 2009-2010 I was on the Common Core Validation Committee and no longer at the MA DoE). Nor did they ever speak to the people who created the MA ELA standards (like Mark McQuillan, by then Commissioner of Education in Connecticut; William Rice, by then at the National Endowment of the Humanities; or James McDermott, an award-winning English teacher in Worcester) or to the people who worked on the entire MA ELA curriculum framework under my supervision at the MA DoE in 2001 (Holly Handlin, a former English teacher; and Janet Furey, a former reading teacher—both still in MA).
Given how CC’s ELA standards turned out, it is a mystery what Coleman and Pimentel learned from their visits to the MA DoE in 2009-2010. It is not possible to claim with a straight face that Common Core’s K-5 or 6-12 reading and literature standards were modeled on the MA standards. Sandra Stotsky
Sandra Stotsky is an outspoken critic of Common Core. http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20120708/NEWS0401/120707022/Louisiana-prepares-curriculum-overhaul?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CEducation%20News%7Cp
Critics of the Common Core say it instead will result in students who are less prepared when they enter college than before the standard was put in place. Louisiana’s current standards are doing a better job, said Sandra Stotsky, who served on the Common Core Validation Committee.
“State boards of education were sold this powerful elixir with the promise of closing achievement gaps and instead they have been given nothing more than snake oil,” said Stotsky, who gained headlines in 2010 when she refused to sign off on the curriculum, calling it mediocre and a step back for many states.
“We’re lowering the ceiling for everyone rather than actually raising standards,” Stotsky said.
As a teacher, this is what I see… Here in FL we had Sunshine State Standards, then they rewrote them, and we had New Generation Sunshine State Standards. Then, we had Benchmarks added to our planning. Now, we have these new common core standards. Each revision/ rewrite came with its own slew of training, training materials, consultants, remediation, tutoring companies, and, of course, textbooks. All costing us a fortune.
What is the difference between the SSS, NGSSS, Benchmarks, and CCC ? -Not much, from this teacher’s perspective. They keep flipping the same script. Is it an improvement? I agree with Diane, There is no way to know yet. Will it cost a fortune? Yes, it already is costing a fortune. Could our teacher planning/training days be better spent than learning yet another curriculum frame… yes. No doubt.
But, it has been clear for some time, that my teacher perspective is not a concern. Nor, my parent perspective either – as I see each new curriculum coming with its own slew of standardized test assessments. No, my perspective is not the one that matters to our policy makers, apparently.
It is unfortunate to say, but most of our policy makers are only concerned with the lobbyists’ perspective…the corporate perspective: The Profit Factor.
Yes, we have connected the dots… we may not see all the dots yet, but we see enough. We see enough to know that we must become as loud and influential as those corporate lobbyists… And, we can.
We are teacher lobbyists, parent lobbyists, citizen lobbyists. Together, we can be pretty loud and influential. Together, we can make a difference.
Together is the key.
So why do the schools go along with this nonsense?
Why don’t administrators simply say NO. We are going to find a textbook that works. Train the teachers well and run their own schools??
MOMwithAbrain…I will tell you in 2 words why they don’t say no. Federal dollars. What many administrators don’t realize, or maybe they do, is that with federal dollars comes federal strings. I live in Michigan and our previous governor, a liberal Dem, put us in for RTTT dollars. Her big mistake in doing this was letting the MEA in on the applying for this money. Michigan did not make it. It was a waste of teacher time, money, and effort. We now have a liberal Republican governor who is also lusting after the federal dollars. He says if our schools meet certain state requirements each school will recieve an extra $100 per student in state aid grants. He is also pushing CCSS as well because of the federal dollars.
My son spent his first 8 years in a public school. For those who know what adequate yearly progress is, this loophole got my son into a charter high school. Within 1 semester, I could not believe the improvement in his grades. I KNEW he wasn’t getting the best education, but I didn’t know how bad. That is one of the main reasons I ran for school board as an independent. I lost. The 2 union backed candidates won. Our 9 person school board is now 6 in favor of sucking up to the unions and 3 who have no chance of getting anything they want passed.
I don’t want the whack jobs in California telling my son’s school what they can and cannot teach. I don’t some textbook manufacturer telling my son what kind of education he is going to get or the information he will learn. The only people who benefit from this kind of education are the gov’t and the textbook publishers. My son’s math teacher and I have had continuing conversations on CCSS as he told he he had been teaching his classes to CCSS. To say I came unglued was putting it mildly. THIS is why we need to stop CCSS cold.
Because they are being imposed by the state and the feds. Administrators who say NO will be out of a job. That’s why.
Our school board hires the administrators. They also happen to rubber stamp everything the administrator suggests. So why not reject this? I would say because their is $$$ attached. If they say no, goodbye funding. It’s always about the $$ and never about what’s best for the students
You summed it up perfectly.
I can’t figure out why Republicans fought this during the Clinton Admin. and a few years later, completely rolled over.
I guess it’s the RttT money. I’ve also noticed at the state level, many RINO’s have no trust in local control too.
I’m still trying to figure out why you wont come out against them?
For the simple reason of keeping the Feds out of education which is Unconstitutional, should be enough of a reason.
Unfortunately Finn flip flopped on that and has lost all credibility.
I read all the comments and finally found one detailing the reason I was against Common Core from the beginning. You nailed it, MOMwithAbrain. States gave up their power to educate their citizens by signing onto either Race to the Top and/or common core standards. That power NEVER was to be ceded to the federal government.
I find it astounding several commentors WANT a national curriculum. A national curriculum is illegal but doesn’t seem to matter to the DOEd or the private CCSSI and NGA. Why should we have states making laws for their citizens when the Federal government can just mandate what our state education curriculum, standards and assessments will be…and how much the states have to pony up?
Isn’t this the primary reason to be against Common Core? The resistance should be a legal reason: from an understanding of the power of the states vs the power of the Federal government. It doesn’t matter a whit what the standards teach or don’t teach. They are unconstitutional.
Exactly. I don’t care how great they are, I’d still be against them.
If the Feds want to develop something and offer it as a guide with NO money, mandates, strings (ie..take it or leave it) so be it.
That’s now how the feds work. It’s forced upon schools because that’s how those who know better than us, work.
They will never trust the schools/parents and teachers. That’s why they have to be cut out of the picture.
This idea of figuring out if they are good/bad is a waste of time. Even if they are good today, what’s to say they wont be watered down or politicized in the future.
WE already have the former Safe School Czar extremist Kevin Jennings on record for saying he wanted to USE these to push his own political agenda on the kids.
Luckily the Congress cut his job out of existence. Now if they’d just cut ARne’s job out we’d finally have progress!
The Common Core is not a federal initiative. It was created by a voluntary consortium of states.
That said, most states have signed on, and Duncan has made Common Core a condition of RTTT funds.
I know exactly what they are and how they were formed.
The National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers together formed the Common Core State Standards Initiative to develop CCS.
The governors and chief state school officers signed a Common Core Standards Memorandum of Agreement.
Now let me ask you this, who governs the standards? And why is there a 15% limit on how they can be changed?
Here’s a timeline which led up to all of this:
Click to access CCSS-timeline-bulletpoints.pdf
• 1988: Marc Tucker became the president of the National Center for Education and the Economy (NCEE) where he joined up with Hillary Clinton, Mario Cuomo, and Ira Magaziner to get states to move away from local control of their schools and migrate to national standards.
• 1990: George H. W. Bush signed an international agreement entitled, “World Education for All (EFA), the result of a United Nations “World Conference on Education for All” summit.
• 1991: Tucker and Lauren Resnick created New Standards that pushed standards-based reform.
• 1992: Tucker writes “Dear Hillary Letter.” This letter, written to Hillary Clinton, addressed Tucker’s ideas for radical education reform after Bill Clinton’s presidential win. The goal is “toremold the entire American system” into “a seamless web that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same systems for everyone,” coordinated by “a system of labor market boards at the local, state and federal levels” where curriculum and “job matching” will be handled by counselors “accessing the integrated computer-based program.”
• 1994: Tucker’s ambitious plan was implemented in three laws passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton: the Goals 2000 Act, the School-to-Work Act Opportunities Act, and the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) called “Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994.”
• 1996: An organization called ACHIEVE, Inc. was formed by the nation’s governors and corporate leaders. (Many of them tied to Marc Tucker and the NCEE). The goals from an Education Summit in Palisades, NY were to ACHIEVE the goals of the 1994 school reform bills.
• 1998: Tucker and Judy Codding created America’s Choice, a comprehensive school reform program, that made sure the national standards were further implemented into schools.
• 2001: George W. Bush renames ESEA “The No Child Left Behind Act” and signed it into law.
• 2004: Microsoft (Bill Gates) contracts with UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) to fulfill part of UNESCO’S Millennium Campaign Goals—universal education and educating for a global economy. A “master curriculum” for teacher training in information technologies based standards, guidelines, benchmarks, and assessment techniques is to be developed.
(UNESCO / Gates Foundation Agreement)
• 2005: Bill Gates funds the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce—created by Tucker. States begin adopting its education reform initiative, “Tough Choices or Tough Times.” In 2008, Utah’s Governor Huntsman touts it (see video in link below) and joins with 5 others states (Massachusetts, Delaware, Arizona, New Mexico, and New Hampshire) who adopt it in order to “reinvent their educational systems.”
• 2008: Gates Foundation, along with two other foundations, created Strong American Schools(a successor to the STAND UP campaign launched in 2006, which was an outgrowth of UNESCO’s Millennium Campaign Goals for Universal Education). It calls for American education standards.
• 2008: Gates Foundation funds the International Benchmarking Advisory Group report for Common Core Standards on behalf of the National Governors Association, Council of Chief State School Officers, and ACHIEVE, Inc. titled, “Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World-Class Education.” This report shows the United Nations is a member of the International Benchmarking Advisory Group for Common Core Standards. The member of mention is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) which developed UNESCO’s Millennium Declaration—partnering with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
The report states: While states must take the lead, the federal government can help. And the federal government can do that best by playing an enabling role grounded in a new vision for the historic state-federal partnership in education.
• 2009: Marc Tucker writes a chapter in the book “Change Wars: The Inspiring Future for Educational Change.” One chapter is called International Benchmarking as a Lever for Policy Reform. The book says the UN’s OECD launched Programme for International Student Assessment in 2000 to monitor the outcomes of education. Linda Darling-Hammond also contributes a chapter. Darling-Hammond heads the SBAC (see 2009, December below)
• April, 2009: Gates Foundation members, along with a few dozen others, participate in a Washington conference and produce “Smart Options: Investing the Recovery Funds for Student Success.” These ideas were funded by the 2008 Stimulus (ARRA-American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) and supported Race to the Top. Priority 1: Develop Common American Standards—also called Career-Ready Standards—in most states by January 2012.
• 2009 (summer): Council of Chief State School Officers, National Governors Association, and ACHIEVE, Inc. agree to partner on a common core standards project.
• 2009 (fall): The U.S. Dept. of Ed signals it will fund $360M for summative assessments aligned to Common Core Standards and begins planning meetings. Two consortia begin competing for this funding: Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. States begin adopting Common Core Standards and join one of the consortia in order to receive No Child Left Behind waivers from the U.S. Department of Education Secretary, Arne Duncan.
• 2009 (December): Utah becomes a governing member state of Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and is obligated to use the online assessments created by the SBAC which isled by Bill Ayers’ friend, Linda Darling-Hammond. Judy Park, Associate Superintendent, Utah State Office of Ed, eventually co-chairs the Consortia.
• 2009 (December): Gates Foundation gives the National PTA a $1 million grant to mobilize parents for Common Core Standards.
• June, 2010: National Governors Association and State Education Chiefs launch Common State Academic Standards.
• April 2011: The SBAC Overview Curriculum and Assessment Conference issues a report stating that CCSS member states must adopt their assessments by Dec. 31, 2011. Further, they must develop tests to be administered in 2014-2015.
• 2011: The American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) education task force calls for the demise of the Common Core Standards, but puts it on hold after receiving a $376,635 grant from the Gates Foundation.
• 2011: Bill Gates speaks at the November G20 Summit in Cannes and issues his report, “Innovation With Impact: Financing 21st Century Development” stating, “My report will address thefinancing needed to achieve maximum progress on the Millennium Development Goals, and to make faster progress on development over the next decade.”
• 2012: States begin to recognize the loss of local control and enormous cost of implementation of the Common Core Standards. Many states begin pushing back. The Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute call the standards unconstitutional per federal education law.
Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott stated that the common standards movement amounted to a “desire for a federal takeover of public education.” Now, additional states (who originally signed on), including Massachusetts, Iowa, Kansas, and Virginia, are expressing concerns about the common standards initiative.
Gov. Nikki Haley just signed a letter supporting legislation in South Carolina to block CCSS implementation stating, “South Carolina shouldn’t relinquish control to a consensus of states any more than the federal government.”
Larry Shumway, Utah state superintendent, a member of the CCSSO Board of Directors, a member of the Board of Directors at West Ed which is the project management partner for SBACassessments, recommends Utah retain its relationship as a governing member of the SBAC (thus forcing Utah to use their tests).
“I am personally opposed to any changes in Utah’s public education governance, either by constitutional amendment or by statutory revision, that would have the effect of centralizing power and decreasing representation. I oppose changes that would decrease the ability of local boards of education, elected by the citizens of that district, to guide their own schools to meet the needs of their communities as they see it, or that would diminish the ability of 104 elected legislators and 15 elected State Board members to fulfill their responsibilities to lead Utah public education as they represent their constituencies.” -Larry Shumway–State of Education Address October 11, 2011
This seems to me a clear conflict of interest for Mr. Shumway to testify to the Utah legislature on anything related to Common Core or the SBAC.
Gates’ Foundation contributions during the time frame of consideration and development of the Common Core initiative.
CCSSO: 2009–$9,961,842, 2009–$3,185,750, 2010–$743,331, 2011–$9,388,911
NGA Center: 2008–$2,259,780
NCEE: 2009–$1,500,000
Total: $27,000,000
Good post! I wish people (including experts like yourself) would say “I don’t know” more often.
Thank you.
And what are you unsure about, khirsh?
I agree that it is impossible to pass judgement of these new standards until implementation takes place. The reason they are not being tested is probably a money issue. How much more time and money would it take to test these standards in four or five schools? I find this money would be well spent, but I could see how testing these standards in 45 states at one time could give more valid answers as to if the standards work. E. D. Hirsch states how 49% of Americans move every year. He describes that the lack on consistency between state standards has had such a negative impact on our students’ growth. If a child moves states they need to be on the same pace no matter what school they are in. I am looking forward to the Common Core. It is long overdue and I truly hope it succeeds.
49% of Americans move every year??? Show me the research.
Let’s see I have over 150 students a year and each year there might be 20 that move. No where near 49%.
I read all the comments and finally found one detailing the reason I was against Common Core from the beginning. You nailed it, MOMwithAbrain. States gave up their power to educate their citizens by signing onto either Race to the Top and/or common core standards. That power NEVER was to be ceded to the federal government.
I find it astounding several commentors WANT a national curriculum. A national curriculum is illegal but doesn’t seem to matter to the DOEd or the private CCSSI and NGA. Why should we have states making laws for their citizens when the Federal government can just mandate what our state education curriculum, standards and assessments will be…and how much the states have to pony up?
Isn’t this the primary reason to be against Common Core? The resistance should be a legal reason: from an understanding of the power of the states vs the power of the Federal government. It doesn’t matter a whit what the standards teach or don’t teach. They are unconstitutional.
I also wanted to mention that Common Core promotes the rights of Ell’s because many of these children that move every year come from migrant Hispanic famalies. Common Core give them a better chance to stay on track.
So the rights of a few mean the rights of the majority have to shift? If 7% of my state’s schools are “failing”, then why should 100% of the state schools have to be overhauled? This argument (just like everyone should go to college) just lowers the bar and standards for everyone.
Exactly. What if the standards are worse then what we had in place? OR are not really an improvement but further erodes local control?
Sorry, but we elect Governors who clearly didn’t do their job well if they couldn’t offer quality state standards.
INstead of highlighting their failure’s they walked away with no accountability.
I am not sure that a national standard/curriculum is better for migrant hispanic families than the standard and curriculum we already have in California. The plan of all classrooms in all schools in an area being on the same page of the book each minute/day is implemented in many California districts already. I can see the advantage for kids who are constantly in motion, but I fear the consequences of teachers unable to react to their students as well.
One of the problems that we see locally is that migrant families tend to have their kids completely out of any school for weeks at a time. If this is typical, then it doesn’t matter if the classrooms are all synchronized.
I recall hearing that in the Salinas area they were experimenting with migrant teachers and mobile classrooms to follow the farmworker kids around to the different sections of the county, to provide more continuity. I wonder how it worked out. I think the idea of a teacher following them is wonderful, but I feared they’d end up isolated from their less mobile peers, which might be worse than getting new schools all the time.
After reviewing the Common Core State Standards, as an expert in Early Childhood Education, I disagree with them because I know that they are not developmentally appropriate, as they effectively push down 1st Grade into Kindergarten. Only 14 states require Kindergarten attendance and, in many districts, Kg is just a half day program. Not all 5 year olds are ready for academics, let alone academics crammed into half a day.
When I taught Kindergarten, I found research which verfied my classroom teaching experiences: there is a wide range of development in the typical Kindergarten classroom each fall, with kids functioning at developmental levels ranging from 3 – 7 years of age, due to children’s varying prior experiences and the fact that each child develops at a different rate. It’s unconscionable to provide Kindergartners with a one-size-fits all education, expecting them to all be on the same page on the same day of their lives, reading “texts with purpose and understanding” and solving “addition and subtraction word problems, and add and subtract within 10”, when we know that every child does not begin their first year of formal schooling at the same place.
In my 40+ years in the field, I have seen such developmentally inappropriate expectations in Kg result in the domino effect on Preschools, where adults often drill little kids, including with flashcards and worksheets. I have also seen that turn off many young children to school, while failing to provide them with any real depth of learning.
The Commom Core Kindergarten standards give the green light to push academics into Preschool. This is disconcerting because Common Core standards stilll have to be developed for children from birth to age 5. Many private for-profit preschools already push academics, at least in part, as an excuse to get kids ready for Kindergarten, including a lot of child care centers across the country owned by Milken. This has resulted in drill for skill, beginning in the cradle, and the devaluing of play –which I know because I’ve worked with literally thousands of teachers in such programs. Requiring standardized tests further assures that “sage on the stage” teaching, including rote memorization and frequent drill and practice, as well as systems of reward and punishment, will be the primary approaches in the teaching of academics for our youngest children –which have been shown to undermine intrinsic motivation. (I saw nothing in the Common Core about facilitating children’s social and emotional development, so that they can learn how to function optimally in group care.)
With high academic expectations, Kindergarten goes from being a Child’s Garden to a Child’s Nightmare and Preschool becomes School.
One of the most damning things that I have seen imposed on children, as young as 2 years old, is the requirement that they write letters and numbers repeatedly, which is sure to occur with the Common Core requirement that Kindergartners “Print many upper- and lowercase letters” and “Write numbers from 0 to 20” (as well as requiring standardized testing).
Young children lack muscle strength and their fine motor skills are not highly developed. The expectation that they write conventional letters and numbers usually results in adults requiring that they repeatedly “practice” writing, which also teaches children there is one correct way to write. As a result, many kids stop taking risks and experimenting with print. A lot of children no longer demonstrate growth through typical stages of writing development, and teachers often complain that few kids choose to go to the Writing Center or write on their own during their playtime.
What young children need to be doing instead is working with different kinds of materials, like clay and play dough, to develop muscle strength, peg boards and puzzles, to develop fine motor and cognitive skills, as well as stringing beads and sewing cards, to develop eye-hand coordination.
Most importantly, young children should be encouraged to engage in meaningful daily writing experiences, with a variety of materials, including magnetic letters, and use writing for many different purposes, such as for communication in messages.
What non-educators often fail to realize is that programs that have demonstrated the efficacy of early childhood education, such as the Perry Preschool Project and the Abcedarian Project, were not academically oriented. Those programs were aimed at the whole child and facilitated growth in each developmental domain. Teachers capitalized on infusing intentional teaching in children’s play.
In developmentally appropriate programs, the disciplines are integrated around a theme or project, and skills are developed in learning experiences that are meaningful to children, including in-depth investigations based on children’s interests, not through rote memorization or drill and practice. When standardized tests are used to measure student learning and determine effective teaching, teachers are more likely to resort to didactic teaching methods.
Prof W, I could not agree with you more. I truly feel that the new Common Core Standards are developmentally inappropriate for our children. As a third grade teacher, I can tell you, children are not ready for Tolstoy (as suggested by the NYS Dept of Ed). They are not ready for 3 step math problems when they are still struggling to add and subtract. I am all for preparing children for college and career, but they are not going out there tomorrow!
As a teacher for the past 9 years, in an underprivileged neighborhood, I see my students being set up for failure, along with demoralizing the teachers who are there to support and nurture them. No one wants to discuss the deficits these children come to school with. Not only is kindergarten no mandatory, apparently working with a child at home is never considered either.
I find it ironic that all of the people mentioned in the development of these standards are not educators themselves. As I read earlier, our opinions are the last ones that are called upon, if ever. All state that the best education system is in Finland. Why not look at what they are doing? They have no standardized testing. They also hold parents accountable for a child’s early learning that is crucial to a child’s future success. Also, I understand that Finland may not be as diverse as we are, but Sweden has a system similar to ours and they have the same results that we do.
I am sorry for being long winded; I wish I had an answer for all of this. But I do know that educators working in the field, daily with these children, should have more of an input. If you want to hold teachers accountable, parents should be held accountable as well. We cannot do it all. As Hilary Clinton said, “it takes a village”. The village needs to be included in the equation.
.
Think it’s just a coincidence that David Coleman placed an emphasis on informational texts and Bill Gates, who funded the Common Core, has a summer reading list, as well as shelves of books depicted on his web page, which only include informational texts? I don’t see any books on education there. Does anyone else?
http://www.thegatesnotes.com/Personal/Great-Summer-Reading
Last week, a reader posted a short message on Bill’s web page asking why there was no fiction, but I don’t see that post there now.
Wow! We should bombard him with questions about fiction…it looks like you have to log on via twitter or Facebook or you cannot comment. As you stated, he would probably just delete. He doesn’t take kindly to questioning. I thought his list was BORING!
I retired two weeks ago, after 31 years as a public school teacher. I watched my school being infected with the ccss madness this year. It broke my heart.
I agree with Diane, none of us knows enough about the so called Common Core to say whether they work, do anything more than encourage teachers to “teach” from a script or whether they do anything to increase student achievement. Their origins, support, and evaluation are all one big corporate monolith, which in the end have nothing to do with children or teachers. States sign on because they need the money from the Dept. of Ed. and their state legislatures who see the word “standards” and think this is the answer to education’s problems. The common core is pure. It is not tainted with true educational input or rigorous pre-testing in real classrooms to determine if they meet any validity standards, let alone construct validity. We buy the Common Core because the sellers have enough money to put enough places to crush any other sensible competition to a one size fits all approach to education.
My daughter learned nothing in her ninth grade math class this year at Wasatch High School under Common Core’s first year of implementation. Why? Common Core math introduces Algebra I to ninth graders, but regular old math introduced Algebra I in 8th grade: so it was a repeated year, a wasted year –not the rigor we were promised by Common Core. And it wasn’t just my daughter that experienced this terrible waste.
I asked James Judd, our school district leader, to explain why this happened to my daughter. He told me, and four other moms at that meeting, that for all sixth and ninth graders, there is a bubble of repetition because Common Core math is less rigorous for all sixth and ninth graders.
He told me that the state school board was responsible for the problem, and not the local district, since the state had adopted Common Core math.
Next, I asked the state school board about this. They passed the buck back to the district, telling me Common Core is a minimum standard so local districts should add whatever is lacking. This is not allowed, however; Common Core governing documents state we may not take away anything, and we can only add 15% to any standard. So adding a whole year of math learning to 9th grade and 6th grade is out of the question.
One of the state school board members told me she understood my frustration; in fact, she had taken her grandchildren out of Utah public schools and homeschooled them because of the Common Core math problem.
As a former Common Core Trustee as recently as 2008, I’d have thought you would have had more definitive thoughts on it.
Presumably you supported it in 2008. Now you’re agnostic, and once its rolled out in 45 states it will be too late.
It’s from Gates, Inc = it’s garbage.
Common Core, which is a tiny DC-based organization that advocates for the liberal arts and sciences in the curriculum, has no connection with the Common Core State Standards. There is an accident of naming. I have never expressed either support or opposition to the standards, which were released in 2010. As I said in the post, I am waiting to see how they work and what effects they have on children and teachers.
Why are you going to wait? Why not help to start, lead or join a movement to stop the madness before the testing starts?
Agree…so much agree…it is garbage….
1. Teachers have no book…or they have one class set but you can not take them home….therefore..copy-copy-copy
2. Teachers search for extra Problem Practice which is nowhere to be found unless you pay dearly.
3. State departments ask teachers to share..NOT!!! If they are going to spend 17 hour days making activities and practice sheets, why should any share with the “Suits” making the big money..
4.SCHOOL DISTRICTS HAVE TO HIRE COACHES FOR EACH SUBJECT .THE COACHES ATTEND THE WEEKLY MEETING AND JUST STARE AS THEY HAVE NEVER TAUGHT THE CURRICULUM..
THE COACHES WILL HAND THE TEACHERS ABOUT A WEEK BEFORE THE STATE EXAM SOME REVIEWS MADE FROM A DISK THAT GOES WITH THE BOOK AND THE TEACHER THEN HAS TO SPEND HOURS RUNNING OFF ENOUGH COPIES FOR 120 STUDENTS…
5. Get the caches out of my sight..Leave me alone…Tell them to come into the classroom everyday and help for God’s sake ..Do not get paid that high salary to look as if you know more than me!!
6. The next week another human from the Big Downtown Office will come and tell you what a lousy job you are doing because Johnny No Good did not Do Good..on HIS TEST!!
7. The Pearson People were at one of their annual meeting in some expensive vacation spot which teachers would even dare to dream about…discussing nonetheless…….the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ that goes with this mad No Common Sense Curriculum…
8. I could say more about this Copy-Copy-Copy–and more Copies-Common-Core-Cr*p which makes no sense but I may ruin Bill’s day..Bill…Stay out of education..You have done a great job of ruining it..I want no Gates money..I had rather work at Walmart or the Dollar store but I would really like for my kid to get a good education..
9. If Bill would give each teacher approximately $10,000 for supplies they really need to incorporate this No-Common-Sense-Core Bull then maybe we may change our minds about his $$$$$$$$.
I heard a pitch warning against CC. As it appears to be top-down mandates with Fed funds used as carrots for states. And the ref. to Gov. Assoc. supporting is not factually correct.
One last thought…when I see that Gates is funding this I wonder if CC become the standard….will our public education system produce the next Gates, Jobs, Dell, of other founders of outstanding American comings?
Will the immeasurable cost be worth the benefits CC touts? Time will tell.
Active and organized opposition to the Common Core State Standards is quietly underway and about to sweep across the nation. I strongly encourage anyone interested in finding out what is occurring in your own state to send an e-mail to the organizers of the Truth in American Education website. TAE is a clearinghouse of information for those who share concerns about the CCSS. MI Patriot and Mom With a Brain, I have read your posts and recommend you contact them
Thank you Heather. I’m already a supporter of TAE’s opposition to Common Core and active in their efforts.
Diane a big thing you don’t address is standards itself. What and who is being standardized? Should people develop a standard so far away from the people they affect the most, the people who work and study in schools? Who said that curriculum or students should be standard? To me, standard is a way to make people conform and is against innovation. It is not clear what students and teachers should conform to? Higher Education? Isn’t higher education a place to explore and search for a higher understanding of the world? Higher ed shouldn’t be standardized and it is unclear why education for the lower grades should be standardized to prepare to attend them.
BRILLIANT thought and so very true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have found your page looking for more info. on the common core curriculum. My 1st grader goes to school in N.C. and they just switched over this year to the common core. I absolutely hate it. They are doing algebra in the 1st grade! What happened to teaching the basic’s first? Every night that we do her math homework she and I get so frustrated that we could both pull our hair out. She doe’s not understand it and I don’t even know how to explain it to her so she will understand.Because she is having a really hard time catching on I asked her Teacher what we could do at home to help. She gave me her envision’s math book, and told me that not all thing’s in the math book apply to the new curriculum. She marked the Chapters that did. Do you know that out of 20 chapters in the book only 4 were marked. So tell me how these children are supposed to learn anything at all when their text book’s don’t even teach the new curriculum in them. Doe’s anyone know if there is anyway that we can get this curriculum changed. I was told by another teacher that it would not be possible because within 10 years it will be nationwide.
The parents are the only people that will be able to stop this madness.
Teachers do not know what they are doing from one day to the next.The curriculum is so scattered it is unbelievable.
NC TEACHERS ARE TESTERS…NOT TEACHERS…
Parents have the power to get anything done but I can assure you you will be left in the dark as that is the easy the “Powers that Be” want the parents..
They do not want the parents messing with this because most all of the money allotted for the Race to wherever goes to the Big Powers that have never set foot in a classroom..
This is what happens when we give power to elitists and even global elitists (think UNESCO)
IF you are wondering about where Common Core comes from: http://robertmuller.org/rm/R1/World_Core_Curriculum.html
The key is to stop giving your power to global elitists like UNESCO. Then remove the Unconstitutional power of the US DOE.
Return the power to the local communities and you don’t have to deal with all of this.
I wonder about the impact specifically in Connecticut where we are rolling out a new comprehensive teacher evaluation system at the same time….so we have teachers learning new standards, possibly new curriculum, new evaluation processes, new observational rubrics for lessons, teaching and then setting learning goals based on results of one type of test in 2014, and then another online, common core test in 2015…how many schools will fail? How many teachers will not make gains with their students? How many will be fired? How many schools will be taken over? How will the students handle all the stress and change in the schools? It sounds to me like a lot of people will benefit – private companies waiting to take over schools, publishers, trainers, RESCS, but the hands-down, biggest loser will be the students. It is going to be a rough ride in Connecticut for a few years as this experiment unfolds.
The parents are the only people that will be able to stop this madness.
Teachers do not know what they are doing from one day to the next.The curriculum is so scattered it is unbelievable.
NC TEACHERS ARE TESTERS…NOT TEACHERS…
Parents have the power to get anything done but I can assure you you will be left in the dark as that is the easy the “Powers that Be” want the parents..
They do not want the parents messing with this because most all of the money allotted for the Race to wherever goes to the Big Powers that have never set foot in a classroom..
I am so scared for the kindergartners in my daughter’s class. Guinea pigs! They come home saying they don’t want to learn and they aren’t doing it right. I am grateful my daughter is quick to learn and loves school, but even I see her getting discouraged and questioning her skills. There is only four levels so there is nothing above IV, even for a girl who is reading at a second grade level. Also, they were given nonsense words and if they got the sounding out of the nonsense word wrong they scored low. So confusing when these children are trying to learn to read. These assessments make no sense to me! The teacher seems to spend half her day evaluating the students during assessment time. The teachers plan curriculum specifically for the tests. “This week we are focusing on math as we have math assessments next week.” Uhm, if they are to assess their learning drilling it into them the week before won’t let you know what they actually know, just what they can retain in a week’s time. I am seriously considering homeschooling. Kindergartners should not be worried about assessments and their scores!! I’m really concerned about parents who take it too seriously and the emotional damage to their children, i.e. punishment for poor scores. This seems like a HUGE step in the wrong direction.
You have “Hit the Nail on the Head”
The teachers are Testers and they now call it Assessments..Garbage..
That is all they talk about…care about…a score is the only thing that drives what the teachers and administration does….If your child is not one of the High Scorers……the teachers do not want them in their class.THE END..
I meant to say what the teachers and administrator do…
OMG..Look what I have not learned!!
I wonder for every dollar in Federal money that a school takes, how much does it actually cost us? I bet in some cases we could refuse the money, get rid of the constraints of these mandates, re-assess our own needs, and get back to teaching.
Another band aid being used to fix a broken arm. Big waste of money and time. Teachers need to unite and fight this. Those of us who have been in education for 25- 30 years know where this is headed, and it’s not a pretty picture. I’m retiring to get out of this maddness. Take your children out of public education.
If you take your kids out of public schools, you play into their hands.
If you want to enroll in a private school, that is ok, but pay for it.
Public funds for public schools, private funds for private schools.
Shanker’s AFT and the NEA, at the top, support school choice. There’s documentation that proves that . NEA at top is in bed with the internationalists whose agenda is school choice. Steering Committee for NEA’s Cardinal Principles in 1976 (?) included David ‘Rockefeller, McGeorge Bundy, et al.
Reblogged this on The SoCraddock Method and commented:
The Common is rotten right to the Core
Just like Gates and Co. to force us to upgrade to something that has a ton of bugs. He is the wrong source to drive our educational standards.
I just got home from driving my 6th grader to school. He has received 600/600 on his Star testing for the last 3 years in a row. Every year he works his butt off because he wants to learn and achieve. He said in the car, “I don’t know if I can make it through the next years.” “Why?”, I asked. “Because common core is too easy. I don’t learn anything and we only get to work in groups or we get in trouble.” It has been 4 mo. and it hasn’t gotten better. He is losing that focus that distinguished him from the rest. Ah! maybe that is the goal of Common Core.
I picked up his buddy and asked him the same. He also said he hated Common Core saying it was way too easy. Teachers must be loving the free time they now have.
This is ridiculous, where on the planet to technical people solve complicated mathematical problems in groups….nowhere. Maybe when folks are stumped they hold a brainstorming session if the problem is of utmost importance. However, if that competence was part of the hiring criteria, the employ should be let go.
We have again lowered the bar like we have in so many other things. Has anyone ever thought that the problem with our schools is with parents period. My wife and I have made our children’s education the highest priority. As a result, my children 3/5 have been consistently the top students. Heck! the one that I thought had learning disabilities is still straight A and received the highest award at his 9th grade graduation.
I don’t know what to do here…home school?