Jim Martinez decided to research the sources of the Common Core State Standards. Given their importance as a redesign of the nation’s highly decentralized education system, we can expect to see many more such efforts to understand the origins of this important document.
“Engaging the nonsense – a brief investigation of the Common Core”
A teacher asked me where the Common Core came from, another suggested that I “teach” the Common Core in my Master’s degree level courses.
So my curiosity got the best of me and I spent some time understanding something about Common Core from my perspective as a scholar and educator.
My first discovery is that the Common Core is a political document. That may seem fairly obvious, but what I mean is that there is an identifiable political ideology and history that has contributed greatly to the current document. I’ve attached a link to document that led me to this conclusion.
http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards – English Language Arts Appendix A
This document contains references to supporting representative research for the Common Core. As I read the document something caught my eye, it was the following quote from Adams (2009)
““There may one day be modes and methods of information delivery that are as efficient and powerful as text, but for now there is no contest. To grow, our students must read lots, and more specifically they must read lots of ‘complex’ texts—texts that offer them new language, new knowledge, and new modes of thought””
This bothered me. I don’t agree with the statement and so I decided to read Adams (2009) I did a Google search and found this:
http://www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/adams.htm – The Challenge of Advanced Texts:The Interdependence of Reading and Learning.
From the text I figured out that Adams is a heavy weight in reading and literacy circles (pun intended) there’s just a style of writing and authoritative stance that gives you clues, I then looked her up in Wikipedia to confirm my suspicions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Jager_Adams
If you read the article you find that not only is she a heavy weight, she is politically connected as in, inside the room when policy decisions are made.
I Googled a little more and came to this document.
http://www.niu.edu/cedu_richgels/PDFs/Adams1991.pdf
It’s a critique on her work in the 1990s that refers to her government directed research on phonics instruction. The critique and her response are very informative. It took me a couple of hours to find these documents and read parts of them and I think I found some answers to some questions and was provoked to some other thoughts that I will share with you now.
Common Core includes in it’s history, No Child Left Behind and other national educational policy reports dating back to A Nation At Risk (1983). It’s important to remember that most research is government funded and so it is unfair to critique educational research for it’s funding source. However, it is absolutely fair to question who gets to decide what the research is about and how that research is presented and used.
I happened to pursue a line of inquiry that involved Adams (2009) but there were many other researchers cited (Beck and Mckeown, vocabulary development, are notable as well) in the Common Core. I disagreed with Adams and I wanted to explore the source of the disagreement, the critiques helped clarify my understanding of my disagreement. The critiques also provided valuable insights on the theoretical framework Adams uses in her research. I still disagree with her, but I am respectful of her efforts. Which brings me to my next point.
There are many researchers cited in the Common Core, with many research agendas, using many methodological approaches across many disciplines. There is no cohesive theoretical framework or agreement on what constitutes the best approaches from a scientific research perspective to teaching and learning being represented in the document. Critics of the representative research in the Common Core abound. Some of the representative research consists of laboratory trials with small numbers of students, some include longitudinal studies and some of the research includes significant limitations that should be considered carefully when considering the claims that are made in the research.
Given the ambition of a national educational policy it seems that the best policy makers could come up with are some “best practices” that have achieved some success. It is very helpful to publicize that kind information, however, we have to ask: Is it useful to claim that a patchwork quilt of research underlying a set of standards is a framework for a solution to the educational challenges this country faces?
When teachers are asked to implement standards that they feel “do not make sense” it is not that teachers are simply ignorant and require professional development, it is in my opinion, the initial reaction of a person engaged in a craft/practice that is highly dependent and responsive to local conditions.
The Common Core standards are derived, in part, from an abstraction (the patchwork quilt of research) and are being pushed on to practitioners. The research strands that I examined tended toward the notion that knowledge acquisition is the endgame of school-based learning. I would not be surprised if that were true of many of the other research strands as that sentiment is pervasive in education.
Knowledge acquisition learning is about remembering and being able to manipulate abstract knowledge. We determine that a student has acquired knowledge by testing or providing a task that can only be completed if the individual has the requisite skill or knowledge. The Common Core is intended to set the standard for this type of learning and so there must be tests. Let’s set aside for the moment that the standardized tests we already use are not calibrated to the Common Core. If we believe in an educational system that prioritizes knowledge acquisition in the service of a national security agenda (economic competitiveness, technology dominance, etc.) then testing is necessary.
We experience the consequences of this priority in classrooms every day. I don’t have to detail them here.
If we believe that education is about more than knowledge acquisition, and that national security can be achieved through other concepts such as healthy communities, sustainable resource uses, national unity, world peace, or the elimination of hunger and poverty. Then we need to take responsibility for our practices, assert our own understandings of those practices, expose those practices to peer-review and challenge “what does not make sense” collectively.
I am finding that engaging the “nonsense” has been a good learning experience.
Thoughts and comments are welcomed.
http://michellemalkin.com/2013/01/23/rotten-to-the-core-obamas-war-on-academic-standards-part-1/
The Common Core was largely written by David Coleman and his partner, Jason Zimba; they were hired and paid by the Gates Foundation. I’d like someone to research how they were chosen; two men with zero experience teaching in K12 schools. Please someone w/ investigative abilities should look into this.
Common Core is a Gates Foundation production and never should have gotten any kind of foothold.
It looks like the Common Core was planned by Coleman, Pimental et al, who are not educators and know nothing about child development. However, given the Chicago influences surrounding Obama and Duncan, I strongly suspect a connection could have been made between them and other Chicagoans. (Coleman used to work for McKinsey, which has a corporate office in Chicago.)
In particular, the mom of Obama’s White House Senior Advisor, Valery Jarrett, may have had significant input into the primary education goals of the Common Core. She is Barbara Bowman, pictured standing behind the Obama family at the inauguration last week. Bowman is the white haired lady wearing sunglasses, on the left, and Valery is the short, light skinned woman standing a little further to the right of her (they are African American): http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/01/22/us/FASHION.html
Barbara Bowman is a close friend of Obama and Duncan and very influential in Early Childhood Education (ECE). She was appointed by Duncan to be COO of the Chicago Public School’s Office of ECE, which covered programs for preschoolers. She has also served as a consultant to Arne Duncan in his capacity as Secretary of the DoE. There have been similar changes in Head Start at HHS, including the addition of a competitive grants requirement, under Sebelius, and Duncan has worked closely with Sebelius, therefore, Barbara may have consulted with Sebelius as well.
Barbara has had a long history of corporate sponsorship, primarily by Irving B. Harris, who helped her co-found the Erikson Institute graduate school.
So, if anyone is going to investigate and follow the money, I would suggest starting in Chicago and casting a wide net.
It’s just about MONEY, CONTROL, and POWER OVER others. It’s SIC. FOLLOW the $$$$$.
Diane,
Adams is basing her opinions on a report issued 30 years ago that claimed our nation is at risk. On the heels of another failed attempt at reform (remember whole language?) our nation was declared at risk.
Opportunists like Adam’s work their way into “wonkdom” and unfortunately are declared resident experts.
Graduation rates are up, the gaps are closing, our nation has made great gains internationally, all of our children have the opportunity to attend schools, and we have maintained our economic standing as number 1 internationally.
The policy wonks, like Coleman and Adams, are the real dangers our nation faces.Yes! We are a nation at risk. We’ve allowed this dangerous social experiment called Common Core to invade our most sacred institution, our school. Unfortunately many are just too occupied racing to the top of some fictional peak, we may all slip off the cliff to our doom.
The real danger of the Common Core is that we as a nation are far from common. Common Core ignores the strengths of our diversity. Common Core are not standards, they’re scripts that all are expected to follow lockstep in unison towards the wonks’ new vision of utopia.
Quite frankly, it scares the hell out of me.
RR
Should make for a good futuristic horror movie, Children of the core.
This is why the pre-teens and teens like the HUNGER GAMES. Parallels what is happening in the “so-called” land of the free and the brave. America should really be called, “The land of GREED ala the top 1% and the top, top 1% who want to own the soul of the people who are citizens of the USA. PEONAGE is well and alive in this country.
Please watch…Melissa Harris Perry on MSNBC this morning. Seven minute segment on the Alliance for Quality Education, a national moratorium on school closings and colocations with an NYC parent speaking.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46979745/
Scroll on the left until you get to why schools are closing..second to last segment.
To grow, our students must read lots, and more specifically
they must read lots of ‘complex’ texts—texts that offer them new
language, new knowledge, and new modes of thought” Can someone shed
light on what the disagreement is with this statement? Should our
children not read lots? Should they not be reading complex texts?
Is it a disagreement with how ‘complex’ is defined? Any light you
can shed on that would be great. If it is the sense that children
should first read so that they enjoy reading, and then we can hope
they continue on their reading path to then enjoy reading complex
texts, I concur. Also, as an educator who has participated in the
implementation of the CCSS for the past two years at my school, I
have come to understand them as a good foundation for learning. Try
are not content. The concern for me, is that schools will all begin
to buy content that has been created for the CCSS, and that is
something that should be thwarted. Thank you for your
time.
Benjamin, did you see the recent discussion here about fiction reading in English classes and the CCSS? Just one of the pitfalls of making declarations that our children “must” read more “complex” texts. Although I won’t comment on the role of CCSS authors as psychics predicting the future — since no one living really knows what jobs, skills, or knowledge will be needed in another 20 years, do they? — but I will say that I too have been teaching the CCSS this year and there are some good things in there.
What is problematic for me is that, just like with Adams’ seminal work, which was used to produce and justify and enforce the lamentable Reading First disaster nationwide, the CCSS have the weight of government imprimatur hanging over them and the implementation, which is left to the states, districts, and schools to figure out, will be messy, confusing, wrongheaded in many instances, and downright antithetical to the stated purposes.
Of course the profit-making side of the CCSS is problematic for me as well. I have no issue with someone making an honest living from selling their expertise. I have huge problems with the crucial, necessary, and experimental nature of the CCSS implementation being hidden behind expensive paywalls by the authors, sponsors, and hangers-on. To really implement the CCSS as designed a school/district/state must pay large amounts of money to get to the recommended steps, procedures, supports, and materials.
Many groups have attempted to either fill the gap for free or to jump onto the cash cow and begin offering for sale CCSS “aligned lesson plans” which vary in quality from ridiculous to harmful to pretty good. Why was the implementation of this huge program an afterthought or was it always the plan to make the keys to the vehicle the profitable part? That sounds alarm bells to me and it underlines what I see what was easily predictable at the launch of CCSS taking place all around the country: schools/districts/states are all over the map in the process of implementation and many are simply planning on purchasing ready-made, CCSS-aligned, out of the box curricula out of convenience and desperation to meet the mandates of RTtT.
I have not seen a single critic of CCSS argue that students don’t need to read complex texts or that they don’t need to read widely and deeply. I do see many people pointing out that the roll-out of CCSS was not well-planned, coordinated, prepared-for, and thought out and that spells trouble down the road. I agree with that wholeheartedly.
In this era of meta-analyses, “best practices” make hay out
of “objective” data points. To claim that we can measure student
growth and plot it as a trajectory toward “college and career
readiness” would be akin to plotting the height and weight of all
American children to make claims about how obese/thin or tall/short
an individual child is. In other words, the bell shape curve would
claim most obesity to be “normal.” We can’t seem to fight this
propaganda. Rather than dismiss the failure of college entrance
tests to predict “college readiness,” colleges urge students to
retake the test to improve their scores. More high-stakes
standardized tests for standardized curriculum will not improve
societal well-being because the real problem is rising income
inequality. Nearly 4 years ago, the Wall St. Journal made this
claim: “Closing the educational-achievement gap between the U.S.
and higher-performing nations such as Finland and South Korea could
boost U.S. gross domestic product by as much as $2.3 trillion.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124040633530943487.html That’s
another distorted measurement. The GDP is the accumulated economic
activity–good and bad. Corporate education reformers have
stimulated the GDP (with a little help from Arne Duncan!) while
teachers get pink slips and public dollars are diverted to
tutoring, testing, data collection and technology. (Of course, we
can’t forget prisons!) The Internet adds a special dimension as
districts and school have to beef up security and respond to data
breaches. All that stimulation with a “common core” may be equal to
$2.3 trillion… But that’s not money is not going to commoners!
The vast data repository of the Internet allows education
technocrats to rise in the eyes of the reformers. Unsurprisingly,
the Harvard Business Review calls the data scientist “The Sexiest
Job of the 21st Century!”
http://hbr.org/product/data-scientist-the-sexiest-job-of-the-21st-century/an/R1210D-PDF-ENG
Excellent piece of research by Mr. Martinez.
Why am I not surprised that there is some covert aim (“national security agenda”) in this new decree from on high.
Disgusting!
Look what this is doing to our 5-year olds!!! It’s a form of child abuse…..Surpised to see this article in the Post, but once in a blue moon they get it right.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/playtime_over_kindergartners_ItkfEkiosY3UOa8KpXwj8K
Sorry, should read “Surprised”…..
Schoolgal, With proper training, and understanding of best
practices, when it comes to differentiation and instruction, and as
long as play is what Kindergartner’s do most, nothing in that
article was too stringent for our 5-year-olds.
What about all of the testing that is required to “prove” that these standards “work?” That takes away a lot of play from Kindergarteners right there. That’s not to mention the test prep that will come along with it.
I think when young children are frustrated and feel stupid, something is very wrong. Those concepts used to be taught in 3rd grade. Kinder is now becoming something it was never meant to be. They should be learning through play learning mathematical properties.
Btw, are you an early child specialist???
I am, Schoolgal, and I agree with you. Many of my colleagues and I have serious concerns about the CCSS, because it’s a pushed down curriculum. It’s not developmentally appropriate for 5 year olds and it also sets the stage for pushing academics onto preschoolers and younger, “to get kids ready for Kindergarten.” In my observations, that focus has often resulted in a lot of drill and kill, and learning through play gets tossed by the wayside.
I have taught Kindergarten for over 20 years and my students will play (craftily described as “self-select”) and learn through hands on FUN activities till I am fired. Perhaps I’ll be retired before then.
The testing, though, really cuts into MY playtime… uh, I mean self-select. The kids would correct me on that.
Diane, Adams is huge in the reading research area. I am actually surprised that you didn’t know this. Many of us have read her research on best practices. What’s startling to me is just how fast CCSS got up and running. Its mindboggling how quickly this has taken off given the glacial pace of most education reforms. I guess we have Bill Gates to thank for that. We should really take a page out of his book when it comes to effecting change at warp speed. Many of us are still recovering from GOALS 2000, Reading First, NCLB…but no…on to CCSS, PARCC, Close Reading, National Science Standards, etc… dizzying….thanks for continuing to educate us. Please… call out our leaders… and by that I mean the practitioners…Where are there voices??? ( Dick Allington, Nell Duke, Marilyn Jagger Adams, Dorothy Strickland, Ellin Keene, Harvey Daniels, Frank Serafini, Regie Routman, Frank Smith, Brian Cambourne…where are their voices????
Their voices were never with Adams that for sure.
responding to PB’s comment above wondering why respected education “experts” weren’t involved in the push against the Common Core [Federal] Standards…
Richard Allington: “I take strong exception to the profiteers and charlatans as well as some publishing companies who hawk their wares in the name of promoting what it takes to “meet the Common Core.” We know what it takes- a dedicated, thoughtful, articulate, and reflective practitioner.”
http://www.schoolleadership20.com/profiles/blogs/common-core-common-sense and
“The CCSS is a “no research base” reform plan placed on schools by governors in 45 states.I would have preferred that the governors had supported at least some research on use of the CCSS. If only to see if there were no positive effects, or negative effects, on achievement when schools implemented the CCSS. Someone might have researched how much professional development of what sorts was needed to support teachers using the CCSS as the benchmark for their teaching. Someone might also have placed Ms. Pimentel and Mr. Coleman in some urban high schools and put their daily instruction up on a live feed to the internet. This so everyone could watch as they had 10th graders with a 6th grade reading level read those old texts written by dead white males. Someone might even have tested whether any good could come from giving all students complex and on or above grade level texts as their curriculum materials.”
http://shankerblog.org/?p=6506#comment-65294
Nell Duke did an online webinar for the IRA titled: Informational Texts: Rising to the Challenge of the Common Core State Standards:
http://www.reading.org/general/Publications/webinars-archive/webinars-archive-duke.aspx
Marilyn Jager Adams is helping NYSeD and who knows who else to implement the CCSS:
How Marilyn Will Help Our Schools: Marilyn will share her expertise as a researcher to build Network Team members’ knowledge and skill in building students’ ability to access grade-level complex texts aligned with the Common Core.
http://usny.nysed.gov/rttt/ntinstitute/presenters/adams.html
Dorothy Strickland was on the CCSS Validation Committee along with many others that you will recognize, including Linda Darling-Hammond:
http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CommonCoreReport_6.10.pdf and seems to be on the crazy train.
“Simply put, the CCSS for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects provide a shared and consistent vision of what students should know and be able to do. They provide guidance for educators and for those who shape the policy to support educational infrastructures.”
Click to access RTy294CommonCoreCover.pdf
Ellin Keene seems to have kept herself out of the fray, except for her endorsement of the Heinemann book, Pathways to the Common Core by Christopher Lehman, Lucy Calkins and Mary Eherenworth (which I have read and is somewhat, but not always, critical of CCSS. I relished the critical parts and highlighted each one).
https://christopherlehman.wordpress.com/my-books/pathways-to-the-common-core/
Harvey Daniels co-authored Best Practice (Fourth Edition) which includes this promo: “BP4 puts top-quality teaching at the fingertips of individual practitioners by sharing real-life instructional scenes that define classroom excellence, increase learning, and improve students’ life opportunities. It’s also more valuable than ever to PLCs and school reform initiatives thanks to:
plans and strategies for exceeding state and Common Core Standards…”
http://www.heinemann.com/products/E04354.aspx
Frank Serafini is giving workshops including: “This workshop will provide support for designing instructional experiences that align with the common core standards. Dr. Serafini will discuss how novice readers learn to deal with complex texts and demonstrate what proficient readers do by engaging in think alouds and discussing the comprehension practices needed to make sense of text. This workshop will focus on discussion strategies to support reader’s transactions with complex text and a framework for developing effective lessons in comprehension. Practical applications will be embedded in a research based theoretical framework.”
http://rlc.gse.rutgers.edu/events
Regie Routman: “Raise reading and writing achievement, apply the CCSS in a sane manner, reduce the need for intervention, and embed literacy-based PLCs into your school!” http://www.facebook.com/regieroutman and http://www.seattleu.edu/coe/profdev.aspx?id=102357
I am not familiar with Frank Smith in the educational realm and it is a very common name, so I don’t pretend that anything I found via search is the right guy. Skipping him.
Brian Cambourne is not directly involved in US education. They probably don’t care too much about our CCSS at the University of Wollongong in New South Wales, Australia.
Were we kidding ourselves to think that authors (with the exception of Allington and Keene) who make their living selling books about education and making paid appearances at conferences would criticize the CCSS? Why would anyone speak out against the gravy, I mean, crazy train? As Diane said, it’s a business plan.
(I simply googled each of these educational “experts.” And I am certain that I did not uncover everything they had to say about the CCSS. Maybe there are some hidden gems of support).
Mathmatical practices, 8 or them? Whatever happened to, Learn it, Know it, Live it. -Mr. Hand
Methinks that the smartest guys in the room who wrote the common core are a little out of touch with the attention span of today’s average ute.
Ask Dr. Stephen Krashen about the links between Common
Core, national computer sales, and compilation of psychological
profiles of individual students based on computer keystrokes
(documented in US Dept of Ed specs) Anne Zerrien-Lee Public School
Teacher
I would always be interested in anything Stephen Kraschen would have to say. Wow. Comprehensible input. He gets it – all of it.
Agree. Krashen is right.
Introducing a new curriculm in this age of hyper-accountability is a guarantee for failure.
Which may be one purpose of the common bore…
I have to respectfully disagree that the Common Core standards are based on knowledge acquisition. These standards are many things and there are many problems with the way that they are being implemented. Teachers and school leaders have many legitimate concerns about the standards particularly about how the new tests will be used, what types of curricular materials will support the standards, and whether or not students will be able to achieve them. However, stating that they are about low-level knowledge acquisition means that the author of this piece has no knowledge of the standards. I am not saying that we should accept the Common Core blindly. However, we should be accurate about the way that we characterize them. The standards focus on higher-order thinking strategies and evidence based writing. There are many issues to address with the standards but there is no emphasis on low-level knowledge acquisition anywhere, particularly if you compare them to the state standards that they replace. Teachers should take advantage of this formative stage and try to shape the debate. The standards are well-written and well-intentioned and surrounded by an ocean of awful Rhee-forms. As always, the way that these standards will be assessed has the potential to totally ruin them. Let go after the facts and let’s use the gray areas to provide constructive input.
Mark, let’s start with the discussion regarding researched based results that the Common Core standards are valid before we mandate it’s use nationwide.
Let’salso discuss the absence of differentiation. Have you read Coleman’s remarks? Do we really want a nation of learners on the same page at the same time regardless of their abilities?
So far the only thing I’ve seen from Common Core is a plethora of new workbooks, consultants, and assessments
RRatto, I agree with you that we may want to implement the
CCSS slowly, do some longitudinal studies to see its effectiveness.
The CCSS is not responsible for providing differentiation, that is
up to the classroom teacher. I am not aware of States using
standards that are differentiated, but please provide a link to an
example to correct my ignorance. Your last point is the one to be
most aware of. If we are headed down this road, and I think we are,
we must promote best practices and prevent our schools from using
mandated curriculum.
Yes, but the individual teachers are told NOT to differentiate, at least in my state. The teachers have been told that there will be NO lower-level math classes besides resource. For students who are struggling? “Just give them calculators,” is what the teachers are being told. Now I have a learning-disabled son who isn’t low level enough for resource, but is not at grade level, and is falling into the chasm.
A nation of learners on the same page at the same time? This is absolutely the opposite of the Common Core standards. Sorry, as I said before, there are many problems with implementation but we need to read the standards before dismissing them. There is nothing in the Common Core about learners being on the same page of a workbook at the same time. In fact, one of the key problems with the standards is that at this time, there are absolutely no curricular materials that support them. The Common Core is about efferent (text-based) evidence, thinking strategies, and the practice of learning skills above content. This is a very positive development that should move us away from the overarching theme of the rest of the reform movement: that children are empty vessels waiting and willing to be filled with knowledge. These standards are very teacher friendly and while peripheral reform efforts could weaken them, they are absolutely not about same page at the same time learning. In fact, one of the biggest problems with this hasty implementation is that schools that have been operating that way will have a hard adjustment towards the best practices that the CCSS outline.
I’ll let David Coleman respond ..
On differentiation..
“The question regards what is the right role of level text in comprehension strategies and reading development and when I get to the letter I think we can talk about that in context but I would give the first a couple of immediate reactions. One of the greatest threats to a wide range of students being able to read sufficiently complex text with confidence is we keep them out of the game. Far too early and far too often we reduce text complexity for these students rather than giving them the scaffolding they need to embrace and practice that complexity. It begins as early as K-2. It would astonish you. These level readers give easier vocabulary to certain students than others, sacrificing the academic vocabulary they need to succeed in the future. So I am saying in a clear voice, the core of instruction, core classroom time becomes the shared encounter of sufficiently difficult text.”
What about the struggling reader.. what level of difficulty will cause anxiety, depression, self doubt , etc.
On everyone being in the same place at the same time…
“I think you are precisely right that sixth grade is the most cramped. It is due to the pressure to get to linear algebra by grade 8, which forces some material downwards.”
In other words, each grade must master specific skills.. the key word is must
And from NYS Commissioner King ..
And so over the course of the next school year what we will ask is that in every classroom around the state, this is not a mandate but a request that in every classroom around the state teachers try to do one common core aligned unit each semester as a way to really delve into the common core.
And then in 2012-13, we will then align our assessment system to the common core and our assessments will look much more like the work that we did together today. We will also by 2012-13 be able to make available for teachers and schools across the state more exemplar units. So we will start with a small number of exemplar units at elementary, middle and high school levels in English Language Arts and literacy and in math that we’ll make available this August, we’ll start there. But we’ll build on those exemplar units so that by the time we enter the 2012-13 school year, we will enter with rich common core aligned modules in English Language Arts and mathematics and the arts for 2012-13.
Assessments will be based on each grade level standard.. So where’s the differentiation? Where’s the differentiation in the exemplar units?
I shall put in my agreement with Mark from FL. As an
educator who has spent the last year and a half implementing the
CCSS into their school, I believe that the standards provide a
strong foundation for teachers and students. They do not teach
content, ,more they provide a skill set.The content is left up to
the practitioners. A fear I would have is that districts and states
will start the buy content that is “aligned” with the CCSS. Any
content will serve the purpose, if schools and teachers have strong
practices. I do not see why “reading lots” is such a bad thing.
Kids need to be given the opportunity to fall in love with reading,
before being exposed to too complex of text, but who among us would
not want our students to be able to decode and understand complex
text of any type. Beyond all of that, I will have to say that no
matter what standards we are asked to teach, I believe that Sugatra
Mitra said it best when he stated the three things that students
actually need to be taught: 1. Reading comprehension 2. To gather
and vet resources 3: To believe
I too shall put in my agreement with Mark from FL and Benjamin Light. The Common Core isn’t without its weaknesses but I do believe that they are a significant step in the right direction from which most educators are currently using. The problem lies in the peripheral pieces of the whole CC movement.
1. speed in which it was implemented.
2. Testing… (depending on your state it might be a debatable improvement).
3. Districts adopting CC “aligned” programs/resources that function as scripts and miss the fundamental principles of the CC.
4. New high stakes evaluation systems adopted at the same time as the CC.
5. Last but surely not least… this whole things stinks of a way to accomplish two money driven things. First, buy tons of new technology(debatably good, but surely shady) and resources. Second, destroy public education by convincing the masses that our schools are a failure after our schools inevitably do poorly on state tests after a hurried and complete shift in education, thus the opening of more charters and online schools.
I appreciate your research. As an English teacher and administrator who is mandated to teach and acculturate the staff and students to the ELA standards, I find that they do improve the quality of students’ reasoning, writing and reading. I have not yet been forced to swallow the tests which will come out in 2014. I fear that the tests, and Pearson’s involvement in those tests will hamstring our efforts. The CCS Standards themselves are not really the problem. I fear their implementation.
I agree. In FL, the state standards were pretty good but the state test destroyed them. The Marzano development system has best practices in it but the high stakes evaluations have ruined it. The CC is a fantastic roadmap and the PARCC/ overall implementation could destroy that as well. We just need time to work it out, which we do not have!
I did not read all the links and I understand how the involvement of politics and non- educators make things go awry, but how can anyone disagree with the fact that students should read a lot and read things that “offer them new language, new knowledge, and new modes of thought”?
I dislike telling them what they should read, but what is wrong with encouraging wide reading of all types of text at increasing levels of difficulty? What am I not understanding?
I have no doubt that some states need better standards.
My objection is the notion that every state needs this. NYS’s Learning standards were excellent, and several important standards were discarded as we jumped onto the reformers band wagon as we race to nowhere
Reblogged this on Transparent Christina.
I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it makes one wonder if there is not a grander conspiracy here. Our school district, and I dare say our entire state, is ramping up to buy huge amounts of computers in preparation for the PARCC tests in 2014. Two years ago we barely scraped up enough money for one small 25 computer lab. Now we are told the district will supply us with 3 more complete labs for this test. Pearson tests, Pearson test prep books, new text books, technology, computers, etc., etc. Ever wonder who will be making big bucks off of these Common Core standards?
And it is recommended for both PARCC and SBAC that all upgrade their operating system to Windows 7 and who do you suppose benefits from that recommendation?
He is SO charitable…what a great, great man!
Exactly what I was thinking. It makes me sick when I hear news reporters tell what a great philanthropist he is, expecting nothing in return???
If you read the requirements for the PARCC, you will see the following:
Operating System
Windows 7
Mac 10.7
Linux (Ubuntu 11.10, Fedora 16)
Chrome OS
Apple iOs
Android 4.0
Device Types:
Desktops, laptops, netbooks, thin client, and tablets that meet the hardware, operating system, and networking specifications.
http://www.parcconline.org/technology
Can we all hold on a bit with thinking their is some evil plot to force people to buy windows devices. If your school/distric is buying windows 7 devices so they can take the PARCC, tell them to read some complex tex first.
Will Bill be funding the upgrades for all schools and districts across the nation? Many will be slashing budgets just to accommodate the testing regime…of course that means cutting teachers and larger class sizes…..all for the sake of more testing.
Since we are sharing informational text, can you share this with Bill and David?
Do they read text that doesn’t support their opinions?
I have a few more for you. Please be sure to send to the Gates USDOE.
10 Questions to Ask Your Child’s School District on Data Privacy Day 2013
http://www.pogowasright.org/?p=32852
Ben,
More information to forward to Bill and Dave:
Common Core Assessments: More Tests, But Not Much Better
Under No Child Left Behind, states set standards and developed assessments. NCLB’s failure to spur achievement or close achievement gaps led to unproven claims that national or “common” standards were the missing piece of the education puzzle. With millions in federal Race to the Top money and NCLB “waivers” as incentives, all but a few states have adopted the Common Core standards. Two multi-state consortia—the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC)—won federal grants to develop tests to measure the new standards. These tests will be in full use in the 2014-15 school year. Since most states have joined a consortium, it is important to understand what the new exams will mean for our schoolchildren.
http://www.fairtest.org/common-core-assessments-more-tests-not-much-better
One more….informational text with research/citations
Please share Ben….I am sure the “reformers” want to be informed. Maybe they could hold off a bit, too especially before they force people to accept their methods.
Why Teacher Evaluation Shouldn’t Rest on Student Test Scores
Why Teacher Evaluation Shouldn’t Rest on Student Test Scores
To win federal Race to the Top grants or waivers from No Child Left Behind, most states have adopted teacher and principal evaluation systems based largely on student test scores. Many educators have resisted these unproven policies. Researchers from 16 Chicago-area universities and more than 1,500 New York state principals signed statements against such practices. Chicago teachers even struck over this issue, among others. Here’s why these systems– including “value added” (VAM) or “growth” measures — are not effective or fair.
Click to access Teacher-Evaluation-FactSheet-10-12.pdf
It is not a conspiracy. It is a business plan.
Agreed. It also works out nicely when our schools inevitably do poorly on the more difficult tests in which underfunded schools hurried a pedagogical shift in education, and then our politicians say “look how bad our schools are, we need more private charters and for profit online schools… that will fix education.”
How about music-reading? There’s a good mode and method of code-reading. It has served me well. I am glad I get to teach it!
Diane, more people read music before Sputnick, right?
More people should read music. Not just listen to it and consume it, but read it.
It could cure a lot, I think. It helps keep people humble. Even the smartest of folks!
I hope the author keeps up his research. I particularly liked this comment he made, “When teachers are asked to implement standards that they feel “do not make sense” it is not that teachers are simply ignorant and require professional development, it is in my opinion, the initial reaction of a person engaged in a craft/practice that is highly dependent and responsive to local conditions”. I would go so far as to include “national conditions. Time to start treating experienced teachers like their REAL classroom experience counts for something!
The Common Core Standards were promulgated by the National Governors Association at the behest of of Achieve, Inc., a power center that also functions as a facilitator of education reform(www.achieve.org/files/About%AchieveADP-Apr2012.pdf).
In 2001, it affiliated with The Education Trust, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and National Alliance of Business to form The American Diploma Project, the purpose of which was to “identify the ‘must have’ skills most demanded by higher education and employers.” (www.achieve.org/history-achieve). This is where all the “college and career ready” language comes from.
The current Board of Achieve, Inc, includes a number of governors, as well as representatives from technology (Intel, IBM), finance (Prudential) and defense research (Battelle).
The Common Core Standards, in their purpose and implementation, are nothing if not political.
This is a fine expose of the hodgepodge that is being promoted as a unified “core.” Thank you.
“It’s important to remember that most research is government funded and so it is unfair to critique educational research for it’s funding source.”
Does that mean you think governments have no agenda of their own? Take a closer look at the UK situation and you may change your mind on this.
Does “knowledge acquisition” necessarily preclude teaching goals that include developing healthy communities, ending world hunger, peace and other important human efforts? Doesn’t the knowledge one acquires become the basis for working on those goals as well as it can become the basis of weapons research, political manipulation of other nations, spying, increasing profit through ruthless destruction of workers’ autonomy, etc.?
We’re a little leery here in CT about receiving expensive gifts from Bill.
There are lots of strings attached. The initiative also ends up costing more money in the long run and as usual, the taxpayers and an elected body are rarely informed. Read more here:
An Expensive ‘Gift’ for Taxpayers Without Accountability
While receiving additional money for schools is always a cause for celebration, it’s worth taking notice when a small group of people accept a grant that results in additional costs for the state’s taxpayers without that grant having been voted upon by an elected body. It’s also worth taking notice when, in fact, the grant is purposely structured in such a way to avoid the scrutiny of an elected body. Back in December, when everyone was applauding the $5 million grant the Gates Foundation made to Hartford Schools, I had a few questions, particularly about MAP testing, and the expense of its associated technology.
Because of a loophole in current policy that only requires that it vote to approve Federal and State grant applications, the Hartford Board of Education never agreed to apply for the Gates Foundation grant, or to approve it, even though the acceptance of the grant has an impact on Hartford Public Schools and, ultimately, the Connecticut taxpayer.
Superintendent of Schools Christina Kishimoto, Mayor Pedro Segarra (a self-appointed member of the school board), school board Chairman Matthew K. Poland (Director of the Hartford Public Library), and representatives from Jumoke Academy, Achievement First, ConnCAN, Achieve Hartford, and the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving met with the Gates Foundation to discuss the grant in the summer of 2012 without the full school board’s knowledge. In August, the board was asked to renew the contract for the Northwest Evaluation Association MAP program for two years at a cost of $592,443, or $11.50 per student. MAP, or Measures of Academic Progress, was piloted with the 9th grade last year, but this year was extended K-12. At the time the school board was asked to renew the contract with the rollout of the program, the source of funding was described as “special funds”, with no mention of the Gates grant.
http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/an_expensive_gift_for_taxpayers_without_accountability/
I haven’t found there to be great evidence for the “complex text” argument, other than what folks really mean is that we should instruct children on the highest level possible within their instructional level in comprehension, as opposed to using their instructional levels with reading fluency. This seems to be a big source of misunderstanding, as I think folks are taking it that we should be teaching text material that is too hard for kids.
I also agree that the idea of an exact ratio of informational text is not necessarily ideal.
At the same time, to the extent that we have standards, it’s better that they’re, well, standardized – they are, after, called standards for a reason. The issues with common core that folks have globally – not just with a particular standard – but the overall concept – will be the exact same issues with pretty much every set of standards. So, I’d personally like to see us move the discussion away from CCSS and toward the very discussion of standards at all. I see both strengths and weaknesses, though we aren’t discussing those general positives/weaknesses because we are too caught up with the specific CCSS standards in front of us.
Thank you so much for this response, EdEd. I keep reading through this thread, thinking that someone, ANYONE, will address that this is not the first time our states have adopted standards. This was a requirement of NCLB in the 90’s, that all states build assessment systems and track students’ achievement against a common set of instructional standards. This may be our nation’s first attempt at successfully (for lack of a better adverb) instituting a set of unified standards, but nonetheless, they are still standards. As a California educator, I’ve been through a wealth of change and pendulum swinging-including whole language, the CA 1997 standards, and now this.
I too would like to see the conversation move away from what seems to be a new dirty word for many-Common Core. On the contrary, I would like to know what issues people have with particular standards themselves, not the politics behind them or the anxiety over your state’s choice of curriculum (or lack thereof). And to do this, one would actually have to read through their state’s version of CCSS and make comparisons to their state’s old ones. Yes, articles, links to other’s research, & opinion pieces are fantastic for helping us gain more insight and see various perspectives. But at some point I’d like to hear a passionate response from someone who is knowledgeable about what their standards entail, and have a sound argument on why this is not an acceptable goal for their children/students in comparison to the prior expectations of their state standards. Additionally, what learning goals do you (someone) feel might be more apt?
I read that they emerged from E.D.Hirsch’s original Core Curriculum that he created 20 some years ago. I will recheck my sources.
Marilyn Jager Adams’ book Beginning To Read” , 1990, Massachusette Institute of Technology, is based on experimental research over a thirty year period of behavioral psychology. The first clue in her book is found under Acknowledgements to many including Doug Carnine, College of Education, University of Oregon. (ix). (Direct Instruction based on the theory of B. F. Skinner). Also of significance is found on page x, McGill University ( engaged in same research for years), and on the reference pages at the back of this two pound government sponsored book. (Educational Research and Improvement under cooperative agreement No. G 0087-C1001).
Adams’ book became the Bible for restructuring education especially Language Arts and especially Reading. From this research we get the Reading First disaster implemented under No Child Left Behind. This experimental research is now implemented under the “Core Standards” being promoted in most states. Let us examine the roots of his travesty. What is being proposed? B. F. Skinner and his ideas.
Skinner’s operant conditioning theory fits like a glove with computerized education i. e. “Skinner’s old learning box”. It is most effective with training young children for the workforce. Such methods appeal to “controllers” and especially money seekers and those who no longer believe in the American dream of upward mobility or the democratic principle of representative government.
I find it amazing that so few educators are actually involved in restructuring education. Vested money seeker implementing “choice” charter schools know nothing about education or children. Adams actually does not have a background in Reading. I read her book several years ago, and pulled it up again today to scan for various sections due to the blogs posted on Diane’s blog. Many involved in the Reading First disaster were found to have a conflict of interest.
The Reading First disaster was based on “scientific research” but they never said what theory of scientific research. Behavioral scientific research is behind this whole monstrosity and has been for many years. Take a look at the reading programs that were approved under the guise of “scientific research”. Arizona actually passed a law to implement this hoax, and apparently it is still in effect.
I have read, today’s , comments: “drill and practice of isolated skills, lock-stepped”; Children who come to school knowing how to read are still to be instructured in the same way as others”.; scripted learning of skills above content” . All aligned to the unproven tests. Teach and test all based on Skinner’s theory that gave us OBE, Mastery Learning, and Direct Instruction as noted by Carnine.
The most important post on Diane’s blog was by Dr. Yetta Goodman, U of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. Her research, from my point of view, as a Reading Specialist, MA, Arizona State University, is on target. This old article was published in The Reading Teacher, Vol. 44, No. 6, February 1991 (on Diane’s blog). I urge all to read it.
As a Reading Specialist, I know that not all children learn in the same manner. Some children can not learn by phonics because they cannot hear the sounds (usually tone deaf). Some children are sight learners………. and some- we have no idea how they learn. I do know that we can not put ALL children and teachers into the same category and expect them to become proficient because the federal government and state has mandated it.
We are a nation of freedom loving people who believe in “individualism”, and this must be protected above all other concepts in my opinion. Our children must not be programmed to “what to do” what to think” and how to respond in unison to an isolated drill as advocated in Adams’ book (best I could determine from her rambling), and the core standards being promoted nation- wide under restructuring…choice/charter schools etc.
Undue pressure is being placed on small children to meet these unrealistic objectives of vested interest. This must be stopped!
Correction -> E.D. Hirsch’s “Core Knowledge”, not Core Curriculum. Still need verification of that.
Hi Diane! Lots of varied reactions for the Common Core indeed. Well, here’s one great resource – https://www.opened.io/
OpenEd contains the LARGEST and MOST COMPLETE catalog of free educational videos available ANYWHERE.
It’s free and in private beta for now. Let me know if you need an invite.
As a teacher in Louisiana the biggest problem I’m having is the contradiction between was is necessary for the Common Core curriculum and what is necessary to do well on the new evaluation system, Compass. For my students to do well with Common Core, I need to break things down, hand-hold, and take baby steps through the curriculum; however, for me to do well onmy evaluation system, my kids need to teach themselves, correct each other, talk to each other, not me, decide how they should be graded— the list goes on and on. The two are incompatible, especially when you factor in my stduents come to 9th reading, on average, about the fourth or fifth grade level with on two or three per year reading at 8th grade level. Compass is based on the Charlotte danielson Framework which has been cherry-picked to only 4 or 5 of her components; I hope she hates what the state has done to her framework but I’m sure she doesn’t care since they paid her money to use it..
trish, what are your results now.
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are the outcome of a long-standing effort to position education as the key to our nation’s superiority and economic competitiveness (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). The premise is misleading, but one account of the origin of the current Standards is in the 2008 report issued by Achieve and the Education Trust: Making College and Career Readiness the Mission for High Schools: A Guide for State Policymakers. This report includes commentary on the origin of the Common Core State Standards: “In 2001, we came together to launch the American Diploma Project (ADP), along with the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the National Alliance of Business. The goal of ADP was to identify the skills and knowledge required for success after high school and use those to help high schools reset and anchor their K-12 goals and standards. In 2004, we published “Ready or Not: Creating a High School Diploma That Counts,” which found that all students, whether they are heading to college or embarking on a meaningful career, need the same rigorous academic foundation. We also identified a series of policies states could enact to increase the chances that students would be taught and would learn those essentials” (p. 7).
In 2008, the National Governors Association, Council of Chief State School Officers, and Achieve enlisted an advisory group to amp up PR for the Common Core. This report, Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World-class Education (2008) was published with support of the GE Foundation and the Bill and Melina Gates Foundation. These reports like the CCSS advance a simple “theory of action:” Revive the old two-track system of moving students into college preparation or vocational education, but with a new spin; namely, a single set of standards for college preparation and entry into workforce training. The whole architecture for the CCSS is built on exaggerated claims and a lot of borrowed materials from the American Diploma Project. The Standards are supposed to be aligned with college and work expectations, but there is no recognition that: (a) criteria for entry into post-secondary programs differ according to the career one may pursue (e.g., plumbing, pre-med, music, or architecture) and (b) criteria for entry differ for highly selective universities, community colleges, trade schools, and on–the-job training.
The CCSS began with a one-size-fits-all agenda for high school. The image of a beefed up high school curriculum and tough “exit” exams started writers on a process of reverse engineering (back-mapping) to every prior grade, including Kindergarten. That’s why Kindergarten is now called a course! That’s why some of the ELA standards for grades 9/10 actually refer to college assignments. The Standards are intolerant of the idea that individual students may learn at different rates. Kindergarteners are now to be launched on a college/career path with scores on high stakes tests determining judgments about their progress. Being on track for college and a career at every grade is a different version of No Child Left Behind…with a lot less wiggle room because all 1,620 of the CCSS are candidates for the new on-line, multi-state tests in 2014. Meanwhile, all studies in other subjects have become subservient to, and constrained by, the requirements of the Common Core State Standards.
Martinez’s wrong use of the possesive its depressed me.
What does that mean?
I think that an influential group of American society is ignored or under-utilized when developing educational/learning standards for our children: successful business leaders both past and present. The CCSS’s premise is to ready American children for success in life, to make money, to benefit from their education, yet the people who do the hiring, firing, and training of American workers, and the very ones who know what kind of education it takes to achieve economic “success” in today’s marketplace, are not part of the planning for educational standards. I would include input from American business and occupations to include military, science, engineering, education, vocational, human services (medical, social services, care of the elderly), and even some foreign business executives that would have global insight on our educational needs. By limiting the input to only educators in achieving our educational goals, we are failing our children in their educational pursuits, and it is shortsighted..
The bottom line to CCSS’s questionable appearance in educational reformation is someone sees a way to influence his financial bottom line. Did I see McGraw-Hill is part of all this?
John Boyer, you have the wrong picture. The decisions made today about how to reform schools come from CEOs, not from educators.
@dianerav Not based on the research you referenced in your article above.
@dianerav re comment above about CEO influence: Not based on the research noted in your post.
GeneK, please explain question
As a teacher my experience with the common core all through the 2012-13 school year has been dismal. I have been trained and instructed to maintain a timeline which does not allow me to address students’ individual needs or to expand their contextual understanding of the material presented.
My students are low-performing, challenged students who have greater needs than most, but my superiors expect the same results as any other group. When asked exactly how that is achieved in my class room, the questions has been dodged every time. At no point at any one of the “experts” attempted to demonstrate these “best practices” in a live class room with my students.
There’s something rotten in the state of Denmark!
Where did the actual name, “Common Core” come from? I ask because tonight I was teaching about the Sizer/HIrsch philosophical ed reform split (accumulation of knowledge versus use of knowledge) and noticed that Hirsch created the “Core” Knowledge Foundation and Sizer developed the “Common” Principles. Wondered if the name was some sort of tribute to both gentlemen?? R. Shore
PS Diane – Thanks for coming to UNC-Charlotte!
I’ve discovered a possible link between World Core & Common Core.
Dr. Robert Muller was a former UN Assistant Secretary General, who developed World Core curriculum and Proper.
Links: http://www.unol.org/rms/wcc.html
http://www.goodmorningworld.org/earthgov/
At the request of educators I wrote the World Core Curriculum, the product of the United Nations, the meta-organism of human and planetary evolution.”
~ Robert Muller, former U.N. Assistant Secretary General
I dream that UNESCO will study and reccomend by the year 2000 a world core curriculum by all nations http://robertmuller.org/rm/R1/Home.html
http://robertmuller.org/rm/R1/World_Core_Curriculum.html
Appreciate your diligence in researching this topic, because it’s very important. That said, it would be easier to accept your conclusions if you weren’t making grammatical mistakes along the way. Using the wrong “it’s” and writing in run-on sentences is aggravating to read to say the least. I know it’s a blog and not in The Journal of Educational, but the irony can’t be overlooked. (Editor’s Note: I made up that Journal)
I’m intensely curious as to who Jim Martinez is and the origin of this document. I have so many questions and would like to know how to get hard copies of his data.
Gary,
For more on the origins of Common Core, read Mercedes Schneider. Her blog is deutsch29.
John Boyer is right on concerning who should be deciding the ciriculum of our schools. The goal of education is to be able to survive. if one is survive using only the knowledge taught at school to prepare them for a career or job (meaning then get no help from family or government), then he should be taught subjects that transfer directly to the real world. Apprentice programs such as those Germany has give the student a job before graduation; and, assuming the student is diligent and satisfies the apprentice master, provides a smooth transition to a working career. Do any of you remember the day after you graduated high school when you didn’t have any idea how to search for a job or how the working world filled jobs? Surely you suspected that most just got jobs because of nepotism or association with your parents influence. If those crutches were not available, it was a dark and scary world. Students should be screened by employers as early as 8th or 9th grade to help them prepared and guided into jobs. This guidance shoukd apply to career professional positions, too. Our country is rife with self-serving crooks who want to serve themselves rather than helping the kids. My God, the kids have it worse than anyone in history! Look at the national debt left for them to pay or figure out how to trade something to China that they might want because the debt can never be paid. We have perfect models for scooling in multiple successful countries. Lets us copy their ciriculum 100% and see if our teachers can fit the teaching bill. I think they can. Abolish the NEA along with the IRS, CIA, NSA, ATF, TSA, Homeland Security, and hosts more useless bureacracies and give the power back to the states.
Ron, I believe you make many great points. I have always believed kids need to learn how to live and be successful in their life while they are in school. That is just not taught enough or at all. This CCSS is a huge diversion from educating our children,
Diane, you still haven’t explained the “origin” of CCSS. Why did the government, the Gates and Soros get involved in the education system in this country? That is the question I want answered. Why was Bill Ayers involved at all? You listed how they justified it.
Joy Williams,
Common Core originated among the permanent organizations in D.C.: Achieve, the Council of Chief State School Officers, the National Governors. association, plus a new addition: David Coleman’s Student Achievement Partners. The idea for national standards seemed to be the answer that they and other organizations had been searching for. During the 2008 campaign, a committee of high-level politicians gathered $60 million to lobby for national standards.
If you read this article– http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bill-gates-pulled-off-the-swift-common-core-revolution/2014/06/07/a830e32e-ec34-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html—you will see that Bill Gates agreed to pay for everything: the writing, the development, the advocacy, and even funded the unions and civil rights groups to promote CCSS.
Better yet, go to Mercedes Schneider’s blog —deutsch29—and you will see the huge amounts that Gates paid to line up support. She estimates Gates spent over $200 million. Jack Hassard, a retired science professor at Georgia State–estimates that Gates spent over $2 billion.
Bill Ayers had nothing to do with the CCSS. He had nothing to do with the writing or any other aspect of CCSS.
Diane
blog–deutsch29—and y