I have thought long and hard about the Common Core standards.
I have decided that I cannot support them.
In this post, I will explain why.
I have long advocated for voluntary national standards, believing that it would be helpful to states and districts to have general guidelines about what students should know and be able to do as they progress through school.
Such standards, I believe, should be voluntary, not imposed by the federal government; before implemented widely, they should be thoroughly tested to see how they work in real classrooms; and they should be free of any mandates that tell teachers how to teach because there are many ways to be a good teacher, not just one. I envision standards not as a demand for compliance by teachers, but as an aspiration defining what states and districts are expected to do. They should serve as a promise that schools will provide all students the opportunity and resources to learn reading and mathematics, the sciences, the arts, history, literature, civics, geography, and physical education, taught by well-qualified teachers, in schools led by experienced and competent educators.
For the past two years, I have steadfastly insisted that I was neither for nor against the Common Core standards. I was agnostic. I wanted to see how they worked in practice. I wanted to know, based on evidence, whether or not they improve education and whether they reduce or increase the achievement gaps among different racial and ethnic groups.
After much deliberation, I have come to the conclusion that I can’t wait five or ten years to find out whether test scores go up or down, whether or not schools improve, and whether the kids now far behind are worse off than they are today.
I have come to the conclusion that the Common Core standards effort is fundamentally flawed by the process with which they have been foisted upon the nation.
The Common Core standards have been adopted in 46 states and the District of Columbia without any field test. They are being imposed on the children of this nation despite the fact that no one has any idea how they will affect students, teachers, or schools. We are a nation of guinea pigs, almost all trying an unknown new program at the same time.
Maybe the standards will be great. Maybe they will be a disaster. Maybe they will improve achievement. Maybe they will widen the achievement gaps between haves and have-nots. Maybe they will cause the children who now struggle to give up altogether. Would the Federal Drug Administration approve the use of a drug with no trials, no concern for possible harm or unintended consequences?
President Obama and Secretary Duncan often say that the Common Core standards were developed by the states and voluntarily adopted by them. This is not true.
They were developed by an organization called Achieve and the National Governors Association, both of which were generously funded by the Gates Foundation. There was minimal public engagement in the development of the Common Core. Their creation was neither grassroots nor did it emanate from the states.
In fact, it was well understood by states that they would not be eligible for Race to the Top funding ($4.35 billion) unless they adopted the Common Core standards. Federal law prohibits the U.S. Department of Education from prescribing any curriculum, but in this case the Department figured out a clever way to evade the letter of the law. Forty-six states and the District of Columbia signed on, not because the Common Core standards were better than their own, but because they wanted a share of the federal cash. In some cases, the Common Core standards really were better than the state standards, but in Massachusetts, for example, the state standards were superior and well tested but were ditched anyway and replaced with the Common Core. The former Texas State Commissioner of Education, Robert Scott, has stated for the record that he was urged to adopt the Common Core standards before they were written.
The flap over fiction vs. informational text further undermined my confidence in the standards. There is no reason for national standards to tell teachers what percentage of their time should be devoted to literature or information. Both can develop the ability to think critically. The claim that the writers of the standards picked their arbitrary ratios because NAEP has similar ratios makes no sense. NAEP gives specifications to test-developers, not to classroom teachers.
I must say too that it was offensive when Joel Klein and Condoleeza Rice issued a report declaring that our nation’s public schools were so terrible that they were a “very grave threat to our national security.” Their antidote to this allegedly desperate situation: the untried Common Core standards plus charters and vouchers.
Another reason I cannot support the Common Core standards is that I am worried that they will cause a precipitous decline in test scores, based on arbitrary cut scores, and this will have a disparate impact on students who are English language learners, students with disabilities, and students who are poor and low-performing. A principal in the Mid-West told me that his school piloted the Common Core assessments and the failure rate rocketed upwards, especially among the students with the highest needs. He said the exams looked like AP exams and were beyond the reach of many students.
When Kentucky piloted the Common Core, proficiency rates dropped by 30 percent. The Chancellor of the New York Board of Regents has already warned that the state should expect a sharp drop in test scores.
What is the purpose of raising the bar so high that many more students fail?
Rick Hess opined that reformers were confident that the Common Core would cause so much dissatisfaction among suburban parents that they would flee their public schools and embrace the reformers’ ideas (charters and vouchers). Rick was appropriately doubtful that suburban parents could be frightened so easily.
Jeb Bush, at a conference of business leaders, confidently predicted that the high failure rates sure to be caused by Common Core would bring about “a rude awakening.” Why so much glee at the prospect of higher failure rates?.
I recently asked a friend who is a strong supporter of the standards why he was so confident that the standards would succeed, absent any real-world validation. His answer: “People I trust say so.” That’s not good enough for me.
Now that David Coleman, the architect of the Common Core standards, has become president of the College Board, we can expect that the SAT will be aligned to the standards. No one will escape their reach, whether they attend public or private school.
Is there not something unseemly about placing the fate and the future of American education in the hands of one man?
I hope for the sake of the nation that the Common Core standards are great and wonderful. I wish they were voluntary, not mandatory. I wish we knew more about how they will affect our most vulnerable students.
But since I do not know the answer to any of the questions that trouble me, I cannot support the Common Core standards.
I will continue to watch and listen. While I cannot support the Common Core standards, I will remain open to new evidence. If the standards help kids, I will say so. If they hurt them, I will say so. I will listen to their advocates and to their critics.
I will encourage my allies to think critically about the standards, to pay attention to how they affect students, and to insist, at least, that they do no harm.
Thank you, Diane. I know you’ve thought about this and researched it thoroughly. We’ve pondered it many times over. Your questions hit the ‘core’ of this fiasco.
“What is the purpose of raising the bar so high that many more students fail?”
“Why so much glee at the prospect of higher failure rates?”
We all know why. The Common Core [NATIONAL] Standards are an important piece of the drive to kill public education in the US.
THANK you for your eloquence and passion.
Let’s get real! What is it that the corporate “reformers” really want? MONEY! Sure the Common Core will frighten parents into thinking public schools are not doing there jobs. Where are students to turn? Virtuals! With a Common Core curriculum virtual schools only have one curriculum to follow. They will no longer have to design software to fit different State Curriculum requirements, they can now go National!
Now that the corporate “reformers” have control of States as public schools fail, due to the Common Core, corporate paid politicians will push for remediation by Virtual training. This has been in the works for a decade now. The millions in profits going to testing will be a drop in the bucket compared to the billions they can make with National Virtual Schools and training!
Enter Neil Bush and friends (and family). I bet they are gloating – all the way to the bank.
Can you imagine their plans. How much did Neil make last decade on online crap?
Reblogged this on mattandkaytie and commented:
An interesting article about something that affects nearly every child in this country.
Thanks, Diane. I came to the same conclusion, for many of the same reasons, recently myself. I think this another example of how a basically good idea get hijacked by powerful interests to suit the agenda of those interests. What could have been a solid educational and cultural foundation for all Americans now looks like yet another political football and object of hucksterism.
An excellent post. The ideas set forth in the Common Core offer important ideas for consideration. The most disturbing effect of the force feeding of the standards is the homogenization of the curriculum, which single handedly strips the art of teaching. Yes, textbooks have become less rigorous over the past 40 years. Yes, testing has increased over the past 40 years. Yes, public trust has deteriorated and some schools have failed at their task, to educate their students in preparation for college and career. But has anyone looked at the schools who haven’t failed? Has anyone thought about all of those teachers, principals, superintendents, schools, districts that have succeeded? How many of those successful educators are preparing to leave the profession because of the implementation process alone. Will the Common Core implementation leave our schools with less of our best? Thank you Diane for your deep consideration of the implementation of the Common Core and its effect on our students and teachers. We look forward…
“I have come to the conclusion that the Common Core standards effort is fundamentally flawed by the process with which they have been foisted upon the nation.”
Thank you, Dr. Ravitch.
I, too, cannot embrace an unvetted initiative spawn in deception.
Unfortunately, the “standards” already are inflicting harm on the people they affect the most – the students and their teachers.
Students are scared of assessments, knowing that so much about them is at stake; teachers are forced to teach prescriptively, knowing that their students are not engaging, but feeling helpless in the face of all the money being poured into this effort, money that, incidentally, is NOT going into schools to address any of the real problems. New teacher evaluation systems are making Charlotte Danielson a wealthy woman though.
Teacher are being threatened for doing what they have always done – trying to make learning engaging and enjoyable always, but more importantly, TEACHING kids. Now they are only “allowed” to do something if it is written in the “curriculum.” Do NOT even THINK about going outside ANY boxes.
Fear is never an effective motivator, and the mistakes that will be made by students and their teachers will only be seen as reflecting on them personally: “they didn’t study enough,” “they couldn’t cut the harder work because they weren’t adequately prepared,” “these teachers are having to work harder now and they don’t like it.” Blah, Blah, Blah.
I’ve not met a student who didn’t like to learn once that spark was created. And I don’t know of a teacher who doesn’t work at least 10 hours a day AT school, and then takes work home to be graded, and planned.
And none of this new. Bullies pick on weak ones, or on those they PERCEIVE to be weak. When George Orwell was getting the idea to write Animal Farm, he’d seen a cart horse being whipped by a small boy. He wondered if animals ever discovered their strength if they wouldn’t turn on those who were controlling them.
One person’s voice in a sea of sheeple is easy to pick out, easy to pick on, and easy to drown out when they break into their choruses of “Common Core good, anything else is bad.” It’s not about educating our kids anymore. It’s about control.
And Bill Gates is the new Stalin.
Thank you for this perspective. It was so full of truth and interesting insights, I had to read it twice to take it all in.
Yes and eventually there was a revolution. It will start NOW!
Thank you Diane . Your leap off that Common Core “fence’ is truly appreciated.
The Common Core is a dangerous national social experiment that is poorly designed and driven by a greed, prejudice, and the lust for power.
Mike Royko was a famous Chicago columnist who was a brilliant writer but who had some, er, foibles as a human being. According to a biography of him, one of his favorite “games” to play with his underlings was the “Chicago intersection game”. He would name an intersection in the city and expect his underlings to be able to name what was on at least three of the four corners of that intersection. He claimed it was an important way to make sure they really knew the city. Of course, any idiot can see the advantage he had – all he had to do was pick an intersection he had been by recently so that he knew what was there. Rather than trying to actually help his underlings develop, it’s pretty clear the real point was to make them “fail” to make himself look superior.
I get a similar vibe from the Common Core. The people who developed them did so not so much to develop students, but to take advantage of their position as puppetmaster to create failure to make themselves look superior (and to profit off the same).
As Diane knows, I have been a strong critic of CCSS since the beginning, but a central concern for me is in one of my posts:
“Changing standards ignores that children in poverty and children of color tend to experience test-prep courses regardless of the standards, and thus receive a reduced educational experience when compared to middle-class and affluent (and disproportionately white) students. If education reform were committed to equity, public schools would insure that all students, regardless of race or socio-economic status, would receive rich and engaging educations.”
http://radicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/current-education-reform-perpetuating-not-curbing-inequity/
Is there a study that delineates this insight? It is anecdotal from your perspective?
I can vouch for the truth of this having taught at a middle school near you (in Greenville SC) before it was shut down. We were high minority, and this was even before NCLB. All we did was prepare our kids for the test, which I think was the PACT?? test. I can’t even remember the name of it – that tells you how highly I though of it.
See this from NEPC:
Click to access pb-options-2-commcore-final.pdf
And here:
http://atthechalkface.com/2013/02/21/evidence-they-cant-handle-the-evidence/
Thank you Paul, as usual.
Diane, you forgot career and technical when listing areas taught in schools. I’ve given two presentations last year about the Common Core Standards influence and affect on the Career Pathways movement within Career and Technical education. The Career Pathways have been built using the Common Core Standards. All 50 states have adopted them, and implemented them to varying degrees. My home state, Texas, is one of the leading states in implementation. I was teaching high school 4 years ago when our head counselor said (out of the blue one day), “The classes your teaching won’t exist next year, there are all new classes coming.” No explanation, no justification as to why, we just up and changed. This is what school is like for teachers now. One day its this way….the next day its another way.
Last year while speaking to our state director of Career and Technical education, I asked her why we switched to the Career Pathways. She gave me a funny look and said, “Because the state told us to.”
In preparing for my presentations I spoke for some time to the Director of the National Consortium of Career and Technology State Directors to get some background on this movement. Initially, the thinking seems sound. It aligns curriculum from the freshman year of high school through to the senior year, and it brought consistency from state to state. Nothing wrong with that. What’s flawed is it is based on the Common Core Standards.
Oh, and the director told me standardized testing for the career and technical areas of our high schools will probably be the next phase of this implementation.
Interesting…..
Thank you. I have come to the conclusion that parents need to opt their children out of this “test-taking-data-collection” charade. The data will only be used to further policies and agendas which are not good for children, but will certainly provide financial reward to many who have taken up the business of education.
The question is, how do we find the fortitude to do just that – with the clarity of understanding that it won’t jeopardize our children’s academic future?
Thank you. I have come to the conclusion that parents need to opt their children out of this “test-taking-data-collection” charade. The data will only be used to further policies and agendas which are not good for children, but will certainly provide financial reward to many who have taken up the business of education.
The question is, how do we find the fortitude to do just that – with the clarity of understanding that it won’t jeopardize our children’s academic future? (apologies if this posts twice:)
I too have been torn about the debate over the “National Standards”. As readers here know, my students are extremely high poverty. I am for anything that helps raise the bar to improve education for my students, but I am cautious of anything from the Top that is untried and has no basis in fact. The biggest problem I see with all of this is that it is driven by those who have no real knowledge of what is developmentally appropriate and is being imposed by those who have very little knowledge or experience with actually teaching children of diverse backgrounds. When educators and academics are left out of the conversation, I refuse to believe the results will be anything but disastrous. If the driving force behind these standards was truly to improve the outcomes for our most at-risk students, then the conversation would be driven by those in education and not by business leaders. As we all know, the only ones who stand to benefit will be the testing companies, textbook companies, computer companies, software companies, etc. Follow the money and the real goal is clear. Those of us who educate high poverty students already know that this is and will continue to be disastrous for our students. Our precious few resources are being funneled to businesses that continue to drain not only our tax payer dollars, but our precious human resources as well. I continue to wonder how our president and his brain dead Ed Dept are allowed to continue to impose this on our nation. I spend every hour of every day trying to figure out how to meet the needs of my students under the weight of these ridiculous mandates. Wake up America!
It is beyond me why this group of people, while unqualified to even be cleared to do research on even a small population of children, would be allowed to experiment on an entire GENERATION.
Second, how can we create critical thinkers when all thinking is on a divergent path? Everyone will think the same thing because it is to your benefit to think that. All your tests are aligned to it. We are being forced to ignore multiple WAYS of knowing and assessing. Worse yet, we are destroying individual thought. We are destroying the opportunity for academic dissonance which leads to discourse which forces critical thinking. (Just think how much an idea can improve through discussion, especially that which occurs with detractors.).
In short, we may very well be destroying critical thinking. I was talking to one of my friends who was really enthusiastic about Common Core. She said that she likes that the children are forced to think rather than just memorize. She likes that they must write. (And I can write for years about the fact that there are other valid forms of expressing ideas.) after a few minutes of discussion (at the time I was uncommitted on the subject), we both decided that all the educational benefits granted through the adoption of these standards is completely negated by the objective, impersonal, standardized test.
Reblogged this on Transparent Christina.
I, too, have long wished for nationwide standards, and some uniform expectations for students at various grade levels. My state adopted CCSS, and part of our new-school-year in-service was giving us an implementation schedule for the standards, and a side-by-side comparison of what the existing standards were and where those skills are under CCSS. Some had been pushed down four grade levels. Others are simply not developmentally appropriate for the children in the grades involved, especially at the primary grade levels.
At the same time my state implemented CCSS, my district also mandated SIOP (Sheltered Instructional Operational Protocol), in order to support our English-language Learners. By itself, SIOP has morphed from having Content Objectives and Language Objectives, to now just needing a Learning Target on my lesson plans, and on the board so my class knows what they should get from the lesson.
I am willing to learn and implement what I learn, but I am becoming more confused and frustrated all the time. Add class sizes which exceed limits set by state law, children who already have an “entitlement” mentality in 2nd grade, and poor attendance by my neediest students, and you might understand why becoming a Greeter at WalMart is starting to appeal to me.
Sent from my iPad.
Glad to see there’s now another thing we agree on.
Who knew?
You’ve captured my struggle with the Common Core very well in this discussion. I too have always wanted something of a national standard, but I’ve never wanted the coercion that has come along with this. States have basically been told that they must play along to have a seat at the grown up table. They must join or they give up the opportunity to participate in the competitive grant process.
The process by which these standards were developed has yielded a document that states, districts, schools, and teachers have to implement — without questioning. On the surface, you can make the argument that the top of the standards are pretty well aligned with tasks that occur in Advanced Placement classes. Unfortunately, we’re now treating Pre-K as if it were Pre-AP Pre-K. The irony in not being allowed to question this flawed process is that the standards themselves ask students to discern among pieces of information and respond in a persuasive manner. Teachers will be given no such opportunity.
And yes, the test scores will drop. The new tests — if they every materialize — will guarantee that. Even sillier, with the de facto national standards, states will still be in charge of setting their own cut scores. Alongside the noise from every other reform being pushed upon states by Jeb Bush, FEE, and ALEC, it will be hard to tell if any change in anything is attributable to … anything.
Too many variables. Too few controls. No interest in professional judgment. That, in a nutshell, is what’s wrong with the Common Core and the entire reform movement.
I’ve said it many times — thanks for being the most articulate and well-informed voice in this discussion!
Yes you are correct. They are changing too many variables at once. We are being set up for failure. I believe that was and is the plan.
Great post, Diane. I had a CC math experience last night with my 4th grader. The story problem was as follows: There are 240 beads in a bag, students need to use 12 beads per necklace. How many necklaces can they make. Solve use one of the following methods; Act it out, make a table, draw pictures or chose an operation.
This is before children are taught how to divide 3 digit numbers by a double digit number. This is reserved by CC standards till a later grade. Look at the first method, act it out. Not having 240 people in the house or 240 of any one item to use, this method is inappropriate. Make a table, OK it’s doable, but it’s like a guessing game, using repeated addition, not division. Draw a picture (in the one inch of space provided) doesn’t work easily. It is messy and error prone.
To solve this problem, I taught my son how to divide two digits into three digits. It took some time but, he got it and the worksheet was much more doable and easy for him. It gave him a real tool to use to solve the problems, no more guessing games and vague instructions.
CC math is NOT harder. It is simply vague, confusing and frustrating for kids.
Couldn’t you use 240 pretzels, or model it with a smaller 3 digit number first? That way it could be “acted out”?
Never mind…didn’t read whole post…looks like that’s exactly what you did.
Actually, I just showed him the standards algorithm to use. He is in 4th grade! Using manipulatives seems like a first or second grade exercise. The CC does not place nor adequately practice the standard algorithm and this is the procedure kids must master to do higher level math. If this is not practiced and used intensively in 4th grade how will they do division of fractions and decimals? Will they be drawing pictures or digging out pretzels in 6th grade? The conceptualization of math learning is out of proportion to the procedural knowledge they need.
If I wrote that question, I’d say, there are 13 beads in a necklace, 208 beads in a bag. You can’t divide, cause you don’t know how. Make a table to solve this. Look at it, what’s the quickest way to get to the answer? Notice anything interesting? Now so something artistic to express your renewed joy in learning, like stretch your neck.
Well, I can’ speak to the space provided or the specific directions provided, but the idea of the CCSS math standards are to help kids understand the concepts behind the math, such as division, not just simply learning the algorithms. It seems that was the intent of the assignment, regardless of how well or poorly it may have been written.
Thank you, Thank you!
You have been a tireless champion for our kids, teachers and for decency in education. I have always hoped that the legislators, EdReformers, Gates, Rhee and many others who are sure that ‘anyone can teach’, would take the high school exams, End-of-Course, SAT, CRCT, ITBS, etc……and immediately publish their results. Let’s see! I suspect that among the HUGE PROFIT MOTIVE, many of them act our unresolved issues with their own educational experiences and teachers in their past. Highly suspect!
Diane, thank you ALWAYS.
Dr. Ravitch, could you please comment on an apparent contradiction?
First you say,
“…before implemented widely, they should be thoroughly tested to see how they work in real classrooms”
and
“I wanted to see how they worked in practice. I wanted to know, based on evidence,…”
Then you say,
“When Kentucky piloted the Common Core, proficiency rates dropped by 30 percent.”
Was the Common Core piloted or not?
I’ll look for a link to the Kentucky situation, unless you want to save me the time.
Thanks in advance.
I found this out of Hillsborough Fl.
http://www2.tbo.com/news/education-news/2011/apr/20/common-us-school-standards-debut-in-hillsborough-f-ar-201270/
Even “piloting” isn’t conclusive. The standards themselves are not the point. The claimed advantage of Common Core is that it is… common. An isolated test will not prove or disprove any of the advantages of wide adoption.
The standards themselves are nearly indistinguishable from standards that have come before. I think critics have a responsibility to point to the specific citation in the CCSS document where the problem is. I have not yet found a CCSS anecdote that was traceable back to an original CCSS document, or to an individual vendor package.
If it turns out that the standards will cause lower scores, it’s time for public education to raise its game. So much of this stuff should be taught earlier than it is anyway.
“I think critics have a responsibility to point to the specific citation in the CCSS document where the problem is.”
I have repeatedly pointed out that the following ELA standard for Kindergarten is a MAJOR problem, because it is not developmentally appropriate and it is reflective of a pushed-down curriculum that had been expected only in the primary grades for decades: http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RF/K
Fluency
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RF.K.4 Read emergent-reader texts with purpose and understanding.
As a former full day Kindergarten teacher and Early Childhood specialist, in my experience, most 5 year olds are not ready to be reading “emergent reader texts with purpose and understanding” in their first year of formal schooling. Also, please remember that many districts still have Kindergarten programs that are only a half day (2 to 2 1/2 hours).
In Finland, and in schools like Waldorf, children are not expected to start reading until age 7.
I agree that the process is flawed. I believe we can make it work by having our teachers collectively and at the building level make decisions about the implementation and delivery of the CCS. Past curricula have removed the teacher from the equation. We as superintendemts and principals can implement the CCS in a different way. We can also make informed decisions about evaluation and, to a large extent, assessment.
Engaging students as thinkers will prepare them for the test. We must make our classrooms places where thinking is valued, made visible, and advanced (Ritchhart). We must control in our classrooms and schools the learning environment. We, as the experts who actually know each child by name, can determine how learning occurrs and what gets learned about learning. We, in school districts across the country, who–with parents and communities–raise children, can continue to take responsibility for who our students become as thinkers, learners, and contributors to our world. The relationships and the learning about learning will outlast the tests and will ultimately define the persons–character, grit, contribution, citizenship, altruism, service, perspective taking, etc.
I see the dangers and I share Diane’s concerns. I think it is time for informed school leaders to take the reins and make decisions about how these standards are interpreted. No one has more control or influence than us. No matter the intents of the politicians, let’s collectively do what is right for each child we influence, and the results will last well beyond the tests. It is the knowing-and-not-doing that makes us complicit in this political process.
Thank you Diane. I would hope that you now examine the edTPA, which requires student teachers to align with the common core, which many of us within teacher education feel was imposed on us (in spite of the narratives of field testing and teacher educator involvement), and which many ‘leaders’ refuse to engage critically because they ‘trust the people behind it.’ A key issue within all of these policies and protocols is one of voice and democratic education. When people are saying that their voices have not been heard, will we listen? Is it democratic that a few voices from one or two institutions impose a process on all educators, at any level?
This post raises an important question: what does graduating from high school mean about the level of education for an individual? Dr. Ravitch asks “What is the purpose of raising the bar so high that many more students fail?” An equally good question is what is the purpose of setting the bar so low that students pass no matter their skills in reading, writing and mathamatics?
When my colleagues began teaching at my university, the in state admission requirements were very minimal: a high school diploma from a high school in the state. Would that standard be workable today?
Yet why are many states allowing for children of color to have a different passing point than other districts under CC?? What does that say about these standards???
As for college, there should be a higher standard for admission other than a high school diploma. Too many students are not ready for college. They don’t understand that they have responsibilities. Seat Credit does not exist in college.
You can still have high standards without using CC. And I do believe their should be some continuity so if a student moves to another state, they are not ahead or behind. But having a curriculum that cuts the level of literature, creative writing, and creativity is not the answer. A good school should do more to enhance the love of reading and learning than teaching to a benchmark. Our goal should be to make our students lifelong learners and independent thinkers.
btw, have you seen the kindergarten standards lately? This country needs to get away from teaching a mile wide and cut down on the standards so we can teach a mile deep.
My question is not common core specific, but rather one about the meaning of a high school diploma. Should being a high school graduate tell a perspective employer or post secondary education institution anything about the academic skills of that person?If so, what should it be? Should that differ depending on state or school district?
There certainly is a higher standard for admission to my university today.
Good question. It may be that employers, colleges, and universities have to rely on other measures of aptitude and skills. Most already do that, correct?
I can tell you that under Bloomberg and his false claims of an improved high school grad rate is based on so many shenanigans–seat credit among them. It’s not about the standards, it’s about the way teachers are forced to find ways to pass students. Now Walcott wants elementary/middle school students who do not pass the standardized test to get promoted. So if a child scores a high 1, he is now promoted. This is to save the cost of summer school. To me this
is social promotion.
Students who are not prepared for college–community or 4 year–will struggle. Some are not mentally prepared to want to do the assignments or study because they breezed through high school, and NYC has very high standards. And when states start changing the passing grades for minorities, will CC standards really matter?? This is why we need to make sure our curriculum is not gutted with too many concepts. We need to do this by making sure teachers get the time to teach a concept fully. But when too many standards are crushed together like sardines in a can, it’s not possible. Change this so when students get a high school diploma, it will be worth something.
Thanks for weighing in, Diane. I share your concerns and am glad you’ve decided to take this stand.
I have long supported standards written by subject matter experts and developmental specialists and that are optional to teachers. I adopted them as a classroom teacher, when it was my choice and not a requirement. Since I had so many students at different levels in my Kindergarten class (where the range of development is typically from 3 – 7 years old), I differentiated and used standards from different ages/grade levels, according my students’ needs.
I have been a subject matter expert and developmental specialist myself for years and have reviewed the Common Core “State” Standards. Given the choice, I would not adopt those standards because, generally, they reflect a pushed-down curriculum that is not developmentally appropriate for young children. That is what happens when non-educators write standards for children they know nothing about.
I believe there is no valid place in education for out-of-field Know-it-Alls, especially those who stand to profit from dictating policies.
Why can’t we just set a standard that indicates what a student must learn by 8th grade (and another for graduation), make it challenging and get out of the school’s way? Test the kids at the end of 8th grade only…if a school fails the measure for several years, take action – fire the administrators who should have been assessing/addressing the teachers all along. (Yes, this means reducing union power to where it should be). Couple this with giving parents choices so that they can move easily when a school is under performing and I bet we’d start to see some progress. Getting rid of the dead weight teachers frees up money to hire better ones and knowing that you’ll lose funding for each student who leaves provides incentive to use resources better. Allowing the school to set the curriculum creates commitment to it and encourages innovation as well.
The Common Core progression through a math curriculum is completely moronic and shows no real comprehension of childhood development nor how to build math skills sequentially. Even the relatively math illiterate teachers in my kids’ former public school could see that. Common Core sets the teachers up for failure. If we are going to hold them accountable, we need to make sure that they have the authority/control to set curriculum and content progressions that work.
BTW: I also know that a good part of the problem is bad parents and difficult children (badly behaved not slow learners). Let’s give our public schools the ability to boot them out – no more free babysitting for brats – and see what happens. At least, we should separate them from the other kids so they are not undermining the education of everyone. Some might argue that will just result in more kids eventually ending up on the public dole…pull that, too. A little “tough love” and they’ll learn. They’ll turn to crime? Take the education dollars and welfare money we saved and hire more cops. At some point, we need to stop excusing bad behavior and hold people accountable. Our culture of whining and justification is to blame and it just perpetuates more whining and justification. We need the carrot – work hard, apply yourself, learn and be successful – and the stick – starve if you don’t.
Diane,
I am coming to the same conclusion regarding the CCSS despite the fact that I have advocated college readiness for students during my entire professional career. The CCSS, as they are being implemented, are not about college readiness for all–they are about a testing system that will sort students into different pathways. When I first saw the standards, I thought that they were full of promise. I thought that they could be used to gently guide instruction in a supportive and equitable way, as described in the book that I co-authored–Opening the Common Core. I now wish that I could rip that title off the book. The CCSS have morphed into a punitive testing system that has a narrow definition of what a student should demonstrate on a test in order to claim they are college ready. But college readiness is not, nor has it ever been, about testing. It is about giving students rich, challenging learning experiences. See Adelman’s Answers in the Toolbox (1999) to see the research that supports what true readiness is.
There are five skills in the CC ELA standards–reading, writing, speaking, listening and collaboration. All are important for college and career readiness. Yet, only the first two will be tested, and tested at a level so rigorous that no teacher will have time to spend on the other three. This does not have to be. The IB, for example, assesses all five. The difference is that the IB trusts teachers to score their students’ performance during the year and so those skills can be assessed. The tests of the CCSS are inextricably linked to evaluating teachers by test scores so they cannot trust teachers to assess students’ speaking skills or collaborative skills. I do not think this is coincidence. I think the architects of this reform realized that the tests were going to be so difficult that unless they tied teacher job security to test results, they would not get the narrow curriculum and the drill that would be needed to get the desired scores. This does a terrible disservice to all of our students.
I have looked closely at the 8th grade math test sampler for NYS. The questions on topics are more difficult than the questions on the same topics on the Algebra Regents given in high school for the graduation standard. Last year only 73% of NY’s students passed that Regents. This disjointed, out of sync testing program that is based on the ideals of David Coleman and others, rather than on the reality of developmental learning for a diverse body of NY students is wrongheaded and destructive.
Mr Coleman earned considerable fees for his consultation to the New York State Education Department ( over 60K in a few months). Last year, he went to the College Board for a starting package of 750K. The College Board is now selling CCSS prep curriculum through Springboard, and former employees are Regents Fellows developing the tests. Clearly the Common Core has been quite profitable for Mr. Coleman and others. However, that profit is being made at the expense of our students.
It is all very tragic, and it did not need to be this way at all.
This is tragic. Carol’s comment should become a post. Everyone should know about the Coleman windfall.
It’s been covered by the national press. Incredibly, Coleman’s pay is almost half what his predecessor made at the College Board.
Don’t worry about Coleman’s pay at the College Board. Press reports said it is $750,000 per year. He sold his Grow Network to McGraw-Hill, according to people there, for $14 million.
Carol,
Having taught Mathematics for 42 years, I agree with your analysis of Algebra. It seems that the CC has simply move everything back a year. In other words 8th graders are expected to do HS Algebra.
If we are forced to implement the CC then the only possible way it could work would be to start with the kindergarten class of 2014. They would be the “guinea pig” class for implementation. If teachers were able to fulfill the curriculum throughout the years, then the 8th grade class of 2022 may be able to handle Algebra.
Students could not handle an across the grades transformation into the CC. All classes have a prerequisite that is required for success in that class.
Reblogged this on broadyesl and commented:
what do you think?
Reblogged this on akelly8 and commented:
Ravitch’s points about process (RTTT incented adoption without piloting) hardly seem scientific and yet, schools nationwide plow ahead with implementation: children will be tested and teachers evaluated accordingly. I too see the benefit of national standards but worry about the narrowed crafting of the Common Core by those with motives other than student learning. APs and the necessarily wide but shallow learning that accompanies them so over-rated and discouraging to many students: why replicate this model?
I have a big problem with the federal government coercing the states to adopt the common core standards. In the last 40 years no federal mandates to reform education have been successful. Anyone who thinks adopting the cc is voluntary is sadly mistaken. The bottom line is money and control. At this time, no state can afford unfunded mandates.
The attitude of the ED is, “You do what we want and we will give you funding, otherwise, you get nothing!”. The US Department of Education needs to be abolished. Send that $47 billion to the states.
I feel we are neglecting to focus on things that directly effect these at risk students. Education reform needs to include the family/parents/care givers of these children. I have worked in the human services field with a local childen and youth agency as well as mental health. I teach special education now. I know the one key component missing for many students who are unsuccessful is the parental support. This support is lacking or a variety of reasons such as parents don’t have the time many work multiple jobs, they don’t know how to help thier children because they were never provided with that parental model and some parents just don’t have the desire. When we can find a way to also make the parents accountable not just the educators then and only then will we be able to close these gaps. It truely does “take a village to raise a child”.
Diane,
With all due respect, the scope of your argument is very narrow. It exists entirely within the confines of “traditional” and public education. You seem to assume, as does our government, that the purpose of education is to “mine” a certain commodity that will result in reducing the wealth gap by supposedly helping children to better at the absorption of “content”.
You seem more concerned about percentage drop in test scores than a student’s level of curiosity and even desire to learn.
You see, you have already decided to stay on the titanic…to fight your enemies..and to go down with them…rather than get new information.
The purpose of education is not only to “train” workers. Education, contrary to the mainstream view, cannot be “done” to children. Rather education happens spontaneously by children when the right conditions exist. What are elements of “right conditions”?
1. Choice: Children who are given the chance to choose their work have much lower stress and anxiety due to control. Choice also enables a child to choose something that is interesting..and thus results in much more efficient learning. (Well beyond any so called “standards”)
2. Mixed age classrooms: Children in mixsed age clsssrooms not only learn see what the older children are working on..but often the older children learn even better by having the opportunity to teach younger children. Younger children naturally are motivated to be like the older children and want to learn what their learning..which is a source for natural motivation.
3. No grades: Grades falsely assume that all children should know the exact same things at the exact same time and learn in the exact same way. Children are not parts of an assembly line, they are human beings.
4. No Tests: Tests don’t measure what children know as much as they determine what they know. Pre-determined curriculum (and tests) developed by bureaucrats and politicians who are influenced by special interests deserve no place in environments of learning.
We don’t need more and “better” teachers who do more. We need teachers to do LESS, get out of the way and allow the natural process of learning to be realized.
As Dr. Maria Montessori (the first female physician in Italy and who developed her method of education based on principles of human development and scientific observaton) said: “The greatest sign of success for a teacher is to be able to say: ‘The children are now working as if I did not exist.'”
The President of the American Board of Pediatric Neuropsychology, Dr. Steven Hughes, has spoken extensively on the cognitive benefits of a Montessori education…along with many others including Dr. Adele Diamond.
Please move beyond the dog chasing the tale arguments of whether to support Common Core or Not. We need to be asking if the way we teach is in line with the principles of child development or not. This is the question.
When we base education on principles of human and child development, there is no limit to what can be achieved.
Sincerely,
Aidan
And you think that Common Core will realize Montessori principles?
I certainly do not Diane. I agree with your disagreement with the Common Core but share broader reasons for my disagreement outside of the traditional argument. Diane…children everywhere need you to talk about educaton through the lense of the principles of child development and the science of how we learn. We can together make a compelling argument why the Common Core is not just not thought out and has unintended consequeces regarding the structure of education but that it also neglects everything we have learned about neuroscience and the benefits and necessity of “holistic” education including social and emotional learning.
When education includes the elements I have listed, among others, it will transform not only our economy by creating jobs (as a result of creative, motivated, curious individuals)…but it will transform human beings and enable them to come much closer to reaching if not achieving their potential.
You are a warrior for the adults in education, but children are the ones who need warriors like you the most.
Can we shift the conversation to what we know about how children best learn, what that looks like? Our arguments cannot be led astray when based on science of child development and neuropsychology. Common Core was developed not on science but on results of test scores. If we continue to focus on test scores at all, we will always miss the target and the ultimate goal of education…which is to enable children to pursue happiness by pursuing and applying their innate and individual interests to the world around them.
I hope that you will consider my point of view as you alone wield so much influence and have the podium that can shift this argumeent completely.
All the best,
Aidan
@Aidan. I am more than willing to experiment with learning. But is self-directed learning in a Montessori environment feasible for all students in a public school setting, and would poor students flourish in this environment? We all know that public schools in the U.S. are second to none for the middle and upper class folks. Where we struggle is with our poor kids – does Montessori show significantly positive outcomes for poor kids? Evidence?
I think this disagreement makes one thing clear: there can never be a true Montessori traditional public school. There would simply be too much opposition in the catchment area. Perhaps there would be more agreement about a progressive or Waldorf school.
Thank you for asking this ME. The Montessori method began in the slums of Italy in the early 1900s by Dr. Maria Montessori, the first female physician in Italy. Montessori is not only great for middle income and upper class children, it is great for ALL children, poor, mentally challenged…even patients with Alzheimer’s as it encpasulates fundamanental and necessary cognitive elements such as choice, learning at at your own pace where nothing is forced until you have mastered the previous work. Dr. Ageline Lillard wrote a fabulous book called “Montessori: The Science Behind the Genius” in 2006. She compared the children whose parents applied to the public charter Montessori schools in Milwaukee and who were accepted via lottery vs the children whose parents applied via lottery but who did not win and thus went to the traditional public school in the local neighborhoods. Not only did the children who went to the Montessori school outperform the traditional school students on both Math and Reading standardized tests, but she also recorced significantly less “ambigous rought play” at recess amongst the Montessori children. In addition the Montessori demonstrated much more advanced and complex writingn skills.
Dr. Lillard has chapters of evidence on the outcomes of children who attended the Montessori schools vs those who did not..while isolating the “involved parent” factor…as both sets of children’s parent’s applied for the lottery to attend the Montessori school. In my own backyard of Saint Louis, google “City Gardend Montessori”. They are a public charter Montessori school based in a devastatingly poor neighborhod that out performs many of the Saint Louis County schools. City Garden is not an anomaly…check out East DAllas Montessori schools, Milwaukee public Montessori schools. We have more evidence of the benefits of a Montessori education: Google Dr. Adele Diamond, Dr. Steven Hughes, Dr. Lillard to start. But start by reading Dr. Lillard’s book…you’ll find all the evidence you want. You see…we know what works in education…the while not all public schools can purchase all of the montessori materials and retrain all the teachers to learn the importance of allowing “discovery”…rather than forcing content, they can begin to implement some of the key elements of Montessori which are fundamental to creating optimum learning environments.
Your arguments against tests and grades seem to echo what is wrong with children these days. You state that children should be given the chance to choose their work. I can’t ever remember being allowed to choose what I do at work. You do what needs to be done to accomplish your job and get your paycheck each week. This is the exact reason why young adults are graduating from high school and college these days and expect to be handed a $100,000 per year salary as soon as they leave school. Hard work and dedication is not being held up as important anymore. When everyone gets a trophy for participation and those that excel are not recogizned for doing so, we raise a society full of young people who feel they are entitled to a house, a job, etc.
Nicole, nowhere did I write that children should decide what to learn or that there should be no grades or tests. Or were you responding to someone else?
Nicole,
By choosing, children experience a sense of control. This reduces the amount of stress and anxiety that diminishes a child’s ability to engage in and thus learn the material. Developing the ability in children to make choices would likely result in them pursuing their interests rather than viewing education as a “game” and “doing what you needs to be done to collect a paycheck”. In addition, learning how to make choices at a young age may save them from choosing to work in jobs where they can’t make any.
Aidan
“You see, you have already decided to stay on the titanic…to fight your enemies..and to go down with them…rather than get new information.”
I suspect that Dr. Ravitch, along with many other critics of Common Core, are wisely trying to avoid boarding the Titanic.
Once the barn door is open to school choice, the expansion and sure popularity of Montessori and Waldorf schools would be a good thing to shift the center of education towards a more holistic model.
You had me until you got to Montessori. That’s a fine program, with many outstanding components. However, there are elements that concern me, especially for young children. For example, while individual students progress at their own pace, instead of lockstep as a group, it is the teacher who selects the tasks. If a child becomes frustrated or bored with the task at-hand and tries to select something different, the child is directed back to that task, so I’m not sure how your emphasis on choice relates.
In programs that follow a strict Montessori curriculum, art is not included and children involved in working with dramatic play materials, such as dolls, are directed to engage in functional tasks, like washing them, not active exploration and experimentation or using their imaginations. Most materials are closed-ended, limiting creativity, which reduces choice as well.
I have supervised a lot of student teachers in Montessori programs and observed repeatedly in many different classes and schools. A lot of what teachers say is scripted, so it’s been common for me to hear teachers saying the same things across settings. An example is admonishing children for “abusing the pink tower” because they tried to build something different with those blocks –another example of limiting choices and inhibiting creativity.
i have seen great things happening in Montessori classrooms as well, but in my opinion, it’s the programs that go beyond strict Montessori curriculum that are the best.
Other spaces, a member of the Montessori Mad Men and a husband of an AMI Montessori trained teacher, that is 100% and entirely not true. The teacher never selects the task…but does give a demonstration of the lesson. It is clear that you have spent zero time in an AMI Montessori classroom and therefore I urge you to do so. There is a reason pediatric neuropsychologists recommend Montessori as a solution to many of the ills that plague American education.
You must be confused between authentic Montessori and “Montesomething”. As the name Montessori cannot be trademarked, unfortunately any daycare, any school can legally call themselves “Montessori”.
According to the last statement that anyone call call themselves that methodology throws the whole thing into a mess. There has to be a defination to be specific to what is being talked about or there is no real discussion.
The best way to get rid of the common core standards, are to get rid of the common age grouping of children in classrooms. Children learn best from a variety of ages, just like the villages and families before industrialized education. Those who support free, compulsory education should do some research on the origins of such a system. The public education system was designed by Andrew Carnagie, Henry Ford, JP Morgan among others and it was designed to “train” the future workers of the factories. This education system has never been able, nor intended, to foster curiosity, drive, discovery…as this would provide competition for the established corporations and threaten the political powers that be.
As I said, I have observed in MANY different Montessori settings, which includes AMI schools, but your “Mad Men” and spousal affiliations to Montessori trump my repeated observations and render them “100% and entirely not true”. Biased much?
I guess I am biased. Seeing the result of Montessori education with the likes of Larry Page and Sergei Brin, founders of google, Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, Anne Frank, Peter Drucker, Taylor Swift, Jackie Onassis Kennedy, with endorsement from Thomas Edison, Jean Piaget, Albert Einstein, Mahatma Ghandi, etc..it is clear that Montessori produces innovators and develops a life long drive to learn.
One of the colleges where I taught at had an Early Childhood preschool that changed from being a play-based program to an AMI Montessori program. Montessori removed most of the art and dramatic play materials that we had in the classrooms and put them into storage. When complaints were made about this, they added a few art and play materials to classrooms, but not very many.
Other space,
This is likely because of the quality of the music pieces. The Montessori bells are very expensive and children learn true tone with them. There are many so called Montessori programs, that are not Montessori, that fill rooms with cheap materials. When “daycare” facilities try to change to Montessori…they often do not do a very good job. It takes AMI or AMS to come in and separate the materials that children are naturally drawn to and learn from…but the materials that distract and have no significance to the child.
The pink tower for example, created by Nienhuis, is based on the decimal system. The cube on top is 1cm cubed..the next is 2 cm cubed. In this manner children physically learn the exact dimensions of cubed roots…they don’t just memorize them on paper.
So…authentic Montessori classrooms have very expensive, very mathematically precise materials…that build the foundations for abstract learning as the child transitions from concrete, sensorial learning that meets the fundamental needs of the 3-6 year olds.
Again, “That’s a fine program, with many outstanding components. However, there are elements that concern me, especially for young children” and “I have seen great things happening in Montessori classrooms…”
I believe very strongly in involving young children in the arts and in fostering creativity from an early age. Maybe some of the successful people you cited were lucky enough to have been in the flexible Montessori programs that promote the arts, creativity and choices.
Other spaces,
There is music in every AMI Montessori classroom. The bells can be played by any child, anytime they feel so inclined…even while others work for example! The difference is music is not separated into “music” hour…rather it is an integral part of the everyday classroom experience…and you should see some of the plays Montessori children create, not just replicate.
All the best,
Aidan
I am a parent, not an educator. But as a parent I have the same concerns about Montessori. I was very pleased, then, when I found an excellent progressive, democratic, Reggio Emilia inspired school for my children.
Eloise, What a great choice! I cannot think of enough great things to say about Reggio Emilia, as well as the Project Approach, a North American version inspired by Reggio Emilia which I chose to implement as a classroom teacher. Thanks so much for mentioning it!
George, There are two primary associations that “official” Montessori programs are affiliated with, Association for Montessori International (AMI), which was established by Maria Montessori and is orthodox in its approach, and American Montessori Society (AMS), which is more flexible and open to including outside resources. I have seen other Montessori schools that were not affiliated with either, too, and the quality was typically mediocre, in my professional opinion. I have not been impressed by AMI schools primarily due to their rigidity. The best Montessori program that I have seen is an AMS school for ages 2 – 14.
If only we could be debating as a nation the difference between AMS and AMI Montessori instead of failing to recognize that the below principles of our current public education system are the cause of our discontent:
1. Curricula disconnected from reality
2. Classrooms based on age
3. Standardized testing
4. Compulsory classes
5. Rewards and punishments
6. Strict time tables
7. Enclosure and separation from the community
8. Authoritarian structure
9. Teaching children concepts they are not interested in and that are imposed by others
Aiden, how RIGHT you are. Although I have enrolled my kids in private schools, it does not change my wishes or commitment to support changes in public education. It is so important for ALL children to receive the kind of education you describe: meaningful, student-led, based on empathy and community rather than punishments and rewards. (BIG Alfie Kohn fans, my family!) It is endlessly frustrating that educators, students, and their families are left out of this discussion.
Thanks Eloise!
Aidan, you don’t get Diane’s ideas. She was not putting forth a treatise on the best educational pedagogy. She was merely critiquing an expensive federal mandate that has not been field tested, driven by a very small group of people, with lots of money involved. We all have our biases, but you need to try understand the author’s ideas.
That is a fair statement Derek. Thanks for the feedback.
Aidan, you are delusional. The purpose of educating a child is not only to create a well rounded and articulate adult but so he/she will be a productive member of society. When John/Jane graduates high school or hopefully college and enters the workforce, he/she does not have the luxury of “choosing” which duties to perform in their respective jobs, unless of course they are actors, freelance photographers, etc. The problem with many young adults today is that they expect to be “given the trophy” just for participating, given a raise for merely working to expectations. Does a firefighter get to choose which alarm to respond to, does the ER doctor get to select whose life to save? Children need to learn that they must follow directions when they are asked to and in what manner. They need to learn that if an assignment (job) is done correctly and well, then there is a reward, i.e. a good grade, the ability to advance either to the next grade or in the form of a promotion. Education, if it does not fail, teaches us to learn and follow directions and develops the child into a well rounded, contributary adult.
I am greaty relieved that you have joined us in denouncing the Common Core as a scheme dreamed up by the corporate sponsors of ACHIEVE as a way to proclaim public schools a failure, close them and divert more money to vouchers and charters. We need a national campaign to urge states to withdraw from the CCSS initiative and the PARCC or SBAC Consortua. I encourgae everyone to “like” the facebook page “Campign to Withdraw from Assessment Consortia”.
Thanks again Diane, and I’ll see you in DC when we occupy the Dept of Education, April 4-7.
I agree with Dr. Bess Altwerger.
Thank you!
CCSS is indeed a scheme. If I am scolded for agreeing with you, Dr. Ravitch, so be it!
CCSS is simply a money maker for the few and has no solid ground.
Again thanks for this awesome post.
Anyone who opposes them will be probably given some trouble. Accept it and continue to expose them. If they react to you that means you are doing your job. This is warfare and until educators realize this they will continue to lose. What do you think they are doing to us? A love fest? Since it is getting tougher at the DOD they now need a new profit center and education is it.
I too commend Dr. Ravitch for speaking out so forcefully and objectively against the Common Core Standards. So much of what we are forced to do in the classroom is no longer education. The desire to teach and to learn has been eviscerated by the corporate elite whose primary interest is their stockholders’ earnings. Maintaining a disillusioned student population among the most needy is good for business.
Utah has already dropped out of the SBAC consortium. Not, unfortunately, because they’re bad for education, but because “we don’t want the feds. involved in our state,” but I guess it’s better than nothing. I hope we can eventually convince the state to drop CC altogether.
Locally controlled education. A good frame.
How can we know whether to support or oppose Common Core standards until someone does a detailed comparison to the Finnish standards? http://www.oph.fi/english/sources_of_information/core_curricula_and_qualification_requirements/basic_education
How can we know weather Finnish education is remotely illustrative to discuss regarding tests, curriculum, outcomes, etc. until someone does a detailed comparison of Finnish vs US poverty and percent ESOL students, access to healthcare for students.
Oh, wait.
Never mind
I have read the Common Core standards and the Finnish standards.
The Finnish standards are very broad. They do not tell teachers how to teach. They treat teachers as professionals. Finnish teachers at each school have a large role in shaping curriculum for their students. They do not define what % of the material must be “informational text.”.
You are at the University of Arkansas. Do you know Sandra Stotsky? She is there too. She could help you.
True!
The LA Times editors scoffed at me when I lumped CCSS in with NCLB/RTTT. Like my mentors Professors Horn, Thomas, Krashen, and the illustrious Susan Ohanian, I’ve been a staunch critic of Corporate Core from the get go. Once elected to the LAUSD board, I will make it a point of organizing for my community to resist, and eventually get rid of, CCSS. Those copious funds slated for Pearson and all the other CCSS vendors will be better spent on school libraries and class size reduction.
@Like me some Skeels.
I agree completely.
Diane, thank you for posting this. It always seems to be the teacher’s fault for our failing “schools.” Schools do not fail! When will this simple fact be accepted? When will the parents of our students finally take responsibility for their children? When will our students realize that they only get one shot at an education? This is their time. They (our students) must take responsibility for their own education.
Has anyone successfully implemented a boarding school type residential education for students – especially for those coming from unsupportive or unstimulating home environments?
Reblogged this on COMMON CORE and commented:
Diane Ravitch has finally put her foot down. In this article, she explains that although she had long advocated voluntary national standards, the Common Core doesn’t meet the hope she had for them; the CCSS process is fundamentally flawed in the way these standards were foisted upon states and in the way that they can just as easily be doing harm, as doing good, to public education.
While I share many, if not all, of your concerns, I support the Common Core because the standards are so much better than what they replace in my state at least. They take us away from a focus on a tsunami of micro-skills and content base to a focus on thinking and on literacy across the curriculum. From my perspective down here on the ground working with teachers and students, I see positive effects from putting the focus back on thinking and less on factoids. I see this as an opening for teachers to take back control from prescribed curriculum and to design units that encourage multiple perspectives and an integrated approach across disciplines. In contrast to the person you mentioned in your piece who supports the common core, I find that most of the people who I look to for leadership do not support the common core, and while that gives me pause and concerns me a lot, that is not sufficient to outweigh the benefits to students and teachers I see down here on the ground right now.
I also was concerned with your saying that you initially wanted to wait until the test results came in before you advanced an opinion. It is the design of these tests and the way they might be implemented that most concerns me. I feel that for now, the effect can be positive. The standards, if we frame them well, can allow us to disrupt some problematic aspects of the way instruction has been carried out, such as a focus on minute facts and disjointed information, instruction as test prep and a lack of integration of disciplinary thinking.
I am happy to be respectfully challenged on any of this.
Diane,
You seem a bit all over the place on this one.
First, you take issue with the process. Yes, there is plenty to take issue with there. But you don’t explain how this makes the standards themselves bad.
Heck, it’s not clear whether you think the standards produced are critically flawed, or whether the movement, politics and pending implementation are what is flawed.
Second, the only substantive problem with the standards themselves that you lay out is the 70/30 information/literary text split. I agree with you that this is a major problem, and think that people who defend it simply have never done the math to figure out how it would actually work. But if this is quite easily fixed, as it is a stand-alone issue. While I agree that this problem is a sign of a flawed process and flawed thinking, if it is the only substantive problem with the standards themselves, then they’re pretty damn good.
Third, there is no question that the CCSS will lead to a major decline in test scores. No one has said otherwise, and many have warned of this fact. But these results won’t look any worse than NAEP results in the eyes of the 99%+ of the population who do not know how to read the widely reported NAEP results (including all politicians, just about all policy-makers and certainly most scholars). I, for one, welcome scores that push Newton and Scarsdale out of their complacency. So long as we are going to have these publicly reported scores, I don’t want poor, minority and ELL dominated schools to be the only ones with low scores.
Fourth, you question the higher bar and untested standards. I think you are wrong here. These are not new. They have not been done universally before, no. But there is nothing in there that great teachers have not been teaching for centuries. Frankly, I had to leave by last teaching position because I was trying teach a lot of this stuff and my principal told me, “Stop worrying about critical and analytical thinking and just teach English.” Yes, there will be roll out and implementation issues. Yes, we are still waiting for how the tests dumb down and selectively assess various aspects of Common Core. All of that remains to be seen, but the standards themselves are what thousands and thousands of teachers have been teaching all along.
Bad process? Yes. Strong arm tactics? Yes. Bad tests? Could be. But the standards themselves and their impact on curriculum and classrooms? I’m quite hopeful.
I was going to write the same general comment. It seems a lot of your criticism is on the process, not the content. I’m not a fan of centralized control of education but am generally optimistic on the idea of national curriculum alignment that establishes minimum standards and expectations.
In a democracy, means are as important as ends. If I make you eat healthy food by tying you down and force feeding you, that’s wrong.
“I don’t want poor, minority and ELL dominated schools to be the only ones with low scores.”
Why should any group of students go through this? Makes no sense. What a strange position.
Means matter as much as ends.
Yes, I have reviewed the ELA standards.
I did not review the math standards because I don’t feel qualified to judge them.
There are good things in the ELA standards.
But how they were developed, how they were imposed, and how they will be used matters as much as their content.
Maybe more.
Amen!
Summer 2012, in Oakland, at a WestEd conference led by Laurie Olson for teachers and academic coaches of teachers of long-term English learners, I met an academic coach from Southern California who reported her English department had completely stopped teaching literature in 9-12 Language Arts classes. She referred to their new curriculum as the teaching of “rhetoric” and it was entirely focused on reading and responding to argument/informational text.
Professor Jim Milgram was on the Common Core math team, repoetedly the only math expert. He refused to sign them.
The question I’d like answered is, “What’s so common about the Common Core?” The only thing I can see right now is a printed document. But we know that curriculum is much more than what’s written. I have watched my education grad students wrestle all year with these standards. Some teach in large school districts and others in very rural districts. What I see and hear from them is the more autocratic the district, the less decision making teachers have. In one school district, the curriculum specialists made the teachers remove all of their personal libraries and replace them with leveled reading book aligned with the Common Core. Pacing guides were mandated so that every child and teacher would be on at the same standard at the same time so that all teaching would be “common.” My rural district teachers are given much more freedom to work with the standards. So, I go back to my first question, “What’s so common about the Common Core?”
The problems with process indicate the standards will be misused.
No matter who crafted the standards and even if they have the purest motives, there are those waiting to turn them to their own advantage, no matter how much damage they’ve done.
That the standards are no longer in any real sense voluntary is our first indication of that.
Nothing I have seen from Obama and Duncan is voluntary. It is top down.
Diane,
But here is the biggest problem I have with your explanation: I see within it no sign at all that you have actually read the Common Core State Standards, to which you so object.
Maybe you have. But that’s not at all apparent in this post.
Which makes it look to me as though your objections are political, rather than substantive.
I do not mean to say that political objections are necessarily invalid. Rather, they need very careful justification and full explanation to be credible. As is, your objections lack the depth and developed reasoning that so much of your work features.
As a 31 year career educator and administrator, parent and grandparent it is frightening to think about the future for our children. As a staunch supporter of public education, I did not ever think the day would come when I thought that a private school totally free of any government funds or mandates may be the logical choice of the future. I despise the thought of children growing up under this new educational regime. I do not see, given the scope and finances of the reform movement, how we can trust the government to educate our children. What will happen to those who don’t have this choice? More importantly, is this the plan anyway?
The common core reminds me of Reagan’s Star Wars zillion dollar missle shield. The common core is a giant waste of money which will achieve little. The common core was dreamed up by a bunch of power point rangers out of business school who are completely out of touch with reality. The common core was dreamed up by a bunch of university academics who have no clue how slow and basic life moves in the real world.
The common core isn’t even the right answer, so who cares if they can explain the reasoning behind how they got there. Why follow stupid off the cliff?
You act like the CC Standards are being forced into schools without proper research and study and yet after some skimming of the internet i found that schools voluntarily adopted the CC so that researchers could study the results… your view is kind of narrow. Not that I care.
Kind of like states voluntarily adopted a 55 mph speed limit. How’d that extortion turn out now? Live free or die.
Sorry, TC, NH (the Live free or Die state) adopted the CCSS a while ago.
States “voluntarily” adopted the CCSS in order to get NCLB waivers and cash – the Race to the Top cash. This is one carrot that is dangling on a HUGE stick and now teachers and students are being beaten to death with that stick – endless, mind-numbing, tell me nothing high stakes tests.
Once the state “voluntarily” adopted the CCSS – along came things like “teacher accountability” based on student test scores. Along came all that precious and much needed CASH into BOCES Centers and to TESTING Companies. The adoption of the CCSS has done NOTHING to help kids!
The question of CCSS that I have as a teacher is simple – will it raise student achievement? It will be over a decade before we can really know for sure as starting the implementation at the low grades means we will not have a pure group of CCSS taught students until they have gone through the system. From that standpoint, it seems way to early to make any pro or con decision about the potential of the CCSS standards. Yes, the standards will be expanded quickly to other grades but the educational parameters for these students will remain a mix of old and new.
What I do hold short term potential for is the CCSS standards that call for literacy skills to be taught in content area classes. With many students not reading at grade level, more reading and writing in classes during the school day seems like a good way to raise student achievement.
The author states she is open to revising her opinion. This is a good thing. Right now I support the potential of the standards and hope we will patiently give them a chance to succeed before prematurely pushing them aside. Adjustments to the needs of certain students populations may be in order over time, but I choose to promote a conversation of potential rather distraction for now.
John Clark
Science Teacher
Deltona High School
The question is too simple. Student achievement should not be the only thing we ask of a school and gains in student achievement should not be the only question we ask about a policy. We have to also think about character development, critical thinking, equity, citizenship and creativity. Moreover, we have to look carefully at how student achievement is defined and measured.
If the standards were not to be linked to high-stakes test and did not serve to validate them, I might have other thoughts on this, but I believe they are a Trojan Horse. We might say here, “Beware of Pearson and ETS bearing gifts.”
Under Arne Duncan and future DOE heads the CCSS are unlikely to be in any way voluntary. There will be arm twisting and threats to withhold funds. But worst of all will be when the accountability experts swoop in and start counting. At that point the CCSS will be operationally redefined so as to be in alignment with the tests that measure them. The use of high-stakes tests cannot be help to focus attention on what is needed to do well on the tests.
The Core, which has good points and bad points, will be distorted by the incentive structure the tests have created.
My solution: NO CORE STANDARDS UNTIL HIGH STAKES TESTS HAVE BEEN ABOLISHED.
“standards that call for literacy skills to be taught in content area classes.”
As the father of a child who was a reluctant reader in the early years and remains intimidated by dense reading on timed tests, I am not so sure.
The idea of teaching literacy in every class is appealing but in practice I fear that it will fall flat. If we make every class a reading class then the strongest readers will succeed and the science, math and social science skills of weaker readers will be drowned out by their poor literary performance. From the early years, the deck is stacked in favor of the strongest readers. By extending that even further we will be squandering the talents of those who will fall through the cracks because of poor preparation in earlier years or simply a non-literary bent.
Could we beef up our reading programs? Could we find methods for rescuing students who have suffered under educational experimentation? Probably. But it ain’t gonna be free and making every science teacher an English teacher sounds like merely shifting of resources to me.
Literacy means so much more than “every class a reading class.” Constructing meaning is at the heart of literacy and learning. Broaden your worldview of literacy, and the Common Core becomes a refreshing framework for re-introducing the power of student-centered learning and voice to the classroom.
Weak readers are being left behind now. They always will be. Also a reluctant reader of one subject is not necessarily the reluctant reader of another. There’s a difference between reluctant and weak.
There has been a lot of excellent commentary on this topic. I am a little surprised, however, that a suggestive hint in one comment wasn’t expanded upon.
While wildly over-rated, a little “counter-factual” consideration wouldn’t be out of place. Ponder how none of us expects to see the following:
“In a move that not even the experts could have predicted, a joint statement issued and signed by the directors and boards of Sidwell Friends, University of Chicago Lab Schools, Harpeth Hall, Cranbrook, as well as all affiliates of the Waldorf, Montessori and Reggio Emilia schools [to mention only some of the most notable institutions of old school but now faux excellence] has appeared, declaring their immediate and unconditional adherence to CCSS. One school headmaster, speaking under condition of anonymity, tearfully recounted how much time had been wasted on the supposedly enriched curriculum his school used to pride itself on. ‘I don’t know what we were thinking, what with all the music and theater productions and education abroad programs and athletic events we organized. It makes me ashamed to even utter the phrase “developmentally appropriate” when we have David Coleman to tell us what to think and do. Some members of our board have insisted on handing in their resignations, especially the ones who used to teach.’ Strangely, in a completely unrelated matter, Pearson and similar business dedicated to delivering educational success, have seen their profit margins increase dramatically. Experts are planning major conferences to determine if there is any causal relationship between the two, although US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said he has had many assurances from Joel Klein that profit is never a consideration when it comes to our nation’s children.”
Perhaps the above would be clearer if “adherence” in the first line is replaced by “surrender,” “success” in the sixth line is replaced by “$ucce$$” and “our nation’s children” in the last line is replaced by “other people’s children.”
Regardless of whatever merits CCSS might have in an ideal world, in its present form and implementation it seems to fit in perfectly with what the leading lights of the charterite/privatizer movement are trying to accomplish: a dual-school system in which their children are given every advantage and resource and the vast majority of children, well, they get the crumbs that are left.
@KrazyTA your post is simply brilliant. Thank you for brightening up my day.
One thing for sure is that students in the U.S. should be competent as possible in english, history and math. We cannot have accomplished in one area of the country and not in others. That is a potential national security problem as we must be able to compete. How that is done is another thing. Anything that comes from Gates, Broad, HP, Walton and the gang is to be not considered as their “Business” is not education of the welfare of students or the U.S. They are all about worldwide power and money and that is it. Just look at the outside money coming into LAUSD as has been observed in this blog. These decisions cannot be made from the top down as is the regular procedure of the “Boys.” Are they some special intellectual super beings who are the only ones who know anything and therefore do not need our advice as we are mere mindless people who need direction. The fact is that they are the destroyers. I am watching it up close and personal at LAUSD and observing for a long time nationally and internationally.
Hi Diane,
Is it possible to you could submit this post to the Indianapolis Star for a letter to the editor? Margaret Spelling submitted one to them in full support of the Chamber’s position on CC. I would be so grateful to have another national perspective submitted which exposes a different point of view. The website is http://www.indystar.com You can submit it on-line. It is a very easy process. Thanks for your consideration.
Erin Tuttle
Erin Tuttle,
I tried but there was no place on the website to post an opinion piece.
It’s too long for a letter to editor.
Send me address where to submit, not website.
The opinion section editor who selects pieces is Tim Swarens. His email is tim.swarens@indystar.com He is a bit in the bag for the Chamber of Commerce, but maybe he will be swayed by your article………
Thanks so much! We appreciate it.
Erin
________________________________
Erin
Done.
Excellent! Thank you!
________________________________
Thank you for articulating what many educators feel. Clearly, one size does not fit all. If we have adequately prepared our teachers we need to step back and let them use their best judgment as to methodology
‘Jeb Bush, at a conference of business leaders, confidently predicted that the high failure rates sure to be caused by Common Core would bring about “a rude awakening.” Why so much glee at the prospect of higher failure rates?’
With the Bushes (and we most certainly have to include Jeb in this, since Florida pre- 2000 was one of the prototypes for labeling a school as failing) we have to think ‘private.’ when it comes to education, government subsidies when it comes to oil and prisons. Jagdish Bhagwati once talked of the ‘Wall Street — Treasury’ complex, but we should extend that for the Bushes to the ‘Wall Street — Treasury — Incarceration — Privatization — Petroleum — Military Contractor’ complex.
Think of the first 8 years of this century, when there was talk of social equity — remember ‘the soft bigotry of low expectations”? — but the action was in testing and accountability. Presumably, once you looked at how difficult it was to not be a failing school, this could be a pathway to significant privatization efforts via the dismantling of public education.
And this has a long history among the Bushes. Remember, George HW Bush ran as ‘The Education President’ in 1988. While we can trace many changes back to the Reagan administrations, a lot begins with America 2000, produced under the auspices of the Bush Dept. of Education in 1991.
In it the word ‘public’ is used seven times in 35 pages. As Joseph Kahne has observed, those seven references all came within discussions of school choice proposals that called into question the existence of public schools.
Recommendations were for a significant institutional transformation of the system. Included was, of course, a battle over language. America 2000 argued that the definition of public schools should be broadened to “include all schools that serve the public and are accountable to public authority, regardless of who runs them.”
We should remember this when we hear the term ‘public charter school.’
The term is an oxymoron.
Charter schools are not public schools, they are privately run schools that receive public monies. The Core points to another great contradiction – the idea that these standards would be voluntary. But the greatest problem is the link of the standards to high stakes testing, which should (if Jeb has his druthers) help to discredit public schools and lead people to ‘opportunity scholarships’ and charters.
Diane, thanks for the in-depth essay about this new, circuitous attack on public schools and teachers. The reason I posit that idea is, as the trite, but true saying goes, “FOLLOW THE MONEY.” It equally could be just as revealing to follow the leadership of this land mined ground of public education. Bill Gates, Arnie Duncan, Jeb Bush…what do all these self-ordained “leaders” have in common in regards to schools? They all subscribe to nixing public education, belittling teachers, pressing vouchers and charters, etc. Is it any wonder they are happy when they can concoct bad “facts” about the public system? To be surprised would be much like looking at a carrot, expecting it to produce corn! What one must ask, I feel is WHO or WHAT groups benefit from this guinea pig approach to education and total control? You don’t have to trace the roots back very far to see HUGE corporations hiding in the dirt! And, when all these supposed, philanthropists bomb the schools with demands, tied to $, it is obvious that the underlying goal is NOT an educated, critical thinking populace, but rather compliant, corporate cogs that are ready made for a corporate run state. I would bet my non-existent paycheck (I was replaced by a, fresh out college, baby teacher) that you never ever will see that cabal produce one beneficial program that supports public education OR the goal of a discerning public. Seems to me, every day, every new “program” restates the ultimate goal these wolves in sheep’s clothing are pursuing. After all, probability will predict that at least once in a while, a proposed program would produce a productive result UNLESS that is not the purpose for which these destructive demands were pushed on every state. Can’t we see an obvious pattern when it is
repeated ALL the time by the powerful elite? My former, first graders surely could!
Mary,
With all due respect, everything in life evolves, either through competition or cooperation…or a little of the two. The national public education system was built on a false assumption that all children learn the same way at the same time. The very corporate leaders you bash are the ones who created a public education system designed after factories…complete with bells to signify a change in subjects (or job duties).
What we need now is a free market of education, where parents get to choose schools that THEY feel best meet the needs of THEIR OWN children. In doing so, the most successful schools will grow and those that leave children behind will necessarily disappear. Another by product of a free market of education will be the creation of schools that are built on fundamental scientific principles of humand and child development and the latest research in neuropsychology that illustrates how children best learn, and what those environments look like.
We can no longer afford to keep our system of public education from changing. If it means that adults lose job security and have to get retrained with an emphasis on child development rather than administration, then so be it.
On behalf of our children who are eager to learn until we persuade them other wise with rewards (gold stars, popcorn parties) and punishments (taking a way recess and bad grades),
Aidan
Question: Why are you so adverse to the public school system that has served our country so well for so long. Granted, nothing is perfect, but local NOT Federal control is a necessary pillar for a public control, democratic system, not some top down formulas from some corporate guru who has motives he will never expose, but can ultimately be surmised by the affect it renders in the actual implementation! Conversely: Why do you endow these “advancements” away from public education as if by just being there, untested and unproven, are due such unproven merit. You endorse an unknown, and denigrate a system that has it faults, but at least is not a corporate camel that once its nose is under the tent of education can wreck havoc on the national academic achievements? I’ve been a teacher for over 30 years in public and private schools. I’ve seen the actuality of experimentation; sight reading, new math, open concept, etc. all these “new” advances proved to be highly destructive to the students and schools that bought the PR. That being said, none of them have come close to the incredible destruction that NCLB and consequential “advances” have wrought! I’ve truly, “Been there, done that” and have seen for myself the intended (I feel) results that were destructive, yet ballyhooed at the time as being
productive. All one needs to fudge the affect is falsify the “results” or game the system to obtain affirmative stats! Those bogus “facts” pale in comparison to the tsunami of
distortions that are woven into these “new” advances. WHY do you think charters are blessed, each and every one with being islands of educational utopia? What a
crock! ACTUAL facts deny those undeserved accolades! The REAL reason for the push with charters is not the children, far from it, but the corporate greed that can be assuaged by invading the public system, and the profits made by paying teachers peanuts, ending tenure, thereby destroying job security, disallowing unions that I would bet has helped members of your family have the pay, benefits and protections those now degraded organizations achieved. And to your distorted judgement about public schools having a philosophy of “one size fits all” in addressing the students; that is sheer poppycock! I’m a grad of Ohio State University, ’72 and NO class ever endorsed such a mindless paradigm, in reality JUST THE OPPOSITE! And the fallacious charge that the “corporate leaders that you bash…” REALLY, was Gates the instigator of bells in schools? And, pray tell, what is the destructive curse of “bells?” Seems a bit ludicrous! Your argument is based on the red herring, faulty rationale: public is depicted by you as being as archaic as a bustle from the Victorian age, and the corporate dream of owning education and reaping the profits are given groundless
praise. Example: I’ve had many courses and implemented the latest research on just how children learn, as have ALL of my fellow teacher for decades! You act as if the public schools are Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist institutions, minus the grinding wheel.
Specious.
I agree Mary. Local control is key to a good public school system…the more local..the better. Local control would allows schools to improve their methods of teaching as us Montessorians could then share what we have learned about child development and an educational method based on scientific observation.
What do our children need most and how do we help them meet those needs? My list would start with things like confidence, empathy, patience, adaptability, concentration, problem solving skills, organization, divergent thinking, the ability to lead, the ability to choose between wants and needs. These are things our nation needs in future generations. You have to get pretty far down my list to find academics.
Maybe we are behind other nations in science and technology and maybe our children test lower than others in literacy and math. But if the children who will one day lead this country don’t have the abilities I listed above, the rest won’t matter. Besides, recent studies show that academic achievement is more closely linked to concentration, patience and executive functioning than homework and memorization. Shouldn’t that be where our schools focus? Oh, right, but these things can’t be tested so easily…
Diane, your force-feeding analogy is a good one. This is precisely the manner in which the most important skills are “taught” if they are taught at all in traditional education. Rewards, punishments, illogical and inconsistent rules, stressful time constraints, homogenized irrelevant work assignments, few opportunities to lead -only to follow. Teachers are given such little time to cover everything and they are forced to spend it focusing on academics. As a result, the most important part of child development (developing the child) has become an after thought.
Mr. Obama sees this, I think. He knows it starts early, so he’s focusing on the youngest children to build from there. The biggest failing in our education system is that it misses the most important years of life and somehow we think we can fix everything by teaching children to read better and sooner. The cart is before the horse.
If only there were already a proven method which focuses on the whole child. One that recognizes that academic learning is an intended and natural by-product of a pedagogy and not the ultimate goal…
Other Spaces,
In a Montessori classroom, children who are distracted will be assisted by the teacher because (as with most young children) focus is still in development. However, they are assisted to the point where they are either able to maintain their work level independently or not. If not, they are able to choose another work or take a break and come back to that work later (something we adults do everyday). I’m not certain what or where you have observed, but student teachers often struggle with this technique.
As for the dramatic play argument, once again, we are talking about young children, who very likely get plenty of dramatic play at home. It’s important for children to understand reality before they experiment with fantasy (once again, most children get enough fantasy outside of school). Still, when given the choice, young children actually prefer purposeful work because the elements within often respond to a child’s innate interests (sensitive periods). Give your 3 year old the choice between washing dishes and playing with a doll and see which one he or she sticks with longer.
What you consider closed-ended is actually called control of error. It ensures that not only does the child learn the desired skill or concept, but it also allows the child to make mistakes that he can -with concentration, solve on his own.
Still, even if your assessment was completely correct, I don’t see how any of these things could be cause enough to remove Montessori from this discussion.
I don’t have a problem with including self-correcting activities in curriculum, and I happen to like many of the Montessori materials. I do have an issue when those materials are a major component of the curriculum and then that curriculum is held up as a model of children’s choice, when those tasks are a part of a very specific sequence of learning activities that children must follow.
Many young children have not had opportunities to engage socially in play experiences with peers until they come to school. Claiming that play is just “fantasy” demonstrates how little you know about play and creativity and their value in fostering children’s development, including how often children emulate real live people and life experiences in their play, as well as how teachers can facilitate and extend learning in all domains through children’s play.
Other spaces,
The Montessori material range in purpose. There are practical life, sensorial, etc. Lessons are based on a full spectrum of materials tha appeal to all of the senses. Maria Montessori observed that when children are given a choice between “toys” and materials with purpose, they chose the purposeful materials. Every material in a montessori classroom is there through the process of elimination, as observed by Maria Montessori. Since children continue to be sensorial learners between the of 3-6, as they have been for thousands of years…these materials were specifically designed to appeal to children and after over 100 years…these same materials appeal to children the same way. With regards to fantasy, it was observed that children who did not have their needs met at a young age became “separated” from reality. Maria Montessori observed much fantasy and “separation” from reality esepcially in the children who were marginalized by society…the “street” children and children in “mental hospitals”. However, as these same marginalized children came to work with the practical life materials..they became connected again to the everyday realities in at many levels…social, emotional, etc. Montessori has many opportunities for children to pursue their imaginations. My daughter and her friend make “soup” for example at recess…by rubbing rocks against an old crumbling brick. This is both a fantasy and imaginative…but where fantasy exists at the expense of everyday healthy relationshiops that serve to help the functioning of a child is where Maria Montessori observed the greatest benefits of her method.
I’ve been teaching in Early Childhood Education for 45 years and I’m familiar with Montessori, so please spare me the lectures.
A common component of many preschool classrooms today, which promote creativity and learning through play, is the themed prop boxes, which is based on real live people and experiences. Teachers put them together, often with children’s input, and examples would include a prop box for a picnic at the beach, a doctor’s office, a house painter, a beauty shop, restaurant, etc. All of the materials in prop boxes are real, not toys.
When I’ve spoken to people at Montessori schools about prop boxes, I’ve been told they were not permitted there. I have often wondered if the person who was the first to underscore the importance of child-sized furniture, the prepared environment, sensory and practical experiences etc. would have evolved a lot more than many of the people who follow her today.
Other spaces,
Primary classrooms have had “prop boxes” for decades. Miniature farms, animals, insects, etc are all used to match the written word to. Much more extensive work along the lines of social and emotional context is introduced in the Montessori elementary programs as children naturally begin to move from practical, sensory learning to abstract.
Other spaces,
Don’t take my word for it…I’m just a passionate Montessori dad that reads everything I can about education on my free time…as a hobby. But will you consider Dr. Steven Hughes’ case? He is the former President of the American Board of Pediatric Neuropsychology. He has a presentation called “Building better brains: The neurological case for Montessori”. You can simply google his name and the title above.
He is one of the many pediatric neuropsychologists and psychologists who have dedicated their lives to cognitive science with regards to children. I think you’ll enjoy the presentation and learn a thing to two, as did I, along the way.
The standards are finely tuned statements that empower teachers with powerful goals for improving student achievement. Opposing a standard is like opposing a measurement: are you against “the mile” or “an acre”? Of course not. These standards are incredibly useful measures and we need to take them, use them, and stop confusing standards with misguided reform tactics. Let’s take full advantage of them to drive instructional choices, teacher reflection, and let’s use them for progressive purposes. The standards help me focus my instruction, my choice of text, my strategies, and more — and for the first time ever, I as a teacher in IL can confer with a teacher in NY and when we’re talking about “determining where matters are left uncertain” in compelling non-fiction text, we’re on the same page about teaching students how to hunt for ambiguity and the slipperiness of meaning. We finally have stellar standards, just like countries where students top the charts (Singapore, Finland, the list goes on). We finally have a common grade level and subject-level goal, and we’re at work building tools to support ourselves in our work. We finally have collaboration between unions, NGOs, not-for-profits, researchers, and more, all with the goal of making standards first, tests later. We finally have standards created before the big tests, and not vice-versa (witness ACT’s “College Readiness Standards” which are at their core test-item descriptors. I agree that we should be concerned about the way they have been “foisted” upon states, but that’s mainly due to the fact that states rely heavily — under Arne and Obama now more than ever — on federal support; adopting these standards went hand in hand with R2TT eligibility for states. Let’s be clear: we are better off with CCSS than without them.
John Kuijper, this is a very surprising claim. These Common Core standards are subjective judgments. They are not a yardstick or an acre or a penny or an ounce. They represent the subjective judgments of the people who wrote them. I will be convinced by evidence, not spurious appeals to “objectivity” where none exists.
Your saying the CCSS are “subjectve judgements” just does not make it so. What a standard is should not be the basis of your lack of support of them — a standard is simply a shorthand descriptor of what approximates the goal for an objective or outcome of learning processes. People also decided what constituted “an inch” and “Greenwich Mean Time” and no one would dispute their usefulness as guideposts or frames of reference. Similarly, these may have been put into place by greedy merchants (who knows?) but the benefits we have gained as a culture are beyond dispute, wouldn’t you agree? A standard helps just as a comma rule or grammatical convention helps. There is no such thing as objectivity, of course, and no one is claiming that the standards are “objective” at all or that their provenance is pristine. No standard is outside of culture or the lens that shapes our view of them. They’re still useful for achieving good ends, and they’re a step in the right direction, without a doubt. Are they sufficient? No, but they’re necessary and we can work with them. Insofar as the argument that the private sector has controlled their creation, that goes against history — we know that those teachers from the AFT working group who have been involved with in the formative discussions with Mr. Coleman and other standards authors report that they were listened to, heard, and their input was evidently adopted. I do agree with you that the evidence will tell us more, but the standards themselves are a departure point for much future work for teacher teams partnering with ACHIEVE or working within their teacher teams and more.
I don’t know about you, John, but I have served on committees to write standards in several states. I also spent seven years on the National Assessment Governing Board. The judgments are consensus judgments, not science and not objective. Who is to say that “Hamlet” is better than “Othello”? It is a judgment.
An inch and an ounce may have been decided by humans but they are everywhere the same. One cannot say the same about the CC standards.
Diane
Thank you its bad scuence to follow a bew plan untested . Its bad evolution to raise all students identically its wrong for underperforming urban schools to dictate to successful suburban districts.
America i thought took pride in being resourceful and authentic. Our great nation is built on initiative and local resources. I have experienced goergia educated students in my ny ckassroom. They knew more about different biogy topics from the ones i emphasized. It was enriching to share with this student.
Money controlled ultimately by state is the sole goal. Consolidating districts. Big box stores for our school model.
Nibel orize winners in economics found the application of the business model to humans doesnt work. They studied 70′ s job markets when govt tried to deliberately match number of jobs per feild to number unemployed. It didnt work. Pepole arent soup cans
Further an F in chemistry might be a successful risk taking by a student who deliberately challenged himself.
Data is not facts
The connection you draw between (the dismantling of public education through) vouchers and charters, and common core is the proverbial straw that will break the camel’s back, I think. Common core standards by themselves (if their existence were related to only helping guide curriculum) could be diffused, challenged, integrated, resisted, questioned, thought against, etc.. by teachers and students in classrooms. It’s not the ideal situation, and I don’t believe in them (because it is impossible for a ‘common’ core of standards to respect and honor the diversity of different ways of knowing that occur across the u.s.), but it would be possible to live with them
…under circumstances in which students were given opportunities to reach an understanding of these standards in a critical way, are not constantly subjected to high stakes testing and the ridiculous notion that competition drives creativity and success in situations where they are reduced to being mere cogs in an industrial/corporate machine…
…under circumstances in which teachers received a fair shot at a good teacher preparation program and ongoing professional development opportunities, were not assessed based on faulty premises, forced to compete with each other, and are instead given a fair chance to earn a good living being a teacher…
…under conditions where special interest groups and corporations like the bill & melinda gates foundation and K12 inc and pearson had only as much influence on curriculum and the assessment of learning as they deserve in a just democracy… under circumstances where schools were not forced to compete with each other for federal funding, forced to close because of circumstances outside of their control (read: poverty), forced to share or re-open as private schools or are re-imagined as online schools because of ridiculous and unfair funding practices…
Altogether though this context lives and breathes neoliberal free market ideology with a thick coating of old world factory-style industrial rationale for good measure. It is the perfect storm of bad policies that will cumulatively add to bad policies in other sectors to create wider disparities in socio-economic status and other social strata. Common core, then, will be the engine to consolidate power — over knowledge and therefore, over people, over curriculum and assessment, over accountability of schools, educators and students — and through the notion of “freedom” of choice via pre-determined options in the marketplace of education; delivering our agency into the hands of a select group (corporate elite) of individuals interested in profit, wealth, and legitimizing their own narrow vision of what economic growth and equality should look like in a democracy. In a world decided as such, education is a driver for economic growth, yes, but for a few (read: for the already wealthy). But it is also, sadly, the driver of increasing social injustice and, economic and political inequality.
The Common Core is a 3-fer – the standards, the assessments, and the student longitudinal database. Both the process and the standards themselves are controversial. Additionally, the 3-fer is expensive, costs are not clearly defined. Florida, one among a growing number of states, is experiencing major implementation hiccups at the lightening speed of these so-called reforms. During such times of such economic hardship, so far the biggest beneficiary is Pearson’s ….. not students, parents, communities, or taxpayers.
I am concerned that the Smarter Balance test (to be given to our 4th graders in 2014 and then to our 3rd graders in 2015) is computer-based. Do politicians understand that students will need to be taught keyboarding and editing skill for this test? When do elementary teachers work this into the curriculum – where is the curriculum for technology anyway? We need school computer labs that have enough working computers for a classroom of students to take the test – where will the money come from to ensure this will happen??? This needs to be looked into as one of the reasons students are not doing well on the test, in addition to Diane’s other reasons that she cites in the article above.
Diane,
It is fantastic that you are against the Common Core Standards. But shouldn’t you and all of us be against much more…or is this simply a way to distract from the real conversation that needs to happen.
The current structure of our public education system includes:
1. Curricula that is disconnected from reality
2. Classrooms based on age
3. Standardized testing
4. Compulsory Classes
5. Rewards and Punishments
6. Strict Time tables
7. Enclosure and separation from the community
8. Forcing teachers to teach concepts that children are not interested in and that are imposed by others
etc, etc, etc.
(Sound a bit like an education system you might expect in North Korea? I thought so too)
We need learning environments based on:
1. Discovery based on real life experiments
2. Mixed age classrooms
3. No standardized tests that result from forced, pre-determined curriculum developed not by teachers but by bureaucratic state officials
4. Schools where children want to go, instead of being places they are forced to go.
5. Learning not based on rewards and punishments but of following one’s interest
6. Self-paced learning
7. Education that is part of the community, and in conjunction with the great institutions such as universities, botanical gardens, even hospitals and nursing homes.
8. Conditions where teachers join children in learning and discovery and model the curiosity they want their students to have.
Sincerely,
Aidan
Diane Ravitch’s blog
Diane says:
Such standards, I believe, should be voluntary, not imposed by the
federal government
But progressives believe in one-size fits all. I think Diane,
here is disagreeing with progressive values.
“they should be thoroughly tested to see how they work in real
classrooms”
and your metrics are, ….?
They should serve as a promise that schools will provide all students
the opportunity and resources to learn reading and mathematics, the
sciences, the arts, history, literature, civics, geography, and physical
education
“geography”? No public school kid today knows the capital of
Arkansas, where the Amazon river is or or where Afghanistan is.
Why is that?
“they should be free of any mandates that tell teachers how to teach
because there are many ways to be a good teacher, not just one”
I agree. However, maybe the substance of the dissatisfaction with
public schools is not the effectiveness of teachers, but WHAT THEY
TEACH. For me that is my view. That is not the fault of teachers
and I think the “what they teach” is 2nd in importance to identifying
the “public school education problem”.
“I envision standards not as a demand for compliance by teachers, but as
an aspiration defining what states and districts are expected to do.”
I cannot believe you are I are so VERY CONGRUENT on that statement.
I must not understand what you mean. I think you mean
‘at the 5th grade level, all Americans should know about
Lewis and Clarke is some (locally defined) detail’.
I’m sure I am wrong. Please explain.
I must admit I have not read all the details of the “Common Core”
However, if the federal government mandates them, even if I like them,
then the federal government can tell my local school district how to
teach them. I see no way to avoid that problem.
[E.g. Fed gov expects you to teach xyz. You teach xyz+w. Fed
gov (recently elected Tea-Party types) judges your teaching
to be heretical, and therefore, your school district receives
zero funding.]
My view is inviting (allowing) the Fed Gov to help you is tantamount
to asking for disaster after the next election.
“and whether the kids now far behind are worse off than they are today”
I think society must ask Why Are Those Kids Far Behind?
Teachers and even school administrators have not deteriorated in the
past 60 years as far as I have seen. Forget unions, forget teacher
pay and forget teacher competence. Something different is present
in the elementary school, junior high’s and high schools that was
not present when we grew up.
When America discovers that and starts to address it, magically,
schools will improve.
“…fundamentally flawed by the process with which they have been
foisted upon the nation.”
Again, haven’t read it. I accept your judgement. I think “Common
Core” is a red herring for problems in American education.
SUMMARY OF MY VIEWS:
Focusing on Common Core as a lightening rod is false hope.
America should focus on why one elementary school I know of has
zero PTA participation. Fix that problem, and I guarantee you,
a whole lot of other problems will disappear.
Dear Diane,
Is there a database of American schools (elementary, junior high
{middle} and high schools) that document the levels of parent
participation (e.g. PTA)? If so, is there a strong correlation with
failed schools? If so, can we prove “schools” *fail* because of
“lack of parental participation”? (Correlation is
not causation without substantive proof.)
Ed
I do not understand much of your post, and I don’t know where you got this from, but I have to say that it is inaccurate: “progressives believe in one-size fits all.”
Look up John Dewey, Francis Parker, the University of Chicago Lab Schools and Sidwell Friends, where Obama sent his kids. They are progressive and they are not the one-size fits all factory model of education.
The common core was designed to designate public schools as “failing.” It was designed to make suburban public schools fail. Right now, most suburban parents feel that there suburban schools are good, which they are. The common core tests are made so hard, that only a small portion of students will pass. If 70-80% of a normal school’s students don’t pass, then the school can be designated “failing,” get it? Then the reformers can destroy the suburban public schools as well. The inner city schools are already being dismantled as we speak. These tests will convince the suburban parents that their schools stink as well, and then the entire system can be privatized, dismantled and turned over to for-profit companies. With both parties basically bought and sold, this will be the end of public school as we know it. The elite will continue to send their kids to private schools. Poor kids will sit 40-60 in a classroom or better yet in their basements in an on-line charter school. This is all part of the end game. It’s worse than I imagined! Also by increasing class sizes, the reformers can ensure that most public school kids do poorly on these tests only accelerating privatization.
Only in America… This movement is now probably inevitable.
Everything you have just said is true and their goal is total destruction for personal gain. However, we cannot allow them to have the inevitable it is our job to take it away from them and put it in good hands for all. These people exist who know what to do. I know enough of them and I am sure many of you also know a lot of competent people. I am sure you also say to yourselves “If only so and so was the principal and if they only let us do that which makes total sense.” All who have turned around schools have basically done the same thing. The fish rots from the head is the start. Without good management and leadership all falls apart. You must have people who have a great vision and implement it in a logical fashion that is adjustable in real time.
No, it is not inevitable. It is inevitable only if we give up. We can stop the train wreck.
I completely agree. Politics is the art of the possible. It is often a dirty business. That is the nature of the beast.
The essence of Diane’s objection to the CCS[sic]S seems to be that they will expose the ignorance of most students of what the best students will be able to know, that there will no longer be any way to fudge on reports of intellectual achievement, which is the fundamental criterion of education all over the world. This plausibility is what is driving political acceptance of them. I suspect, in practice, the results will be disastrous, as Diane predicts, and furthermore that the motives behind them possibly are what others suggest, to destroy the suburban public school systems to make way for charters, vouchers, online schools and a thousand other ways for private education companies to tap the money stream of tax funded education.
I lament the potential destruction of good public school systems, but I have no sympathy for them, because the people running them, including some who post here, bought into an essentially flawed anti-capitalist, not indigenously American, political and economic philosophy which goes counter to the essential genius of the American people, namely individualism, entrepreneurial creativity, and intellectual excellence. The education establishment accepted equal achievement for all (along with equal prosperity and equal health care) instead of mere freedom and equal opportunity for all in the context of a world where excellence actually is determined by imagination, intelligence, and very, very, very hard work.
We may possibly be in the midst of a subterranean, almost unconscious rejection of the dominant social theory of equal benefits from the society, regardless of unequal inputs. It is not name calling to identify this social theory as Marxist, or more broadly social democracy. I also note a certain humorlessness characteristic of people who hold those quasi-progressive and egalitarian philosophies such that names like “red diaper baby” and “Comrade” are perceived as going beyond the bounds of decorous debate and discussion on this blog. Perhaps so.
I am enough of a Marxist myself to see the struggles going on as a contest between Management and Labor over who gets control over the money generated by taxes. As in the private sector, in the auto industry, labor over-reached, with the collaboration of spineless management, and so bankrupted two of the great car companies, and seriously stressed the third, so also, in the public sector, public employees have over-reached and are still over reaching, and thus the restrictions on “profits” (i.e. spoils) arising in the states and cities in public education because Management (in this case the taxpayers who are the employers) won’t spring for more capital investment.
It remains to be seen how this great struggle between public sector employees in general, led by Obama and the Democrats in Congress, and those who have hired the public sector services, the taxpayers, will turn out. If Obama can get enough money out of the taxpayers to increase the public sector sufficiently so that it can outvote the taxpayers, he and the unions and the Marxist progressives will have won the battle for the soul of America. At present, government consumes about 41% of GDP. Italy is at 46% and a bit more. Greece’s public sector is above 50% of GDP. When THAT happens, you get financial collapse. An analogous phenomenon is the Social Security system. The burden is so heavy now because there are only about 2 working stiffs to support each recipient of benefits. At it’s beginning, if I remember correctly, each social security beneficiary drew benefits from 20 or so workers. It’s unsustainable, of course. But for the moment, the objective of the Democrats, with Obamacare, is to bring even more of the national economy into the public sector until the tipping point is reached where the actual taxpayers, the creators of wealth, will become the slaves of the government, which will ride them hard and feed them just enough benefits so they won’t rebel and will keep on pulling.
Compared to that grand political design, the CCS[sic]S are almost a side show. I don’t like them all that much, because they WILL drive testing, not teaching (although they are close to what the best private schools have been offering for decades), the fact remains that lots of tax money will be wasted in complying with them, whether it goes into the pockets of the Marxist public schools teaching cadre, or into the pockets of Pearson or K12, and so I oppose them, but for totally different reasons than Diane claims to, namely waste, waste, waste of tax money.
IF, as some here advocate, local parents could in fact opt out of the testing, and truly take back control of their schools from the “reformers” AND from their employees, that would be best. I will especially be interested to see what Buzzetti (the most informed commenter here) has to say about LA and whether Skeels can get elected there. The “people” do deserve to control the education in America. At present they do not, but are either the tools and fools of the communists (for whom Buzzetti speaks so effectively) or the tools and fools of the education corporatists who exploit their desire for freedom and free education, a simultaneously impossibility. We live in interesting times.
Your arguments, laced with slurs denigrating those with whom you disagree, nullifies your premises. If you hadn’t noticed, you are the only writer who throws “communist,”
to others well reasoned AND researched arguments. It seems to be a throw back to the 60’s, when such name calling substituted for intellectual discussion, or was a substitute, due to a lack of
anything to validate the mud throwers ideas. IYour fallacious charges of Marxism is humorous and seems to be the language of Fox News, not known for reasoned positions. It would do you well to edit out your slurs and maybe I and others, who are equally put off with such language, might be able to understand what you are saying.
His lame defense is: I am just repeating what conservatives think. Brilliant!
Well, that sure proves the intellectual lack in those tea bag totting brigades! Now that I think of it, his political persuasion is people’s exhibit for why our government is unable to pass a law about anything of substance!
Sometimes calling someone a communist is not true. Sometimes it could be true. What you do is look at their policies and procedures and see what they support and if in writing all the better. Then you can make a judgment and say what you want with something to back up your statement. For instance, just a few minutes ago I get a call from a friend in Thailand saying that Obama is going to let out of jail illegal aliens who have committed murder. I asked him to supply where the information came from and he wouldn’t and I told him if you cannot back up where you got your information on statements like that do not even mention it to me as that is unacceptable. He hung up the phone and I do not care if that is his attitude. Many people are communists. Is anyone going to be in denial that communists exist in the U.S. along with fascists? That would be ridiculous. Political correctness is one of the worst things that has happened. We need to call people and policies just what they are. If people disagree let them put up the proof. If they can’t then you know who they really are.
I am not a PC person, but the charges of “red diaper baby” “Communist” and “comrade” were not posited as terms based on ANY facts, just a disagreement about an issue. I seriously think that the writer of such epithets were hurled just as they always have been, to degrade the side you disagree with. That isn’t right, just or part of a dialogue about serious issues: it’s just throwing mud!
I repeat that “communist” is not a slur but a description. If you care to refute the analysis do so. If not, admit that you cannot. Some of my best friends are commies. Good people are too. That’s the great mystery of the 20th century, how so many intelligent, well-meaning, pleasant people could support such a tyrannical philosophy. Same puzzle today. How can so many pleasant, intelligent, well-meaning people be deceived by the tyrannical President’s philosophy of politics. It really does mystify me, Pishney. All who can’t defend their positions philosophically resort to attacking the analysis as biased or name calling, and the like. It is rather like trying to convert a Muslim to Christianity. Liberalism just can’t break out of their cultural goggles.
Kudos for sharing your position publicly. It’s good to read some opposition to what I consider a national waste of time.
I remember all too well the agony and the demeaning approach of forced adoption of DIBELS by mandate (buy our expensive testing and “grouping” system or you’ll receive no matching funds). Grouping was not optional.
Not only was the DIBELS approach ineffective but it ignored whole word readers while failing to build true reading comprehension and mastery of the text. Fortunately, my wife and I pulled our children out of the program. We did what our parents did; we read to our children and read with them aloud. And, by third grade, our children met or exceeded the expected assessment level without the artificiality of a tracking system that was nothing more than corporate cronyism pretending to be intervention.
In my family, education and love of learning start at home and in the classroom; not in the White House nor in the halls of Congress. Let our respective communities decide the standards for “Great Conversations” and classic texts.
RS Love
Palo Alto, CA
I couldn’t agree more with your assessment of the DIBELS tests. In addition the federal mandate for the adoption of a core reading program also wasted time and resources. Instead of reading literature chosen by their teachers based on student interests and skill levels, students were forced to read anthologies which included shortened versions of the real literature. Much time and money was wasted on workbooks instead of using actual student writing on self-selected topics to teach writing. And we haven’t learned anything from out past mistakes.
N. Rogalsky
Middletown, CT
Diane,
I coud not agree more. The craziest part is how quickly states signed on. Why the hurry to conform? Would love for you to check out my blog. I have written a couple of pieces on the Common Core we agree on many levels. The question always remains in education, why are we so eager to just jump on any bandwagon that comes down the road?
Thanks again!
Tomasen
“The craziest part is how quickly states signed on. Why the hurry to conform?”
The answer: MONEY. Tying conformity to eligibility for RTTT funds virtually assured nationwide compliance – even to the point of glowing press releases on “public involvement.”
When the puppetmasters tell the puppets to jump they ask how high and in what directions.
Reblogged this on Platte Public Library and commented:
Considering the Common Core discussion we had recently at Jump Start in Chamberlain for the Summer Reading Program, this blog post offers a different opinion.
What a bunch of ignorant comments. If you don’t understand the CCSS, then please don’t pretend. Many good teacher implemented the Mathematical Practices in their classroom long before the CCSS formalized them. There is actually less content specified in the CCSS than in many previously adoipted state standards with a focus on greater depth of knowledge. That is where our chidren lag behind other countries. If repeated high stakes testing would go away, then the CCSS would go a long way in increasing mathematical understaing for all students.
I have trouble giving any credibility to a response you have about education when your own spelling and grammar are inaccurate!
Well, I must admit I did not read all the posts. I lost interest when I felt the conversation was becoming a list of advocates for their favorite methodology. To go back to Doctor Ravitch’s initial post, I see the issue as implementing an untested curriculum across many different environments with many different needs and various levels of teacher skills. Experience and research tell me that there is no single, best practice for education. Districts, schools, teachers, and most importantly children are each unique. What works in Ann Arbor, Michigan may not be successful 50 miles away in Detroit. Add to this the lack of fidelity when implementing initiatives and you must question anyone’s hope for a “program” or a “curriculum” that will “fix” public education.
I can not even agree that public education needs to be “fixed”. We have significant issues addressing the needs of large subgroups, but I still have faith that the majority of our children today are receiving a quality education. Millions of children are doing amazing things in our public schools. Thousands of educators are working effectively and in many cases heroically. However, we still have far too many children not being given the instruction and support they need. For these children the Common Core may not be the answer and in fact may be an additional barrier to their success. For these children Montessori classrooms may not be enough. For these children additional testing has definitely not led to improvement.
I do not know the answer for all the challenges facing education, but I believe it rests somewhere withing the affective domain. I think we need to focus less on finger-pointing and more support. Teachers and students must have HOPE. They must believe that what they do is important, valued work. We need to stop allowing public school educators to be convenient whipping boys for any politician looking for a platform or business looking to sell a commodity or service.
Education remains our best hope for the future not in the collection and recitation of facts. The future of our world depends on an education that instills hope, a sense of purpose, a willingness to take risks, the belief that one’s efforts and perseverance lead to success.
CCSS is not a curriculum – the authors clearly state that. They are simply a list of what we expect students at the end of each grade to understand and be able to do. How teachers/textbooks try to help students get there is not dictated by the CCSS.
If we waited till “proven” anything in education, we will never have one. I am very confident that the Common Core will fail, but I am hoping that the next step would be the discussion on how we can revise it to deal with the issues instead of trying out another brand new idea. Instead of hoping for a miracle remedy, we should start with the CCSS and in 5 years or so, start thinking about how we can revise it. If we keep doing that every 5 years, in 25 years, we will have moved quite a bit compared to “try something, then something else” for every 5 years.
Have you never heard of field trials?
Oops! I hit “Reply” below diane’s comment – which meant I actually replied to Becky Maracich’s comment even though I was responding to diane’s question.
In math, CC$$ clearly is a curricular outline, or learning progression. In ELA, CC$$ draws a very narrow boundary in the possible design space for curricula and pedagogical approaches and erects a Berlin wall along that boundary. The whole point of creating these “standards” was to drive curricula and pedagogy, and the authors know this to be so, despite the continual equivocation on this issue.
RJC: Nicely written – you’ve touched on many of the key components impacting schools today, and I am happy that you, Diane, as a very public spokesperson, are not ready to offer your stamp of approval to what does appear to be, indeed, a national gamble.
To question is not ignorant, my friend! These are legitimate concerns and have a place in the conversation.
Yes, but how do you “field test” grade-by-grade learning expectations? We need curricula that aligns with the standards before the standards are tested. We have NEVER had a standard – in any state – that were field tested. Since I am a math prof, I can’t say anything about the language arts, but we can first develop a sequence of possible topics based on the discipline. If students have learned this and that in the prior grades, then expecting them to learn this topic should be reasonable – at least from a mathematical stand point. Sure, we can run a small test to see if that can be learned in that grade level. However, as far as I can tell, there is nothing in K-8 math standards that have a topic that has never been taught at that particular grade level in some states in the past sometimes. So, in a way, sure, they have been “field tested.”
I have no idea what caused Dr Ravitch’s conversion experience, but she has changed from a person I could seldom agree with to one who is often on mark. I agree that we should have high and consistent standards in education, but I am also concerned with this regressive move to standards by fiat and enforced by money. Secondly, the common core standards have become nothing more than the linear, directive behavioral objectives of the past. We’re back to teach, test, reward! The original math standards were on the right track. Why did we have to change them?
I work with gifted students in an affluent district and I’m quite concerned with Common Corp. Diane’s article points out some very serious flaws in how this is being foisted on states and thus, schools, teachers and the children in them. The students I work with will likely do well regardless, but I sense CC is created specifically to destroy public education by creating an environment where many are guaranteed to fail, much to the delight of non-educators behind this movement. Even gifted students, I fear, will find little in CC to inspire, motivate and guide them to find their areas of greatest passion and achievement and explore that area in all its depth and complexity. It will, however, develop in them a loathing of school drudgery by its heavy-handed sameness. Already our students have lost the freedom to accelerate, compact and skip previously mastered curriculum because of CC.
Gifted students who are just learning English, come from diverse cultures, live in poverty or have specific disabilities will be hog-tied by their “deficits” to the point where their giftedness is neither acknowledged nor addressed.
I have thought, ever since NCLB, that there is a determination to drive out of public education the difficult students, i.e. those who are cognitively, ethnically, culturally, or linguistically diverse or disabled. This is just the latest step in that direction.
Initially, we were told that it would be possible at some point for all students to be successful. Assessment was designed to create a culture where all students would, in a few years, be “Proficient and Above.” The Bell Curve was out. The reality is that the finish line (the level at which one must achieve to be designated proficient/successful) has constantly and continuously been moving. The reason is to ensure that we would *never* reach that point and that there would always be failures. CC is the next step in ensuring failure – the real, although largely unspoken, goal.
“Already our students have lost the freedom to accelerate, compact and skip previously mastered curriculum because of CC.”
Please explain how so with an anecdote as I cannot see this happening.
The Standards for literacy in content areas and technical subjects are similar to those in ELA. If anything, the CCSS allow for even more compacting and skipping as History, Science, and English share the same literacy standards. Recently, my students were able to study one topic and receive credit in two classes.
When I first read this post, something about it rubbed me the wrong way. After thinking about it more, my issues/questions are:
1. Common Core is NOT a “program” as stated in the post. Nor is it a “curriculum” as referred to in some comments. They are simply standards. That’s it. We all know that in and of themselves, they are meaningless. They have the potential to influence education only if implemented. If they do nothing more than force some teachers to re-think the way they teach and begin to push students towards more meaningful classroom experiences, then that is a success.
2. The main issue seems to be not a problem with the standards themselves – but in the manner in which they have been “foisted” on states. I would agree that they should be voluntary, but I don’t agree that the standards themselves should be negated because of the politics.
3. Assessment is a whole different animal. Again, I can’t disapprove of the standards just because I happen to disapprove of their assessment.
From where I sit in Ohio, they are an improvement over old standards. I see more good than bad in the actual standards. I see more bad than good in the implementation process and the eventual assessment of the standards.
I’m with you, kad4. I have been implementing close, critical reading of texts (complex and not, fiction and non-, just as before CCS), and my students have been growing as readers. They look at text more closely, and we have fabulous discussions about author’s meaning and purpose. I look forward to more of this type of deeper discussion, regardless of what the tests tell us.
You are doing what should be done reading and comprehension together. Reading without understanding is useless.
And what makes Coleman, or any other self appointed expert, think this wasn’t taking place already? This isn’t so innovative and it IS all about the testing as way to reduce the labor force? Don’t be played for a fool. Keep teaching.
Reading without comprehension is not new. What is new is reading without comprehension. Critical thinking which is what comprehension is all about is what we need to solve problems. The mind must be plastic and able to mold itself to the problem at hand and find the proper solution to a good outcome for the problem. Without this we are finished as a society.
When Massachusetts adopted its content area state standards and MCAS tests were new, many students failed the test. Teachers and students did not understand what was expected of them in the early years. Massachusetts did not stop supporting the standards or degrade the test to make it easier to pass; instead it put in a great deal of effort into training teachers to understand the standards and helping everyone learn from student results on the MCAS tests. The state also posted exemplar student papers each year for every written response and long composition assigned at every grade level. Teachers used these papers to help students understand the state’s goals and to make progress toward achieving them. Many said the tests were too hard, but over time, students improved their scores, and more and more students passed, even as requirements for graduation increased.
The Common Core standards are not a step down from the MA state standards, often noted to be among the most challenging in the nation. Unless, of course, you believe that more individual research, more frequent student presentation and defense of learning, and more use of technology are also a step down. Or, that you believe that all reading in the CC standards is expected to be done only in English classes – and that now only half of the reading assigned can be fiction. Or that there should continue to be separation between English standards and Science/Technology standards or between English standards and History/Social Science standards. Or that all kinds of writing should not be part of the curriculum at each grade level. Or that being able to critically analyze two pieces, be they fiction and/or nonfiction, is not a worthy (and challenging) goal.
There is much to consider in judging the content standards of the Common Core documents, but among them is not that they will force more students to fail. (Teachers may fail to understand or accept them as reality however.) It is the tests, not the content standards, that establish the performance levels of students, and it is through these that students will pass or fail, probably in greater numbers as the first ones are taken and announced. Perhaps it is about the test developers that we should be skeptical. In any case, it will take time. After all, many schools have not even analyzed the CC standards nor aligned their curricula to help students understand what is expected in the new tests; forget preparing for success on them.
It saddens me to read that you can “not support” the Common Core standards now. It’s too late! What will help students now is educators studying earnestly the Common Core content standards, revamping outdated methodologies and curricular goals, and rallying a commitment to helping all students succeed on the performance evaluations to come.
“Perhaps it is about the test developers that we should be skeptical.” Oh, heavens YES.
Diane Ravitch stated in one of the earlier posts (Feb. 26 @ 12:30 p.m.)
“Means matter as much as ends.
Yes, I have reviewed the ELA standards.
I did not review the math standards because I don’t feel qualified to judge them.
There are good things in the ELA standards.
But how they were developed, how they were imposed, and how they will be used matters as much as their content.
Maybe more.”
As as high school mathematics teacher (who personally knows several people that had a great deal of input into the CCSS Math Standards), I find it very disturbing the author leads us to believe she DID review the math standards. In my opinion, your statements made about the Common Core are made it such a way it leads the reader to believe you have reviewed both the ELA and Math portions of the Common Core.
If you do not feel “qualified to judge them,” then you should not be making overall statements about the Core considering one-half of the CCSS are mathematical standards.
While I have nothing against the content of the Common Core as far as the reading and writing standards go (I find them worlds better than anything the state of NH came up with), I think it’s telling that the CCSS have as their goal preparing students for college and careers. This leaves out the most important “C” of all– citizenship. Let’s see, who wouldn’t want a well-educated and critically-thinking citizenry…who would benefit from a citizenry even more devoid of knowledge of the history of ideas in the US than is already the case?
I share your concern about the way the standards were adopted: while right now they actually do contain SOME content connected to education for citizenship (this is probably unintentional?), who’s to say that these won’t be “revised” away in a few years?
We aren’t educating people for careers (a moving target), and certainly not all will go to “college,” but they will almost without exception be US citizens/permanent residents!
We are totally destructive of the future lives of our youth by destroying trade classes. After all a Lexus, Mercedes or Cadillac mechanic makes over $100,000/year. This is more than the average PHD makes and you cannot offshore that job and you can the PHD. These jobs such as car mechanics, plumbers, electricians, steel workers and such have high pay, great benefits and retirement packages and their jobs cannot be offshored. Who says everyone is a desk jockey? Why would we not let students learn a good job they can make a good living at. I only went to public school one summer in 12 years. I took auto shop. To this day as a result no one but me works on my vehicles except for machine work and there I only use people I have known for a long time. I also do all my own electrical work on vehicles and the house as a result. Does anyone have any idea of how much money I saved through my life because of that one summer school? When younger for awhile I made my money with that knowledge and did a lot of racing, jet skis and motorcycles, both dirt and street. Both of my brothers are SCCA racers also and one of them has won his class nationally for two years as a result of this class. This is only one example.
Speaking from one small school district which used to have auto shop, I can tell you that we cannot afford the expensive machinery that’s required today to diagnose and repair cars. What we CAN do, however, is set up internships at car dealerships that already have this equipment. What we NEED is someone to work with the business community to make this connection quickly and easily. There are insurance issues to hammer out (in loco parentis?) and other basic safety questions. But it can be done for those kids who are interested in these areas.
I forgot one very important thing and that is trade class teachers have told me that when they have students who do not want to be interested in math and language learn them if they must in order to do what they want to do. Let us talk about CNC machines for example. You must know math and be able to competently read to do that job. If the student really wants to do that they will learn what it takes to do it. Why have we thrown this away. I believe that is why LAUSD has lost 156,000 enrollment over 10 years and in the same period of time students who do not come to school everyday has gone from 14,500 or 2% to over 112,000 or now 17% for a lost revenue of over $1 billion as you are only paid for those who really come to school, ADA.
Dear Diane,
Thank you for your post on the Common Core. Many of the mathematics teachers and leaders I work with are also concerned about how students will do on those initial assessments. We know that the first pass of the assessment will most likely show lots of areas in mathematics that need more attention. I would like those first few years of the assessment to be used as formative information for teachers, schools, districts, and states–not as summative information, and most certainly NOT tied to the evaluation of teachers. That would be catastrophic, a disaster for everyone. Yes, you are right, in some sense we are a nation of guinea pigs, but I try to look at the glass half full side as well, and think about the good detailed information that all our teachers will get from these assessments, and furthermore, that they will be common assessments–across so many states. There are potential up sides to the common assessments, too. By the way, the assessments are not out yet, so I don’t know what your principal in the mid-west could have been piloting–perhaps some of the draft items in their first version? Finally, I want to take this opportunity to publicly thank you once again for speaking to the ten thousand mathematics teachers who attended our annual meeting in Philadelphia last year. You did such a great job, and your messages were well received and taken to heart.
“I would like those first few years of the assessment to be used as formative information for teachers, schools, districts, and states–not as summative information, and most certainly NOT tied to the evaluation of teachers. That would be catastrophic, a disaster for everyone.”
Sadly, you’re too late. RTTT REQUIRES that teacher evaluations be tied to student test scores, and because states are being tricked into competing for this cash, they’re all adopting these measures (in direct opposition to Linda Darling-Hammond’s admonitions). It’s a done deal.
A major problem with the common core standards being rolled out in every grade, is that in math, many of the common core standards are two years ahead of the current grade levels they are assigned to. Third grade math has quite a lot of what has traditionally been fourth and fifth grade concepts. Fifth grade has sixth and 7th grade concepts. Students in these and upper grades are already at a disadvantage, due to the fact that they have not had the common core mathematical foundation needed to be able to master many of the concepts. They are basically 2 years behind. As a fifth grade teacher I have introduce concepts that they are expected to have been exposed to prior to fifth grade, and have not been, because the common core was officially put into effect this year. The common core would have more success if it was rolled out in grades K and 1, then these students moving up each year will have been exposed to what these standards require. Truth be told, the kindergarten standards are way too demanding. They are fine for children who are learning ready, but not for young children who are not learning ready. The authors of the common core clearly do not have a foundation in early childhood education. There is very little room for exploratory learning in the grade that needs it the most. One more thing, the Acuity benchmark test for fifth grade reads like an advanced high school test. The language is not appropriately written for 10 and 11 year old children. I can not understand the rationale of setting up children to feel like failures.
Looks to me as though they are setting up total failure. Now at LAUSD many students in high school have mid elementary school skills. First, how can you raise the level of the grade when in elementary school they are socially promoting them into middle and high school being incompetent at grade level? Second, how can you properly evaluate higher grade teachers when they receive students incapable of doing the grade level work? In the aerospace business we called those kind of people “Educated Idiots.” I am talking about engineers who cannot even read their own prints. You would be surprised how much of this I have seen. It is the same in education.
Pontiac1
I don’t understand your comparison between the CC and what used to be.
How do you know what used to be?
Does CC get students to Calculus in 10th Grade versus 12th grade when I grew up?
I took a short look at CC on the website, but must admit, as a retired Ph.D. in physics
I could not quickly tell what was expected of students.
Am I reading the wrong documents?
I am not clear on what you mean by what used to be.
However, I do know concepts that have been taught in third, fifth, sixth, and seventh grade, because I have taught all those grade levels. As a fifth grade teacher, I am seeing many sixth and seventh grade concepts that I have taught to those grades in the fifth grade curriculum. I am not familiar with the high school CCLS, so I do not know what the mathematical expectations for those grades are.
I really want to understand your views on what an 8th grader should be expected to know and WHY YOU THINK THAT. I volunteer in 8th grade math classrooms and *admire* my kids.
I do this one time per week.
Ed
PS: Austin’s APIE is excellent, without qualification.
http://www.austinpartners.org/
As a classroom teacher of 16 years and national trainer for teacher professional development I have grave concerns with the reasons sited to not support CCSS.
The standards do not dictate how to teach, the writers remain steadfast that is not the purpose of content standards.
I am quite curious how standards could ever guarantee “schools [are] led by experienced and competent educators” – that goes well beyond the scope and reach of any content standards.
How long do we wait for standards to be “thoroughly tested?” Is it really better to have 50 states and then hundreds of districts doing their own thing with standards created by unknowns? We have decades of TIMSS research to prove what we are doing as a nation is not working. For the first time we have a clear picture of the cohesive expectations with these standards.
The process of adoption was indeed intense and did receive careful critique. I served on one of the review committees that carefully scrutinized three different drafts and have numerous examples where teacher voice was heard and appropriate changes were indeed made, while being balanced with other input.
Rather than deem them failures from the start, clear attention should be given instead to what needs to be done to facilitate implementation.
We cannot expect teachers to teach in ways they have never been or teach content they may have never been taught. Long term professional development, over time is crucial. Teachers should have the opportunity to see how others are implementing the standards with demonstration classrooms. Isolationism will not improve our educational system.
Teacher preparedness must improve too. Now that 46 states are on the same page colleges will be able to narrow their focus of instruction so that future teachers are prepared to teach in any of the Common Core states.
Time and attention should be devoted to providing time for quality lesson development.
Instead of having only the teacher across the hall or district to work on similar lessons we now have, for the first time, the ability to plan with teachers across the nation. Rather than spending countless hours creating lessons from scratch a basic lesson can now be reviewed by numerous teachers and improved upon.
Parent education is essential as well. Without it, they may just go running scared to private or charter schools. Our school, however, has taken a very proactive approach to provide parents with CCSS overviews and a glimpse into today’s standards classrooms through demonstration lessons at Parent Nights.
Our nation became too complacent, satisfied with mediocrity while our status globally continued to plummet. Our students graduated high school with diplomas only to be under prepared for college or careers. Remedial college classes had risen to all time highs. I have seen my share of new fads, programs, silver bullets – all promising a quick fix and high achievement. None compare to the intense research and development of CCSS. The CCSS movement wasn’t just sounding alarms saying our nation was in trouble but instead provides with clear focus for us to become leaders in education. We can either keep our heads in the sand while we wait another decade or two for trials or we can take what is a solid foundation and continue to improve.
Wow, bravo, great post. Adopting standards, in and of itself, is not a bad thing – in fact, you have to know where you’re starting, for both philosophical and practical reasons. But to expect teachers to take these standards and somehow develop lessons from them that truly address the standard is quite a stretch – especially in a district already struggling with high turnover and inexperienced teachers. Without strong staff development in both pedagogy and new techniques/content, I just don’t see how this can succeed. But the only way to provide time for this type of training is through a RTTT grant, and we all know how that goes.
To quote a phrase, “It’s a trap!”
I prefer to keep things simple, I tend to think the best solutions to any problem, are often found by those that are closest to the situation. I taught middle school and high school last year and ran into many problems because of the lack of foundation in the students’ education. If we can keep the agenda’s out of the classroom (both right and left) and stick to teaching the subjects at hand, education would be better off, and standards would not be needed.
Ah yes….the Coleman Core Standards….
Coleman now with the College Board is aligning SAT’s to CCSS. Now we know the real motive.. profits. How else can he compete with the ACT? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/02/26/sat-exam-to-be-redesigned/
I’ve thought long and hard about the Common Core Standards too. At first I wanted to reject them and run for the hills. BUT! Given the mandates, I started to think about how I could advocate for teachers and support them in the Common Core journey.
What I learned was this, if we set higher expectations, kids can reach them. It requires creative scaffolding. It requires believing. It requires extensive professional development and on-going work to support teachers in understanding the gradual release of responsibility. It requires teachers to recognize that our work is to facilitate the creative questions that promote student-centered classrooms.
I don’t see the emphasis on informational text as void of excellent literature, both are well represented in the Common Core. What I see is the opportunity to build a rich bridge between the thinking processes we use when we interpret literature, with parallel processes we should be using to analyze the vast sea of information that rests at our fingertips.
Anyway you look at it, we are in an educational crisis. Will educators become the next divisive group in America? Will educators in America move into two camps? Those who support common core and those who do not. Really! I think we can do better than that.
Instead of beating it down, we can rise up. We can hate the Common Core or we can find the potential within it. Instead of being frustrated, angry and insightful we can rise to the challenge and think of ways to promote higher level thinking and problem solving. We can stop enabling and start supporting children in being the best they can be. Good teachers in America have never stopped doing this. They work tirelessly at creating classroom environments where children learn to believe in themselves.
When I started implementing Common Core, teachers told me they were too hard. We shifted the language from “It is too hard” to “What do we have to do to get kids there/” Once we made the shift we saw results. Most teachers I talk to, who have learned to use gradual release models are seeing results. They often comment that the kids can write more and can think more. They tell me that kids have enjoyed complex literature.
So we can choose to beat down the process, we can choose to hate the standards, we can choose to bash the orchestrater’s of the common core for trying to set higher expectations, or we can choose to find the good. We can choose to celebrate intellectualism and we can choose to advocate for growth models that move beyond single moment in time tests. We will not have to worry about tests if we teach well. The tests won’t be as smart as what is going on in our classrooms if we embrace a passion for learning, thinking and problem solving. Kids desperately need to see us model our own passion for learning and our own sense of honesty when we say; “I don’t know, but I know how to figure out the concepts and do a boolean search”. They need to see us model our own critical consumption of the first link that comes up when we do a web search. We are talking about the wrong things.
In business models we looks for cycles of growth. That is what we should look for in education. Constant growth for all. So Common Core or no Common Core. I would like us to be focusing the conversation on what we can do to improve our craft and regenerate intellectualism in our profession. We need to stop wasting our energy on what is wrong and figure out what to do for the kids in front of us right now. NCLB produced a generation that looks for a linear, single right answer. At least Common Core challenged an approach that moved beyond linear responses and teach to the test strategies. If you look at it that way Common Core was a relief. We do need to support teachers in learning and processing. Many young teachers were the victims of NCLB, they will need our support in understanding that the new vision for teaching is not a cookie cutter approach. We need to come together as a profession. It will require long hours that move beyond the school day. It will require igniting an interest in learning.
Click to access onlineresources%5CE02123%5CNewkirk_Speaking_Back_to_the_Common_Core.pdf
— Professor Thomas Newkirk of UNH underscores the principals Dr. Ravitch is expressing here in his 7-page masterpiece. Dr. Newkirk, like Dr. Ravitch, writes so clearly and beautifully and provides evidence for his reasoning. Highly recommended for anyone who is following this issue.
Really excellent article. Articulated many of my own thoughts.
Reblogged this on theumiverse and commented:
Ravitch is one of the most credible opponents of Ed Reform.
Superficial unrealistic Rigor is Atrocious
Yet so many education reformers propose this
If you drill them hard enough
they’ll stay upon their toes’
Superficial unrealistic Rigor is Atrocious..
Rigged rigor rigor, Rigged rigor, rigor, Rigged rigor, rigor, rigorrrrrrrrrrrrrr
How ironic. States were”blackmailed” into adopting the core to get federal funding. Now the impending sequester threatens funding to education.
“After much deliberation, I have come to the conclusion that I can’t wait five or ten years to find out whether test scores go up or down, whether or not schools improve, and whether the kids now far behind are worse off than they are today.
I have come to the conclusion that the Common Core standards effort is fundamentally flawed by the process with which they have been foisted upon the nation.”
I agree with you that we cannot wait five or ten years while watching test scores, especially since standardized test scores are normed along a bell curve, forcing the majority of raw scores into the 6th and 7th stanines so that to outward appearance, the majority will always score at the 75th percentile.
That said, I have been teaching with the CCSS for two years, and this is what I have seen from my 8th grade students: (1)my students are capable of producing high-level analysis supported by relevant evidence; (2)my students are able to construct meaning from primary source, historical documents and non-fiction, and they self-report more interest in these pieces; (3)my students are capable of seminar discussion that cuts deeply into the human experience; (4)my students look forward to the class and its challenges. Much of this was true with the previous set of state standards I used because I have a handle on pedagogy, collaboration with other teachers, performance assessments that are closely aligned with standards and make sense to students, and reflective practice. I have not felt what could be called “foist.”
I appreciate your comments about not wanting to wait for test scores because quality teaching doesn’t wait for scores, either. It is firmly grounded in a meaningful sequence of instruction and classsrooms that value student voice. Standardized test scores then take on the roles for which they were intended, as measurement of achievement at a point in time and as guides to assist schools and districts in the process of mobilizing resources rather than sorting out winners and losers.
Quality teaching also doesn’t wait for textbook publishers to design the curriculum and its activities. Teachers who are looking for the best possible means of implementing the CCSS should look into additional training and resources in pedagogical practice that connect students to conceptual understanding and intentionally plans and assesses for transference of skill and knowledge
Every good thing about the Common Core standards will be teacher created, just as schools have always been. None of us can, nor should we, wait for some force from outside the classroom to make the Standards applicable to our students.
Agree. I think a problem is not with the basics of Common Core pedagogy but with the over emphasis on testing and the quintupling of the money spent on testing in the next 5 years. To pay for this schools are cutting librarian positions, raising class sizes, etc. The Core is the fruit of a rotton tree. I also see so many districts opting for canned learning that promises success with the Core and not empowering teachers as professionals. From your response it is clear that you would be a strong teacher no matter what the winds of reform had to offer.
I am still agnostic. While some people involved may be trying to undermine schools, many of the people in the CCSS effort are very sincere and hopefully that these standards will help. From what I have seen some aspects of the standards are an improvement (emphasis on understanding and integrated knowledge). But others are not (overly complex standards that are hard to teach to).
But I dont think it really matters. We had bad standards before, these will also not be great. Students will still score poorly. None of this is a change. Nothing will be a rude awakening. Having national standards will by itself be an improvement for professional development and sharing resources. We can finally all be on the same page. This is the primary thing that gives me hope.
One minor point – you cant really test standards. They only get “used” when they are a requirement for teachers. If teachers think they are optional or temporary, they will ignore them. So the only thing is to try and write good ones and then put them forward (but they should be really optional – I am with you on that).
“ToCC Teaching” has hit the nail on the head. It is about implementation and pedagogy, not standards. Regardless of the standards, if students are engaged in learning and have ownership of their classroom experience then any end (standard) can be achieved. It’s when the standards are dissected and taught one at a time, piecemeal that we begin to veer off track. Again, that is not the fault of the standard, but how it is taught. Too often educators focus on the ABCD of the test and not how to teach concepts students can use as 21st century citizens. The standards are the “what” — we need to focus on the “how.”
Diane has good points about how the CC’s were developed and disseminated, however, let’s move forward. They are here — for better or worse. Let’s take that content and teach it well.
I refer to them as the Common Core SUBstandards as they are a far cry from what I used to teach in NYS based on the old NYS Standards. Further, CCSS is a creation of the Pearson Corporation, nothing more, nothing less. It was created by people who themselves are very substandard, yes I have experience with the idiocy of Pearson Products and services as I have to teach ramp up to literacy for my freshmen. The Pearson Trainers are complete morons. I am not kidding. And the entire staff sees them as such, so I know I wasn’t just being biased. Further, one of the things we are supposed to “teach” is Argument Writing. Yes, I am an English teacher so that just me shudder, I like adjectives…. anyway. Know that the worst part of this is the Pearson Corporation, which profited 9 Billion Dollars last year.. so the next time you hear someone blasting teacher pay or benefits, inform them that the Pearson Corp. earned 9 billion in profits from Taxpayer Dollars.
I’m interested in your evidence that the CCSS were created by the Pearson corporation. I hadn’t seen anything supporting that claim from The Achievement Partners, the American Federation of Teachers, the Governor’s Association, or Council of Chief State School Officers. Pearson may have a printing press that slaps CCSS on all their wares, but that doesn’t mean they wrote the standards.
I would agree. Often, when suspect things come down the pike, the originators, corporate profiteers, try to hide the chain of accountability by using a variety of
false fronts. Keeps the opposition running down rabbit holes. I’d endorse another tact.
Check out the corporate backers and connect the dots from there down. Good old, teacher lovin’ Bill and Melinda Gates would be one source, maybe the Ford Foundation, etc. When you check out one, you well might find similar companies/foundations that are hiding in the proverbial weeds! As is often said, this is all about MONEY!
The CCSSO lists all of their corporate partnerships on their website. Many textbook and assessment companies are there, as well and the Gates Foundation. However, I’m wondering to what extent we should reframe this discussion in terms of a reliable source of revenue. Education costs; when states and local districts cannot foot the bills, who else will step into the gaps?
The good news, as I see it, is that the Common Core releases teachers from “fidelity to program” mandates in favor of teaching that is more learner responsive and puts a higher value on the quality of the text and student interaction than whether the “scientifically researched based reading strategies” are being used with fidelity.
“Education costs; when states and local districts cannot foot the bills, who else will step into the gaps?”
You’re begging the question. States MUST foot the bills. Most state constitutions require this. Failing to do so is not the responsibility of the schools, but the state.
That depends on the state. In NH these are district responsibilities.
New Hampshire’s educational responsibility lies with the state:
Claremont I and Claremont II established two stipulations for the constitutional justification of any education funding plan:
(1) State government (not localities) is responsible for providing a constitutionally adequate education.
Click to access neppcdp0602.pdf
These are indeed decisions, but they have yet to be implemented in any meaningful way; education remains locally funded by property taxes. Add to this the constitutional mandate that the state DOE cannot require anything that the state does not pay for. The sum of these parts (in reality of not if not on paper) equals local control as not seen in most other states. It has changed little in the 50 years I have lived here.
The standards are far from the bigger issue here. Whether they are good or bad it is NOT constitutional. Not one state had the opportunity to vote on them, they were pushed on them so quickly with the dangle of cash, I doubt states even realized how many rights they freely gave up. In a few years sweep, over half the nation gave up their right to say what standards will be taught in their state. So look down the road five years now the government has full say what should be taught..then they can change the standards however they like.
Nothing has even been brought up about assessments and data tracking. This is the toe in the door. Their plan is much larger than just common standards
Diane,
I have read the Common Core Standards for mathematics. They’re not bad. At least, there’s more good in them than bad. But I do think that the prescriptive way they are likely to be implemented and the accountability focus will destroy the positive impact they could have.
Corey
The issue is means and ends, as well as in intended consequences.
I teach sixth grade at a public school in the California central valley. I have often wondered if many of the alleged education reforms of recent years are a form of intergenerational warfare. In other words, older adults seem to be waging war on the young people of this country. For example, we make today’s high school students take an exit exam in order to graduate. We (baby boomers and older) did not have to take such a test; our eligibility to graduate was based on the grades we earned from our teachers and our GPA. When the school system was steamrolled by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), results on standardized tests became the measuring stick by which school districts, schools, students, and teachers were determined to be either a success or a failure. Baby boomers and the generations before them were not saddled with these kinds of pressures.
Today, it seems that so-called reforms are driven by predatory corporate interests, misinformation, and outright lies. It troubles me that though this is a democratic society, teachers are rarely, if ever, at the policy making table, and we’re the ones doing the core work in schooling. However, in any case, I advise teachers at all levels to learn as much about these new standards as possible, or they will become yet another sledgehammer administrators and others use to bop us over the head with.
If there is to be a national school accountability system then there must be national standards and a national assessment to measure those standards. It is absurd that each state is allowed to write its own standards, develop its own tests to measure students’ progress in meeting those standards, and then decide what constitutes proficiency. Does anyone really believe that in 2009-2010 eighty-five percent of the schools in Nevada were failing and ninety percent of the schools in Mississippi were succeeding? Either scrap national accountability or implement national standards and assessments.
Gee whiz, how did we get to be the most powerful nation in the world without the Common Core and national tests?
We won’t be the most powerful nation in the world for long without a better educational system. At least the Common Core and national tests will ensure that we are comparing apples to apples.
Gosh, do you think Finland and Korea will take charge of the world without the Common Core standards? How do you know? Did you know that on the first international test in 1964, we came in last in one test, and next to last in the other? How did we manage to rise to world dominance without the CC all these years?
German scientists?
. . . Either scrap national accountability or implement national standards and assessments and live with the consequences.
I’m not advocating for national standards or assessments, just making the point that if we are to continue using an accountability system that is fundamentally punitive, we should at least apply the same measure to all.
Yup, good call Diane. U.S. was world leader for past 60 years without Common Core. All is well now. Keep calm and carry on.
Please bear in mind that when first international tests were given in 1964, 12 nations competed in two grades. We came in last in one grade and next to last in the other. In the past half-century, we have been more successful by every measure than the 11 nations with higher test scores.
The world is changing faster than we can document and education has always lagged behind. We are no longer the “most powerful nation”, at least as far as our education system goes. Will a Common Core fix all the issues, absolutely not. It will, however, provide a common way to assess how we are doing. Do we need to address standardized testing to make sure the tests are equitable and accurate, absolutely! I just see a Common Core as one way to provide direction and focus for districts/states and teachers and at least some measure of continuity for a highly mobile population.
The reason we the most powerful nation in the world is because we embraced all of education…I do mean all…
The emphasis was not on testing but on learning ….every aspect of learning….
Socrates….
“I cannot teach people anything, I can only make them think”
You have me thinking Socrates…thinking about tests..day after day after day after day after day
Test after test after test after test…
That is all that we think abut..that is all the students think about..That is all the new TESTERS (used to be teachers) think about..
That is all the Political Testing Hierarchy thinks about..
Sing along with me..
“Our score is better than youuuuuuuuuuuuur score”
I agree with Nancy. If we don’t get our act together, it’s only a matter of time before we’re dependent on other countries for their developments in science and technology. It doesn’t mean we have to try to become carbon copies of other countries, but we should take a look at what’s working and figure out how it could work for us. We aren’t breeding innovators, which we might have gotten by with in the 60s but it’s now 2013. We can compare ourselves to ourselves all we want, but worldwide we’re falling behind.
The common core isn’t the only part of the equation. There has to be some type of accountability. That doesn’t mean we need to be threatened by the government and it doesn’t mean that we have to over-test our children. It means that teachers need to be transparent and willing to share their expertise with one another as well as lean on one another when they need help. I’ve seen so many horribly lazy and indifferent teachers in my career who need to be replace with qualified teachers who want ALL students to succeed, no matter what it takes.
Again, begging the question. WHO SAID we needed a national school accountability system? Your examples are correct – some states show crazy rates of “proficiency” while others don’t. But that has more to do with who is in charge of the cut scores and who is running for office. When someone is running on an Ed Reform platform, voila! The scores plummet. And after a few years, the scores magically rise. Now translate this to a NATIONAL phenomenon. Because that’s what will happen.
It may be a good idea to have a daily national stock market type ticker on the nightly news. We can see the test scores rise and fall every day. By state, city, school, etc. Could be done. Means nothing, but Gates/Rhee/Pearson/Walton would squeeze out meaningful data for them, translate it into >+$$$$. Legislators will review it daily to evaluate their legislative actions, minute by minute.
More ideas can be generated as we think this plan through.
How about it?
Let’s do it! I think we are finally ready for this.
Now I have a stomach ache.
Speaking of running the office; here in Senator Bennett’s initial destruction playground, a head administrator for “purchasing” has been accused of BRIBES and KICK BACKS, and here’s the real clincher…he’s being “investigated” by DPS! What rot! NOT the ciy’s attorney or other outside legal means, but by DPS! No wonder his smiling face on the CBS website looked so uncaring! One lady who overheard me talking to someone about this, cut in and said, “SO, what’s the problem???? If the kids got their computers, WHO CARES?” But I’d bet that same idiot would be more than happy to join in slamming teachers! Have we sunk this low???
Your comment dovetails with THE MANUFACTURED CRISIS by Berliner and Biddle
Mr. Carlton,
With all due respect, what makes you think that the high-stakes tests (produced and sold by the testing “nonprofit” moguls at a high price tag), twin siblings of the common core standards are the only or the best accountability measure of learning?
Cordially,
Lourdes Pérez Ramírez
President
HispanEduca
So sorry about the failing rate in Nevada but no need to doubt the progress of Mississippi students.
Diane,
I appreciate your post. I especially appreciate the clarity and candidness of your writing. However, I disagree with your choice to take this position.
Your title and your blog suggest that you cannot support the Common Core State Standards. I hope I can fairly summarize the very good reasons you cite as the basis of your claim.
• No trials.
• A lack of transparency and authenticity in the adoption process.
• The possibility of large scale failure, affecting some groups, perhaps, more than others.
• A centralized ideology, reflecting values that may have largely been defined by one man.
While the evidence you cite to support each reason is perfectly acceptable to me and while I have developed a great deal of respect for you and your work, I still cannot hold with you on the operational reality of the basic premise of this post.
Here is why:
The alternatives are status quos or gradualism. Neither is acceptable given drop out rates in cities like Chicago and Detroit. Furthermore, in systems where the schools aren’t so challenged, you’ll have to admit that change is needed just to take the antiquated systems we’ve had in place for far too long and bring them up to speed a little.
The operational reality of not supporting the standards is waiting for something else to bring about the needed, sweeping change. In my view, the stage has finally been set for something real to happen. We need to do it.
I say, we need to think entrepreneurially, like all great teachers do. We try it; if it doesn’t work, we reflect, learn and try something else that is better the next time, hopefully without losing what was great about that magical first draft.
The reality is that we need technology and we need better standards. The CCSS are better than most state standards, simply because there are fewer of them and they focus on good things. For example, mathematical practices standard three: “Create a viable argument and critique the reasoning of others.” If that is what will be measured, that will get done, poorly or not so poorly, but isn’t that exactly what we should be teaching kids to do? So why not give it a try? With nearly a whole nation focused on a few good things that aren’t as restrictive as the ridiculously discrete things we had in our state standards, we can reflect and revise together.
The new standards also allow for another important change to occur. Without the fragmentation that the 50 state standards caused in the educational resources market, there might actually be hope for transparency, competition, teacher entrepreneurship, and ultimately better products.
We have to try something, and even though these standards have flaws like any other set whether they were made by one, a few, or many people, the consensus or compromise that is the CCSS gives us an opportunity (just now at a time when technology is exploding) to take a shot at real, equitable access to high quality education for all.
“The alternatives are status quos or gradualism. Neither is acceptable given drop out rates in cities like Chicago and Detroit. Furthermore, in systems where the schools aren’t so challenged, you’ll have to admit that change is needed just to take the antiquated systems we’ve had in place for far too long and bring them up to speed a little.”
Please explain how Common Core tackles the problem of drop out rates.
How can you condemn systems that “aren’t so challenged” as being “antiquated?” Have you looked at them? Who is best to judge – those in said system or . . . you?
I agree with you, Eileen; and I remain optimistic.
Diane, you have my highest respect, but I disagree.
Some of my own thoughts/questions:
I don’t know what the assessments look like, but why should we be worried about the possibility that test scores will decline? Maybe we will learn more about our students and our own instructional strategies, so we can help them learn more about themselves, the content, skills, and dispositions they need.
Why is there so much emphasis on the test scores as opposed to other indicators of school success including the character of the students, their creativity, critical thinking, ability to collaborate with others, and entrepreneurship and innovation? Are these important characteristics measured by the tests, CCSS or other state tests? Unfortunately, I don’t think so.
Is a decline in test scores due to the more rigorous demands of the new CCSS as reflected in the assessment? If so, good! It tells us that we need to do a better job preparing teachers to teach children in better ways (which are not prescribed by the CCSS). We need higher expectations of our teachers and of our students. Striving toward “Average” or “Passing,” for all students, is not good enough.
What is the consequential validity of the decline in scores for ELLs and low SES students? Could it be that they’d get better instruction after they’re identified? Could we put more effort into helping them exceed their potential? After what we went through with the punitive measures embedded in NCLB, I hope lessons have been learned!
I am confident that higher expectations reflected in the CCSS assessment will result in higher expectations and more effective and efficient instruction to improve student learning.
It’s good to be critical, but please keep an open mind. Optimists are problem-solvers who will focus on continuous improvement; being too critical causes unsightly scowl marks.
I could not have said it better myself. Thank you for your insight. Something has got to change. I also agree with the above statement that teachers have become testers and the reason we were doing better 30+ years ago, was because teachers were allowed to teach. Teachers were supported and respected by the government, their communities and parents. Not a day goes by that teachers are demoralized and criticized by those who know nothing of what it is like to be in a classroom. Common Core is not the silver bullet to fix education in America, but it is a step in a much needed different direction.
While I plead to being agnostic when it comes to opinion of the Common Core just yet, I can speak to my own experience thus far as a classroom teacher. My district in rural western Wisconsin jumped on the band wagon for common core in the area of mathematics 2 years ago. Some of our staff have unergone significant training, workshops, and education regarding the Common Core in the area of mathematics. I can say, while somewhat painful, I feel very optimistic about the growth I see in my students and look forward to the future.
I am concerned however, in the assessment process using the Smarter Balanced Assessment as this will be a computer based assessment. My district runs about 50% free and reduced lunch, which means that we are a high poverty school district. We have typically boasted extraordinary scores on our WKCE testing, which is Wisconsin’s currtent state testing system. We have always been very proud of out-scoring our neighboring communities as well as the state scores. While I am not worried about the scoring system or competition amongst school districts, I am simpy worried about having 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders complete computer-based tests that will then hold districts and teachers accountable. We don’t even have enough computers for 3 classrooms in our school of 17 classrooms. We share those PCs.
Our district is declining in enrollment and our governor is pouring more money toward voucher systems and freezing money put toward our public schools. We have over the past 3 years looked at significant budget deficits. Much of our community is more worried about their taxes rather than the education of the students in our community. Therefore, the hope of improving our technology in any way to give our students more access is dimming. We only have PCs at this point – there are no IPads or laptops or anything else for that matter. Our teachers do each have a PC at their desk.
I wonder how we are going to be able to effectively teach our students to use a computer in order to even take a test that will assess their knowledge. It won’t necessarily be their knowledge that we are testing, but their ability to use the technology for the assessment. I wish I had a solution to my concerns, but for now, I simply have to wonder…….
Chrome books?
Common Core should mean common sense; we shouldn’t celebrate the likely lower results but lower standards are not the answer either. Of course there is an educational conspiracy but we are falling behind and must giddy-up.
Thank you Diane for your reflection. Many of the commenters here that are against your position simply state that we should go along with these changes, because the change has to be better than what we have currently. They fail to consider the consequences of standards that are not developmentally appropriate to young students and that were not developed based on developmental levels for anyone, except what the business world expects students to be able to do when entering the job force or college and backwards mapping from there. It’s a wonder how we survived having Kindergarten students doing trigonometry. I, for one, have the biggest trouble buying into these standards due to the lack of educators being involved in their development. Real teachers were in the classroom and educational publishers seeking to gain profits were designing our standards. Now, unknowingly, teachers are being misled into believing that increasing the failure rate of public school students at the delight of private and charter school voucher supporters is a good thing. Free and appropriate public education will be a thing of the past if we are not careful.
I have lived, had children in schools, volunteered, and taught in several states. I was appalled at the the wide variance in many aspects of the schools. They are truly different worlds. I was aghast at the differing standards, practices both within classrooms and for employees. On commonality was that the educators running the systems have years of experience and do the best job they know how.
Therein the problem – they only know their own system and what they have experienced for years. They are unable to “see” to improv because they haven’t been involved with a variety of different educational systems. They are working under state standards that other limited minded people wrote – often teachers with seniority but also limited exposure to differing educational systems. These educators have the best of intentions and do their best – BUT – we are a nation and function internationally, we have to educate as a nation.
Now, let me state that I firmly believe that most educational decisions need to be based locally – not evn at the state level. Frankly, the USDOE needs to be a abolished and state DOEs should be minimal, delegated to coordinating functions only. Decisions on how to manage the schools/employees and educate th students should be made locally.
Mary,
I Don’t understand your position. You seem to have totally contradicted yourself. You want commonality, but feel the “USDOE needs to be abolished and even the state DOEs need to be minimal”? So how do you suggest we achieve commonality if these departments are abolished and minimized?
I am a public school teacher in Philadelphia where the city has adopted the CC on top of the current curriculum; in many schools that curriculum is a scripted daily ritual. Meanwhile, the CC is being implemented in addition to the state standardized test eligible content. No new resources are given, no new funding is given, and no accommodations are given to students with exceptional needs. The CCSS requires that students not learn how to read, but read to learn (goodbye to all phonics and phonemic awareness). As you correctly stated, critical thinking skills can be attained through the use of both literature and NF. Expectations have been raised to the point of allowing only the top end of the bell curve to achieve. How is it that the politicians and powers that be can not understand that the world, including children, includes the basic bell curve for achievement. And when those same powers that be attach all teacher salaries to student achievement, who will then teach low achieving children, children with special needs, or English language learners? I like the concept of the CC. I like the ideas behind the CC [much of our required reading as adults IS NF], but why is it every time some new idea in education, oftentimes a recycled one, they throw out the baby with the bathwater?
@Jennifer ( “I like the concept of the CC. I like the ideas behind the CC [much of our required reading as adults IS NF]”):
That much our required reading is NF doesn’t mean we need to impose it on our kids. I, and probably you, like most highly educated adults, learned to read by reading a lot of fiction for pleasure. What matters for reading is reading, and kids should be able to read whatever they are interested in. For most kids, that’s fiction. My daughter is this very second engrossed in a long book about talking dolls. 98% of her reading these days is fiction, and that’s fine. She will ace whatever tests come her way!
At first, I thought that the Common Core would mean a common curriculum for all states, agreed upon subject matter that was important to teach. When I found out that civics was not to be in the “common core” and that teachers had little to nothing to do with developing them, I knew we were in for yet another way for privateers to profit by parents throwing up their hands in despair over the insanity.
Well said!
I echo your statement!
As an author of nonfiction books for children, I am welcoming the CCS because it will expose students and teachers to some of the best writing and thinking about the real world that has been absent from most classrooms. Did you know that there is a body of work out there that presents the thinking of scientists and historians and their questions about content that can inform and inspire learning? Did you know that excerpts from these books are what comprise the material to be read and interpreted on assessment tests? (I have a stack of permissions that I have sold to Pearson et al in my drawer.) I think the CCS will open up possibilities to use nonfiction literature to engage children and teachers in non cookie-cutter creative strategies that will free them from teaching to the test and substitute real engagement in learning.
The CCS have inspired me to become an entrepreneur and start an organization that brings these skills into the classroom by interacting with top children’s nonfiction authors. We read to learn, curate the information, and synthesize it into new writings with the added value that we hook our readers into learning. The CCS skills are what we use to earn our livelihoods. I think that people are scared that the CCS will force them into using nonfiction reading material typical of textbooks and wikipedia. Where is it written that you have to learn to read boring and difficult to understand material in school? Nonfiction authors have all survived our individual educational histories to achieve and ongoing passion for learning and we’re discovering how to ignite it others.
If you’re interested in learning more, check out http://www.inkthinktank.com
Ignite it in others, by all means, but please don’t impose it on my children. My own kids are great readers, and they mostly read fiction. Some of my students love high quality NF. Both are okay. The CC’s fiction/nonfiction percentages are ridiculous and counterproductive.
Let’s please view the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) as separate from our current system of external oversight and accountability of teachers, which does not allow teaching to flourish and keeps teaching from become a vibrant profession. Our current teaching system is practically designed not to work — it runs entirely counter to what we know about human motivation and the development of expertise. It’s the system that needs to change, and I think we can use the CCSS as a lever to help us make that change.
The CCSS for Mathematics (my field) describe the most important and central ideas in K-12 mathematics and provide a pathway to the STEM knowledge, reasoning, and skills needed for college and a range of careers. Would we really not want this strong vision of K-12 mathematics for the whole country? Wouldn’t that be like saying that doctors in Georgia and California should develop their own standards for medical care instead of using standards developed by experts in the discipline?
When it comes to teaching, I think we need to take a disciplinary perspective. We need to connect across all levels in a discipline — from Kindergarten through college — because what happens at one level enables and constrains what can happen at another. In mathematics, we need to improve teaching at all levels, from Kindergarten through college, and all of us have much we can learn from each other. What we really need is a mathematics teaching system that has two key components:
1) A high bar to entry, so that even novices are held in respect because they have achieved a level of competence.
2) A community norm of discussion, collaboration, and exchange of ideas and data that fosters a healthy and supportive competition for the admiration of our peers and that allows us to demonstrate excellence in our own ways.
What we need in mathematics teaching is to be ruled not by external measures of control but rather by the messy, inexact judgments about each other’s work that we develop by discussing our ideas, building on each other’s ideas, and examining and critiquing each other’s work. This — not the tyranny of test scores and evaluations — will motivate us to work towards excellence and to develop mathematics teaching as a vigorous profession. What we need most of all and most urgently is to decide collectively that we want such a community and that we will work together to develop it.
Is this too radical? Too idealistic? Can it be done? I don’t know. But shouldn’t we try?
For those who teach (or taught) math at any level and are interested in discussing issues of math teaching, please check out the Mathematics Teaching Community
https://mathematicsteachingcommunity.math.uga.edu
” Wouldn’t that be like saying that doctors in Georgia and California should develop their own standards for medical care instead of using standards developed by experts in the discipline?”
Are you implying that the great states of Georgia and California don’t have any experts in these disciplines?! Or that David Coleman is the country’s leading expert in his discipline?! Both ideas are pretty silly.
I sure am reading a lot about what the TEACHERS like about Common Core and what THEY think the students should be learning. What happened to the PARENT’S VOICE? It used to be PARENTS who were in charge of their child’s education. Shouldn’t the teachers be having these curriculum conversations with the parents and the tax paying community rather than the state and federal GOVERNMENT? It USED TO BE that the teachers were the EMPLOYEES of the PARENTS and the tax paying community. It certainly seems as if this isn’t the case any longer. One such parent of elementary age children in Kennesaw, GA tried to express her concerns over the CC curriculum with her child’s teacher. The teacher told her there was nothing she could do about the curriculum…. she has to teach what she is told to teach. So, the parent went to the school principal. The principal told her to “get over it.” She said “The government has set the curriculum and the teachers and school administrators work for the government. So, Common Core curriculum is what her child is going to learn!”
Bye bye parental control over your child’s education. Parents in Georgia are now just starting to see what is in Common Core and they aren’t liking it!
Angela– you need to contact your state legislature and DOE.
I’m still trying to see how standardization makes sense in a global economy that depends on innovation and out-of-the-box thinking. This scares the hell out of me.
Well stated, Jane!
Exactly. Standardization is not a means for achieving individuation, intrinsic motivation and autonomy, innovation, and the identification and development of the diverse talents that a complex, diverse, pluralistic society needs.
Some subscribers to Diane Ravitch’s blog might be interested in a recent post “The Contentious Common Core Controversy” [Hake (2013)]. The abstract reads:
ABSTRACT: The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) http://www.corestandards.org/ have engendered considerable controversy – see e.g., “Resistance to Common Core standards growing” [Strauss (2013)] at http://wapo.st/Y7kwdK. Stimulated by Diane Ravitch’s (2013) admonition at http://bit.ly/XGpEpK “to think critically about the standards,” I searched Google for “Common Core State Standards” to obtain 3,010,000 hits at http://bit.ly/15QLBZR on 03 March 2013 10:15-0800. Careful consideration of all those leads me to suggest the following sixteen as especially valuable:
ANTI- CCSS
1. “Eight problems with Common Core Standards” [Brady (2012)] at http://wapo.st/15Z4kTg.
2. “Engineering Good Math Tests” [Burkhardt (2012)] at http://bit.ly/VaJgpp;
3. “How Common Core will change testing in schools” [Krashen (2012)] at http://wapo.st/12bt9w5;
4. “Debunking the Case for National Standards: One-Size-Fits-All Mandates and Their Dangers” [Kohn (2010)] at http://bit.ly/Z0xoUV;
5. “Do young kids need to learn a lot of facts? ” [Miller & Carlsson-Paige (2013)] at http://wapo.st/13oJVqW.
6. “Whoo-Hoo! Occupy the Schools” [Ohanian (2013)] at http://bit.ly/XGs4oq;
7. “Why I Cannot Support the Common Core Standards” [Ravitch (2013)] at
http://bit.ly/XGpEpK;
8. “Do We Need a Common Core? ” [Tampio (2012)] at http://huff.to/ZBaDb6.
PRO-CCSS
9. “Creating a Comprehensive System for Evaluating and Supporting Effective Teaching” [Darling-Hammond et al. (2012)] at http://stanford.io/Wj1w1E;
10. “Standards Worth Attaining” Finn (2012) at http://bit.ly/XHtS0k;
11. “A Common Core Standards defense” [Hirsch (2013)] at http://wapo.st/Y1gwvk;
12. “What English classes should look like in Common Core era” [Jago (2013)] at
http://wapo.st/XdE2cM;
13. “International Lessons About National Standards” [Schmidt, Houang, & Shakrani (2009)] at http://bit.ly/xPjmJ4.
14. “Seizing the Moment for Mathematics” [Schmidt (2012)] at http://bit.ly/Z0BbS2;
15. “On Naked Standards – And Free Curriculum” Tucker (2012) at http://bit.ly/Y531xl;
16. “The Case for National Standards” [Weingarten (2009)] at http://wapo.st/XbIJ6K.
For an earlier review of the pros and cons of the Common Core Standards see “National Education Standards for the United States? ” [Hake (2009)] at http://bit.ly/Z0DMLK. In a subsequent post I shall discuss the “Next Generation Science Standards” (NGSS) http://bit.ly/y1gJPx and their relationship to the “Common Core State Standards. ”
***************************************************
To access the complete 38 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/Y7ocMv.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm
“I have come to the conclusion that the Common Core standards effort is fundamentally flawed by the process with which they have been foisted upon the nation. . . . . They were developed by an organization called Achieve and the National Governors Association both of which were generously funded by the Gates Foundation. . . . . Their creation was neither grassroots nor did it emanate from the states. . . . . . it was well understood by states that they would not be eligible for Race to the Top funding unless they adopted the Common Core standards. . . . . ”
– Diane Ravitch (2013) at http://bit.ly/XGpEpK
“The countries that consistently outperform the United States on international assessments all have national standards, with core curriculum, assessments and time for professional development for teachers based on those standards. . . . . Should fate, as determined by a student’s Zip code, dictate how much algebra he or she is taught? . . . . Education is a local issue, but there is a body of knowledge about what children should know and be able to do that should guide decisions about curriculum and testing.”
– Randi Weingarten (2009), president of the American Federation of Teachers at http://wapo.st/XbIJ6K.
“So much orchestrated attention is being showered on the Common Core Standards, the main reason for poor student performance is being ignored – a level of childhood poverty the consequences of which no amount of schooling can effectively counter.”
– Marion Brady (2012) at http://wapo.st/15Z4kTg.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 03 March 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. “The Contentious Common Core Controversy,” online on the OPEN! AERA-H archives at http://bit.ly/Y7ocMv. Post of 3 Mar 2013 11:01:22 to AERA-H and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
One problem I have is the assumption that raising standards will raise results. Perhaps it is time to consider education more scientifically. We know that poorer (lower socioeconomic) students tend to do poorer in school. How about looking at the true root cause. I do not think it is because teachers do not want poorer students to succeed, but rather that poorer students do not come to school the same as richer students. We know that external problems, health, family issues and support, and summer activities all affect student performance. These are more concrete issues than teachers don’t expect enough. However, providing these items costs money, and that is the real problem. We want things to be better, but we don’t want to pay for it.
“Penny” commented: ”We know that poorer (lower socioeconomic) students tend to do poorer in school. How about looking at the true root cause.”
For the “true root cause” see the REFERENCE list below containing poverty-related references from my *complete* post “The Contentious Common Core Controversy” at http://bit.ly/Y7ocMv
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
REFERENCES
Berliner, D.C. 2009. “Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success.” Education and Public Interest Center (Univ. of Colorado) and Education Policy Research Unit, (Arizona State University); online as a 729 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/fqiCUA. In his abstract Berliner states: “This brief details six Out of School Factors (OSFs) common among the poor that significantly affect the health and learning opportunities of children, and accordingly limit what schools can accomplish *on their own*: (1) low birth-weight and non-genetic prenatal influences on children; (2) inadequate medical, dental, and vision care, often a result of inadequate or no medical insurance; (3) food insecurity; (4) environmental pollutants; (5) family relations and family stress; and (6) neighborhood characteristics. These OSFs are related to a host of poverty-induced physical, sociological, and psychological problems that children often bring to school, ranging from neurological damage and attention disorders to excessive absenteeism, linguistic underdevelopment, and oppositional behavior.”
Brady, M. 2012. “Eight problems with Common Core Standards,” in Valerie Strauss’ “Answer Sheet,” Washington Post, 21 August; online at http://wapo.st/15Z4kTg. Note especially Brady’s crucial problem #4: “So much orchestrated attention is being showered on the Common Core Standards, the main reason for poor student performance is being ignored-a level of childhood poverty the consequences of which no amount of schooling can effectively counter” – see e.g., Berliner (2009), Duncan & Murnane (2011), Kristof (2013), Marder (2012), Neuman & Celano (2012), and my 14 blog entries on the overriding influence of poverty on children’s educational achievement at .
Duncan, G.J. & R. Murnane, eds. 2011. “Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances.” Russell Sage Foundation, publisher’s information at http://bit.ly/nCkmKv. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/r3MrCh.
Kristof, N.D. 2013. “For Obama’s New Term, Start Here.” New York Times OP-ED, 23 Jan, online at http://nyti.ms/WnEhU2. Kristof wrote: “Something is profoundly wrong when we can point to 2-year-olds in this country and make a plausible bet about their long-term outcomes – not based on their brains and capabilities, but on their ZIP codes. President Obama spoke movingly in his second Inaugural Address of making equality a practice as well as a principle. So, Mr. President, how about using your second term to tackle this most fundamental inequality?”
Marder, M. 2012. “Failure of U.S. Public Secondary Schools in Mathematics,” Journal of Scholarship and Practice 9(1): 8-25; the entire issue is online as a 2.7 MB pdf at http://bit.ly/KPitWM, scroll down to page 8. Marder wrote: “The collection of nationwide data do point to a primary cause of school failure, but it is poverty, not teacher quality. As the concentration of low-income children increases in a school, the challenges to teachers and administrators increase so that ultimately the educational quality of the school suffers. Challenges include students moving from one school to another within the school year, frequency of illness, lack of stable supportive homes with quiet places to study, concentration of students who are angry or disobedient, probability of students disappearing from school altogether, and difficulty of attracting and retaining strong teachers. Most people who see the connection between poverty and educational outcomes are confident that low-income students in a sufficiently supportive environment will learn as much in a school year as students in well-off communities.”
Neuman, S.B. & D.C. Celano. 2012. “Giving Our Children a Fighting ChancePoverty, Literacy, and the Development of Information Capital,” Teachers College Press, publishers information at http://bit.ly/ZVCsil. Amazon.com information at http://amzn.to/VVml0G, note the searchable “Look Inside” feature. The publisher states: “This is a compelling, eye-opening portrait of two communities in Philadelphia with drastically different economic resources. Over the course of their 10-year investigation, the authors of this important new work came to understand that this disparity between affluence and poverty has created a *knowledge gap* – far more important than mere achievement scores – with serious implications for students’ economic prosperity and social mobility. At the heart of this knowledge gap is the limited ability of students from poor communities to develop *information capital.* This moving book takes you into the communities in question to meet the students and their families, and by doing so provides powerful insights into the role that literacy can play in giving low-income students a fighting chance.”
I teach in a Title 1 school and I am shocked by the lack of skills the students have when they come to school. Parents need to send their children to school with basic skills: counting, number sense, alphabet knowledge, fine and gross motor skills, listening skills, social skills and language skills. I am shocked be the limited vocabulary of the students in my school. Kids come to school tired, and hungry. Parents need to do their job, too.
Bingo.
I’m late to the game… but wanted to leave this thought:
The biggest problem I have with the Common Core is that it reinforces the factory school model by using “grade levels” to define the learning sequences in each subject. The grade-level construct was introduced in the 1920s to help schools run more efficiently by grouping students into cohorts based on their age. This construct is based on the assumption that all students of a similar age are at a similar level of intellectual maturity. Anyone who has raised two children or been in a family with siblings knows this is not the case. Today’s technology makes it possible to move away from this administratively convenient construct to a truly individualized curriculum that would match each student’s ability and interest. This isn’t a “romantic notion”, it is a real possibility that will be lost if we continue with the standardized testing regimen of the past two decades. The common core and the testing that accompanies its implementation is precluding the evolution of education by reinforcing the factory paradigm. Worse, it assumes that teaching is not an art based on developing a nurturing relationship and deep understanding of each individual student but rather a science that can be engineered and measured with precision.
well said
FYI, you’re listed here as a trustee at CommonCore.org:
http://www.commoncore.org/wwa-trust-dr.php
Scott, the Common Core State Standards are entirely separate from a small nonprofit called Common Core. The latter was created to advocate for the liberal arts, and I was co-chair along with Toni Cortese, vice-president of the AFT. I resigned from the board about two years ago. Currently I serve on only one board (unless I have forgotten some): Class Size Matters in New York City.
Thanks for the clarification. That’s a bit confusing. Thought you had been co-opted again (like with StudentsFirst)!
Wow, that’s confusing. Diane, they still have your trustee page linked, and your introduction to the CCSS group as co-founder. Much of the content is from 2009, but if you click through the blog, recent posts reference the current Common Core debate and include positive comments about Mark Tucker’s position on issues: http://blog.commoncore.org/2013/01/23/growing-creativity/
Maybe you could get them to remove references to your support, or to clarify how they are officially connected (or not) to the Common Core standards now under discussion.
Two completely different organizations.
Common Core State Standards is one.
Common Core is a small independent group that advocates for the liberal arts.
They are separate. I am no longer a trustee.
As an educator I would like to think if I were allowed to spend more time on teaching than on testing, that my students would in fact, do better. The baby is never going to gain weight by weighing it, it will only gain weight by feeding it. Teachers need more input at all levels of reform and politicians need to stay out of it for the most part because they are not educational experts. Most teachers in our district will readily admit that even to the detriment of their students, all they do these days is prepare their students for the tests. Schools score higher based on student test scores which helps to fuel the madness. I do believe that Standards-Based education is the way to go, the Common Core Standards fall very short of the mark. It forces teachers to move through material far too quickly and settle for “covering” instead of mastery. I absolutely agree with wgersen that we are creating a society of automatons who lack the creativity that is what truly makes our country great. As mentioned above, the reality is that the only thing that will truly fix education is to fix poverty.
As a classroom teacher of 38 years, a teacher involved in the CCSS Mathematical Pathways, reader of the standards for AFT working with the writers, an NBCT, national trainer for teacher professional development, I too have grave concerns with the reasons cited to not support CCSS.
Anyone who has taken a deep dive into these standards would feel relieved at any level by the new standards. The enormous responsibility of teaching from a textbook that contains 835 pages (for me) to be taught in 180 days (90 days on my even odd schedule) is a daunting task few would want to face. These standards allow me to focus on what is truly important, knowing that what was taught prior, was taught in depth. The standards will also allow students to be exposed to material of the grade instead spending 30% or more of the year reviewing material from the previous years.
In order for the standards to do what they are intended to do, it will take a group of “educated people” who understand the problems in front of us, and are willing to be a part of the solution, which the writers have demonstrated they are. Quite often we hear complaints as teachers, and more importantly, we repeatedly have things surreptitiously done “to us,” and “for us,” by those who know very little about the art of teaching. Implementation of the standards will require quality professional development of teachers, district and administrative staff versed in the standards, as well as parents and a community (university educator preparation especially) who understand the timetable needed to accomplish this critical goal of national standards.
As a mathematics teacher, if the standards’ only accomplishment was teachers making sure students were proficient in the eight Mathematical Practices, that alone would be worthy of implementing the standards. Combine the Mathematical Practices with the ability to teach the standards in depth to prepare students for the next level, and you have a formula for success. I have not seen a better idea to date. If you have deemed these standards a failure, what is your solution?
I would love to see a detailed description of what we should be doing if not these standards, how we should do it, how long it should take, and who is responsible to” guarantee” the standards work. Many state lawmakers are using the results of student testing to evaluate teachers without knowing what the standards are, let alone how to implement them with fidelity.
I cannot imagine parents reading the standards and saying I, “don’t want my child to be able to accomplish this level of proficiency, nor do I want them to be challenged.” If we understand as a nation what is necessary and what is possible, we can all work on this together.
As an educator of 20 years having taught k-2, I find time and time again that standards being imposed on our children are consistently developmentally inappropriate. The CC is no different. On top of this, there have been too many standards to teach all at once to get kids ready for a test which has caused teachers to not teach indepth. Will the CC change this? As I continue to education myself on the CC I fail to see it remedy any of the above. We will see what the next few years have in store for our children. But like Mrs.Ravitch, we must not wait a few more years to see the result. I recommend that teachers and parents are vigilant and come together at the first sign of trouble. Another thing is that we must be aware of where all of this is comming from which is big money ie. Gates Foundation which is just one of the proponents for privatized education.
full disclosure; Peggy Brookins quoted above is on the board of the Gates-funded inBloom Inc.
Wow. I wonder why she left that out? Odd.
The CCSS development was funded by the Gates Foundation, which is strongly interested in privatizing public education. What better way to accomplish this than by setting an unattainable set of national goals, then showing how the public schools are making it?
Please read this letter from a Georgia mom with CONCERNS ABOUT COMMON CORE NATIONAL STANDARDS CURRICULUM
I am a mother of two amazing little girls ages 8 and 10 and I am extremely concerned about the use of Common Core in our schools. Like many other busy parents, my first introduction to the dramatic changes Common Core Standards would actually impose was at the open house at our children’s school. As the new methods were described, my husband and I quickly became “uncomfortable” and soon noticed that we were not alone. In fact, the majority of parents appeared to be caught off -guard and very surprised as well. Needless to say, we all had a number of questions and concerns particularly about the way our children would now be learning math. At the time I don’t think many of us (teachers included) truly knew what we were getting into – all were assured “this will be a good thing”. However, many were disturbed not only by the format itself, but by the fact that we were just being presented with this information now. No such details had ever been discussed before nor were we ever given the opportunity to openly debate anything regarding this curriculum prior to its implementation. Under the circumstances and left with no other available options, we did our best to approach it with an open mind and tested the waters together. Now, the school year is almost over and our experience with Common Core has been anything BUT good – We are angry and we are worried; and, once again, it would appear that we are not alone.
I believe that parents should have the strongest voice in their child’s education – not bureaucrats. I believe our educational system should be accountable to Georgia tax-payers and Georgia parents – not Washington. And I strongly believe it is wrong and extremely disturbing for the Executive branch to embrace a federal grant that fundamentally changes classroom goals and teaching strategies for our children without fully vetting everything with our local communities and duly elected representatives in the legislature. Whether this decision came from the Governor’s Office or The Department of Education, whoever made it had no constitutional right to dictate this horrible top-down approach to the education of our children and it must not be allowed to continue.
As more information became available about Common Core, I found the volume of contention surrounding it to be even more alarming. As a parent, I have a responsibility to be my children’s advocate and put their best interests first. Therefore, I decided to connect with other parents within our schools community in hopes of opening up a dialogue and sharing information. What happened next was almost as shocking as the Common Core controversy itself – I was called to the Principle’s office. To my amazement, the Principal of my children’s school expressed more of an interest in her disapproval of my contacting other parents and sharing information than in the now exposed flaws of the curriculum. In her words, she stated that she “wanted to make sure I wasn’t starting some kind of grassroots movement” and informed me that I was not to utilize any of the parents email address from our school or question any of the teachers regarding their professional opinions as educators about anything regarding Common Core. She then supported this by explaining that she and the staff were employees of the state and therefore their loyalties, efforts, support and unwavering commitment would be to implementing this curriculum regardless of how good or bad it may be. I don’t think there is even a word to describe how mortified I was to know that the top priorities of my children’s head educator were not dedicated to the quality of their education nor to the concerns of their parents but rather to satisfying the desires of bureaucrats in Washington – I found this to be extremely chilling.
In short, Common Core is flawed on too many levels to describe here. Not only is it destroying the achievement standards of our students and dumbing down our entire educational system but in its wake it is also leaving our budgets destroyed, our schools non-transparent, our privacy violated, and our children frustrated and confused. According to many experts, our children will now be 2 years behind in math. Algebra is pushed to 9th grade, division postponed to 6th grade and multiplication delayed until 5th grade! In the past, my second grader would have moved on to multiplication this year. However she spent the entire year going backwards and “re-learning” how to add and subtract via Common Core. Instead of adding the ones first, carrying the tens and so on, she now had to learn how to add and subtract by grouping the highest denomination of ten first and working backwards. For example the sum of 17 + 14 is now determined by grouping all of the 10’s first and then adding the 1’s.
The work they need to show looks something like this:
17 + 14 = ?
10 +10 = 20 ( group the 10’s and add them first)
7 + 4 = 11 (next, add the 1’s – but 11 can be divided into another grouping of ten so…)
10 + 1 (revise the grouping made my adding 7 + 4 to reflect the additional grouping of 10)
20 +10 + 1 ( the equation now becomes this: all of the 10’s + all of the 1’s)
or
10 + 10 + 10 + 1
30 + 1 = 31
It is cumbersome, it is confusing and it is absurd! They have spent the entire year going backwards and grouping every which way to Sunday without ever moving on. Each time a new strategy is introduced, it is so complicated and confusing it not only brings many of the children to tears, but the school needs to send home a detailed instruction sheet so the parents of second graders can help their children learn to add and subtract. It’s insane!
In closing, please understand me when I say, it is imperative that we do everything in our power to remove Common Core from our schools immediately.
I teach in Virginia where we do not use Common core. Our standards are actually harder than common core. Here is the problem with both: these standards are not developmentally appropriate for children. I am teaching my LD (special ed.) students things like: order of operations (PEMDAS) and prime and composite numbers. I have found very few adults who know what composite numbers are, including West Point and Harvard grads. Do you know what a stem and leaf plot is? Do you know what a compression wave is? Do you know the difference between an expression and an equation? Do you know what an open sentence is (in math)? Can you name different rhyme schemes in poetry? Can you do MLA citations and computer powerpoints? These are 5th grade skills. I am teaching middle and high school skills to 10 year olds. Then when they have difficulties, it is my fault. Really?
Speaking of “rhyme schemes in poetry”: they are patterns of sounds and very much within a 10-11 year old’s ability to learn, especially if the lesson uses fun and interesting verse that connects to other parts of the day’s content. For example, limericks are fun ways to play with social studies content.
“Diane says she cannot abide
new standards that seem to deride
the teacher’s own voice
for more classroom choice.
Hold on! We’re in for a ride.”
Seeing lots of varied opinions for the common core standard.
One of our Twitter follower mentioned:
-The #CCSS provides the opportunity for teachers to express creativity in the profession.
-The #CCSS is an opportunity to control how the curriculum is designed and delivered.
-The #CommonCore makes room for what should have already been happening: critical thinking.
-The #CommonCore provides the opportunity to integrate the disciplines..allows for disciplinary literacy.
You might want to look at how useful this site (opened.io) would be for those who need to learn using the common core standards using videos.
It’s free and in private beta for now. Let me know if you need an invite.
I’m late on replying here, but as a teacher myself, CCSS won’t fix anything. I am in full agreement with Kris F above (I also teach 5th grade), at almost all levels in elementary, the curriculum is simply developmentally over their heads. I’d say roughly 10% of our entire 5th grade is proficient in simple math facts. I have students who subtract upside down, still. In 5th grade. (meaning they don’t borrow/regroup, they just subtract the smaller # on top, from the larger on the bottom). There are still simply too many standards as well. Kids will never, ever, become the thinkers they need to be if we continue to skim across the top of every single subject, instead of taking the needed time to truly explore, practice, and understand the ideas.
Then “explore, practice, and understand.” If you’re creative, intentional in your teaching practice, and establish a rapport of learning with your students, depth can happen. Then have numerous, pointed conversations with your colleagues across the nation about how it happened so they can make it happen as well. Maybe you just need to hit the “refresh” button on your pedagogy by trying something outside your comfort zone? Try “flipping your class” with videos from the internet or “interest centers” based on a “staircase of knowledge”. Write a small grant for four iPads so your students can make video diaries of their learning process. Google it, buy the book, and get started.
Teachers are what make our schools great. Live in to the opportunities.
My pedagogy isn’t the issue. I have a great rapport with my students. We have a lot of fun. I don’t have a “comfort zone” I need to worry about. I don’t have TIME to teach deeply. So many standards. So few hours. So many interruptions. So many students constantly out of the classroom. We have Activboards in the room – I’m probably one of the most digital teachers in the building.
And if there’s one thing I hate more than the state of the education system, it’s buzzwords.
Many admire the Finnish schools and the ultimate out ome, educated children. Mr. Phelps, you pointed out the skimming od skills across the curriculum. Many European countries do just the opposite: narrower curriculum but with depth and mastery. As an educator of many years, I strongly believe that children are not able to retain tons of skimmed facts, disconnected and hardly ever mastered. Hate to tell you this, but many 5th graders who have not mastered the basic math skills will continue to exhibit an even wider gap by high school. The non-educators and publishers determine our curriculum, the pace and the testing items. Dr. Phil would say, how’s working for us? Answer, it is a disaster for kids, teachers and our society. You make very good points.
“TIME to teach deeply”
Sounds like the source of your next professional development plan, and many of us will be addressing this aspect of instruction as well.
Buzzword? or Tier 3, domain-specific vocabulary?
ToCC Teaching~
Teaching deeply, or just appropriate and good teaching. In order to teach a skill well and for students to learn and master the skills we are looking toward Tier 3? RTI for insufficient teaching and time spent? When most kids don’t master skills taught, then there was not adequate teaching. Given today’s insanity, we cannot introduce a concept one day, review the next day, test the third day, and move on to another concept by day 4. Makes no sense. Why are we surprised that kids are still working on elem. level skills in middle and high
schools. The EdReformers push us to teach and kids to ‘learn’ in lock-step. How often do we have to say it? They don’t want to hear it, and do not care. How sad.
Another issue with the Common Core is that school districts are cutting other curriculum to focus just on math and English/language arts. I found out at a staff meeting that my year long geography course would now be cut to one trimester to make room for more math and English time. A course that crammed two years of curriculum into one year will now be shortened to one trimester and be a combined 7th and 8th grade class… Additionally, the District has not set aside any time to draft a new curriculum or choose the standards to teach in this shortened class. We will, however, have three days this summer to draft units for our class that are correlated to the Common Core…
OK, I’m really late to the party, but am well educated now (thanks everyone) about the pros and cons of Common Core. In England we have a trial new curriculum for the 4-14 age range that is not dissimilar to CC in its political intent. We have increasing variety in schooling, including free schools and academies, partly modelled on charter schools, that won’t have to teach the core curriculum – or in fact ANY of the curriculum. Public schooling does not get bashed as hard by the political elite as in the US, but it is still hard and uncomfortable. It is really a time for courageous leadership above all, for us to say that international comparisons do not matter very much to 11 year olds, and not very much to teachers, and therefore should not matter very much to school leaders. I agree with those who have pointed out that CC leads to an industrial model of education and with Diane when she says that CC should be voluntary. There is not really a need, except in Washington/London, to say which system is better or produces better numbers in TIMSS and PISA. These are children we are educating in love and honour and our public service is to them and their families, to give them a WHOLE education, not just the bits you can measure and not just the bits that will be useful in the workplace.
I have enjoyed the level of educational debate on this site, though and will start following the blog.
Welcome, Huw! It’s great to have people from across the pond here! I love learning about education in the UK. Thanks for sharing the info that students in charters/academies and private schools are exempt from CC over there, as they are here.
Americans have been led to believe by corporate “reformers,” politicians and the media that the achievement gap between lower and higher income students is just an American problem and the fault of teachers, when international studies indicate that this issue exists in all countries. I fell for the propaganda myself for years, until I discovered UK research, not that long ago, and then data from other nations. So, we really need regular injections of world-views over here! (I read UK news reports just as often as those from the US now.)
The US and the UK seem to have more of an “achievement tail” than some other countries in Europe, and a much less egalitarian approach to education than, say, Scandinavian countries or Canada or NZ. We also have a much greater blame culture towards schools and school leaders than other western countries. The trouble is (as we see in France right now with their debate about school standards) is that everyone is paying way too much attention to international comparisons without taking any account of historic approaches that all countries have evolved by and for themselves. The US should be looking to their specific educational culture – John Dewey to begin with, and then listening carefully to voices like Neil Postman who try and root education in the culture that it flows from. I love reading Wendell Berry’s fairly simple view of education – that it flows from community for community, with localism at the centre. The US has a huge amount to teach us about education, but it won’t do it by expecting all states to have the same approach to education. We are not machines, but people, living in a set of different cultures. The way that Ontario approached the problem (read Ben Levin’s work) is interesting because they insisted on whole-system improvements by trusting schools, SO that schools can develop in different ways in confidence. High expectations of standards does not imply a uniform curriculum nor a flattening out of the teaching culture. We learn from one another and apply those lessons to the educational cultures we love for our children. Otherwise, as Berry says, it just becomes industrial. And industry has done enough damage to both our countries already. the comment by EC misses the point here. There ARE different medical approaches in different jurisdictions (witness the specialisation in heart treatment in India’s mobile clinics) but the analogy is poor – human bodies are much less culturally dependent than their brains!
Huw– these are all good points, but I would start by looking at Thomas Jefferson and some of the other founders on why we need an educated citizenry and how to develop an aristocracy of merit.This by no means provides the complete picture, but father an important piece of the puzzle.
That actually just shows my ignorance of American history – I think I give myself some credit for having waded through Democracy and Education – without which Postman famously said he would not let anyone near an American child, but have not read Jefferson since before I became a teacher! I appreciate the comment about an educated citizenry, but I don’t think Jefferson would have been thinking of an industrialised one!
I am also late to the parlor on this issue, but have enjoyed the discussion so far.
I began teaching in January of 2002, and feel like I am just emerging from the cave to realize that my whole teaching career has been defined by standardized tests and accountability and this is why so many are dissatisfied with the profession. Anyone in the classroom can tell you (before a big, expensive study is conducted) that we need to be able to meet the needs of our own particular students. That every child isn’t going to reach the same level of expertise in every subject and that some will be legendary contributors to society in areas outside of what is tested. We need clarity about what we are preparing students for and clear goals to reach. This is why the testing movement persists: the test gives us a goal to work for and feedback about how well we did. If we are preparing students for college-readiness, why can’t we have real articulation with local colleges and universities? FERPA disallows us from knowing how our students do once they graduate, so we never really know if we achieved did well in meeting that goal.
If we are doing our jobs well, we know without ANY of this national testing stuff, how are kids are turning out. Yes, college MAY bring with it challenges that may distort them somewhat, but generally my students did as well as or better than I thought they would. This maniacal testing regimen is such a waste of time and money. Granted the CCSS provide high goals, but we need to be able to adapt them to the students. I see the CCSS as education more for teachers in what the state of knowledge IS, and more as guides for teacher training institutions. Once a year for testing is enough.
This is a fight for our continued relevance as a nation. I believe the reason we have lasted this long was because EACH State was allowed to tinker as we saw fit. The idea that is most preposterous to me is the Federal government :
1.Takes money from states
2.Shuffle it around and
3.Are nice enough to give SOME of it back if we do as they wish
Please! Is it any wonder that certain agendas are playing out, or some crony corporate interests are being fed in DC?
Freedom- let our teachers at the local and State levels figure it out! Darn that 17th amendment!
You make some good points about linking money to state adoption of the CCSS, but I am excited and intrigued to see what might happen if our students learn to think deeply and critically over time and across disciplines. In this age of the “low-information voter”, isn’t it time to increase our expectations of what students can do and how they can think? I’ve been following the work of Lucy Calkins and the work of the Reading and Writing project. Take a look at the videos on their Vimeo site. The high level thinking in these students is amazing. Assessment is a DIFFICULT questions. Our traditional assessments are lacking and the old way of teaching a topic for mastery, testing it, and moving on no longer works. But that is the “productive struggle” and I am thankful to be a part of it for the sake of our students and for our nation.
How can students learn to think critically when their teachers were not invited to think critically–and anyone who dares to think critically about the Common Core is dismissed out of had as a grumbler?
Diane, that’s a strawman argument. Our students do not merely mimic teacher thinking, nor are the boundries for their learning defined by the political processes their teachers have, or haven’t, engaged.
well, well said, Diane!
ToCC Teaching: a student when fully trained will be like their teacher. That is, if teachers are to teach to the test, the curriculum becomes de facto and critical language awareness, in regards to writing, is not given that time is needs to be developed and the methodology a teacher has to teach CLA goes bye-bye. In the end, we have students learning not how to read and write, but how to produce only that which is standard, no specialty is learned and the standard becomes the norm. Now we have to ask, what is so wrong with the standard, could it not be as good as the specialty? Well, yes, it could be, but the cut off scores, it must be remembered, are arbitrary. Therefore, with our pilot programs, if you will, mandating that the Common Core be implemented nation wide is sort of like jumping off a brain cliff and taking a blind faith approach. There might not be anything too wrong with just trying something for a little while, but with children, well, we should just approach the issue carefully and considerably. Anyways, the issue is much too large to quickly discuss in a comment box on a blog post, about a comment. Diane, in the end, makes no strawman argument, then.
“…a student when fully trained will be like their teacher.”
Considering that students will have been “trained” by upwards of 40 teachers from K through 12, which singular teacher did you have in mind to make your statement true?
As a teacher who came to education from the software industry, there was one phrase that struck a nerve with me: “the Common Core standards effort is fundamentally flawed by the process with which they have been foisted upon the nation.” If there is one thing we can learn from business, it is that rolling out a new product in great numbers without field testing it thoroughly is a fool’s game at best and organizational suicide at worst. Companies who gamble this way often find themselves in bankruptsy.
Speaking as a Constitutionalist (translation, conservative), there is NO provision in the Constitution for education. It also makes it clear that those things not covered in the Document would be the province of the states (no pun intended). That’s why Conservative Presidential candidates constantly harp on the need to totally disband the Department of Education. It would be like having a Department of Street Sweeping. Education is NOT the business of the Federal Bureaucracy. This fiasco looks like the Obamacare of education. In the article I read that Condoleeza Rice and Jeb Bush support it. Condoleeza is a staunch conservative. That isn’t enough for me to say, “People I trust tell me so.” I saw this coming two decades ago with “standards” and all the emphasis being placed on testing. But I was assured “by people I trust” we’d never have to be on the “same page on the same day” as another teacher. Then came pacing guides, adopted by the Socialist Palmdale School District right in our area. I hear they’ve been discarded, but they exist in many districts. This takes away the last element of flexibility that a good teacher has. Pacing guides are GREAT for poor teachers (another 6 paragraph explanation could be inserted here). The problems in education for anyone who has spent four decades in it as I have are: absenteeism, discipline (lack thereof), motivated students and parental involvement. PERIOD. It’s not even MONEY! We spend more money per student than any other nation. Period. One thing that bothered me in the essay is the old mantra of “hurting the students who need help most–special ed, handicapped, etc.” As a conservative I am tiring of this and those reading this will mostly disagree. Assume a killer asteroid was approaching earth and the world were to end in one month. What would the headline be in an educational journal? “World to be destroyed by asteroid– women, minorities, handicapped, poor and special needs students to be most affected.” Creative teaching is dead. Education like health care is doomed to mediocrity and failure.