Stephen Lazar, a National Board Certified Teacher in New York City, was an early and enthusiastic supporter of the Common Core. He is worried now about the speed other which the standards are being pushed into the schools.

Categories Common Core

33 Comments Post your own or leave a trackback: Trackback URL

KYTeacher says:

March 23, 2013 at 12:49 pm

Does anyone know if the social studies framework he’s referring to is the what came out of the failed attempt in the development of “common core” social studies standards? I know there is one; I just don’t know if it’s available yet.

Reply
- KCrowley says:
  
  March 24, 2013 at 10:17 am
  
  NYSCCLS for Social Studies – the framework I believe he is referring to is on EngageNY. I have a copy of grade 6-8. They were in draft form in October. I believe NYC is talking a September 2013 roll out. We started the transition already to them.
  
  Reply
Debbie says:

March 23, 2013 at 1:09 pm

I was on a committee last year that examined the Social Studies Common Core in Ohio. We were given no sense of urgency and only a framework for building objectives. With cutbacks in staffing on the state level, there were only two people assigned there to oversee the changes. The emphasis on Social Studies was truly limited in scope, depth and requirements. Focus had primarily been on language arts, nothing else, since the change to the PARRC assessment loomed ahead. I was truly surprised by the lack of Social Studies credits needed for graduation. I diligently took notes, made copies of some materials for 4th grade students, and then I retired.

I am not sure what they are doing this year an in the future. I simply found the curriculum to be very limited and to be valued as less than important in the big scheme of things. The Math Common Core was receiving the most attention from the State.

It seems to me that at this time in the history of our country students need to know about our government and the world, but it seems that this has become insignificant. How do students apply high level thinking skills without understanding our own country and our rights as citizens if the Social Studies are viewed as less significant than language arts an math?

I don’t know the current status of the Social Studies Common Core at this time. I was told by a recent graduate from teacher education that they had no instruction in CC for anysm subjects other than language arts and math at the college level.

Reply
Jennifer Baker says:

March 23, 2013 at 2:18 pm

One of the major reasons for public education in the first place was to create informed citizens for the democracy. It’s sad that government and history, which help to create informed citizens, is being devalued like this.

Reply
- Duane Swacker says:
  
  March 23, 2013 at 2:58 pm
  
  One of the 50 reasons for public education from the Missouri Constitution: Section 1(a). Free public schools—age limit.—A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the general assembly shall establish and maintain free public schools for the
  gratuitous instruction of all persons in this state within ages not in excess of twenty-one years as prescribed by law. Source: Const. of 1875, Art. XI, Secs. 1, 3. (Amended August 3, 1976)
  
  Reply
Wilbert says:

March 23, 2013 at 2:38 pm

I just kind of wish that all of the ‘early and enthusiastic supporters’ of anything ed reform would think a little bit first instead of backtracking once we are getting destroyed by it.

Reply
Julie Fraad says:

March 23, 2013 at 3:23 pm

People came from the Network to give the teachers in our school “Staff Development ” on the Common Core Standards”. They gave each department an example of units which had been developed by experts in the DOE and asked us to evaluate the units according to the CCS in each of our disciplines. When they asked for feedback I said that I was unable to give feedback on the sources since the sources were only provided as websites. I said that the rubrics and task seemed to be accessible. Other staff.members wondered why staff was not given materials to prepare for the upcoming tests, and the staff developer angrily said that maybe we should consider another profession and told us if we didn’t accept the CCS we wanted our students to go to Rikers Island, a Juvenile Detention Facility.
I wondered how people could be considered as proponents of the Common Core Standards without an elementary understanding of logic and logical fallacies. Her logic that there was a slippery slope between questioning the Network’s preparation of the CCstandards and the faculty advocating Rikers for our students was indicative of a program which has not been intelligently organized.

Reply
Marc says:

March 23, 2013 at 3:31 pm

I am a social studies teacher in Lawrence, MA. The history curriculum in our nation has been woefully neglected. But my greatest fear is that the powers that be will ruin it through standardized testing by focusing on dates rather than a thematic approach and literature.

Reply
Harlan Underhill says:

March 23, 2013 at 4:58 pm

What Mr. Lazar seems to be objecting to is the notion that the Constitution is the fundamental law of the land and provides a legitimate foundation for the nation. He does not want to be confined by Constitutionalism, but under the guise of promoting inquiry methods wants to be able to teach the standard progressive clap trap that the constitution is out of date and does not provide a legitimate framework for the nation. It is EXACTLY that sort of nearly undisguised promotion of socialism which causes so many of us to lose faith in the public schools. For him “civic” readiness, which he wants to add to “college and career” readiness, as part of the CCSS social studies standards, means overthrowing the constitution which protects individual rights, in favor of a social system with purely communitarian goals. THAT is why there is so much support for charters and online schools, because civics teachers like Lazar want to overthrow the constitutional foundations of the nation. He wants the freedom to indoctrinate, and the social theory he wants to promote is literally “un-American” but rather socialist and internationalist. The more I hear about opposition to the CCSS, the more credit they begin to gain with me.

The stereotypes of public school teachers as a bunch of closet communists are confirmed by people like Lazar rather than denied. I wouldn’t have believed it before starting to follow Diane’s blog. She took me to task for name calling her a “red diaper” baby. The longer I follow her, the more correct it seems. So called “progressivism” really does seem to be the true enemy. Those of you who are part of that approach to government should expect to be opposed as vigorously as possible by those of us who think of ourselves as “patriots.” You may win in the end, transforming this nation into a socialist=social democracy nation, under your leader, Barack Obama, but you won’t win without a fight. My judgement is that he is so completely incompetent that he and his deputy commissar, Arne Duncan, do not realize that they are promoting the patriot cause of eliminating the public school systems which have become completely infected by the socialist smallpox that there is no other alternative to the survival of traditionalist, individualist, “American” education other than slaughtering the contaminated sheep, by which I mean depriving the teachers in the public school systems of their jobs by starving the public schools systems of their funding.

Seven years ago when I first became interested in this issue, I simply didn’t believe the supposed canard that the reformers wanted to eliminate the public school systems. Now I am willing to give it credit, but ALSO to come to believe that it is what should and must happen for American traditional individualism to survive.

Pity, though.

Lazar writes:
“We hold that these shifts will demand the actual inquiry, thinking, rigor, and decision making practice that is necessary for students to be prepared for an active Civic life. For example, the current Framework demands that eleventh graders know that “The success of the revolution challenged Americans to establish a system of government that would provide for stability, while beginning to fulfill the promise of the ideals outlined in the Declaration of Independence.”

This assumes that the Constitution provided stability, an idea challenged by the Civil War, and that it was a step on the road to certain ideals, despite its protection of slavery and the slave trade. It also fails to look at the Constitution in the context of the present day. Instead of starting with the answer, it would be better if we started with questions, such as:

To what extent did the Constitution succeed in fulfilling its stated goals in the Preamble?;
To what extent did the Constitution fulfill the promises of the Declaration of Independence?;
How well does it still work today?;
How might it change to work better?
These are the very questions with which intelligent and engaged adults struggle, as civic decisions are made on a daily basis throughout the United States. It is this civic realm, which is foundational and supportive of the academic and economic realms, that current pedagogical reforms must buttress.”

Reply
- Duane Swacker says:
  
  March 23, 2013 at 7:36 pm
  
  HU,
  “. . . those of us who think of ourselves as ‘patriots.'” What pray tell is your definition of “patriot”?
  
  Is it one who believes and lives the “American traditional individualism” life? If so, please define American traditional individualism”. And where is this concept (whatever it is) to found in the Constitution?
  Thanks,
  Duane
  
  Reply
  - Duane Swacker says:
    
    March 23, 2013 at 7:39 pm
    
    “to BE found”
  - Harlan Underhill says:
    
    March 24, 2013 at 12:57 am
    
    The original purpose of the constitution was to protect the individual from his government so he could have life and liberty and could pursue happiness.
  - Duane Swacker says:
    
    March 24, 2013 at 4:22 am
    
    HU @ 12.57,
    You did not answer my two questions. Please answer them.
    Duane
    
    Also let me amend your statement (which does not answer my questions) a bit: “The original purpose of the constitution was to protect the individual, WHITE LANDOWNING MALE, from his government so he could have life and liberty and could pursue happiness.” You definitely have the subsequent pronouns in the correct gender for the statement.
  - Harlan Underhill says:
    
    March 25, 2013 at 1:35 am
    
    I’m delighted to possibly be the cause of your sleeplessness. Are white land owners not people too? Are the protections afforded by the constitution to them then, not now extended to all citizens? Yes they are, so your point is totally irrelevant to the current situation. As for the rich having stolen, well if you see it that way, I suppose you might think it justifies you morally in trying to steal it back, but two wrongs never made a right, nor do I admit that the rich stole their wealth from anyone else in the first place. Did Steve Jobs? No. He invented a better mousetrap. YOU have the same opportunity, the same freedom. Not all of us, however, are as smart as he or as driven. What’s that against them? What tax rate do you want to apply to the rich? And why? The French Prime minister, Hollande, had to back down on his 75% tax on the rich. He’s trying to get 60% now. Even Bill Mahar has noticed that his local, state, and federal taxes are pretty high and he wants to keep more of what he EARNS. “You liberals may lose me,” he says, if you keep wanting to use the laws to tax rich people beyond what is really their fair share. Of course the rich pay the taxes in this country already, supporting the 50% of the population who pays no federal taxes and sometimes gets earned income credits back. I don’t doubt that President Obama is feathering his own nest somehow, but that’s true of all politicians, so it’s hardly that important. What IS important is the “image of virtue” which he projects, the extent to which he tries to embody “American” values. He changes his statements when it suits the politics, but even if he is a hypocrite, the question is WHAT DOES HE STAND FOR, and I see him standing for the government’s taking over as much of citizen life as he can get through Congress. That is “socialist” I think you would agree. I just don’t like it. All politics is based on “opinion” not on truth. You seem to love one thing, and I prefer another. I would like to be let alone more, you, well I’m not sure what you want, really. Tell me. What do you love, politically speaking?
Harlan Underhill says:

March 23, 2013 at 5:06 pm

And I should add, oh otherwise noble teachers, give up this unwise fight in the service of tyrannical social thought and regain your TRUE American constitutionalist heritage by embracing the CCSS and teaching to them.

Reply
- Duane Swacker says:
  
  March 23, 2013 at 7:39 pm
  
  The good part of teaching Spanish (besides that there aren’t “Common Core Standards”) is that I can teach all that socialist, communistic and anti-“Patriot” AmuriKan stuff and the administrators don’t even know it-HA HA, jokes on all the “Patriots”.
  
  Reply
  - Harlan Underhill says:
    
    March 24, 2013 at 1:05 am
    
    Even as a joke, I find this obscene. I doubt that you either understand or appreciate American values of the older sort, where one made the meaning of his own life by hard work rather than being a worker bee. What is the true end (goal) and identity of a human being, eh? Certainly not being regulated by Mayor Bloomberg or anyone else.
  - Duane Swacker says:
    
    March 24, 2013 at 4:29 am
    
    HU @ 1:05,
    I’m glad you find it obscene, that was how it was meant-good read! Who are you to judge whether or not I understand the constitution and its ramifications for life and living? Are you not imposing your views on others by demanding that they agree with your take on the constitution and what constitutes “. . . where one made the meaning of his own life by hard work rather than being a worker bee.”? Is that not quite authoritarian and in contrast to those “American values of the older sort”.
    To answer your question: I don’t know and don’t care. It is an unanswerable question.
- Jennifer Baker says:
  
  March 23, 2013 at 8:27 pm
  
  The CCSS has nothing on the Constitution or any other curricula for social studies. All we have are reading and writing “standards” as an addendum for Language Arts. Nothing more.
  
  Reply
  - Harlan Underhill says:
    
    March 25, 2013 at 1:41 am
    
    A good reminder, Jennifer. I went and looked. Lazar seemed to think that there would be CCSS standards for what educationistas call “social studies” or “social science”(there is no true science of society) and he objects because he might have to teach to a test that requires knowledge of the Constitution and he would no longer be able to fill the skulls of the ignorant and innocent with his socialist/communist crap.
Liz Murray says:

March 23, 2013 at 5:08 pm

I’m an Early Childhood educator from Australia doing graduate studies in San Francisco. I was initially excited to discover AERA but have quickly been disillusioned. Yesterday AERA tweeted a link to an article regarding Common Core and text complexity, an article published in the latest issue of Educational Researcher. The authors of the study all work for MetaMetrics a for-profit (as far as I can see) testing organization. Unsurprisingly they had positive words for Common Core. Where is the scholarship? Where is the objectivity? And what can we do to bring the honesty back to AERA (assuming it was there to begin with)?

Reply
Signy emler says:

March 23, 2013 at 5:48 pm

I am a social studies teacher and I must conclude that Mr. Underhill is either kidding or overdosing on Glen Beck. “regain our American constitutionalist heritage by embracing the CCSS and teaching to them” ? You can’t make this stuff up.

Reply
- Harlan Underhill says:
  
  March 23, 2013 at 5:57 pm
  
  Nope, one can’t make this stuff up. Actual voters believe it. Your bemusement is wondrous. I don’t follow Glen Beck at all. Can’t stand him. I do teach American Government from time to time, so I have a bit of a base. And I MEAN what I say.
  
  Reply
  - Duane Swacker says:
    
    March 23, 2013 at 7:44 pm
    
    HU,
    What do you mean to say with “And I MEAN what I say”?
    Duane
  - Linda says:
    
    March 23, 2013 at 8:40 pm
    
    He is telling you what conservatives think..he has stated so before. However, he does not speak for all. He rants for himself.
- Inverness (@Inverness) says:
  
  March 24, 2013 at 9:44 am
  
  This is getting surreal! CCSS and the Constitution!
  
  Well, if you really want to push for free speech, a sound argument could be that CCSS is a hindrance, since it limits professionals and school boards as to what they can include in the curriculum.
  
  Harlan, have you been to ALEC lately? Is this their latest thing — convincing the masses that the CCSS is as American as apple pie? Whew.
  
  Reply
  - Harlan Underhill says:
    
    March 25, 2013 at 1:48 am
    
    I dispute the notion that teachers are “professionals” to begin with. Good craftsmen and women to be sure, but hardly educated enough to figure out what SHOULD be taught beyond their own mini-minded prejudices. The school boards are another matter. They DO have the responsibility of stipulating curriculum. But many seem to be buying into the CCSS. Could it possibly be that the constitute and explicit and high standard of excellence? Whatever else one says about them, that they are too hard, that the assessments will produce failures, one can’t fault their intrinsic worth. Just an opinion. Refute if you want. If you decline I won’t assume you have been persuaded.
    
    However, I like the notion that the CCSS are as American as apple pie I hope you won’t mind too much if I steal it to use as a positive comment. Yep. As American as Mom, the CCSS, and apple pie. A good blog title, if I had a blog.
Harlan Underhill says:

March 24, 2013 at 1:19 am

Very true, Linda. I only speak for myself. I represent no one. But my views are, I believe, a true analysis of present educational phenomena. It still astonishes me that the apostle of socialism in this country (i. e. European style big government which disperses 50% of GDP on social programs), our President, is funding the destruction of public education with RTTT and the CCSC (I know a charter which boasts that all is curricula are or will be aligned with it). I just doesn’t add up that a socialist should be supporting the dismantling of one of the four main socialist sectors of the economy. If you can explain why he is knifing you teachers in the back the way NBC knifed Jay Leno, please explain the logic to it.

Reply
- Duane Swacker says:
  
  March 24, 2013 at 4:39 am
  
  HU,
  
  “But my views are, I believe, a true analysis of present educational phenomena.” Since it is you and probably only you that would concur with that statement it is just an opinion having nothing to do with truth but everything to do with your own perceived reality.
  
  ” I(t) sic just doesn’t add up that a socialist should be supporting the dismantling of one of the four main socialist sectors of the economy.” It doesn’t add up for you because you are so blinded by your ideology that you cannot see that the current president is not a “socialist” but a dyed in the wool corporatist capitalist bought off by those who have stolen so much from the country and who continue to buy off the political class. Open your eyes and mind, HU!
  
  “If you can explain why. . . . Because he is a corporate capitalist and not a socialist. Open your eyes and mind, HU!!
  
  Reply
  - Harlan Underhill says:
    
    March 25, 2013 at 2:13 am
    
    Well, that’s one way to argue, dispute the assumption. It just doesn’t seem to me that he is in favor of corporations or capitalism. If he were he wouldn’t have run up the debt so far. He would have cut spending, cut taxes, and watched the economy take off. Everyone would have loved him. He would have been JFK + Reagan. Did he do that? No. So . . . ? All he knows is how to demagogue the mini-minds. I suppose the country will survive, but so far he’s done everything wrong except flip flop on gay marriage, which we ought to fix and get out of the way. I’m not sure it’s really a federal question, but heck the Supremes fixed abortion and it’s now the law of the land, although some people think that too should have been treated as a state issue rather than a federal issue. Roe v. Wade reached a fairly reasonable standard.
    
    But, I digress. Aside from flip flopping onto the correct side for gay marriage, every single thing the President has done so far had a negative effect on the economy, and that’s why I can’t imagine that he’s really pro business or capitalist oriented. A minor matter is his indulgence in a lavish life style. That might LOOK like he’s a country club republican (the second worst lizard in the land), but no one in politics who is in favor of business would project an image of such unfrugality in his personal life, unless, which I suspect, he’s pussy whipped and Michelle is calling the shots in this administration. Maybe the Democrats will think about running her. What fun those primaries would be: Hillary vs. Michelle. But I don’t think even Michelle has the cojones to take on Hillary the Hag, with Bill to riding shotgun. They don’t call him Slick Willie for nothing. The economy is beginning to move a teeny bit in spite of the President, and he may actually get to take credit for it. He might even be thinking about governing a bit, now that he’s a lame duck. I don’t rule it out as impossible, though I do think it is unlikely.
    
    In any case, educational privatization will continue apace because SOME charters are working, even though there are crooks and exploiters of the poor in that sector of the education game. K12 has been given 10,000 publicly funded seats in Michigan. We shall see. The Oxford report is slithering through the Michigan legislature, but it hasn’t fixed its fangs in the state’s rump yet. Watch out, baby. As American as the CCSS, apple pie, and Mom.
Duane Swacker says:

March 24, 2013 at 4:40 am

Man o man, I love it when I can’t get back to sleep at night. At least HU provides me some fun talking points to disparage.

Reply
- Inverness (@Inverness) says:
  
  March 24, 2013 at 9:45 am
  
  Duane,
  The real question is, do we get anywhere? I’ve been in that position myself, and with true ideologues, I wonder if there’s a point. Is that too defeatist?
  
  Reply
  - Harlan Underhill says:
    
    March 25, 2013 at 2:16 am
    
    Oh, relax, and enjoy. As if YOU were not a true ideologue yourself. By the way, how was Macbeth the last time you talked to him? What do you consider the highest value of this society?