Michigan is debating the Common Core, which it already agreed to adopt.
The curious thing in the debate and in the article is the repeated claim by “experts” that the Common Core will fix all the disparities and problems in American education. It will close the gap between low-perming and high-performing students and lift the performance of American students to the top on international tests.
What is the evidence for their views? How do they know? The standards have been imposed without any test of their value, their feasibility, or their consequences for real-live students. No one actually knows how they will work. What we do know is that full implementation will cost billions of dollars. States are buying new technology and new materials for Common Core even as they are laying off teachers, guidance counselors and librarians.
Will anyone remember these promises of Utopia a decade from now? Who will be accountable if they are wrong?
Can higher, more rigorous standards substitute for the massive disinvestment in education that is occurring in state after state?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
In related developments …
Snydely Ricklash & His Skunk Works —
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130419/SCHOOLS/304190361/Education-reform-group-forges-voucher-like-plan-Michigan
LikeLike
When NCLB was rolled out, I laughed and said to anyone that would listen that it would fail miserably. I now say the same things about CCS and people look at me like I’m just bitching because I’m an old dog and don’t want to learn new tricks. Not the case at all, I’d love to increase my student’s abilities, but snake oil isn’t going to do it.
LikeLike
But the snake oil might purge their systems.
LikeLike
Actually, the curious thing about the debate is that it is occurring after the adoption of CC rather than before. It’s like a doctor shooting me up with drugs before examining me.
LikeLike
exactly!
LikeLike
To me, we may be addressing the problem from the wrong perspective.
There may well be specific changes that need to be made, but the problem is in the assumptions and the implementation. It is as if there is a belief that it is necessary to simply gut some schools and to pass the changes to all schools.
It makes no sense to change curricula, fail to train existing teachers, assume the changes are meaningful, and expect positive results.
If these changes are essential, then they must include an understanding of child development for the whole child. They must be field-tested and examined for validity. This over-night push to change every aspect of the established educational process is condescending and hurtful.
LikeLike
Thank you for your measured response debbie. I do think that there are changes that need to be made in the way we teach math. As a teacher of mathematics I primarily work with 8, 9, and 10 year olds who are already struggling in math. The way that we have been teaching math in this country does not work for too many children. For example, teaching memorization of process (traditional algorithms) instead of giving children a chance to explore, process, and understand the deeper structure of numbers has not worked for many children. I see the investigative approach outlined under CC as a positive change in focus. It will be unfortunate if good ideas are swamped by the politics of testing mandates and privatization schemes.
You are right about forcing radical change on teachers. The bullying and the threats being leveled against teachers are not only condescending and hurtful, they guarantee that anything that might be good about the new standards will be lost because of the faulty implementation.
LikeLike
Thanks for adding Awbrey. Snyder’s train wreck gets more imaginative every day. Someone needs to hack the emails of that skunks group.
LikeLike
Irwin Kostal (from Pete’s Dragon): “I’ve been bringing cures from Pilgrim Heights to Provincetown
Treated rabid fever down on Queen Anne Road
Gout or gastritis, mumps or bronchitis
Bites and burns and blue abrasions, got a pill for all occasions!”
LikeLike
Al Kosha, rather
LikeLike
Here is an amazing article from the Rotarian magazine that completely refutes David Coleman’s praise of non-fiction and disparagement of “thinking and feeling” in the adult world.
http://www.rotary.org/en/MediaAndNews/TheRotarian/Pages/Business1303.aspx
LikeLike
Found this on another website:
http://whatiscommoncore.wordpress.com/
Utahns Discuss Common Core Math
Tami,
Minutes ago, I forwarded to James Milgram a copy of your email about Common Core math. He served on the official common core validation committee, and would not sign off on the academic legitimacy of these standards. Milgram was also a math professor at Stanford University and a NASA consultant.
He wrote back:
“I can tell you that my main objection to Core Standards, and the reason I didn’t sign off on them was that they did not match up to international expectations. They were at least 2 years behind the practices in the high achieving countries by 7th grade, and, as a number of people have observed, only require partial understanding of what would be the content of a normal, solid, course in Algebra I or Geometry. Moreover, they cover very little of the content of Algebra II, and none of any higher level course… They will not help our children match up to the students in the top foreign countries when it comes to being hired to top level jobs. – Jim Milgram “
LikeLike
Gov. Snyder worships at the altar of federal dollars. If he can get his hands on them, he will try using any means at his disposal, and the taxpayers be damned. In order to get RTTT dollars, Michigan had to consent to CC before it was even written down or solidified. If Michigan pulls out of CC, he’ll have to give the money back. And anybody who is in Michigan KNOWS that won’t happen. Why? Because he already spent it.
LikeLike
word of caution: we all need to be aware of just what CCSS are and are not, where they came from, how they’re being implemented/imposed, and also how some right-wing anti-public-schools individuals and groups are rallying against CCSS for reasons antithetical to the goals of the pro-public-education movement. We can’t be bandwagon jumpers and be effective as a movement of thoughtful, determined, pro-all-children, pro-public-education parents/students/teachers, IMO.
LikeLike
So, let me see if I’ve got this straight. Milgram says the CCSS math standards are not advanced enough, while “we” (here) are saying they are TOO advanced (not developmentally appropriate).
Diane’s objection to the CCSS is that the standards have not been pilot tested (certainly true) and may constitute a plot to guarantee public schools will fail miserably on new testing and thus support the case for closing public schools in favor of charters and voucher schools which may or may not align their teaching with the CCSS, but certainly will not be subjected to comprehensive testing based on them.
And finally, that the pro public school forces don’t want to join the “right wing” forces in opposing the CCSS because . . . and here I come up blank. WHY DOES the “right wing” oppose the CCSC? And how are those reasons, whatever they are, “antithetical to the goals of the pro-public-education movement”?
In spite of “our” opposition to the CCSS, is there a secret hankering in the left-wing, public school community for national standards?
LikeLike
There is need for a different conceptual grid here. I don’t think the Left-Right coordinate system is serving much purpose in this setting, especially not with the spin that you keep putting on it. You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that all us old hippies from the sixties are somehow in love with the goobermint, right or wrong. Seriously, where the devil did you get that idea?
LikeLike
All I have to do is read the election returns, Jon. I do have the perception that the “old hippies” are in charge now and that what they want is more taxes, more government, and more regulations than they currently have. The right at least pretends to want lower taxes, smaller government, and fewer regulations. It seems to be saying “Leave us alone to make money.” The left seems to be saying “We want more of your money in order to implement more social justice.” If the left-right framework doesn’t really explain the alignments on education, what would be a more helpful set of coordinates?
LikeLike
From the NYTimes editorial today (Sunday, April 21) on “right wing” opposition to the common core:
“There is a further challenge to Common Core from the political right. The Republican National Committee has attacked the standards, arguing that they usurp state authority. Last week the Alabama Legislature took up a bill that would roll back the standards.”
Now I get it. The “right wing” wants to abide by the Constitution which forbids the federal government from setting up a national education system. Education is supposed to be one of those things reserved to the states but prohibited to the federal government.
Arne Duncan, of course, with administration support (stimulus money), did an end run around the Constitution by offering money to states through RTTT only if they adopted the CCSS (among several other conditions for federal largess.)
But if the NYTIMES is for the CCSS, how can the rest of the liberal world be against them. Whee Hoo! Sheeeeesh!
LikeLike
Common core is a leftist propaganda way of teaching.Kids are dumbed down.Common Core is interested in getting as much personal information about kids as possible.name,address,age,religion,political standing,medications,awards,class standings,medical conditions,disciplinary problems.nicknames,family information,physical abilities,the privacy rules were rewritten by the DOE so that this information collected about eachchild does not remain private and can be disseminated to anyone,anywhere.This is wrong.
LikeLike
That might be another reason that the so-called “right wing,” but which I prefer to call constitutional conservatives, might well be against Common Core because it entails tracking of every student in the country from Pre-K up.
LikeLike