Paul E. Barton, an experienced education researcher and author of the book National Standards: Getting Beneath the Surface, is concerned that the implementation of the Common Core standards is happening too quickly. He wrote this post for this blog:
A Critical Stage for the Common Core
The much-anticipated Common Core Standards have been rolled out—and widely praised—and tests based on the standards are being created. Now is a really critical stage when teachers must be trained and a curriculum created, and states and schools seem to be on their own. The standards have been described as very rigorous and challenging, requiring teachers to learn new pedagogies. These tasks will be both time consuming and expensive.
The early returns publicly available are worrisome. A recent Education Week story bore the headline, “Teachers Feel Unprepared for the Common Standards.” The story was based on a survey of 600 subscribing teachers who formed “quite a diverse sample.” The survey found that nearly three in ten teachers have had no training at all on the standards. Of the 70 percent who had training, 41 percent had four days or less, and three in ten had one day or less. Although job-embedded training is considered the most effective kind, only three in ten of those who received training say they received it in that way.
The respondents said that more than two-thirds of their schools were not prepared, and 27 percent said their districts were not up to the task.
In addition to teacher training, a curriculum needs to be developed and teachers need to be provided the materials they need. The standards are about what students must know, not how they will be taught. If English teachers must include more non-fiction reading, non-fiction books must be made available.
What is needed is common readiness standards. Although implementation is up to the states, it would be comforting to know that the principal actors who have gotten the standards movement this far would find a way to help guide it, check on all the stages of implementation, provide needed information about progress, and give some assistance or cautions to the states if implementation gets off track.
The new tests should not be given until implementation of the Common Core Standards is complete. It is the responsibility of the states to fully prepare teachers, develop a curriculum based on the standards, and provide teachers with the materials they need to teach to the standards. If not, students will suffer the consequences and teachers will likely be blamed.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
But if we waited to give the new tests, then Pearson would have not reaped the spoils of their lobbying and payoffs. readiness be damned!
LikeLike
CORE is the coup de ta for the suffering, battered public school teachers. Already the reformers make the inquisition look mild (almost) and have left faculties suffering from serious health issues of severe anxiety, migraines, etc. Here in Denver Public Schools the administration is in a tizzy about the CORE scores that, like across the country, will show a drastic dip. Doubtlessly the false charges of BAD TEACHERS will be the reason, justifying more draconian, abusive teacher reforms. After 25+ years in elementary education, I don’t know WHO, of college age, would want to join up for a profession that destroys its own dedicated, university graduates, professionals.
LikeLike
It has always seemed to me that any program that requires days and days of training is probably too worried about paperwork and details than the kids. If the program takes longer to learn that it took me to learn how to knit, forget it.
LikeLike
I went through some of this training when I worked for the Char Meck school system. They took this on a year earlier than most districts to prepare for it and get a head start. It’s been a while, so I don’t remember a lot of the training, other than it revolved around how to teach a kid how to skateboard (I think – this was the trainer’s example) and then we all sat around and figured out how to create rubriks based on the common core. To say it was one of the worst wastes of time in my life would be an understatement, and I’ve worked off and on in the Char Meck school system for 7 years, and CMS is the beacon for how to successfully waste someone’s valuable time with worthless meetings and workshops. It was mind-numbing.
LikeLike
Mind-numbing would be correct. Beyond that is the inability of getting concensus in a committee.
LikeLike
Don’t worry, you’re not alone as there are way too many districts who know “how to successfully waste someone’s valuable time with worthless meetings and workshops.”
LikeLike
I sometimes think this fiasco is as it would be if an architect drew a blueprint for an elaborate building but failed to provide the builders with a list if appropriate materials. Very little foundation would be designated, since that would be too expensive. Efficiency would be of primary concern, so the building would be erected quickly. As soon as the framework of the building would be in place, people would begin to occupy it, whether its integrity was sound or not. Some people might not be comfortable in a building without floors and walls, desks and chairs. Then the inspectors would evaluate the builders against the original plans. And they would evaluate the ability of the inhabitants to adjust to their changing environment. Meanwhile, the architect woukd leam back and
LikeLike
Would lean back and admire his blueprint.
Sorry, I typed this on my phone and accidentally posted it.
LikeLike
and the building would collapse and leave a lot of suffering inhabitants in its wake. and then even though a terrible tragedy just occurred no one would be held accountable
LikeLike
The story could be expanded. The names, faces, business venture, whatever could be changed. But, the fact remains that inserting these changes into the educational system as if an “injection” is the answer to all the problems. I have never been against making changes that are needed. But the rapid slap in the face and the race to test makes absolutely no sense. Implementation of change need to begin at the Kindergarten level and continued through each grade successively. Until the teachers have a good “translation” of the actual expectaions of Common Core, the very schools who need the most intervention are going to be treated as failures. I surely wish that all the money that is spent on statewide testing and report cards would be spent on meeting the needs of those who are in areas of poverty, suffering, starvation, and need. If the schools that have all the technical innovations in place and who have support from parents and the community continue to struggle with these rapid changes, how can anyone possibly think that those districts that were failing are going to make miraculous improvement? After all, if the foundation is never laid, not much can be built upon it. That is why the amazing gains in DC and Atlanta should have raised red flags from the beginning. Who do they think they are kidding, anyway?
LikeLike
Barton states the assessments for the Common Core are being created.. Unfortunately that part is not entirely true, they are being created ate the same time they are being utilized to label teachers and schools.
Kids are Being exposed to experimental ( they call them field) questions that are not age or grade appropriate.
The claim that this is not a curriculum, also is a misnomer, since the standards do tell exactly what must be taught. This is true especially in the math standards.
Folks this is a runaway train that is destined to destroys everything in its tracks. Unfortunately the conductors of this train are too busy counting the revenues from the ticket sales and don’t see that the bridge is out.
LikeLike
rratto, you are correct. Your last sentence says it all about the Common Core “Operators” .
LikeLike
Nope, but there is too much money at stake for districts to do anything else but implement CC$$
LikeLike
Can someone please define what an educational “standard” is and how it relates to the teaching and learning process? Haven’t seen an adequate definition yet.
LikeLike
Duane, here’s how the CC Standards were defined for me …
They are what the CC “experts” say that a student should be able to do before they exit a particular grade.
LikeLike
Also, while the CC “experts” will make a few suggestions for teaching and learning these standards, there is much ambiguity. This, to me, is the problem. The CC “experts” have created these lofty theoretical standards but have not provided a clear or practical path to achieve them. They have dodged this important step but have created PARCC assessments to unfairly test the students on these standards.
LikeLike
Duane,
That’s a great question (and nontrivial to answer). My understanding is that it’s essential a philosophical judgement about what’s important to learn.
I’d love to hear Diane’s POV on various approaches to defining such; there are a few that I can describe. In the late 19th/early 20th century, there emerged several competing philosophies: (1) an approach that, through consensus recommendation, identified identified a set of essential courses (e.g., mathematics), and the knowledge within (e.g., understanding geometry); (2) an approach that took its inspiration from the skills and abilities required by workplaces and lives of the era (e.g., what we might now call collaboration, or homemaking); and (3) an approach that valued observations of what the student wanted to learn to identify what could possibly be learned (a learning progression on a per-student, or small-group basis).
The result is that the “is” is essentially a judgement based upon an approach; and that these approaches have varied through the history of codified national learning standards.
Fantastic discussion to have.
–Dave
LikeLike
Duane,
That’s a great question (and nontrivial to answer). My understanding is that it’s essential a philosophical judgement about what’s important to learn.
I’d love to hear Diane’s POV on various approaches to defining such; there are a few that I can describe. In the late 19th/early 20th century, there emerged several competing philosophies: (1) an approach that, through consensus recommendation, identified identified a set of essential courses (e.g., mathematics), and the knowledge within (e.g., understanding geometry); (2) an approach that took its inspiration from the skills and abilities required by workplaces and lives of the era (e.g., what we might now call collaboration, or homemaking); and (3) an approach that valued observations of what the student wanted to learn to identify what could possibly be learned (a learning progression on a per-student, or small-group basis).
The result is that the “is” is essentially a judgement based upon an approach; and that these approaches have varied through the history of codified national learning standards.
Fantastic discussion to have.
–Dave
LikeLike
Obama and Duncan have a new program to improve teen driving. No federal highway funds will be given to states unless they use the standard mandated car for driver education, the Common Corvair.
LikeLike
>It is the responsibility of the states to fully prepare teachers, develop a curriculum based on the standards, and provide teachers with the materials they need to teach to the standards. If not, students will suffer the consequences and teachers will likely be blamed.
Yep, Mr. Barton, we reached a similar conclusion last year:
http://ccssimath.blogspot.com/2012/05/common-core-national-cop-out-not.html
LikeLike
“Implementation of the Common Core Standards” scares the crap out of me.
Anyone who wants the national government (this year progressives, next year
conservatives) to dictate education standards is not thinking.
LikeLike
This past Sunday at church, a woman who works for the AZ prison system asked what I thought the Common Core was going to do. I asked her what she meant. She thinks that Common Core will be used to track students into a college group and a vocational group. Her concern is that once they are put in a group, they will not be able to get out. Comments, please.
LikeLike