In one of his characteristically thoughtful and provocative essays, Anthony Cody ponders Randi Weingarten’s call for a one-year moratorium on the high stakes associated with Common Core testing. Randi praised the Common Core standards lavishly but warned that they would fail if high stakes are attached to them before teachers and students are prepared to master them.
Cody does not agree. He maintains that the Common Core testing will have even higher stakes than NCLB. Not only will there be more testing, but teachers and principals will be fired, schools will close, communities will be harmed–as Common Core raises the bar and failure rates grow.
How does raising the bar help those who can’t clear the bar now?
As Cody writes:
“We have this entire project based on the premise that raising the bar will bring up those on the bottom, and make them better able to compete. In fact, when you raise that bar, you create huge obstacles for those at the bottom, and in effect, rationalize and reinforce their own sense of worthlessness, and society’s judgment that they are subpar. You further stigmatize these students, their teachers and their schools, based on their performance in this rigged race.”
He concludes that a moratorium on high stakes test is insufficient:
“We must move beyond not only the bubble tests, but beyond the era of punitive high stakes tests. Only then will we be able to use standards in the way they ought to be used – as focal points for our creative work as educators. I would be glad to have a year’s delay for the consequences of these tests, but I think we need to actively oppose the entire high stakes testing paradigm. The Common Core standards should not be supported as long as they are embedded in this system.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
If I may correct a thought: “. . . as Common Core SUPPOSEDLY raises the bar. . .”.
Diane, please quit using the edudeformers language!!
LikeLike
Just shut the whole thing down. The country isn’t ready. Also, I want to ask people on this blog something. Did anyone see how his highness, Lord Gates went before Congress to tell them the woes of Silicon Valley and how it was imperative to let in TONS of H1B workers? (Another scheme to lower wages and pay workers very little to the benefit of Gates and Zuckerberg) Since they are going to let in tons of these workers why are we promoting STEM in schools? I wouldn’t tell a kid to go into engineering in this day and age. Of course Congress bought what Gates wanted. They are all bought.
LikeLike
I have commented on this tactic before. It has been used for a long time to keep the cost of labor down. There are plenty of skilled workers in the unemployment lines because companies want employees who are current on all the latest technology. Our unemployed, seasoned workers could be up to speed in short order. Without the training in the latest bells and whistles, they are passed over for the latest graduates at entry level wages. Companies that used to provide training do not want to invest in it if they can get cheap “off the shelf” help. Does it sound familiar? There is an army of veteran teachers who have been driven out of the profession. All you eager potential STEM employees…good luck.
LikeLike
There’s a lot of research out there showing that we have plenty of STEM workers, but the jobs–or rather, jobs that pay decently–aren’t there. That’s true of STEM workers with a bachelor’s degree and STEM workers with PhDs. See for example, this study that said about half of computer science graduates found more lucrative employment outside of IT: http://www.epi.org/publication/bp359-guestworkers-high-skill-labor-market-analysis/ There’s also this one from the Atlantic Monthly about STEM PhDs: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/the-phd-bust-americas-awful-market-for-young-scientists-in-7-charts/273339/
The seemingly paradoxical goal of Common Core “raising the bar” but lowering test scores has made me wonder if this is really a way to introduce students to the concept of working harder for less pay as early as possible in hopes that they’ll accept it as their lot by the time they enter the workforce.
LikeLike
“Only then will we be able to use standards in the way they ought to be use. . . ”
Anyone, please anyone, define what a “standard” is.
LikeLike
standard (n.)
mid-12c., “flag or other conspicuous object to serve as a rallying point for a military force,” from Old French estandart, probably from Frankish *standhard, literally “stand fast or firm,” a compound of words similar to Gothic standan “to stand” (see stand) and hardus “hard” (see hard). So called because the flag was fixed to a pole or spear and stuck in the ground to stand upright.
The other theory connects the Old French word to estendre “to stretch out,” from Latin extendere (see extend). Meaning “unit of measure” is early 14c., from Anglo-French, where it was used 13c., and is perhaps metaphoric, the royal standard coming to stand for royal authority in matters like setting weights and measures. Hence the meaning “authoritative or recognized exemplar of quality or correctness” (late 15c.).
Meaning “rule, principal or means of judgment” is from 1560s. That of “definite level of attainment” is attested from 1711 (e.g. standard of living, 1903). Some senses (e.g. “upright pole,” mid-15c.) seem to be influenced by stand (v.). Standard-bearer in the figurative sense is from 1560s.
————————
My standards for teaching:
children who are engaged, children who are delighted, children who are healthy, children who feel supported, children who are challenged through an appropriate Taxonomy (such as Bloom’s), children who have hope, children who are inspired, children who create, children who imagine, children who plan, children who clap, children who sing, children who draw, children who organize, children who live.
LikeLike
I heard somewhere that Bloom never intended his taxonomy to be used as standards or rankings of performance. My comment comes from somewhere out in the ionosphere, so if someone can ground it in actual evidence, I would welcome it.
LikeLike
I know I’ve read that about Bloom also. Not sure where but I know I read it.
LikeLike
As I mentioned about the “raising the bar” bromide awhile ago, apparently the solution to my inability to dunk on a 10′ rim my whole life is to raise the rim to 12′. If I’d only known sooner!
LikeLike
Thank you Joanna for the education on “standartds.” Can I suggest one other standard? “All children growing up feeling as if they count and they can understand and improve the world they discover.”
LikeLike
P.S.–Any chance the inimitable Mercedes Schneider can unpack the AFT survey used by Pres. Weingarten? 763 respondents, margin of error large, etc.?
LikeLike
Can we go back to one standardized test a year, starting in 3rd grade?
LikeLike
I would be very happy to see these high stakes testing eliminated. Back when I was in elementary school in the 1970’s, I (vaguely) remember taking a standardized test at the beginning of the year only. It was over and done rather quickly and did not disturb an entire year of school.
LikeLike
I don’t remember any high stakes tests back in the late 50s and early 60s although I know they gave us an IQ test early on. If we had any, we never had test prep sessions. I vaguely remember placement tests for high school. If we prepared for them in any way, I didn’t know it. Somehow my teachers seemed to know how to teach us. Imagine that!
LikeLike
Probably the Iowa Test. No pep rallies, parties, slogans, etc. You barely read the results.
LikeLike
I graduated high school in 1996. In my entire K-12 schooling, I recall taking four standardized tests: a California Achievement test once in elementary and once in junior high, the ASVAB, and the PSAT.
LikeLike
Randi Weingarten is a fox in the hen house. Her well known lack of intergrity is certainly justified. Anything she suggests in nothing more than game-playing!!
LikeLike
Well, if Ed Week, on their front page, promotes an essay that says, let’s take a breath, maybe, just maybe, we’re near the tipping point.
LikeLike
This is a nice, clear-eyed close look at Randi Weingarten’s claim that 75% of AFT teachers surveyed support Common Core.
It comes to a grand total of about 650 teachers.
We don’t need a moratorium on the ‘consequences’ of over testing. We need it on the testing.
LikeLike