Michele McNeil analyzed Secretary Duncan’s remarks yesterday to the nation’s newspaper editors. She politely said they were not accurate.
Neil McClusky of CATO took the critique a step further.
Duncan needs to pretend that the federal government had nothing to do with the sudden adoption of these unknown standards. It just happened.
He claimed the Common Core was well underway before Obama was elected. McNeil politely says that’s not true.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
From the second link:
Secretary Duncan, if getting the truth about Common Core to the public is really your goal, why don’t you engage in honest debate instead of giving speeches smearing Core opponents and peddling your own misinformation? On second thought, maybe you should just keep doing what you’re doing: You actually make it a lot easier to convince people that Washington is, indeed, deeply involved in pushing the Common Core.
Great closing!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
LikeLike
Okay, now…Have either Michelle McNeil’s or Neil McClusky’s analyses been picked up by any mainstream newspapers? The word has to get out; those newspaper editors sat there and listened to him mangle the facts have a job to do. Education Week and Cato should not be doing the heavy lifting.
Anyone else notice the odd kinship of names: “Mc” and “Neil”?
LikeLike
Part 1
Arne Duncan is, at the very best, being disingenuous. And at worst, Duncan is showing himself to be no different than all those “reformers” who salivate over the prospect of privatizing American public education.
A former assistant secretary of education in the Bush administration said that NCLB was really a “Trojan horse…a way to expose the failure of public education…to blow it up a bit.” Is the Common Core really so different? Look at who supports the Common Core standards: Margaret Spellings, former Ed Secretary, who infamously called NCLB “99.9 percent pure;” Jeb Bush, who is pushing charter schools and vouchers across the country; Bill Gates, who funded the Common Core, and who wants more H1-B visas for his company despite the fact that American education churns out three times as many STEM graduates as there are jobs; and, the Business Roundtable and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who lobbied aggressively for unfunded corporate tax cuts that spawned huge deficits and debt, and for laissez-faire regulatory policies that aided and abetted massive fraud and corruption (especially on Wall Street) and that blew up the economy.
Public education in the United States is a foundational cornerstone of democratic governance. Both are in greater jeopardy than many of us thought.
Education in a democratic republic has a special place and purpose. At least it’s supposed to, and public education’s purpose is most certainly NOT to make a society “more competitive.” Aristotle argued for a system of public education in ancient Athens, noting that “each government has a peculiar character…the character of democracy creates democracy, and the character of oligarch creates oligarchy, and always the better the character, the better the government.”
Democratic governance is supposed to be “of the people, by the people, for the people.” By contrast, oligarchy is government by a relatively small – usually wealthy – group that “exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes.” Considering who funds the Common Core, and who supports it (think the Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce), and the process by which it was brought to fruition, is there really any question as to the purpose behind it?
Early state constitutions in the U.S., like those of Massachusetts (1780) and New Hampshire (1784), set up and stressed the importance of a system of public education. The Land Ordinance of 1785 provided for public school financing in new territories. In Virginia, Thomas Jefferson sought a publicly-funded system of schools, believing that an educated citizenry was critical to the well-being of a democratic society. In his Notes on the State of Virginia (1794), Jefferson wrote “The influence over government must be shared among all men.” The earliest advocates for public schools –– Jefferson, George Washington, Horace Mann, for example –– agreed that democratic citizenship was a primary function of education.
LikeLike
Part 2
There are those who don’t believe in the fundamental purpose of public education. They are not interested in the developing the “democratic citizen,” one who understands and is committed to the core values and principles of democratic governance; one who is imbued with the “character of democracy.” There are certain people and groups and special interests who’ve felt threatened by education for “the masses,” especially Mann’s view of public education as “the balance-wheel of the social machinery” in a democratic society. And this begs the question, is the Business Roundtable committed to the core values and principles of democracy? The Chamber of Commerce? Bill Gates? Jeb Bush? And what about Arne Duncan?
All of these people and groups make two false claims about public education in the United States. First, they say that public schools are in “crisis.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
As I’ve noted repeatedly, the data (which these folks claim to care about) have shown and continue to show that there is no general “crisis” in public education in the United States.
The Sandia Report (Journal of Educational Research, May/June, 1993), published in the wake of A Nation at Risk, concluded that:
* “..on nearly every measure we found steady or slightly improving trends.”
* “youth today [the 1980s] are choosing natural science and engineering degrees at a higher rate than their peers of the 1960s.”
* “business leaders surveyed are generally satisfied with the skill levels of their employees, and the problems that do exist do not appear to point to the k-12 education system as a root cause.”
“The student performance data clearly indicate that today’s youth are achieving levels of education at least as high as any previous generation.”
The critics like to cherry-pick international test data to buttress their call for “reform.” I suppose if –– like the Roundtable and the Chamber – you’re willing game the economy for profit at the expense of the nation, while calling for more top-end tax cuts and the axing of social safety net and public programs, then you’re also quite willing to lie about a set of numbers.
LikeLike
Part 3
Reading is considered to be a key to learning and school achievement. Below are PISA reading scores (disaggregated for the U.S., which has an incredibly large, diverse, and increasingly poor student population:
Average score, reading literacy, PISA, 2009:
[United States, Asian students 541]
Korea 539
Finland 536
[United States, white students 525]
Canada 524
New Zealand 521
Japan 520
Australia 515
Netherlands 508
Belgium 506
Norway 503
Estonia 501
Switzerland 501
Poland 500
Iceland 500
United States (overall) 500
Sweden 497
Germany 497
Ireland 496
France 496
Denmark 495
United Kingdom 494
Hungary 494
OECD average 493
Portugal 489
Italy 486
Slovenia 483
Greece 483
Spain 481
Czech Republic 478
Slovak Republic 477
Israel 474
Luxembourg 472
Austria 470
[United States, Hispanic students 466]
Turkey 464
Chile 449
[United States, black students 441]
Mexico 425
[Note: data can be gleaned at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2009highlights.asp ]
The common refrain among the current crop of “reformers” is that their brand of “reform” is necessary to “make America more competitive” in the global economy. Bill Gates says it. Jeb Bush says it. The U.S. Chamber says that ““Common core academic standards among the states are essential” U.S. competitiveness. The Business Roundtable resurrects the “rising tide of mediocrity” myth of A Nation at Risk, saying (falsely) that ““Since the release of A Nation at Risk in 1983, it has been increasingly clear that…academic expectations for American students have not been high enough.” And Arne Duncan parrots what they say.
LikeLike
Part 4
However, as I continue to point out, the U.S. already IS internationally competitive.
The World Economic Forum ranks nations each year on competitiveness. It uses “a highly comprehensive index” of the “many factors” that enable “national economies to achieve sustained economic growth and long-term prosperity.”
The U.S. is usually in the top five (if not 1 or 2). When it drops, the WEF doesn’t cite education, but stupid economic decisions and policies.
For example, when the U.S. dropped from 2nd to 4th in 2010-11, four factors were cited by the WEF for the decline: (1) weak corporate auditing and reporting standards, (2) suspect corporate ethics, (3) big deficits (brought on by Wall Street’s financial implosion) and (4) unsustainable levels of debt.
Last year (2011-12), major factors cited by the WEF are a “business community” and business leaders who are “critical toward public and private institutions,” a lack of trust in politicians and the political process with a lack of transparency in policy-making, and “a lack of macroeconomic stability” caused by decades of fiscal deficits especially deficits and debt accrued over the last decade that “are likely to weigh heavily on the country’s future growth.” The WEF did NOT cite public schools as being problematic to innovation and competitiveness.
And this year (2012-13) the WEF dropped the U.S. to 7th place, citing problems like “increasing inequality and youth unemployment” and, environmentally, “the United States is among the countries that have ratified the fewest environmental treaties.“ The WEF noted that in the U.S.,”the business community continues to be critical toward public and private institutions” and “trust in politicians is not strong.” Political dysfunction has led to “a lack of macroeconomic stability” that “continues to be the country’s greatest area of weakness.”
[Note: data on 2009, from the 2010-1011 competitiveness report can be found here: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2010-11.pdf ]
The critics continue to point the finger of blame and responsibility, though, at public schools and teachers. Seriously, you’d almost have to be a moron to buy into this stuff. And yet……
The problem in American public education is largely one of poverty. The data show it. Indeed, PISA scores (the scores usually cited by public education critics) are quite sensitive to income level. If one disaggregates U.S. scores the problem becomes clearer: the more poverty a school has, the lower its scores. The presumed do-gooders seem to think that more “competition” and ambitiousness will cause the schools to fix the effects of poverty. Those effects are pernicious.
A technical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics on the damaging effects of toxic stress in children – the kind of stress found in high-poverty urban areas – finds that such stress involves “activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis and the sympathetic-adrenomedullary system, which results in increased levels of stress hormones, such as corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH), cortisol, norepinephrine, and adrenaline. These changes co-occur with a network of other mediators that include elevated inflammatory cytokines and the response of the parasympathetic nervous system, which counterbalances both sympathetic activation and inflammatory responses.”
The result is that “toxic stress in young children can lead to less outwardly visible yet permanent changes in brain structure and function….chronic stress is associated with hypertrophy and overactivity in the amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex, whereas comparable levels of adversity can lead to loss of neurons and neural connections in the hippocampus and medial PFC. The functional consequences of these structural changes include more anxiety related to both hyperactivation of the amygdala and less top-down control as a result of PFC atrophy as well as impaired memory and mood control as a consequence of hippocampal reduction.”
See: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/129/1/e232.full.pdf
In plain speak, alleviating poverty and its pernicious effects, and providing children with high quality environments before they get to school, and following up with health and academic and social policy programs while they are in school, results not only in high-quality education but also in a high-quality citizenry….and in promoting the general welfare of the nation. This is surely not what the “reformers” want. It might – will – require a cessation to the gaming of the “markets” and the tax system.
The public education system in a democratic republic is supposed to develop and nurture democratic character and citizenship. That’s the kind of reform we need.
And it’s exactly the kind of reform the “reformers” detest.
Including Arne Duncan.
LikeLike
The “reformers” are poverty deniers…. like their kindred spirits the climate change deniers they don’t want to face the political pain and economic sacrifices that result when facts are taken into consideration. Tests and standards in public education’s version of fracking. Tests and standards are far cheaper and politically acceptable than addressing the issue of poverty comprehensively by, say, integrating our schools based on socio-economics or raising enough taxes to provide a bona fide safety net for the children being raised in poverty. And RTTT is every businessman’s dream come true! It incorporates competition, de-regulation, centralization, reduced compensation for workers, and ancillary earning opportunities. This is all possible because tests show that schools serving poor children “fail”. the whole scheme works effectively if you deny that poverty is the problem.
LikeLike
Poverty deniers, global warming climage change deniers; this collection of meme’s is so obvious.
Since the bar for poverty classification has been raised, by glorious statistics, some of the nicest looking people i have ever seen are using EBT at our suburban whole foods.
Anybody can get it regardless of multiple property or vehicle ownership and also fascilitators are fervently siciting folks to join up and get the freebies. Did you not see Alexandra Pelosi’s piece on Bill Mawr? so the poverty you are so
Attached to, much like so many other propaganda tools is an illusion created by
data manipulation, just as the international
literacy data. The REAL poverty in America
is caused by crooked politicians and the buying of votes with welfare, not
education opportunities or funding.
The dialectics used here are transparent.
LikeLike
poverty deniers–great phrase!!!
LikeLike
Hey, hey, hey, let’s not confuse “poverty deniers” with climate change deniers who have actual truth on their side and are refusing to fall for the communist scam of transferring wealth (i.e. stealing) under the pseudo scientific claim that carbon dioxide emissions are affecting global climate. Those who think that poverty isn’t a predictor of school performance haven’t taught. The cultural gap is really there. Climate change is not.
LikeLike
Why does Duncan twist the facts so easily? It’s scary.
LikeLike
It’s occurred to me that the date of earlier in 2009 might have been a slip on Duncan’s part. What if the CCSS really already WERE in development, out of the light of day behind closed doors, at that time?
LikeLike
Tried to send this but couldn’t-look up on youtube the Chicago student union video. Students went to a board meeting and ended up being thrown out due to expressing frustration and the school closings and the “board” -really an appointed group of people chosen by Rahm. very sad-they are the only student reps there.
>>> Diane Ravitch’s blog 6/26/2013 10:15 PM >>>
dianerav posted: “Michele McNeil analyzed Secretary Duncan’s remarks yesterday to the nation’s newspaper editors. She politely said they were not accurate. Neil McClusky of CATO took the critique a step further. Duncan needs to pretend that the federal government had no”
LikeLike
Um, Arne, doesn’t the same standard sort of apply to leadership and management? Seems like all the statements coming from USDOE are simple claim/counterclaim, with no “reserach-based evidence” to back up ‘best practices’.
<>
LikeLike
To me, the real shame is that the VAST majority of kids in this country go to traditional public schools, not charters, not a voucher program, yet the entire federal focus seems to be on charters.
Add to that how half the governors and a good slice of the mayors focus more on closing public schools than they do supporting them, and we’re really talking about abandoning the vast majority of kids.
In addition to all the other problems with reform, concentrating on 10% of students and ignoring 90% is just flat-out crazy as state or national policy.
How is this “putting children first”? Do they mean the small minority who attend charters?
LikeLike