Anthony Cody summarizes here the ten major reasons to be concerned about the Common Core standards.
Cody describes the closed-door process for writing the standards and the extremely limited review of them, which he rightly calls undemocratic.
He notes the exclusion of early childhood education experts (and might have also added the exclusion of language acquisition experts, disability experts, and regular classroom teachers), from the development of the standards. He points out that the standards are “market-driven” and aim for standardization of tests and metrics, and are indifferent to the varying and individual needs of students. They are “market-friendly,” not “student-friendly.”
And here are the clinchers:
“Error #9: The Common Core is not based on any external evidence, has no research to support it, has never been tested, and worst of all, has no mechanism for correction.
The Memorandum of Understanding signed by state leaders to opt in to the Common Core allows the states to change a scant 15% of the standards they use. There is no process available to revise the standards. They must be adopted as written. As William Mathis (2012) points out,
“As the absence or presence of rigorous or national standards says nothing about equity, educational quality, or the provision of adequate educational services, there is no reason to expect CCSS or any other standards initiative to be an effective educational reform by itself.”
Error #10: The biggest problem of American education and American society is the growing number of children living in poverty. As was recently documented by the Southern Education Fund (and reported in the Washington Post) across the American South and West, a majority of our children are now living in poverty.
The Common Core does nothing to address this problem. In fact, it is diverting scarce resources and time into more tests, more technology for the purpose of testing, and into ever more test preparation.”
Bravo. This is brilliant, and will be shared with over 170 educators and Board of Education members who serve over 250,000 students (not all districts will be in attendance) on Long Island, New York. Thank you Diane and Anthony!
Thanks for this excellent assessment. I have already sent it out to all my lists.
“Anthony Cody summarizes here the ten major reasons to be concerned about the Common Core standards.”
I believe that that statement would be more accurate if the “the” before ten would have been left out.
As it is, THE major reason to be concerned with the CCSS is what Wilson spells out-the complete epistemological and ontological invalidities-in the most damning, never refuted nor rebutted Critical Enquiry* into educational standards and standardized testing “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700
*What is Critical Enquiry?
The capital “C” in Critical emphasizes social criticism at the most fundamental level of what ought to constitute an ideal just social structure. Enquiry emphasizes the self-conscious use of all forms of analysis and interpretation of actions and discourses that create, maintain, and justify social structures. To this end:
• Critical Enquiry is suspicious of al “isms” [and/or ideologies] offered as The ideal social structure because like all “isms” they purport to transcend human subjectivity, that they are constituted in nature, outside the boundaries of human consciousness.
• Critical Enquiry fully recognizes the political nature of social structures, and seeks to reveal the power embedded in all forms of historically contextualized discourses to condition popular thought to accept a particular ideology, an “ism,” as natural and inevitable. Of particular concern are those “isms” that attempt to justify socioeconomic power differentials as inevitable, as normal.
• Critical Enquiry works dialectically in an unremitting search for contradictions between existing social arrangements and the Enlightenment ideals of natural rights, such as those embodied in the Founding Documents of the United States.
• Critical Enquiry is particularly concerned with those contradictions which systematically exclude individuals and groups from sociopolitical power or from the free access to information that is used to both condition and justify the status quo.
• Critical Enquiry is based on the belief that emancipation comes only to individuals that increase their understanding and self-reflective analysis of their social conditions. Such an analysis depends on the free and open exchange of knowledge and information uncontaminated by authoritative privilege and sanctions. Only after meeting these conditions regarding knowledge can citizens in a democratic society be sufficiently prepared to make ethical and moral judgments. (emphasis in original)
Original by Charles Fazzaro.
YES x 10!
Anthony Cody is concerned about the Common Core because it doesn’t address poverty? Huh?
Are you related to Arne?
Only in our shared support for the Common Core. I oppose his whole reform agenda, but the Common Core has proved itself in NH classrooms.
Many of us were teaching engaging lessons focused on problem solving and critical thinking well before national standards funded and written by wealthy edudilettanates.
We don’t need the Gates USDOE to perform our jobs and support our children.
RTT is a stimulus plan masquerading as reform and nothing more.
Yes, many good teachers were doing that and the Common Core steers more teachers in that direction. NCLB took U.S. Education away from good teaching. Now we’ve got to get back to it.
Wrong! Teachers are leaving in droves. Test scores are all that matter. Race to the trough is killing the joy of learning. Kids are anxious. Teachers are frantic.
What subject, grade, age, setting for you? Please tell me you are a teacher not another “expert”.
I agree with you that we should listen to teachers. That’s why I feature them on my site: http://anhpe.org/category/teachers/
Where is the proof of Common Core success in NH classrooms? Have you taken the Common Core tests?
The test is the teachers every day. They say it allows them to get back to good teaching and they see the results in their kids every day.
Broken down by state, Mississippi had the highest share of poor people, at 22.7 percent, according to calculations by the Census Bureau. It was followed by Louisiana, the District of Columbia, Georgia, New Mexico and Arizona. On the other end of the scale, New Hampshire had the lowest share, at 6.6 percent.
Bill
“Anthony Cody is concerned about the Common Core because it doesn’t address poverty? Huh?”
NH – lowest poverty rate in the country at 6.6%. No wonder you’re so surprised. Try teaching your common core where the free and reduced is 90+%
“but the Common Core has proved itself in NH classrooms.”
How so? Your data?
Manchester NH has 75% free and reduced lunch. Works great there…
What teachers are you reporting for Bill? Be specific, name towns, districts, schools…what is your role?
See above, Linda…
Works great in Manchester eh?
Nice to see that success in teaching the CC in NH is determined by the opinion of one teacher. Unlucky New Yorkers actually had to administer Pearson CCSS aligned tests to over one million students. Scores had to be norm referenced using ridiculously high NEAP cuts. Results showed CC not working out so great as only 30 of students in grades 3 to 8 scored proficient.
Not so quick. He hasn’t even stated if he was or is a teacher even though I’ve asked more than once. Funding from Gates, Broad, etc?
Poor kids need a lot more than “rigor”. What they really need is being cut to focus on tested areas only. Sorry, but we are headed in the wrong direction. I disagree with you.
The test is the teachers every day. They say it allows them to get back to good teaching and they see the results in their kids every day.
What prevented this before adoption of CCSS? NCLB were minimum standards – nothing ever stopped any teacher from going above and beyond NCLB standards.
Linda why are we wasting our time with this shill?
Nothing but a big run-a-round.
Agree…another edudilettanate with Gates funding I suspect.
The CCS is so great everyone needs to be bought.
I’m sorry to disappoint you but, unfortunately, no one – Gates or anyone else – gives me any money. Each shilling comes out of my own pocket.
Bill, I think the stories at your site about how Manchester teachers have worked together to slowly implement changing standards are fine, and seem to reflect good leadership and teacher support at the state and local level. My only caveat: it appears there is not much in the way of high-stakes testing underway as yet. The articles don’t really talk about testing. Do you have the high-stakes teacher evaluation in place yet?
I am unhappy about how this is working out in my local school system. We talk a lot about ‘Common Core’, but to me the crucial issue is how many standardized tests per year have been rolled out as a result of NCLB, Common Core, & high-stakes teacher-eval’ns.
I live in NJ. My town has been wealthy & high-performing for decades. NJ had state core curriculum since the ’90’s, unattached to high-stakes testing. They were developed by educators, & were excellent, & in my & other districts in the region, courses were adapted to them without the need for ‘accountability testing’.
Although NCLB gave clout to SpecEd for which I am grateful (2 of my kids had IEPs), the complete rollout of associated testing has only been accomplished in early grades since last yr, & it is unfortunate, taking many hrs away from curriculum & creating angst among the young. Meanwhile our state on its own had promulgated hs grad prereq testing in jr & sr hs yrs– somewhat of a plus for my kids, as the district had the $ to back up poor results with extra courses for kids needing it. When you add this all up, the change between ’90’s & 2000’s was a shift from 5 stdzd tests K-12 to 13!
Meanwhile our gov decided suddenly, after refusing RTTT, to go w/CCSS, which meant much time reqd by teachers on their own to re-align– because of the swift implementation & lack of proper admin leadership, no time for teacher/admin collaboration.
Christie decided just as swiftly to impose high-stakes teacher evaluation, so suddenly this fall our teachers are racing to target SGO’s & impose twice-yrly testing in every class. This brings our total annual testing up to approximately 11 tests per grade. Meanwhile our top-notch students in a wealthy district continue to perform above average, but at a great loss to teaching time in the classroom.
I hope you get my point: Common Core may be working fine for Manchester, but that doesn’t mean it is appropriate in other places. Yet because of pressure and bribing (competitive grants) from the top down, it is being imposed practically everywhere.
Freelancer
You would expect these differences in experience with the Common Core because education is still a state-by-state policy.
Specifically on high stakes testing: School and teacher evaluation policy and using tests to bash teachers and close schools full of low income kids is entirely separate from the Common Core. NY and NJ have punitive policies.
NH does not require that test results be used to evaluate teachers and does not use test results to sanction schools. So our former test and the new, far superior, Common Core aligned test are used just as they should be, to allow teachers and districts to assess their instructional strategies.
Mr. Nye’s website indeed appears to be self-financed, and is concerned with defending student data collection from public challenges, as highlighted by this quote,”The student data privacy debate has got out of hand, which is what Common Core opponents had hoped to accomplish. ”
He handed over direction of his Daylight Software business when he retired, and as far as I can tell, it had no direct interest in any Student Data Dashboards contracts at that time.
“Daylight Software has received several Microsoft Retail Application Development Awards for exemplary customer solutions. Daylight’s customers include, among many others, MGM MIRAGE, Sonesta Hotels, Resorts & Nile Cruises, Gaylord Hotels, Morgans Hotel Group, Accor North America, Melrose Hotel Company and Orient Express Hotels.”
http://www.hotelnewsresource.com/article16937.html
I don’t know who Mr. Nye is, but Daylight Software is the company I sold 8 years ago. And my site is not particularly concerned with data privacy, as you can see if you go there (anhpe.org).
You’re welcome to look for nefarious motives but your time would be better spent reading the standards.
Sorry, Mr. Duncan. Mr. Nye was an intermediate connection in my quick look-up. I don’t know who he is either.
Profiteers are proudly leveraging their winnings to buy control of US pubic education and turn it into a new profit center. The website of the USDOE openly advocates that approach, and we would neglect our due diligence as citizens and taxpayers if we failed to track it. Your continuous implication that the working teachers discussing these issues are unfamiliar with the CCSS is also misplaced.
For instance, I’ve read “the standards”, and studied both the math and ELA standards at great length, as well as their supporting documents. I was on my own state’s Math and Science Advisory council, which “contributed” to the NextGen Common Core science standards, in fact. Here’s my account of that adventure.
http://nepc.colorado.edu/blog/chemtchr-science-teachers-view-backward-engineered-common-core-science-standards
Well, if you’re Anthony Cody, I take back my suggestion that you read the standards.
And, by the way, I do not intentionally imply that teachers are unfamiliar with CCSS. I do say that they do not by default see it as a political issue. The way they describe it to me is that they address it as a next educational step – only later observing the political debate with a combination of wonder and desire to avoid it.
And I have great respect for NEPC. I think we agree about the threat privatization – in all its forms – poses to American public education. I just don’t agree that CCSS is, therefore, bad.
Spurred by this thread, I’ve begun to think about some kind of response to your 10 errors post, but I’d make just a couple of comments here.
On the participation, suffice it to say that, if we really talked about the NH experience and the window it provided on the US experience, you would not doubt my narrative, and the resulting changes in the standards, regardless of what anyone else says.
Your fanning of the bogus data mining fears is particularly disappointing. Here’s my stuff on that (http://anhpe.org/category/student-data-privacy/), including an oped that appeared today.
My general take on your list of errors is that its heavy on circumstantial and indirect evidence: because all these bad guys (or, at least, sometimes-bad guys) were involved, the standards are bad. At that point, you cram everything into that narrative.
And when I put all that against what I see in the classroom, it doesn’t fit. Yes, I’m not an educator. But, like a reporter, when I start hearing the same narrative from disparate sources in the schools – teachers and administrators – I start believing the story.
Read the teacher category at anhe.org and tell me, as other commenters here have, that these are naive teachers who should have been teaching this way all along. I don’t buy it.
And, by the way, I really did think your reference to poverty was a total non-sequitor. What set of standards would ever solve poverty?
No, no. I’m not Cody. I’m flattered.
That column was a guest post on Anthony’s EdWeek blog.
Oh, ok. I couldn’t figure it out.
Wait a minute, Bill Duncan. Do you think chemtchr is actually Anthony Cody? Wow. My illusion that you might be a fairly astute and reasonable defender of the Common Core Standards has been shattered. And I was just coming around to the belief that New Hampshire may be the best of all possible worlds!
Seriously, readers should take a closer look at the basic assumptions behind the CCS project, and listen to the words of David Coleman, Arne Duncan, Jeb Bush, and similar Common Core salespeople. If they’re completely objective about it, they’re likely to come away skeptical.
🙂 Yes, I got completely suckered by that NEPC post. The hay straw must have got in my eyes.
I do understand the suspicion aroused by some of the backers. But I can’t sustain that skepticism in the face of what I see in the standards themselves and in the classroom.
I imagine someone will say, “Yes, the standards can look good in the classroom but it’s a trap.” And, if so, we can follow that thread. But so far, the arguments about the test as the trap don’t seem to me to hold up.
Testing that is high stakes for the school and the teachers is a trap but that’s an issue entirely separate from the Common Core.
As an outside observer, what did you witness in the classroom before the national standards?
Actually, Linda, I’ve got a question for you. Would you describe your classroom before and after the Common Core?
Minor changes, but that may be difficult for a non-educator to grasp. I also refuse to succumb to test prep. I also don’t care about my rating tied to tests. A low rating earned while jumping through hoops and obeying a matrix is a badge of honor.
You can paint me as a bad teacher, but you haven’t a clue.
So tell us Bill about your time in classrooms and schools before national standards? You avoided that question for some reason.
“Minor changes.” Funny how I didn’t learn much from that.
You don’t now what was happening in my classroom before and you assume the national standards are revolutionary or even better. Since you don’t know, how can you judge?
You still didn’t answer the original question, but I have learned from your deflection.
Just in case you don’t realize it, now you are coming off as one more know nothing edufraud and they’re a dime a dozen.
Are you positive you’re not related to Arne?
What could be worse than engaging in an ad hominem debate with an anonymous commenter?
Unlike you, Linda, I’m an open book and have provided in this very thread the sources for the answer to your question. But it’ll probably take more energy to find it than you are putting into this. Which is my point.
I don’t feel the need to prove anything to you and you still haven’t answered the question so you are comparing lessons observed now to what your observed before, which was nothing. Got it! Lesson over.
Schools in high poverty areas, be they urban or rural, do not suffer from poor teaching and bad curriculum, The poorest districts in NY use the same standards and curriculum and have equally competent teachers as the most successful and affluent. Hmm so what could be holding down those test scores?
Teachers in high poverty schools have more de-facto pedagogical constraints than you could imagine. There are many schools where a teacher can’t even ask a class to read silently to themselves for five minutes.
Poor kids deserve the rigor of the Common Core but that’s just the beginning of the better education poor kids deserve.
If it’s not working in NY, it’s about NY not the Common Core.
Bill Duncan, where is Common Core working?
All over NH. Deep commitment. Great results. This is just. The beginning: http://anhpe.org/category/teachers/ . I haven’t had time yet to put all the interviews up.
Can you give us your background? Years taught? Certification? Level? Subject area? Do I have to search for that? Where do you work now?
Yes that’s the cycle to be repeated so there is always a crisis. Foist a new half-a$$ed system upon the “failing schools and teachers” and when it doesn’t work it’s because the districts are managing the roll out poorly due to the “failing schools and teachers”.
More schools to close now..see this works perfectly as planned.
All roads lead back to “bad” teachers.
Once we get rid of these lazy slackers, test scores improve, which means better education for all ridding our nation of all problems: poverty, homelessness, mental illness, income inequity, unemployment, etc.
Yes, let’s blame the New York teachers.
When do we hold the men at the top accountable? Do you know?
NH has not been subjected to CCSS assessments so not so sure what you’re talking about? Only KY and NY are ahead of the CCSS curve.
Bill you do realize that you teach in the state with the lowest poverty rate in the country (6.6%). NH is closer to Finland.
White alone, percent, 2012 (a) 94.4%
Black or African American alone, percent, 2012 (a) 1.4%
Asian alone, percent definition and source info Asian alone, percent, 2012 (a) 2.4%
Hispanic or Latino, percent definition and source info Hispanic or Latino, percent, 2012 (b) 3.0%
See above. High poverty Manchester is doing well with the Common Core.
Bill
How are Common Core tests used to evaluate teachers in NH?
I am not a teacher. I am are retired software business person who started a group called Defending New Hampshire Public Education (dnhpe.org) when our NH Legislature attacked public education a couple of years ago.
Now our group is called Advancing…etc. (anhpe.org) and we work in support of pre-k, opposing charters and vouchers, in support of teachers, etc.
When the Common Core debate emerged, I did my homework like everyone else. It consisted of visiting many schools and talking with many teachers, mainly about how they reach poor kids, since that is my primary interest, but also about CCSS.
Now I’ve talked with larger numbers of teachers. I have yet to talk with a teacher who has implemented CCSS in NH and does not support it.
Education policy is a state-by-state thing and I can believe that NYS (not NY teachers) have not implemented it well. But in NH, the only state I can speak of, it is implemented well in many or most districts and you can see the good results. It’s not one teacher. It’s over and over again.
Our famously conservative newspaper, the Union Leader, just did a series on the Common Core that essentially came out making that case.
My original comment on this thread was, essentially, that I don’t understand why someone would charge the Common Core with failing to address child poverty. However, I do see that the new standards are setting a higher bar in our classrooms and the kids are responding. Here’s an example: http://wp.me/p2OKqy-1eY
Does “responding” = a test score measurement?
About how CC tests are used to evaluate NH teachers: they are not. There is no required performance component in NH teacher evaluations and, where performance is used, it does not have to be the test. In Title I schools, where Arne had the most leverage in negotiating our waiver, “performance” must be 20% of the evaluation, but even there, the test need not be part of the performance calculation.
Bill, I read the example from the link. And that didn’t happen before CCS, really? Sad.
There was a lot of talk about brain power in McHugh’s class that morning and obvious enthusiasm among the 15 first-graders.
Add 10 to 15 more kids and you’d not only have a bonfire of burning brains but a more realistic class size here in NY.
Re: responding and test scores. I would have thought that, like many other commenters here, you would find test score suspect compared to the teachers’ judgments. I do. The only tests involved at this point are the kids all teachers do all the time in the classroom to help form their judgments about whether the kids are learning.
Re: whether teachers should have been teaching deeply and rigorously before the Common Core. If you criticism of the Common Core is only standards should not be necessary because teachers should be good teachers without standards, that’s too long a discussion for this point in a thread. But if you’re saying that each teacher should do her own thing, I think that will be hard to defend in the end.
We all do our own thing within the framework of standards and curriculum. Good teacher typically go beyond the minimal requirement to provide enriching educational experiences. Having first graders excited about learning is pretty much the norm in any classroom. Six year old kids getting excited about a balance beam does not mean the Common Core is “working” in NH.
Sorry Bill you seem to not trust teachers or have low expectations. This isn’t extraordinary and not due to national standards. Direct classroom experience is valuable despite what the edufrauds peddle.
Well, as I said above, if you think standards are not needed, have at it. Make your case. But I think you’ve got a steep up hill climb.
What you are describing and linking is ordinary. You don’t know how steep I Need to go. You’ve never been in my classroom. You really don’t know what you are talking about.
Now you might wonder how steep Linda has to go. Log on to Engage NY and check out some of the modules. Check out some of the test items. Now put your career on the line based on your ability to get kids to climb slopes so steep that few can.
If the link you gave describes a radical new approach to classroom instruction I’d hate to see what Ms. McHugh was doing before she was enlightened by rigor the CC. My guess is that Ms McHugh was doing igniting brains of her six year olds long before 2012.
I think the point to be made about Bill’s input is that under certain circumstances, a state can take advantage of what Common Core has to offer. In the Manchester situation, teachers & admin were already engaged in developing standards, and were able to incorporate CCSS collaboratively. Somehow (through waivers?) they have so far escaped the associated high-stakes testing (although Smart Balance raises its head in 2015…) & have managed to escape the high-stakes teacher evaluation with its onerous twice-annual testing against SGO’s. The lesson would seem to be that what most of us are railing against in CCSS is (1)lack of ability to pick & choose what we like from the stds & (2)the high-stakes testing!
NY Teacher and others make a point like this:
Anyone, like Ms. McHugh, who needs the CC to be a good teacher….must be a bad teacher. Also, sometimes explicit and sometimes implicit: I, the commenter, am a very good teacher so I don’t need the standards to teach well. Not only do I not need standards, but no teacher worth her salt should need standards.
To that, I would add that those commenters must also be saying, implicitly, “We also don’t need standards because I can rely on what teachers in the previous grades taught my students – and all the teachers in my grade are sending students to the next grade prepared in the same way I prepare my kids.”
But I don’t buy that.
I think the way Freelancer summarizes it is useful. But one correction, first. Although that one article does not make it clear (there are a zillion posts at anhpe.org that get into all this but I don’t suggest that you need to read them all)
Manchester teachers have not been creating their own standards. Manchester started implementing the Common Core soon after the State Board of Education adopted the standards in 2010. Then, in response to recent tea-party-driven CCSS controversy, the district said, “Ok, we’ll make Manchester standards….based on the Common Core.”
So, yes, Manchester, one of our poorest school districts, may add a standard or two or change a reading list but they are still a Common Core district.
On the suggestion that teachers should “choose what they like” from the standards, isn’t that the same as not having standards? In that case, what’s the point? Other teachers (never mind, for now, parents, employers, colleges, etc.) need to be able to rely on what you are teaching.
On the high stakes point: the notion of high stakes testing is not related to the Common Core. And, yes, testing used as a bludgeon on teachers and schools destroys public education and any other initiative states or schools try to take, including improving standards.
We don’t do high stakes testing in NH, so you can see here how constructive life can be without it. I don’t say that to be smug but to point out that the bad results you are seeing so far in many states are a result of state policy, not the Common Core. And when you see the new standards implemented in the classroom, by teachers and districts just doing the best they can, without the context set by a destructive state policies, they seem to lead to a happy result.
Bill Duncan,
I am interested in NH’s lack of high stakes testing. Is there any information about the type of standardized tests student take in NH and how the results are used?
Thanks.
Search on NECAP and you will get everything about how NH has done it in the past. The new test is Smarter Balanced and everything about that is on its web site.
As to how the results are used by schools and teachers, it varies, but structurally, the only thing the test can be used for if it doesn’t drive school and teacher evaluation is instructional feedback.
Not sure this is accurate. States only got their NCLB waivers if they accepted CCS and agreed to tie test scores to teacher evaluations. You’re saying NH is not aligning test scores with evals?
If true, why are other states? I like how Arne says this is all voluntary. He is a liar.
Remove Arne Duncan, sign petition:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-arne-duncan-secretary-education/w0DYCDDm
There’s no question about the accuracy, Linda.
re: must accept CCSS to get the waiver. No, Virginia has a waiver and uses its own standards.
re: test as part of evaluation. Many waivers were, of course, negotiated by states that wanted to bash teachers, so it’s a toss up who wanted the bad policies more, Arne or the states. But NH had a long grassroots effort to develop the model evaluation policy and then a long, smart negotiation with USDE. The result was a waiver that did not require high stakes testing. It’s all there at anhpe.org and you can view the waiver at any of the available sites.
Much of the CCSS debate is carried on half true short hand. If you actually unpack it, it’s not surprising that NH – and other states, I’m sure – are making it work.
Bill Duncan:
If the Common Core Standards were originated by the states, as your website claims, then individual states would have been involved in originating them. In fact, they weren’t originated and developed by any of the states, were they?
In fact, most states only agreed to adopt them in hopes of winning Race to the Top Funds. This amounted to high stakes bribery, but one of the ironies of the whole fluky sequence of events is that implementing theses untested protocols will end up costing many more millions that school districts don’t have.
The biggest fluke that set the CCS avalanche rolling was the credit collapse of 2008, without which the funds for RTTT never would have been available. The disaster of 2008 may not actually have been a fluke, but without it the wholesale adoption of the CCS certainly would never have happened. Now the CCS is an educational disaster-in-the-making.
Speaking of funding, has your organization received any foundation or corporate funding for the purpose of promoting the CCS? Or are you completely self-funded?
As I said above, I pay for what I do. I don’t get paid for it.
On the “states didn’t participate” point – no, that’s not true at all. Over 200 New Hampshire teachers from all over the state (every district as invited to participate) gathered in regional meetings and give line by line feedback on early drafts of the standards and saw their proposed changes appear in subsequent drafts. Very participative.
Click to access PB-NatStans-Mathis.pdf
What changes were made as a result of this participation? And what was the timeline? According to the accounts I’ve read, the CCS were authored by a relatively small group of people with scant input from classroom teachers and other key practitioners (notably early childhood experts–resulting in “standards” that make no sense for little children). See my comment where I reference the link above.
According to Robert Rothman (Something in Common: The Common Core Standards and the Next Chapter in American Education), Kentucky adopted the standards “months before draft standards were released for comment and four months before the final draft was unveiled…” So although Kentucky as a state apparently didn’t have a big impact in developing the standards, it was the first to adopt them.
I’ve just dipped into Rothman’s book, which may clear up some of the history for me. I’m sure I’ll disagree with his bias in favor of national standards, though. Also, he believes student “performance” as measured by standardized test scores is the best way to evaluate student learning. I don’t.
Congratulations on putting your money where you mouth is. It’s unusual. Most of the strong proponents of the CCS are either funded by Gates (NCTE, AFT, NEA, ASCD, even individuals who were to receive stipends for touting the “standards”), or they believe their business interests will be advanced (Chamber of Commerce, lots of big corporations, media companies such as NBC, educational publishers and testing companies).
I hope you and the other proponents will read and reflect on Anthony Cody’s article instead of rejecting it out of hand, which you appeared to do with your original comment, which I didn’t really understand.
Bill
The Common Core you are describing is not what the rest of us are experiencing.
I do realize that might be the case, NY teacher. That’s why I’m commenting here. I think a lot of the bad NY experience must be the result of the way it is implemented there, in a toxic mix with horrendous “ed reform” policies you have in NY.
I started out with no position, pro or con. But what I have seen is great stuff, directly attributable to the Common Core rollout.
Randall,
Re: What changes were made? I will give you one or two examples but, more important, I apparently need to say explicitly that I have no interest in offering misleading stuff in this conversation. We’re trying to figure something out here. There’s no point to fibbing.
One is that speaking is part of the ELA standards at all – a direct result of early multi-state conference calls in which our folks (and others, I think) made that suggestion.
Another is the layout of the ELA standards in tabular form. NH folks made that suggestion based on experience here. Seems like a minor thing but it’s big in conveying to a teacher in one grade the context for what she is called upon to teach.
And then you get to the endless line-by-line edits – redlined on drafts of the standards – that 217 of our teachers made in meetings all over the state. This is from an email at the time: “After reviewing the specific improvements that were made, I am speechless: the public draft addresses almost all of our teachers’ concerns…using their suggested changes…”
Re: ulterior motives: the teachers I see adopting the Common Core with excitement and good results (so far) have no ulterior motives. This is just an upgrade to the standards they had before. There’s no politics involved. They’re just saying, “Whoa! This is a whole new world after the NCLB era. This allows me to go back to real teaching.” So they think it’s a good thing.
I don’t get into the motives of the NEA and others. It’s too hard to figure out what’s what. But the result looks great to me.
Re: read Cody with an open mind. I did read it. But these are not new points and don’t need a point-by-point response.
I commented on the “Common Core doesn’t address poverty” point because it demonstrates how far Mr. Cody is willing to stretch to discredit the new standards.
I do understand that it’s really a reference to the point that Diane and many others make about child poverty in America and how reaching at-risk kids is a central challenge for our schools. I agree. But to criticize the Common Core because it doesn’t address poverty? We are way off into never-never land if that’s an acceptable argument.
This is the second claim I’ve seen this morning for New Hampshire exceptionalism. The argument seems to be that the “rollout” hasn’t been toxic there, because there’s no test-based accountability attached.
Bill Duncan has therefore taken it up to go forth as an apostle of the New Hampshire rollout, and he starts by asking, “Anthony Cody is concerned about the Common Core because it doesn’t address poverty? Huh?”
The thing is, Bill, out here in the big world, the CCSS is serving its very real purpose, and the attack on children of poverty and their teachers is fierce. If you’re sincere, you should pay attention, because otherwise when they do come for New Hampshire, there won’t be anybody left to defend it.
Antioch is up there in New Hampshire; it was a beacon to me when I was a student myself. Am I wrong to believe it will remember itself, whether or not it is the recipient of a few million dollars from the Gates Foundation?
The Coalition of Essential Schools plays a mitigating role in the damage from test-based accountability, as far as I can see. Because some people are claiming that the Common Core will somehow promote constructivist learning environments, I am allowed to teach and share that rich legacy with my students and colleagues for a while. At the same time, the whole infrastructure that might support it is being swept away by the reality of the proprietary ThinkGate data portal and the oncoming PARCC assessments.
This is where the push-back has to be directed:
Common Core: Dollars and Data Mining, Part 2: Bill Gates
I’m not sure what this post is really saying but there’s no claim of NH exceptionalism. I just happen to live here and can report on what’s going on. There are 49 other states but most of the bad stories seem to come from NY, some from NJ, there are others. My own expectation is that lots of other states have good implementations.
The real point is that it is state policy that drives it.
Dear Ms. Ravitch,
Please check out this response from Tom Luna re: Common Core concerns of a legislator and an educator. We members of Idaho BATs are not pleased.
Click to access State-Department-of-Education-response-.pdf
Aww, we don’t need to worry about Common Core. Apparently it’s just us White Suburban Moms upset because our kids are suddenly not as brilliant as we all thought they were. 😛
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/11/16/arne-duncan-white-surburban-moms-upset-that-common-core-shows-their-kids-arent-brilliant/
I know one suburban mom who should be upset, if still alive.
Her son is not brilliant nor is he politically astute.
Her name is: Mrs. Duncan.
Remove Arne Duncan, sign petition:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-arne-duncan-secretary-education/w0DYCDDm
One correction. States have to implement all CCSS and cannot “change” or eliminate any. What they can do is ADD up to 15% more.
I have looked through the common core curriculum, but my expertise is literature. (I am a school librarian). The texts recommended based on lexile are definitely inappropriate for the given age level. My mantra is, just because you can read it, doesn’t mean you should.
The Wizard of Oz was a recommended read aloud for Kindergarteners. Unless they are being read a modified picture book, this is a scary story. There is an evil witch who wants to kill Dorothy and her dog. The flying monkeys are not cute, but evil. The language is very different from how we speak in the twenty first century. It is not a good read aloud.
The Autobiography of Frederick Douglas is suggested for middle school – either 7th or 8th grade. This was traditionally read by Juniors to complement the American History course. It is relatively short, but very difficult to read. Think the mid 1800s. Juniors had a tough time, I can’t imagine middle school students actually reading this book.
I could go on – out of print books, articles from old publications, not enough current literature, etc. I heard that the original list was created as an example and then was accepted unedited or as is, without review.
My concern is that students will be forced to read inappropriate books for their age and interests, the school library will be closed and/or inaccessible, the school librarian will be cut due to budget constraints, there will be no time to visit the public library due to excessive homework, and, finally, children will not have the time, inclination, or access to books that appeal to their individual interests which will result in a generation of nonreaders.
Another side effect of CC.
You make some great points. Two things that get short shrift in Anthony Cody’s terrific article:
1) Educational standards aren’t likely to make a difference! I think Cody gives too much credence to the idea that if done correctly, a set of national standards could truly make a difference in student learning. A study by William J. Mathis of the University of Colorado at Boulder (July, 2010) concludes that “U.S. states with high academic standards fare no better (or worse) than those identified as having low academic standards. Research support for standards–driven, test-based accountability systems is similarly weak. And nations with centralized standards generally tend to perform no better (or worse) on international tests than those without.” (There’s a problem with the idea that performance on international tests is a good measure of student learning, but if that’s the measure CCS supporters believe in, it makes sense to keep it in mind.)
Among the problems with the development of the CCS in particular, which Cody does cover well in his article, Mathis notes that “the level of input from school-based practitioners appears to be minimal, the standards themselves have not been field tested, and it is unclear whether the tests used to measure the academic out-comes of common standards will have sufficient validity to justify the high-stakes consequences that will likely arise around their use.”
Click to access PB-NatStans-Mathis.pdf
2) The authors of the Common Core Standards completely ignored the human beings who will be forced to deal with their ill conceived mandates: the teachers charged with inflicting them and the children and parents who will bear the brunt. I say inflicting, because the authors seem to have little idea as to what may be educationally appropriate or of interest to children of any given age, or of the predictable ill effects of high-stakes testing for children of all ages.
Arne Duncan’s inapt “raising the bar” metaphor is a dangerous misconception and has no place in a serious discussion of the well being of children. Yoking a bad metaphor with the highly questionable Common Core enterprise is a recipe for chaos and demoralization. I hope CCS supporters decide to read Cody’s article instead of rejecting it out of hand.
I hear you. Robert Shepherd has written often here that the ELA part of CCSS is (among other things) age-inappropriate. Thanks for the details. (My kids were not ready for Oz books until age 8+)
Anyone but me notice our education leader’s inability to speak in grammatically-correct sentences? He is a moron. I don’t believe he was college ready- except maybe in basketball. And as far as career ready and globally competitive, he didn’t need to be either. He just needed to be politically and socially connected to “compete” for the job he got. That will always work for the upper echelon.
None of the reformers speak of education as preparation for good citizenship. That’s because they themselves are not good citizens. But they are good competitors. Their inherited wealth and business sense have been very profitable for them and they have beat out others globally. That’s how they measure success in life – with dollar signs and winning and beating others. Very sad
I think most people voted for Obama because he promised to protect the middle class. Now, his appointee is openly bullying and intimidating those very people, suburban moms and dads.
Not since James Watt was Secretary of Interior has a appointee so brazenly antagonized and gone counter to the very interests which they were supposed to protect and serve.
A legacy of somewhere between overpromise and underdeliver to outright betrayal.
I agree wholeheartedly. What bothers me most about the whole mess: there will always be politicians making a power grab. How did we citizens let things come to such a pass legally? Was it always within the power of the DOE’s, fed & state, to impose their will by fiat– suggesting there’s something wrong about the setup of executive agencies? Or did we allow legal safeguards to be untied? Is it only about corporate lobbying & campaign finance?
Good memory on the James Watt appointment. You’re quite correct in your statements.
Diane,
What do you think of Duncan’s latest foray into decrying that white soccer moms being disappointed that their children aren’t brilliant is the reason that Common Core is getting backlash?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/11/16/arne-duncan-white-surburban-moms-upset-that-common-core-shows-their-kids-arent-brilliant/
You just can’t make this stuff up…
Now he’s effectively saying, soccer moms care about their children, but only I care enough about them to tell them the truth – that the teachers wouldn’t and their parents wouldn’t.
Where does his arrogance end?
I can only hope his latest gaffe indicates he’s on the defensive. Only a month ago he was claiming CCSS detractors were the lunatic fringe. You go, white suburban moms!!
Remove Arne Duncan, sign petition:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-arne-duncan-secretary-education/w0DYCDDm
Hi Linda…I posted before I read your petition…Will sign!!
Linda
I signed…
I hope Diane is going to post this at the top.
I can not believe this man’s words…I am stunned…
A bumbling buffoon who is the basketball buddy of Obama and nothing more.
He is a disgrace.
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Am I reading what I think this white mother is reading????
Arnie……you need not have this job….Arnie needs out…
Arnie…Your definition of smart has been created by you and the Testing Hierarchy and is worthless…
Arnie…were you targeting a certain group of people when you set the standards for pass-fail.????
That is discrimination to the nth degree….
Arnie..you created the smart line….your smart line is worthless and degrading to all students,…not just a select group..
I can not believe this man…I am dumbfounded with his statement..
He needs to be fired today……
Can you imagine what he has said to President Obama?
I can hear it now…
“We’ll show these white soccer moms how dumb their kids are??”
I am calling for a petition to fire this man…No one needs to be in education of they think this way….
Remove Arne Duncan, sign petition:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-arne-duncan-secretary-education/w0DYCDDm
All of this rigamarole by Bill Duncan in his above posts..
then at the end I read..
“NH does not require that test results be used to evaluate teachers and does not use test results to sanction schools”
Why did you not make that point at the beginning of your argument Bill?
Yes the Some of the Common Core Standards simply go back to the old fashioned way of teaching where the child is asked to show work…however..some of it is worthless in the real world and to think for one minute that every child should be fitted with the same outfit is totally ridiculous…
Also there are too many standards to cover in an allotted amount of time..
Finally…students need to be treated as individuals and not made to seem ignorant because they can not write…nor are they interested in… writing a recursive function ..or being tested on writing a recursive function……..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bottom Line….is the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ being spent on these Horrid Tests that are administered from August to June..
What is worthless in the real world? Which standards? What is the indication that there are too many standards to teach? NH teachers say they are relieved that there are fewer standards than we had before and now they can concentrate on achieving “mastery.”
Mr Duncan. There are 1,620 CCSS including parts a-e (but not all of the high school courses). These standards do not address a coherent program of studies in the sciences, the arts, the various disciplines that comprise the humanities including foreign languages.
You seem to be enamored with standards. You should know that standards are in the works for 300 topics in six domains of study in the sciences, engineering, and technology. In addition, there are national standards for the humanities/social studies. These encompass 1,281 ( K-12) separate standards for history, geography, economics, civics, and behavioral sciences Shall I mention standards for financial literacy? health? physical education? the arts? technology beyond that enlisted for the sciences?
I look at the CCSS from the vantage point of 40 years plus experience in teaching and more than one “reform” movement. The CCSS are an extension of The American Diploma Project started around 2001 by Achieve The Education Trust, The National Alliance of Business, and conservative Thomas Fordham Foundation in order to make a college prep curriculum the national norm. The marketing campaign for the CCSS began in 2004, aided by funds from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and other sources.
In any case, some of the writers on the American Diploma project migrated to the CCSS. In fact, some of the exemplary assignments in the CCSS were also in the American Diploma Project where
college course assignments were offered as the norm for grades 9 and 10. The CCSS echo this plan but also shove down to kindergarten a system of prerequisites that are supposed to make all students college and career ready before high school graduation. These grade-level standards follow a training model. This model assumes you can just “reverse engineer” the prerequisites that will enable today’s cohort of kindergarten kids to be “college and career ready” thirteen years from now in 2027.
This is an industrial strength management-by-objectives fantasy. It is uninformed. There is a big difference between job training for adults (who comply with the program or leave), and educating children from early childhood through adolescence, including children who do not learn in the same way on the same timetable. Standardized education is not, in itself, a virtue.
The CCSS “vision” of what education is for–nothing but college and job prep–is pathetic. The CCSS seem to assume that labor markets and entry into post-secondary education 13 years from now (and for successive cohorts of students) will not need to be reconsidered. The tighter the system of prerequisites, grade-by-grade as in the CCSS, the more difficult it is to bring students into the flow and to modify the system–especially a system intent on treating every standard as a requirement to be met on time, word-for-word.
Way back in 1994, some of us participated in or witnessed the outcome of setting “world-class” national standards. Called the “Goals 2000” project, standards were written in 14 domains of study, 24 subjects, with 4100 grade-level benchmarks. Nothing about that project enabled ample and coherent learning. Neither do the CCSS offer that guidance.
The CCSS are a version of the 3Rs, with an absolute disregard for concurrent learning that might be worthwhile or required for life-relevant and mind-opening learning in other subjects.
The CCSS are not the product of some grassroots movement among the states. They are the outcome of a well-planned and well-documented campaign managed by Achieve, Inc. and from the get-go intended to become national in force, with federal funding to states contingent on adopting them along with concurrent federal funding for the assessment of the CCSS. The political cover of “state” standards was needed because federal law prohibits the Department of Education from engaging in this and related activities etc. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/20/usc_sup_01_20.html
Enamored? I see the standards used effectively in the classroom, if that’s what you mean. Have you seen any good standards?
Bill, you ask,
“What is worthless in the real world? Which standards? ”
These standards:
You apparently have your own version, because David Coleman claims your New Hampshire teachers didn’t actually contribute to his. According to him, that was a show. After snarking about that for his cronies, he then earnestly addresses the public with the lying scenario you present. Have you been duped?
And the writing standards we’ve been given in my world are a thick green book full of egregious doublespeak, not a nice little grid.
I don’t know what you’ve been given but you can read the real standards on line like anyone else. My point has been that states do it differently and if your state has made hash of it, that’s not a CCSS issue. It’s a state policy issue.
Re: Coleman…Youtube hit piece notwithstanding, the idea that state participation was a sham is just not sustainable. The documentation is a mile deep.
Reblogged this on Timbered Classrooms….
This has been a strange discussion. It doesn’t even seem to be about Anthony’s Common Core blog, but instead points up the intense fervor among the data industry to implement the national student Longitudinal Data System.
The Race to the Top was supposed to be the lever to impose the national data bank, and the NCLB waivers are the final battering ram. The coerced adoption by states of the CCSS data collection mandates should have assured that the enrollment demand reached every child right in her classroom. Instead, CCSS has backfired and blown up; and now it’s a liability.
“It’s time for a calmer debate about student data privacy – oped by Bill Duncan in today’s Seacoast Sunday”
http://anhpe.org/2013/11/17/its-time-for-a-calmer-debate-about-student-data-privacy-oped-by-bill-duncan-in-todays-seacoast-sunday/
My attention was already on New Hampshire. Our commentator in today’s discussion runs a privately financed advocacy and lobbying organization there, which promises to track legislation, and to reassure New Hampshire citizens that the Longitudinal Data System is a good and necessary step, but unrelated to the Common Core rollout. The rollout itself hasn’t yet reached its accountability phase, so there’s still a chance to impose the data collection apparatus before opposition is awakened.
The Gates Foundation has made generous grants to Antioch University and to the Coalition of Essential Schools, which are are apparently prepared to embrace Darling-Hammond’s Smarter Balanced Assessment for the Common Core, avoiding the brutality that has accompanied CCSS in other states.
By “strange discussion,” do you mean that someone came onto this blog to support the standards? I did put in a one liner because i couldn’t believe Anthony Cody thought the standards should address poverty. The rest seemed to flow from people thinking that only a relative of Arne Duncan could possibly think that.
“privately financed advocacy and lobbying organization?” Pretty nefarious, right? If you only knew…
And, although you seem to have some personal knowledge of Antioch and CES, they don’t drive NH education policy.
Bill
Lets assume you mean well and have the best interests of students and public education at heart.
As an obviously intelligent, thoughtful, and experienced person its time to ask yourself a simple question:
If the Common Core (and its implementation) were really so well conceived, so developmentally appropriate, so reasonably rigorous,
so beneficial to children – why on God’s green earth would so many educators (with thousands of years of combined teaching experience) be so upset and angered, so relentlessly outspoken in their criticism about what they’re experiencing in their classrooms and school districts? Why?
There’s plenty of smoke here because we live and work in the inferno.
Well, NY teacher, I’ll choose to read your post as if it recognizes that my position is an honest one – not dumb or self-serving as other commenters have suggested – and I’ll answer in that spirit. Anyway, if I’m wrong about that, no harm done.
I think NY made a big mistake in implementing the assessment prematurely. There are other mistakes, but that one takes the cake. It’s hard to believe they did that. And they have no student growth model, so you just have those raw inaccurate assessments to bash teachers with. Wrong on many levels (not that I know much about the NY implementation, but I see it from a distance).
But education is a state issue. And for educators outside of NY and a couple of other states – practicing, classroom educators – I’m not seeing the rejection. Where teachers fear unfair evaluations, yes; but not otherwise. I haven’t made a study of all that, so maybe I’m wrong but that’s my sense of it.
I happen to live in NH where there is little fear of punitive evaluation schemes and where a constructive, supportive DOE and local control prevail. So when you look at CCSS implementations here, you see universal – underlined: universal – support from teachers who have implemented it.
So what can I say? I’m an anti-ed reform advocate who was willing to arrive at any conclusion about CCSS but if I look at classrooms and how kids seem to be responding, I cannot see the problem. And I can’t believe that NH is “exceptional,” one of the accusations on this thread. I think that teachers in, you name it, Washington state, many other states we don’t read about on this and other blogs, must be having a good experience as well.
In other words, my observation is not about NH, it’s about, when allowed to work without dumb ed reform policies making a mess of things, the Common Core looks to me like an asset to teachers.
Bill
The reason that you’re reading so much push back from NY is because we were one of only two states (KY as well) that are one year ahead of the CCSS testing curve. Tying test scores to teacher evaluations (APPR in NY) was a requirement for RTTT money and/or waivers from NCLB. The rest of the country is about to feel our pain
when the CCSS aligned tests are rolled out.
If Common Core standards alone were presented as a guideline for instruction (as apparently is happening in NH) there would be few issues. Here in NY, the Pearson generated tests have become the de-facto curriculum that math and ELA teachers must teach to in order to be rated as “effective”. For many teachers the pressure has been counterproductive to good teaching. No modifications for learning disabled students or second language learners have left many teachers feeling frustrated and angry. The tests we administered last April were overly long in duration and written with such a convoluted style that they were overly confusing to students. Tests that were by and large developmentally inappropriate. Tests that many of us are convinced were written to support the false claim that America’s public schools are failing. Tests that only 30% of students in grades 3 to 8 could pass. Although it receives much less obvious opposition, the real root of the problem is the APPR provision that many of us perceive to be an unreliable, invalid, unfair, and unnecessarily punitive evaluation system. The APPR requirement goes far beyond standardized testing for CCSS as every teacher in every subject in every grade level (K – 12) must write pre and post tests for local and state growth/achievement scores. Its obvious that implementation of CCSS was rushed but there was still no getting around the ridiculously difficult Pearson assessments and the vile APPR requirement. Good teaching (and learning) will never be optimized under an atmosphere of mistrust, coercion, and ongoing threats, and punishments. If what you say about CC in NH is accurate you might want to consider leaving well enough alone and come here to NY to advocate against the RTTT requirements that have inflicted so much damage to over one million students and their teachers. Advocate against the apparent attempt to corporatize and privatize our public schools. Advocate against the data mining of student responses, test scores, health, attendance, and discipline records. Advocate for the end to standardized testing and APPR. Advocate for teacher input and the return of teacher autonomy and the return of trust that has been stripped by the insidious implementation of RTTT/CCSS/APPR.
“If Common Core standards alone were presented as a guideline for instruction (as apparently is happening in NH) there would be few issues.”
Whew! That’s a very big statement, especially in the context of the discussion we’ve been having on this thread.
But the rest of your description, though it’s stuff I kind of know from a distance, is heartbreaking. You are ground zero for the current teacher bashing, close-schools-and replace-them-with-charters movement and you are a forecast for the rest of the country of what all that leads to.
And NY is a weight on CCSS in the rest of the country – politically. It doesn’t seem to affect teachers’ perceptions of what is possible in their classrooms. But most, if not all, references CCSS opponents make in NH are to the problems in NY. As bad as that is, it’s a minor side-effect compared to the damage NY education policies are doing to kids and teachers.
KY, as you know, has now had two assessments – lower scores, etc. – and have deep support from the public and educators. Based on what I’ve read, CCSS seems to be working well there, though it is in the context of long term education repair (the “reform” word, as it is used now, can’t be applied there).
I’ve spoken to a couple of teachers from NH and they had the same take on the CCSS. But you’re right: NYC is ground zero (aka: Bloomberg) and it’s really not pretty. Hasn’t been for about 12 years, now. And what we’re seeing is what you can expect from the CCSS, from what I’ve been led to understand. It’s tied to the testing which will be tied to the curriculum, which are tied to the very, very deep pockets of some ridiculously rich people.
I got this link sent to me, regarding a mathematics teacher’s view of the CCSS. He’s got some solid credentials. I like the piece and I’m happy to get a chime in about the upper grades and math, in general. Most of what we hear about are the younger kids and the ELA standards:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/12/10/a-critique-of-common-core-math-standards/
Bill, it’s odd that an enthusiastic booster of the CCSS doesn’t even know that they were aggressively lobbied and marketed by the Gates Foundation as the only way to address endemic poverty in the US.
Here is Anthony Cody’s 5 part series, Dialog with the Gates Foundation, on that subject and more. It was a 2012 award winner from the American Education Writers Association.
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/09/a_teacher_in_dialogue_with_the.html
Good business practice would seem to argue against investing your own capital in the CCSS without finding out more. If you’re sincere, you should be aware of how the honeymoon has ended in other states. And your confident promotion of the Longitudinal Data System might be similarly under-informed.