In story after story, the New York Times consistently misses the essence of the controversy surrounding Common Core.
Today’s New York Times gives its lead article on page 1, column right, top of the fold, to the battle raging within the Republican party, about the Common Core. On one side is Jeb Bush, standing up for the Common Core standards (presumably a moderate, let’s not talk about his fight for vouchers and for the destruction of public education in Florida), while on the other are figures like Ted Cruz and other extremists of the party. Common Core, we are told, is now the “wedge issue” in the Republican party, with sensible people like Jeb Bush fending off the extremists.
A few weeks ago, the newspaper wrote an editorial enthusiastically endorsing the Common Core standards, while giving no evidence for its enthusiasm other than the promises offered by the advocates of Common Core.
Story after story has repeated the narrative invented by Arne Duncan, that the only opponents of the Common Core are members of the Tea Party and other extremists.
Occasionally a story will refer to extremists of the right and the left, as though no reasonable person could possibly doubt the claims made on behalf of the Common Core.
Of course, David Brooks’ column on Friday echoed the now familiar trope of the Times, that only extremists could oppose this worthy and entirely laudable endeavor.
Missing is any acknowledgement of the many researchers who have challenged the wacky assumption that standards alone will cause everyone’s achievement to rise higher and higher, despite no evidence for this assertion.
Missing is any recognition that there are reputable educators and scholars and parents who are disturbed either by the substance of the standards or by the development process (Anthony Cody, for example, just won the Education Writers Association’s first prize award for his series of blogs challenging the claims of the Common Core).
Missing is the pushback from teachers that caused the leaders of the NEA and the AFT to call for a slowdown in implementation of the standards (the media sees this only as teachers’ fear of being evaluated by tests).
Missing is the concern of early childhood educators about the developmental inappropriateness of the standards for the early grades, which reflects the fact that no early childhood educator participated in drafting the standards. Also missing from the writing group was any educator knowledgeable about children with disabilities or English language learners.
Missing is any acknowledgement that not a single classroom teacher was included in the small group that wrote the standards, and that the largest contingent on the “working groups” was from the testing industry.
Missing is any suggestion that the writing of the standards was not “state-led,” but was the product of a small group of insider organizations inside the Beltway, heavily funded by one organization, the Gates Foundation.
Missing is any recognition that there is no appeals process, no means to revise standards that make no sense when applied in real classrooms with real students.
Missing is any awareness that the Obama administration made eligibility for $4.35 billion in Race to the Top funding contingent on state adoption of “college and career ready” standards, which turned out to be the Common Core standards. How else to explain their rapid adoption by 45 states?
Missing is any acknowledgement that there is very little connection between the quality of any state’s standards and its performances on the NAEP, or that some states with standards higher than the Common Core dropped their proven standards so as to be eligible for the new federal funding.
Missing is any recognition that the Common Core standards are an essential ingredient in a Big Data plan that involves a multibillion dollar investment in new hardware, new software, and new bandwidth for Common Core testing, all of which will be done (for no good reason) online.
Missing is the issue of value-added measurement of teachers and school-closings based on test scores, or the fact that major scholarly organizations (the American Educational Research Association, the National Academy of Education, and the American Statistical Association) have pointed out the inaccuracy and instability of VAM. Nor has it ever been reported by the “Times” that these same organizations have said that teachers’ influence on variation in test scores ranges from 1-15%, with the influence of the family, especially family income and education, looming far larger.
Question: How can the nation’s “newspaper of record” be so seriously indifferent to or ignorant of the major education issue of our day?
You have read here about the courageous journey of Vivian Connell. She lives in North Carolina, where she was a teacher for many years. In 2010, discouraged by the state legislature’s hostility to teachers and low salaries, she left the classroom to enter law school. She graduated last May with honors. Vivian recently learned she has ALS, Lou Gehrig’s Disease, and she returned to teaching for whatever time remains to her. Her goal right now is to raise $20,000 to take her class to the U. S. Holocaust Museum in D. C.
This is so eerily similar to my job-it is a shame that there is poor oversight in these types of schools. I work in a Ohio-based charter school. I’m under great stress due to this under performing school. Misleading marketing leads unsuspecting parents to the school with inaccurate curriculum/academic expectations. Unfortunately, student turn-over is high, attendance/enrollment records are altered and no one ever questions-if you do, you just may lose your job. The principal is a bully and the superintendent is a pushover. Taxpayers don’t deserve for their hard-earned monies to be utilized in such a irresponsible fashion. There is no HR or outlet for employee grievances, no unions, the Department of Education really needs to stop winking at these degrading practices and shut underperforming schools down ASAP.
Matt Farmer, a lawyer and public school activist in Chicago, wrote a brilliant satire of the Obama administration’s Race to the Top. You may recognize Matt Farmer as the brilliant litigator who cross-examined and tried billionaire Penny Pritzker in absentia. At the time, Pritzker was a member of the Chicago Board of Education, merrily cutting services for the children in public schools while raising money for a glorious library at her children’s private school. Last year, President Obama appointed Pritzker as Secretary of Commerce. She was a major Obama fund-raiser.
In this new post, Farmer tells us that Arne Duncan has discovered that American kids spend too much time eating lunch.
Other countries spend less time in the lunchroom, he says gravely. We must beat the international competition!
Farmer writes:
“Secretary Arne Duncan’s April 15, 2014, remarks to employees and diners at the National Place food court in Washington.
Today we cross an important threshold in school cafeteria reform by releasing draft guidelines for states to apply for the $3.6 billion dollar Graze to the Top fund. We gather here today at Washington D.C.’s National Place food court to announce – and celebrate — a new Graze to the Top in schoolhouses across America.
For too many years, our nation’s public school students have been trapped for nearly 20 minutes a day in under-performing school cafeterias. Simply put, kids are spending too much time in lunchrooms and not enough time in classrooms. In today’s global economy, a country that eats lunch in less time than America will out-compete us.
And what we now know from international assessments is that students in countries such as Poland, Slovenia, and the Czech Republic spend far less time eating school lunches than do their U.S. peers.”
Surely, spoiled suburban moms will complain. But don’t listen to them. We can’t afford to waste another minute!
“Save, save the minutes!” You have to be a historian of American education to recognize that this phrase was associated with the early 19th century Lancastrian movement, the first effort to standardize education for the children of the poor so that it would be cost-effective. Arne Duncan, the Joseph Lancaster of the 21st century.
Myra Blackmon, a regular columnist for The Online Athens Banner-Herald (Ga.), frequently substitutes in her local elementary school and enjoys it. One day recently, the class of second-graders was rude and undisciplined. When the regular teacher returned, she did not discipline or punish the students. She had each of them write a letter of apology to Ms. Blackmon.
Ms. Blackmon was moved.
She writes:
“Instead of keeping them in from recess, which really accomplishes nothing and creates different problems, or some other group punishment, this teacher had them write letters of apology. They range from perfunctory to pleading for forgiveness. Some offer excuses or explanations for their behavior. One simply wrote, “I wasn’t in school that day.”
This simple act is a classic example of restorative justice. Instead of being punished, these children had to make it right with me — and their teacher. They had to use their writing skills, they had to think about what they had done. They had to take responsibility for their behavior.
“The concept of restorative justice is not new. In Exodus 22:1-14, we read of required restitution for a variety of crimes against people. The Pentateuch recognizes that crimes of theft or arson are crimes against victims, who must be made whole.”
And she adds:
“Research has shown that restorative justice in school settings — replacing suspensions and punitive practices that teach no lessons and leave perpetrators behind in their school work — leads to fewer repeat offenses. Coupling it with counseling, tutoring and helping students figure out better behavior has shown to dramatically reduce dropout rates.
“In a season where Jews have recently celebrated Passover and God’s redemptive release from bondage, where Christians rejoice that Christ died and rose again to save us from our sins, we should reflect on restorative justice. How do we teach people to right their wrongs and not just pay for them? How do we learn to forgive in the face of personal injury? How do we as a community make our lives whole and unite in learning to love one another?
“God never said it would be easy. Jesus encouraged us to go against our very nature in loving and forgiving those who wrong us. As we learn and grow together in love and forgiveness, can we better move forward to offer a community that encourages all its members to live their best lives?
Under the dictator Pinochet, Chile became devoted to the free-market theories of libertarian economist Milton Friedman. It adopted a voucher system and embrace choice.
Over the years, the schools experienced growing social segregation and little or no improvement.
A vigorous and outraged student movement in Chile demanded changes.
Chilean Education Minister Nicolas Eyzaguirre Thursday reaffirmed the government’s commitment to ending private education.”The pursuit of profit is not a good objective for educational institutions. It is not a good ally of a good education,” Eyzaguirre told a press conference.
The administration of President Michelle Bachelet, who took office in March, has proposed an ambitious overhaul of the education system to provide affordable, quality education, as demanded by a national student movement launched in 2011.
The government’s proposed reforms basically call for greater public spending on education, free primary education, and an end to state-subsidies of private schools and to profit-oriented universities.
“The state needs to withdraw from many productive activities, but not those that are considered a social right,” said Eyzaguirre.
The current educational system, which was increasingly privatized by the previous pro-business administration, creates more tension between the nation’s privileged and working classes, the minister said.
State support for universities will have to be phased in slowly, the minister indicated, as many of the centers of higher education have not been certified.
“We can’t be throwing around public money without ensuring quality,” he said.
To finance the education reform, Bachelet has proposed increasing the corporate tax rate from 20 percent to 25 percent, an initiative opposed by the business and conservative political sector, but expected to be adopted by the country’s legislature.
Ras Baraka is a high school principal and City Council member in Newark. He is running for mayor of Newark against a candidate funded by hedge fund managers and corporate reformers. Baraka was endorsed by the Network for Public Education.
Contact Frank Baraff (914) 469-3775 fbaraff@optonline.net
For Release Friday, April 18th
Baraka praises Ministers Fight for a Moratorium on One Newark School Reorganization Plan
Statement by Ras Baraka
“Nearly one year ago, the City Council passed my resolution calling for a moratorium on all of Cami Anderson’s public school initiatives. A year later, Ms. Anderson continues to run away from input by Newark citizens and continues to carry out her relentless drive to close our neighborhood schools.
Today, the ministers of Newark have joined me in calling for a moratorium on the destructive One Newark Plan to close our schools, a plan already being implemented against the will of the people of Newark.”
77 members of Newark’s clergy signed a joint statement to Cami Anderson, who was appointed by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to run the schools of that city. Newark has been under state control for 20 years. Anderson’s “Ne Newark” plan will close many public schools and turn them over to charter corporations. Anderson refuses to attend meetings of the elected (but powerless) school board because she as treated disrespectfully at the last meeting she attended. Byway, she doesn’t need their approval so why should she attend theit public meetings. She disrespects them. She knows that her opinion is the only one that matters. This is not democracy.
Here is the ministers’ statement:
NEWARK CLERGY POSITION STATEMENT
As religious leaders in the City of Newark, New Jersey, we submit the
following position statement regarding the One Newark Public School Plan.
This position statement represents our collective concerns with respect to the
current state of affairs facing the Newark Public School system.
We are extremely concerned about the level of public anger we see
growing in the community, based upon an overwhelming sense of
frustration, community disenfranchisement, and alienation that has resulted
from the One Newark Public School Plan the Superintendent of Schools has
proposed. It is not overly dramatic for us to say that we are extremely
worried about the level and tone of the current emotional discourse.
It is venomous and it is our view that unless we have an urgent, objective,
egalitarian discussion about what is happening now in the Newark school
system, the climate within the City will continue to deteriorate. As religious
leaders, we cannot, in clear conscience, ignore the moral imperative that a
society empowers and engages human beings to lead in charting the course
of their own destiny.
There are many well-educated, reasonable minded, and rational
individuals, parents, educators and citizens in general in the City of Newark.
They all share an intense passion for excellence in education; they have
come to feel that their input and voice have been repeatedly ignored. It is
unfair to characterize Newarkers opposing the current approach to change as
irrational and resistant to change in any case. Many voices of reason have
been largely denied meaningful input into the decision-making process.
We are unanimous in our view that major change is needed in Newark
Public Schools. Excellence in education is paramount to the forward
progress of the City of Newark and the lives of its citizens. This statement
neither condemns nor endorses Charter Schools. However, the primary
responsibility of the Newark School Superintendent should be to ensure
excellent educational opportunities in the traditional Newark public school
system.
The One Newark Public School Plan, as currently proposed, is already
producing irreversible changes and fomenting widespread outrage. It has
caused unnecessary instability in the Newark public school system, as well
as the lives of thousands of its families. The disruptive and divisive nature
of the One Newark Pubic School Plan could have catastrophic and farreaching
consequences for the children of Newark, the reputation of the
State of New Jersey, and have implications for urban education nationally.
The presentation and implementation process of the One Newark
Public School Plan has been fraught with problems. There are elements
within it that are controversial, and make unsubstantiated claims for
potential success. It has precipitated tremendous teacher turnover and has
adversely affected the overall morale of Newark schools and various
stakeholders directly or indirectly associated and affiliated with the Newark
Public School systems.
Therefore, the undersigned clergy call for a MORATORIUM on the
Implementation of the One Newark Public School Plan until a process can
be found to obtain meaningful and credible engagement of the Newark
community. We call upon the Newark Superintendent of Schools, the
Acting Commissioner of Education, and the Governor of the State of New
Jersey to agree to a suspension of any further action pertaining to the One
Newark Public School Plan until an alternative educational plan can be
developed with substantial input from stakeholders at all levels of the
Newark community.
In summary, an alternative educational plan should:
)o> Employ data driven pedagogical practices.
~ Offer stakeholders an opportunity to play a substantive role in
determining the educational future of the children of Newark.
~ Provide for the citizens of Newark the opportunity to participate
in, plan, and adopt a long term educational strategy of change
that outlasts political tides, transitions, and tenures.
)o> Establish a working partnership between the State of New
Jersey and the citizens of the City of Newark to successfully
educate our children.
It is with great humility and grave concern for our future that we
submit this plea for consideration and compromise. As members of the
clergy in this great city, it is our earnest prayer that peace and harmony will
prevail, and that every child in Newark will experience a brighter future.
NEWARK CLERGY POSITION STATEMENT SIGNATORIES
1. Rev. George Blackwell
2. Pastor Malachi Brantley
3. Dr. Mamie Bridgeforth
4. Min. J. Brown
5. Min. Denise Carr
6. Pastor Joe Carter
7. Min. Dale Ciceron
8. Pastor Patrick Council
9. Rev. E. Doxy
10. Dr. K. Doxy
11. Rev. J. Escobar
12. Pastor Sean Evans
13. Pastor Friday
14. Pastor Philip Gilmore
15. Dr. Aubrey Gregory
16. Dr. G 1 oria Harris
17. Pastor Gerard Hart
18. Apostle Gennie Holte
19. Dr. William Howard
20. Pastor Craig Jackson
21. Pastor Irving Johnson
22. Min. Mitchell Johnson
23. Bishop Jethro James
24. Pastor David Jefferson
25. Dr. Albert Lewis
26. Imam Aqeel Matea
27. Pastor Darren Munroe
28. Rev. Dr. Jacobs Obaiaeio
29. Pastor Raines
30.Pastor Hilton Rawls, Jr.
31. Rev. Louise Scott-Rountree
32. Rev. Dr. M.D. Rountree
33. Pastor Tyrone Sharpe, Sr.
34. Rev. Gerald Whitaker
3 5. Min. Keith Wilks
36. Rev. Bernard Wilks
37. Rev. Andre Speight
38. Min. Juanita Mayo
39. Rev. Eric Beckham
40. Dr. Ahmed Screvens
41. Rev. George Martinez, Pres.
Good Neighbor Baptist Church
Shiloh Baptist Church
Faith Christian Center
Dominion Fellowship Mnistries
Emanuel Missionary Baptist Church
New Hope Baptist Church
Emanuel Missionary Baptist Church
St. John Baptist Church
The Great Commission
The Great Commission
NuevaArca
New Light Missionary Baptist Church
Pavilion of God Ministries
St. John’s Community Baptist Church
Newark Gospel Tabernacle
Beth-El International Church
Emanuel Missionary Baptist Church
Ray of Hope Ministries
Bethany Baptist Church
Agape Christian Ministries Worship Center
Metropolitan Dominion Fellowship
New Light Holy Church
Paradise Baptist Church
Metropolitan Baptist Church
World Gospel Music Association
United Muslim, Inc.
Chosen Generation Ministries
MOWI
Trinity United Methodist Church
Greater Grace Fellowship Church
Good Neighbor Baptist Church
Macedonia Ministries
New Life Family Bible Church
Christ Church
Dominion Fellowship Ministries
Metropolitan/ Dominion
God’s Deliverance Praise and Outreach
Emanuel Missionary Baptist Church
Clear View Baptist Church
Bethesda Baptist Church
Baptist Minister’s Conference ofNewark
42. Rev. John Teabout
43. Rev. Clarence Smith
44. Rev. Grady James
45. Rev. Martin Legree
46. Rev. James Collins
47. Rev. Vincent Rouse
48. Rev. R. Curry
49. Rev. Kimberly Credit
50. Rev. Henry Clay
51. Evang. Sara Lee
52. Rev. Andre Milteer
53. Rev. Robert Morrest
54. Rev. Roy Jones, VP
55. Rev. Ileathon McLeod
56. Rev. Kareem Christian
57. Rev. Ralph Thomas
58. Min. Barbara Turpin
59. Rev. Bennett Johnson
60. Rev. James Bailey III
61. Min. Darious Smith
62. Min. Frankie Phelps
63. Rev. Alfonzo Williams, Sr.
64. Rev. Anthony Mitchell
65. Rev. Andre Coffee
66. Rev. Ray Frazier
67. Pastor Lloyd Terrell
68. Rev. Vincent Grove
69. Rev. Orlando Vick
70. Rev. Jeffrey Bryant
71. Rev. Ralph M. Branch, Jr.
72. Rev. Cornelius W. Martin
73. Rev. Floyd Gaskins
74. Dr. T. Durr
7 5. Pastor Michael T. Westbrook
76. Rev. Douglass L. Williams
77. Dr. Perry Simmons
Greater Friendship Baptist Church
Baptist Minister’s Conference of Newark
First Bethel Baptist Church, Irvington
Little Friendship Baptist Church
Baptist Minister’s Conference of Newark
Pleasant Grove Baptist Church
Baptist Minister’s Conference of Newark
Smyrna Missionary Baptist Church
Baptist Minister’s Conference of Newark
Sunlight Baptist Church
Mt. Olivet Baptist Church
St. Peter’s Baptist Church
Baptist Minister’s Conference ofNewark
Abyssinian Baptist Church
Trinity Baptist Church
Emanuel Baptist Church
Baptist Minister’s Conference of Newark
St. Peter’s Baptist Church
Vineyard Baptist Church
Mt. Calvary Baptist Church
Mt. Calvary Baptist Church
Baptist Minister’s Conference ofNewark
Union Chapel AME
First Timothy Baptist Church
Baptist Minister’s Conference ofNewark
Franklin-St. John United Methodist Church
Providence Missionary Baptist Church
Greater Providence Missionary Baptist Church
Tabernacle Baptist Church
Mt. Calvary Missionary Baptist Church
Unity Freedom Baptist Church
Grace Temple Baptist Church
Gospel Cathedral Baptist Church
Greater Life Christian Fellowship Church
Zion Hill Baptist Church
Abyssinian Baptist Church
On Friday, Néw York Times’ columnist David Brooks wrote a column excoriating critics of the Common Core standards as “clowns.”
He didn’t seem aware that his personal opinion piece, devoid of documentation other than anecdotes, is precisely the kind of writing that David Voleman abhors. In his most famous statement about the Common Core, Coleman said that when you grow up, no one gives a &$@& about what you think or feel. Brooks told us what he thinks and feels, but gets all the facts wrong.
Why newspapers hire individuals to regularly offer the public unsubstantiated opinions baffles me. I am a researcher. Unless my posts are grounded in my personal experience, I offer my readers links to document my position on matters about which I write.
David Brooks is an opinion writer. He publishes his opinions regularly in the New York Times (NYT) and has done so since 2003.
Brooks is not a teacher. He has no firsthand experience with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Nevertheless, Brooks has an opinion on the matter, and the NYT has published his opinion because, well, the NYT publishes Brooks’ opinions.
Brooks supports CCSS. That is his opinion.
Allow me to present another opinion: that of the “lead architect” of CCSS, David Coleman. Coleman is quoted here from his presentation, Bringing the Common Core to Life:
Do you know the two most popular forms of writing in the American high school today?…It is either the exposition of a personal opinion or the presentation of a personal matter. The only problem, forgive me for saying this so bluntly, the only problem with these two forms of writing is as you grow up in this world you realize people don’t really give a **** about what you feel or think. What they instead care about is can you make an argument with evidence, is there something verifiable behind what you’re saying or what you think or feel that you can demonstrate to me. [Emphasis added.]
How is that for irony? David Brooks writes his opinion on CCSS, and the “lead architect” of CCSS is knocking opinion writing.
Brooks’ opinion is that opponents to CCSS are part of a “circus.”
How sad it is that Brooks does not realize that he is part of the very circus about which he writes. Brooks believes he writes about CCSS from an op/ed perch outside of the Big Top. However, his place is in the ring of the many who support CCSS on the unsubstantiated opinion that CCSS is necessary to American public education; that it was properly and democratically created and chosen by stakeholders; that it is the solution to some supposed failure of American public education, and that opponents of CCSS act only from “hysteria.”
In his op/ed, Brooks presents the “reality” of CCSS as it appears to him in the Fun House mirror.
Brooks refers to a time “about seven years ago.” That would be 2007, the year that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was declared a failure. Brooks notes “it was widely acknowledged that state education standards were a complete mess.” So, in his effort to support CCSS, Brooks blames varied state standards for “huge numbers of students were graduating from high school unprepared either for college work or modern employment.”
Brooks provides no evidence to support his statements. How “non-CCSS” of him.
He even contradicts himself by the end of his article: “The new standards won’t revolutionize education. It’s not enough to set goals; you have to figure out how to meet them.”
Those who actually have careers in the classroom know there is more to the issue than “setting goals” and “meeting them” based upon a set of standards.
In 2007, David Hursh of the University of Rochester published a paper on the failure of NCLB. Hursh does not mention “common standards” as a solution to some widespread failure of public education. However, he does mention other complex issues that have a bearing on the classroom and which are ignored by the likes of Brooks in promoting the CCSS “solution”:
The passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) marks the largest intervention of the federal government into education in the history of the United States. NCLB received and continues to receive support, in part because it promises to improve student learning and to close the achievement gap between White students and students of color. However, NCLB has failed to live up to its promises and may exacerbate inequality. Furthermore, by focusing on education as the solution to social and economic inequality, it diverts the public’s attention away from the issues such as poverty, lack of decent paying jobs and health care, that need to be confronted if inequality is to be reduced.[Emphasis added.]
Notice how the focus has shifted from the NCLB goal of “closing the achievement gap” to the Race to the Top (RTTT) goal of “competitiveness in the global economy.”
Neither NCLB with its “100 percent proficiency in math and reading by 2014″ nor RTTT with its “internationally benchmarked standards and assessments, teacher evaluation, data systems, and ‘turning around low performing’ schools” accounts for economic influences upon learning, not the least of which is the relationship between student learning and community economic viability.
I wrote about the fact that based upon employment projections for 2014, 2016 and 2020, Louisiana will have far more jobs available for high school dropouts and high school graduates than it will college graduates.
CCSS Fun House writers like Brooks do not address the disconnect between the call for “academic rigor” and the sagging economies that cannot support the Brooks-style finger-wag.
Know what else is funny? In 2007, when NCLB was openly acknowledged to be a failure, some legislators were still crying, “Stay the course.”
Another interesting fact about 2007: It was the year that David Coleman started his national-standards-writing company-gone nonprofit (first 990 on file not until 2011), Student Achievement Partners (SAP). Prior to SAP, Coleman and fellow CCSS “lead writer” Jason Zimba started a company to analyze NCLB test data.
Coleman had his foot in the proverbial NCLB door and “just happened” to start a company completely devoted to CCSS in 2007, the year that the NCLB circus began to show impending collapse.
A truly astounding, “state-led” coincidence.
Brooks also states that “the new standards are more rigorous than the old,” yet he also uses the Fordham Institute “finding” that CCSS is only “better” than standards in 37 states. I wrote about the 2010 Fordham Institute “grading” of state standards here and Fordham CCSS peddler Mike Petrilli here. Petrilli even tried the “stay the course” line in Indiana– a state with standards that Fordham graded as superior to CCSS.
Attempting to convince a state with standards “superior” to CCSS to keep CCSS is part of the CCSS sales job, yet this act somehow escapes Brooks’ notice.
How convenient.
As to another convenient Brooks oversight: The 2010 Fordham “grading” of state standards offers no logic between scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the Fordham grade for a state’s standards. Thus, a state could have low NAEP scores and have a high Fordham grade on standards, or vice-versa. No logic. Nevertheless, Brooks assumes Fordham to be standards-grading “experts,” and Fordham Executive Vice President (nice title) Petrilli travels the country (for examples, see here, and here, and here, and here) advising states to “stay the course” with CCSS standards that Fordham admits are not better than all state standards.
As to Brooks’ assertion that CCSS “unpopularity” is “false”: He believes it is enough to cite some survey evidence (no reference provided) for Kentucky and Tennessee, and New York (linked)– three states. More Fun House illusion: that “evidence” of CCSS “popularity” in three states justifies a nationwide CCSS. Not so.
My “overwhelming” conclusion: CCSS was an imposed education “reform” that administrators, teachers, and the public were forced to deal with. CCSS is not “popular”; it was tolerated at best as indicated by these 2013 survey results. As to the public perception: in 2013, the public was largely unaware of CCSS. Now they know. Now CCSS is in the news; it is in the classrooms, and it is in the statehouses.
As to Brooks’ Fun House assertion that CCSS is “state led, let us not forget the infamous CCSS “lead architect” David Coleman, who made the following statement to data analysts in Boston on May 31, 2013:
When I was involved in convincing governors and others around this country to adopt these standards, it was not “Obama likes them.” Do you think that would have gone well with the Republican crowd? [Emphasis added.]
Though it might be difficult for Brooks to admit, Coleman just declared himself “CCSS Ringmaster.”
To Coleman, CCSS was a product to sell to “governors,” and he couldn’t say that “Obama likes” CCSS if he expected to make the sale to “the Republican crowd.”
Coleman must have made an effective sales pitch; in 2009– before CCSS was complete– 46 “states” had already “agreed to be state led.”
And so, our Big Top performance has come full circle in this post that began and ended with the CCSS Ringmaster, David Coleman.
It is one feat to “convince governors” to buy into CCSS; it is quite another to “convince” America.
Brooks is right; the circus in indeed “in town,” and in his opinion-spouting position, Brooks is attempting to sell tickets to The Greatest So-called “Standards” Show on Earth.
Those familiar with the CCSS imposition know better than to buy Brooks’ line that CCSS is “a perfectly sensible yet slightly boring idea.
From reading Brooks’ unanchored appeal, one issue is certain: This fount of unsolicited CCSS opinion is not a classroom teacher.
Let us leave him now, unsold tickets still in his ungrounded-opinion-writing hands.
Diane Ravitch's blog 