Archives for the year of: 2014

In a guest post for Jonathan Pelto’s blog, veteran educator Ann Policelli Cronin explains why the Common Core standards are a waste of time. For one thing, they were never tested on real students in real classroom, and no one can honestly say that they will prepare students for college or careers. That is sheer speculation or wishful thinking. What’s more, she writes, there is much in the Common Core ELA standards that is just plain wrong and/or incomprehensible.

 

The Common Core standards are also neither “high” nor “clear”. The Connecticut State Standards for English Language Arts are much more rigorous than the Common Core Standards for English Language Arts and have a strong and deep research base that is totally lacking with the Common Core. The Common Core standards require a way of teaching students to read and to write that has long been discredited. Not only will the Common Core approach severely restrict students’ development as readers and writers, it will discourage students from even wanting to become readers and writers. The Common Core standards are definitely not rigorous, as teachers who have required rigor of their students know.

 

Standards that are rigorous encourage students to read and to write. They actively involve students in reading books that engage them and in writing poems, essays, narratives, plays, and speeches about ideas that are theirs alone. The author of the Common Core Standards for English Language Arts, David Coleman, has said over and over at conferences, in interviews and in online presentations that students’ personal responses and interpretations have no place in the classroom nor does discussion of the cultural and historical context in which books are written or in which students live belong in that classroom. Also, as writers, the personal voice of students is not allowed and essays of personal interpretation and evaluation have been replaced with impersonal, formulaic essays that have nothing in common with real writing. Rigorous learning engages students with the big questions that great literature poses, encourages students to connect their own lives to those questions, and requires students to integrate the classroom discussions about those ideas so that they create new knowledge for themselves.

 

As for the Common Core standards being “clear”, they are not. There are 42 English Language Arts standards crammed with almost 200 different skills to be taught in each academic year. They are a mishmash of skills without a plan of developmental appropriateness and devoid of logic as to why some of them are in one grade and others in another grade. In a recent article in Education Week (September 23, 2014), Mike Schmoker reports that Gerald Graff, the former president of the professional organization of college English professors (Modern Language Association) said that most of the Common Core standards are unnecessary and nonsensical. For curriculum expert Robert Shepherd, the Common Core standards are “just another set of blithering, poorly thought-out abstractions.” Schmoker challenges any of us to make sense out of this 8th grade Common Core standard: “Analyze how the points of view of the characters and audience or reader (e.g. created through the use of dramatic irony) create effects like suspense or humor.”

 

She adds:

 

Not only are students receiving a poor education with the Common Core but the dropout rate will also increase. The Common Core aligned tests have the passing rate set at 30%; therefore, about 70% of the students in Connecticut will fail those tests. Since all standardized test scores correlate with family income, many children of poverty will fail. The way to break that correlation is not by testing and punishing students but by addressing the needs of those disadvantaged by poverty and racism. Feed the kids, give them eye exams, lower the class size so that that they get the adult conversation they crave, add personnel for extended learning experiences after school and in the summer. Standardize opportunities for learning.

 

Insisting upon real rigor for all Connecticut’s children and addressing the needs of children disadvantaged by poverty and racism – that is how Connecticut will be a state where people want to live, work, and invest in their future.

 

 

Elizabeth Warren, Senator from Massachusetts, eloquently describes what the nation needs now. She says that people are discouraged by the power of big corporations, big oil, and their lobbyists. There is a palpable sense that government works best to protect the interests of the privileged, not the average family or individuals, and certainly not those who have fallen out of the middle class.

She writes:

“It’s not about big government or small government. It’s not the size of government that worries people; rather it’s deep-down concern over who government works for. People are ready to work, ready to do their part, ready to fight for their futures and their kids’ futures, but they see a government that bows and scrapes for big corporations, big banks, big oil companies and big political donors — and they know this government does not work for them.

“The American people want a fighting chance to build better lives for their families. They want a government that will stand up to the big banks when they break the law. A government that helps out students who are getting crushed by debt. A government that will protect and expand Social Security for our seniors and raise the minimum wage.

“Americans understand that building a prosperous future isn’t free. They want us to invest carefully and prudently, sharply aware that Congress spends the people’s money. They want us to make investments that will pay off in their lives, investments in the roads and power grids that make it easier for businesses to create good jobs here in America, investments in medical and scientific research that spur new discoveries and economic growth, and investments in educating our children so they can build a future for themselves and their children.”

The important thing is not to pass new laws and programs, but to ask whom they benefit.

Chris left this comment on the blog so I hope he won’t mind if I post it:

“Florida’s a mess. Here is a story I am working on for Education Matters.

“Gary Chartrand is the chair of the state board of education

“The State Board of Education over sees the Department of Education and hired commissioner Pam Stewart.

“The Department of Education is handing out grants, 3.3 million dollars’ worth to only three winners, to foster partnerships between districts and charter schools.

“Gary Chartrand is on the board of the KIPP charter school in Jacksonville.

“Superintendent Vitti and the Duval County School board (Jacksonville) have applied for the grant. Vitti said, “KIPP is here to stay, and the KIPP expansion will occur with or without the grant,” Vitti said. “If there’s an opportunity to write a grant that benefits KIPP but also the school district, then I think it would be rather foolish financially to walk away from that.”

“Gary Chartrand and the board of KIPP have given thousands and thousands of dollars to six member of the school board and thousands more to have the seventh Paula Wright defeated.

“WJCT Jacksonville’s public radio station did what I consider a puff piece on the district applying for the charter grant that left out a lot of important information. They didn’t mention that last year KIPP was protected by the states rule saying schools could only drop one letter grade, a rule that Chartrand had a hand in developing. KIPP’s real school grades are F, B, C(D) B. They also didn’t mention how KIPP spends about a third more per pupil, has longer days, smaller classes, requires its parents to at least be marginally involved and may or may not be counseling out under performers, only 64 of its first class of 88 finished. The piece made it sound like that KIPP is just better.

“The Chartrand foundation at least partially funds WJCT’s education coverage.”

Katie Lapham teaches ESL classes in Brooklyn. What is really rotten in the schools, she writes, are the terrible tests that her first-graders must take. Their purpose is solely to evaluate the teachers. The tests were largely developmentally inappropriate. No teacher, she writes, would create such absurd tests.

She writes:

“Last month, it took me two and a half days to administer the 2014-2015 Grade 1 Math Inventory Baseline Performance Tasks to my students because the assessment had to be administered as individual interviews (NYCDOE words, not mine). The math inventory included 12 tasks, many of which were developmentally inappropriate. For example, in demonstrating their understanding of place value, first graders were asked to compare two 3-digit numbers using and =. Students were also asked to solve addition and subtraction word problems within 100.

“While I do not believe my students were emotionally scarred by this experience, they did lose two and a half days of instructional time and were tested on skills that they had not yet learned. It is no secret that NYC teachers and administrators view these MOSL tasks as a joke. Remember, they are for teacher rating purposes ONLY. “You want them to score low in the fall so that they’ll show growth in the spring,” is a common utterance in elementary school hallways. Also, there will be even more teaching-to-the-test as educators will want to ensure that their students are proficient in these skills before the administration of the spring assessment. Some of the first grade skills might be valid, but others are, arguably, not grade-level appropriate.

“The Grade 1 ELA (English-language Arts) Informational Reading and Writing Baseline Performance Task took less time to administer (four periods only) but was equally senseless, and the texts we were given had us shaking our heads because they resembled third grade reading material. In theory, not necessarily practice, students were required to engage in a non-fiction read aloud and then independently read an informational text on the same topic. Afterwards, they had to sort through a barrage of text-based facts in order to select information that correctly answered the questions. On day one, the students had to complete a graphic organizer and on day two they were asked to write a paragraph on the topic. Drawing pictures to convey their understanding of the topic was also included in the assessment.”

Lapham was surprised to learn that there is an alternative assessment that progressive schools use. She wonders why her school, in a poor neighborhood, was never informed about the option.

The two great forces shaping the future at this time are globalization and technology.

Globalization has its benefits: We are more aware than ever of our interconnectedness with other people, nations, and cultures. But it has its downside: corporations outsource jobs to places where people work for less and there are no unions There is a story that President Obama once asked Steve Jobs what it would take to bring Apple production back to the U.S., and Jobs replied, “Those jobs are never coming back.” Why should they? It is cheaper to produce the devices in China.

Technology also has its good and bad sides. It has put us in instant touch with everyone else, it has created new jobs, it has made possible new ways of living and working.

The downside is that technology kills jobs by replacing humans with machines. Not long ago, I had dinner with a retired executive of Kraft. One of his jobs was supervising candy factories. He told me About factories that once employed 1,000 people but are now run by only two people.

A recent series of articles in USA Today includes one about the robots that will increasingly replace workers in low-skill jobs.

“”These ‘safe havens’ for low-skill workers may not be there in the decades to come,” says Carl Benedikt Frey, one of the authors of The Future of Employment, a 2013 University of Oxford study estimating the scope of automation. “A lot of low-skill workers will need to acquire creative and social skills to stay competitive in the labor market in the future.”

“Low-skill workers, experts say, need to look past any short-term job growth.

“We’re moving the unskilled jobs into skilled jobs. And that is going to be a challenge for us going forward,” says Henrik Christensen, director of the Institute for Robotics and Intelligent Machines at the Georgia Institute of Technology. “If you are unskilled labor today, you’d better start thinking about getting an education.”

“USA TODAY’s analysis suggests some metro areas will gain more low-skill jobs in the next two years than others. Tourist destinations, for example, are expected to gain jobs such as food service workers, retail salespeople, housekeepers and taxi drivers by 2017. Las Vegas is expected to add nearly 900 gaming dealers, and Cape Coral-Fort Myers, Fla., needs nearly 500 landscapers.

“Health care jobs are growing nearly everywhere, and some construction jobs are showing high demand in certain metro areas.

“Half of all jobs — and 70% of low-skill jobs— may be replaced by robots or other technology in 10 to 20 years, according to Frey’s research.”

Think of it: if half of all jobs are automated, what will people do for work?

Then there is this article by David Brooks. Quoting from an article by Kevin Kelly in “Wired,” he describes a new world of artificial intelligence. It is a world where a very small number of corporations and people grow ever more powerful.

He writes:

“The Internet is already heralding a new era of centralization. As Astra Taylor points out in her book, “The People’s Platform,” in 2001, the top 10 websites accounted for 31 percent of all U.S. page views, but, by 2010, they accounted for 75 percent of them. Gigantic companies like Google swallow up smaller ones. The Internet has created a long tail, but almost all the revenue and power is among the small elite at the head.

“Advances in artificial intelligence will accelerate this centralizing trend. That’s because A.I. companies will be able to reap the rewards of network effects. The bigger their network and the more data they collect, the more effective and attractive they become.

“As Kelly puts it, “Once a company enters this virtuous cycle, it tends to grow so big, so fast, that it overwhelms any upstart competitors. As a result, our A.I. future is likely to be ruled by an oligarchy of two or three large, general-purpose cloud-based commercial intelligences.”

“To put it more menacingly, engineers at a few gigantic companies will have vast-though-hidden power to shape how data are collected and framed, to harvest huge amounts of information, to build the frameworks through which the rest of us make decisions and to steer our choices. If you think this power will be used for entirely benign ends, then you have not read enough history.”

I can’t see into the future but I don’t understand how our democracy can survive this aggregation of power in so few hands. Or how a society like ours can provide enough work if such a large part of the labor force is displaced by robots.

Maybe Bob Herbert is right in his book “Losing Our Way.” This might be the right time for a vast public works project to rebuild our nation’s infrastructure. Real jobs. High social value. A vision for the future. Unless, that is, the 1% forbid it.

Be very careful about claims of schools that miraculously “turned around” in a matter of months or even in a couple of years. The usual formula is: fire everybody, hire a new staff, and the students become brilliant.

But then Gary Rubinstein investigates, and the miracle dissolves under his careful analysis.

Here is one. Gary writes that Joel Klein in his new book boasts of the amazing turnaround that happened when he shuttered Paul Robeson High School and opened P-Tech. Only a year and a half later, President Obama praised P-Tech in his State of the Union address.

But the high school scores were released a few days ago, P-Tech was one of the city’s lowest performing schools. Gary wrote, “This could be the most un-miraculous miracle school I’ve ever investigated.”

Another school in the news is Boys and Girls High School, also in Brooklyn. The media has been demanding that it be closed down because of low test scores. But its scores are much higher than those of the celebrated P-Tech!

Gary wonders whether reformers will start demanding that P-Tech be shut down.

Now that we have endured more than a dozen long years of No Child Left Behind and five fruitless, punitive years of Race to the Top, it is clear that they both failed. They relied on carrots and sticks and ignored intrinsic motivation. They crushed children’s curiosity instead of cultivating it.* They demoralized schools. They disrupted schools and communities without improving children’s education.

We did not leave no child behind. The same children who were left behind in 2001-02 are still left behind. Similarly, Race to the Top is a flop. The Common Core tests are failing most students, and we are nowhere near whatever the “Top” is. If a teacher gave a test, and 70% of the students failed, we would say she was not competent, tested what was not taught, didn’t know her students. The Race turns out to be NCLB with a mask. NCLB on steroids. NCLB 2.0.

Whatever you call it, RTTT has hurt children, demoralized teachers, closed community schools, fragmented communities, increased privatization, and doubled down on testing.

I have an idea for a new accountability system that relies on different metrics. We begin by dropping standardized test scores as measures of quality or effectiveness. We stop labeling, ranking, and rating children, teachers, snd schools. We use tests only when needed for diagnostic purposes, not for comparing children to their peers, not to find winners and losers. We rely on teachers to test their students, not corporations.

The new accountability system would be called No Child Left Out. The measures would be these:

How many children had the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument?

How many children had the chance to play in the school band or orchestra?

How many children participated in singing, either individually or in the chorus or a glee club or other group?

How many public performances did the school offer?

How many children participated in dramatics?

How many children produced documentaries or videos?

How many children engaged in science experiments? How many started a project in science and completed it?

How many children learned robotics?

How many children wrote stories of more than five pages, whether fiction or nonfiction?

How often did children have the chance to draw, paint, make videos, or sculpt?

How many children wrote poetry? Short stories? Novels? History research papers?

How many children performed service in their community to help others?

How many children were encouraged to design an invention or to redesign a common item?

How many students wrote research papers on historical topics?

Can you imagine an accountability system whose purpose is to encourage and recognize creativity, imagination, originality, and innovation? Isn’t this what we need more of?

Well, you can make up your own metrics, but you get the idea. Setting expectations in the arts, in literature, in science, in history, and in civics can change the nature of schooling. It would require far more work and self-discipline than test prep for a test that is soon forgotten.

My paradigm would dramatically change schools from Gradgrind academies to halls of joy and inspiration, where creativity, self-discipline, and inspiration are nurtured, honored, and valued.

This is only a start. Add your own ideas. The sky is the limit. Surely we can do better than this era of soul-crushing standardized testing.

*Kudos to Southold Elementary School in Long Island, where these ideas were hatched as I watched the children’s band playing a piece they had practiced.

Superintendents in the Lower Hudson Valley area spoke critically of the state evaluation system for teachers and principals, called the Annual Professional Performance Review, in a meeting with the editorial board of the Journal-News. .

The evaluation system does not accurately identify teachers as effective or ineffective, and the State Education Department has been unwilling to listen to professionals in the field. The implementation has been as flawed as the implementation of Common Core. Both are tied to testing, and both derive from Race to the Top. The state received $700 million in Race to the Top funding but is likely to spend multiples of that amount to carry out its mandates. Since no part of Race to the Top was based on research, it is unlikely to produce good results. What it has produced is disruption, demoralization, outrage, and a vibrant anti-testing and anti-Common Core movement, led by parents.

Despite the efforts of the Gates Foundation and others to treat the Common Core standards as an iron-clad document, as tablets chiseled in stone, which may be added to but never changed, the American Federation of Teachers has awarded grants to its affiliates in New York and Connecticut to review, and where necessary, rewrite the standards. The same thing could happen in every state where teachers have concluded that the CC standards are developmentally inappropriate, misaligned with the needs of children with disabilities, or suffer from other defects. This move on the part of the AFT both bolsters the chances of CC to survive and undercuts  its ability to be considered “national standards,” since teachers in every state will see different ways to revise them. Teachers will determine whether the standards need revision or whether the implementation was problematic. Let the revisions begin!

 

Here is the AFT announcement:
AFT Awards Grants for New York, Connecticut Teachers to Have Voice on Standards
WASHINGTON— The American Federation of Teachers announced today it has awarded AFT Innovation Fund grants for teachers in New York and Connecticut to offer solutions to problems with their state’s rollout of the Common Core State Standards.

 

The New York State United Teachers and AFT Connecticut were awarded the grants in a competition that was announced in July at the AFT convention.

 

“These grants are about giving educators some seed money to take their ideas about educational standards and convert them into practice. Many educators support higher standards but are concerned about particular aspects, especially the Common Core standards’ poor implementation and their developmental appropriateness, particularly in the early grades,” said AFT President Randi Weingarten. “We wanted to give the people closest to children a chance to do something different, as long as we were all focused on how to help students secure the critical-thinking and problem-solving skills that the Common Core standards are supposed to be about.”

 

Along with the AFT, the judges were Bianca Tanis, an elementary school special education teacher in New York state and a co-founder of New York State Allies for Public Education; Jeanne Oakes, a presidential professor emeritus of education equity, University of California Los Angeles; and Kevin Welner, a professor in the school of education at the University of Colorado Boulder.

 

“The grant applicants had wide latitude, including critiquing the Common Core standards or writing new ones. It’s significant that the judges thought the best ideas primarily involved finding better ways to make the standards work for teachers and students,” Weingarten said.

 

NYSUT will use its six-month, $30,000 grant to make recommendations to address the state’s botched implementation of both the Common Core State Standards and assessments. A union task force will review and critique the state’s math and English language arts curriculum materials, developed by outside vendors, which have received a torrent of critical comments from teachers. These materials are seen as developmentally inappropriate, too prescriptive, and frequently riddled with errors and inconsistencies.

 

The task force also will scrutinize the state’s process for developing standardized tests; probe whether practitioners were involved in the local implementation of the New York State Common Core Learning Standards and development of curriculum; and consider whether the state’s professional development afforded teachers enough support.

 

“Given the profound problems with the state’s materials used for the initial Common Core rollout—units that weren’t developed with educators—we’re anxious to roll up our sleeves and get to work on a critique aimed at improving the materials and making sure they are developmentally appropriate for students,” said NYSUT President Karen E. Magee.

 

The task force’s critique will be shared with state policymakers; the state legislature; parent organizations; student advocates; and education professionals.

 

AFT Connecticut will address the unmet need for developmentally appropriate instructional strategies for students in the primary grades. The union’s working group will also make recommendations for teachers on how to help students with special needs and students with disabilities reach the standards.

 

“Teachers have not had enough time to fully understand the standards and develop curriculum, and it’s been especially difficult for teachers with special education students and English language learners,” said AFT Connecticut President Melodie Peters.

 

The resulting report will be shared with state policymakers and teachers who are anxious to receive Common Core guidance.

 

Both of the grants announced today also support the AFT’s July 2014 resolution on the Common Core State Standards, “The Role of Standards in Public Education.” Among its recommendations is a call for state-level boards made up of a majority of teachers to monitor standards and to use feedback from parents, educators and students to evaluate and continuously improve the system.

 

 

About the AFT Innovation Fund:
The AFT Innovation Fund makes grants to support bright ideas for improving education, health care and public services by state and local affiliates of the AFT. It is funded by the AFT and several national philanthropies.

 

NOTE: The Connecticut AFT received $25,000 for a six-month period. The New York State United Teachers received a $30,000 grant for a six-month period.

The Wall Street Journal published an article by Kate Bachelder called “The Top 10 Liberal Superstitions.” The first “superstition” she cited was that “spending more money improves education.” Her proof: we have spent more money since 1970, but SAT scores and international scores have not gone up.

The article on the WSJ is behind a paywall, but on this site you can read the article in full. Here are two replies that should help to educate Ms. Bachelder and the readers of the WSJ:

 

 

 

Kate Bachelder’s first liberal superstition (“The Top 10 Liberal Superstitions,” op-ed, Oct. 31) is that “spending more money improves education” and she cites the fact that inflation-adjusted spending for K-12 has more than doubled since 1970, with corresponding decreases in SAT scores.

 

I don’t know what Ms. Bachelder’s age is, but I graduated from high school in 1971 and can say that up to that point in my public education my schools served exactly one special-education student. Spending on special education was nonexistent in 1970 as well as spending on teaching English to non-speakers. Oh, and I remember taking only one statewide test, in fifth grade, not the never-ending expensive testing regimen today’s students must endure.

 

Spending on education today can’t be equitably compared with spending in 1970, since we are now funding massive programs that didn’t exist 45 years ago.

 

Julie Hollingsworth

Fort Wayne, Ind.

 

 

Spending cuts in public education hurt children, families and eventually the economy. Cuts cause shortages of school nurses, libraries, fine arts and P.E., amenities taken for granted in private schools. They result in larger class sizes. At the same time states have slashed education funding ($5.4 billion in Texas in 2011), the number of students continues to increase, especially children who are low income and English-language learners. Educators aren’t making excuses when they point out that these children are more difficult to teach. Poor children suffer more toxic stress and move frequently. They have fewer books in the home (Beverley Hills’s average of 199 versus 0.4 in nearby Watts) and need more support from wraparound services. Slovakia is held up as an example for spending less on education, but 25% of U.S. children live in poverty compared with only 13% in Slovakia. In Texas over 60% of all public school children qualify for free or reduced lunch.

 

I respect Republicans for fiscal conservatism, but cutting public-education funding isn’t an investment in the future and doesn’t “conserve” the tradition of our public schools.

 

Sara Stevenson

Austin, Texas