Award-winning high school principal Carol Burris reports here on Arne Duncan’s latest foray into New York, where he highly praised the state’s controversial Commissioner of Education John King, disparaged disgruntled educators and parents as a mere distraction, and urged the state to “stay the course.”
Burris, a leader in the effort to expose and reverse some of the worst aspects of Race to the Top, explains why it is important not to stay the course, when the course is leading in the wrong direction.
She writes:
” There is no empirical evidence that rigorous state or national standards will result in higher student achievement or greater college readiness.
“Those who created the Common Core assumed that if we established rigorous standards, student achievement and economic competitiveness would increase. Duncan said, in his remarks at New York University, that it is common sense. Prior to the 15th century, common sense said the world was flat, but that did not make it true.”
She cites research to demonstrate that rigorous standards and high-stakes tests o not produce better education:
“This is not an argument for low standards or no standards—it is an argument that standards reform is not an effective driver of school improvement. Keep in mind that all state standards had high-stakes state tests associated with them. The more rigorous the standards, the more difficult the tests are. As high-stakes tests become more difficult, the curriculum becomes narrower and narrower. The tests soon drive teaching and learning.
“When I hear “I am for the Common Core standards, I am just not for the tests”, I cringe. While thoughtful educators look at the standards through their prism of good practice, test makers look at the standards as the basis for creating “items” that discriminate the learning of one child from another. In the end, the test maker calls the shots. It is no coincidence that the Common Core Standards, PARCC and Smarter Balanced were all born at the same time. In his remarks, Duncan referred to PARCC and Smarter Balanced as the “national tests.”
“The destination of school reform—ensuring that all students have the skills, content and habits needed for college and career success—is the right destination. The challenge is choosing the pathway that gets us there. Good intentions are not enough. If we continue to put our tax dollars and our efforts into “standards reform” because Mr. Duncan and his followers believe it is common sense, we will waste time and treasure.”
Bottom line: Race to the Top is no better than No Child Left Behind. It has no research to support its premises and will come to an ignominious end like its predecessor. Burris hopes that Duncan will change course but his bad ideas seem impervious to evidence.

I just think it’s deceptive to say the CC won’t drive more testing. Yes, it will. This is the Pearson curriculum in CA:
“Publishers are also moving to develop new materials based on the standards. One of the largest such efforts is being undertaken by Pearson, a major publisher based in London. With input from members of teams that wrote the standards, Pearson is creating a series of K–12 curriculum materials that will be delivered completely online, through tablets like the iPad. They will include projects for students to complete, texts and digital materials to support students in conducting their projects, and assessments to check student understanding. The curriculum is being piloted in Los Angeles in 2013–14 and has created some controversy because of the cost of the tablets and security of the software. The firm has received support for this effort from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; as a condition of this support, some of the materials will be available to all schools free of charge.”
So there will be the two blocks of national CC tests every year and then “assessments to check understanding” included with any CC-aligned curriculum, correct?
So really the truth is we don’t know how much testing will be conducted around the Common Core. I suppose the response will be “but that isn’t technically a CC test!” for the Pearson assessments tied to curriculum, but all of this is coming out of the CC, obviously.
They have no idea how much testing they’ll be doing. The national tests are just the first piece.
http://educationnext.org/are-the-states-implementing-common-core/
LikeLike
The distinction, actually dichotomy, between ‘”test makers” and “educators” is driven by belief systems that live in active opposition.Our knowledge, based on research, demonstrates that the former can’t support itself on its own legs: it is failing and failing; yet its adherents value it like fools gold. We must continue to confront the likes of King and Duncan on all occasions and concomitantly grasp that the ‘deform’ effort will, over time, fail. Duncan, King and their supporters will pass from the educational landscape. Our job is to hasten their leaving.
LikeLike
“If states are allowed to create their own tests and set the associated cut scores for proficiency or implement the standards as they best interpret them, any “common” element of the common core will fade away. This risks fracturing the national marketplace the standards created back into the 50 independent markets that existed before the standards were adopted. Whatever other impact this would have, it would certainly prevent the common core from living up to any Jeffersonian or wide-open market ideal.”
Good to know they were developed with a “wide-open market ideal” huh? I guess we’ll sort all this out thru the magic of markets.
“Creating a national marketplace” isn’t in the promotional materials parents are given either 🙂
Good to know that’s what we’re doing!
http://educationnext.org/navigating-the-common-core/
LikeLike
Other “Bad ideas, impervious to evidence”
Bundled mortgages
Hedge Funds
Enron
Privatized Social Security and education
Segregation
Darwinian economics
Climate change denial
Industry/government revolving door
LikeLike
I’m concerned about the fact that ed reformer leadership and advocacy at the state and national level has resulted in reducing funding for public schools, and thus CC will be prioritized over other things, and that negative effect won’t be measured:
“As might be expected, funding cuts have affected states’ implementation activities, although not as much as some observers might have feared. Although 20 states had reported decreased or stable budgets for K–12 education and 28 reported cuts or level funding for state education agencies, only 12 states reported cutting back on common core implementation because of budget constraints. Six states said they reduced technology expenditures, six reduced or eliminated statewide meetings on the standards, and five cut technical assistance to districts and schools.”
Maybe if they were better advocates for public ed funding we’d be in better shape to put this latest mandate in, but they’re either lousy advocates or they don’t simply don’t care if we have the actual money to do this without cutting elsewhere because they know states will cut elsewhere to prioritize the CC testing.
LikeLike
Peter Cunningham @PCunningham57 34m
@kportermagee @smarick Exactly! Pushback to #CCSS not about standards. It’s “over-reaching” on right and accountability on left.
More patronizing nonsense. I’m not a teacher. I’m not “afraid” of the mighty sword of ed reformers imposing “accountability”.
I’m afraid our whole local budget will go toward another one of their brilliant ideas, and their absolute obsession with standardized testing will completely consume any upside of the CC, as testing has consumed each and every one of their brilliant ideas over the last decade.
The twice a year tests are just the start, and they know it. This whole thing rides on “assessment”, it’s the foundation of the whole thing, and this, like all their other initiatives, will be consumed by testing.
LikeLike
It’s way more than just twice a year. We are constantly giving pre-tests and benchmarks to measures growth in individual classes. We’ve also had 7 half days of testing for local assessments. I think I’ve lost at least a full month of instructional time to testing.
LikeLike
Duncan seems to be in the third stage of Gandhi’s description of how oppressors ultimately lose: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then they lose.
LikeLike
I linked this blog, with this comment at Oped where readers are not teachers exclusively
http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Carol-Burris-Please-DON–in-Best_Web_OpEds-Burris_Direction_Education_Expose-140419-544.html
I hope that the posts and comments that I offer you, are helping to add some clarity to the narrative about education, and the politics and people who are in control. As a veteran teacher, I have some grasp of the shenanigans and lies, and some crucial understanding of what is at stake, and who is fighting the good fight… Burris and Ravitch, Cody and Haimison, Horwitz and Isenberg… all folks to whom I connect YOU, so you can know the truth.
The article link that I posted here, is to the Ravitch blog, because Diane helps me to grasp what is crucial in a complicated interview, but I also went to her link to the article by Valerie Strauss at the Washington Post, and found this, which gives much insight into what Burris has said about education… I wish SHE not Duncan was the Secretary of Education: ” Burris has been writing about King’s reform program on this blog for some time, exposing its many problems (for example, here , here , here , here , and here.)
in my comment these are links)
She was named New York’s 2013 High School Principal of the Year by the School Administrators Association of New York and the National Association of Secondary School Principals, and in 2010, tapped as the 2010 New York State Outstanding Educator by the School Administrators Association of New York State. She is the co-author of the New York Principals letter of concern regarding the evaluation of teachers by student test scores. It has been signed by thousands of principals teachers, parents, professors, administrators and citizens (who, to Duncan, are apparently just making a lot of “noise”).
LikeLike
I have trouble with standards when they are understood and presented as quality control benchmarks. Factory specifications call for the production of a product that falls within a very narrow range of acceptability. In my time as a teacher I can’t ever remember defining a child/student in such a manner. What we are doing is so wrong!
LikeLike
Thank you, Carol!
Would that we had more educators like you!!!
Race to the Top is no better than No Child Left Behind. It has no research to support its premises and will come to an ignominious end like its predecessor. Burris hopes that Duncan will change course but his bad ideas seem impervious to evidence.
RttT, the Common Core, PARCC, SBAC–these are just Son of NCLB, NCLB Fright Night II: The Nightmare Is Nationalized.
The first was terrible. The sequel is even worse.
LikeLike
Wonderful essay by Carol Burris– I only wish Elizabeth Warren would read it and decide which side of history she’s on . . .
LikeLike
Thank you, Mrs. Burris.
LikeLike
I’ve always been fascinated by the story of Odysseus and the sirens… that there exist things so seductive that even as the perils become obvious, their song and their promises of fulfillment make them nearly impossible to resist. The siren song of the 21st century may well turn out to be the song of Big Data. “Come to me, I have every answer you’ve ever wanted….” In healthcare, in marketing, in government, in nearly any field that you can think of, and certainly among the education reformers, you can hear the voices of those entranced by its song. They speak passionately, wonderingly, as if hypnotized, or in love. All voices to the contrary are brushed aside, they hear nothing but the song. Their hallucinations of a future in which every problem is solved because everything is known are vividly described in tones of passion and reverence. Perhaps there is a certain hubris that comes from working with something as powerful as Big Data that prevents its users from stopping their ears before it’s too late. Or maybe they truly don’t understand their peril because the song speaks to their deepest desires. Either way, they have fallen under its spell and have become helplessly entranced by the promise of Perfect Knowledge. But unlike Odysseus, they are not tied to the mast, and they are blindly rushing headlong to destruction. So it’s up to those of us who have not yet succumbed to the song of Big Data to take control. The parents opting out, the Diane Ravitches, the bloggers, the BATS, it’s up to us to do what must be done to save ourselves, our children, and our educational system. It won’t be easy. They will fight us with a passion born of unquestioning conviction., and the song will become louder and more insistent. But fight we must, until we are safely through this time of peril. And we must warn others, and help them also to understand the danger.
Don’t imagine that I’m a luddite, crying out against technology. I have traditionally been an early adopter of technology and use it in my classroom every day…. I use it; it does not use me. But lately I’ve felt that relationship changing as the PARCC tests and VAM have made their way into my life and my classroom. And I’ve seen and heard the voices of those hypnotized by the song of Big Data. And they are threatening me and my students with destruction. And so I resist.
LikeLike
Without evidence there is no accountability.
LikeLike
Chiara Duggan: your comments on this thread are outstanding.
If I may, two brief comments to back you up.
CCSS? High-stakes standardized testing? Is it true that “you can’t have one without the other” as the old Sammy Cahn song says?
An unimpeachably expert witness to the indissoluble connection between the two.
Dr. Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, an articulate and extremely knowledgeable insider of the self-styled “education reform” movement at the end of last year:
[start quote]
In truth, the idea that the Common Core might be a “game-changer” has little to do with the Common Core standards themselves, and everything to do with stuff attached to them, especially the adoption of common tests that make it possible to readily compare schools, programs, districts, and states (of course, the announcement that one state after another is opting out of the two testing consortia is hollowing out this promise).
But the Common Core will only make a dramatic difference if those test results are used to evaluate schools or hire, pay, or fire teachers; or if the effort serves to alter teacher preparation, revamp instructional materials, or compel teachers to change what students read and do. And, of course, advocates have made clear that this is exactly what they have in mind. When they refer to the “Common Core,” they don’t just mean the words on paper–what they really have in mind is this whole complex of changes.
[end quote]
Link: http://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/the-american-enterprise-institute-common-core-and-good-cop/
My other point involves the practicality and logic behind the above.
Inelegantly put, standardized tests sample large domains of knowledge = you are measuring a tiny bit of something huge/complex/multifaceted in order to determine [or so you hope, based on pre-testing and experience and mathematical formulae and the like] that those taking the test know all the other things that aren’t on the test.
Put another way: you aren’t interested very much in whether the test-takers know what is exactly on the test as you are in knowing whether or not the test-takers know all the test items plus—most especially plus!—that humungous amount of other stuff.
But, but, but, there is a fly in this ointment. So let me dazzle one and all with a few psychometric terms… Failure to measure what we want to measure: construct underrepresentation. Are we measuring what we claim to measure: construct validity. Is the material tested in the curriculum: curriculum validity. Whether or not it is in the curriculum, is the material tested actually taught: instructional validity.
You can’t make the case that the testing tied to CCSS is not only fair but accurately measures what it claims to measure unless the teachers teach it and the students study and learn it. So if you have high-stakes standardized CCSS tests that claim to accurately and fairly test everyone, everywhere, in the nation, then you have to ensure that it is taught and learned by everyone, everywhere, in the same way, to the same extent, at the same pace.
Consider the opposite. Everyone, everywhere, in each village and hamlet and town and city—and every tested school therein—modifies the CCSS on average, say 85%, and only a residue of 15% or so of ‘commonness’ is left. [Yes, I am using the infamous “urban legend” MOU] Different pacing, different formats, different approaches, etc. Uniqueness rules. Standardization dies.
😕
Herein lies an insolvable [in practical terms] dilemma. You cannot bring to national scale a standardized test that tries to measure every unique version of CCSS that exists. That is why the tail of testing must wag the dog of teaching and learning. Otherwise there is a massive disconnect between what you are testing people on and what they may or may not have learned. *Hint: there is no mathematical algorithm that can ‘control’ for this!*
It is all of one piece. IMHO, you can’t separate CCSS from high-stakes standardized testing. What Dr. Hess said!
A last word: I do not think my position is in opposition to the owner of this blog. She has focused on the process involved in coming up with workable, sustainable, and useful national standards—and to the extent that I understand her comments, I am in complete agreement. If her suggestions were followed, you would have something that looks like national standards that didn’t require high-stakes standardized testing.
Just my dos centavitos worth…
Thank you for your comments.
😎
LikeLike
Let It Go.
http://vimeo.com/m/90603566h
LikeLike