Anthony Cody hails the Chicago Teachers Union for its unanimous vote to reject Common Core.
This vote is important for many reasons. First, it undermines the repeated (and false) claim that almost all teachers favor CC.
Second, it recognizes that CTU is worried about the standardization and double-duty testing, as well as the loss of creativity that CC will bring.
Third, Cody believes that the CTU vote will encourage other locals to speak out and voice their concerns, not only about the problems of CC, but the diversion if billions of taxpayer dollars to corporations and vendors.
Cody believes that Randi Weingarten’s recent statements indicate that she is growing skeptical about the CC.
The issue is likely to be hotly debated when the AFT holds its national convention in Los Angeles this summer. California has not yet suffered the CCSS testing, but LA lost thousands if teachers while Superintendent Deasy committed $1 billion to buy iPads for Common Core testing.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
If only NY would do the same. Oh, sorry — I am prone to bouts of crazed fantasy.
With Randi Weingarten refers to opponents of the CCSS ‘chest thumpers,’ I don’t see much hope for an open debate at the convention.
extremely unfortunate
I wonder if this would be referred to as “chest thumping”
Excellent article!
or this:
or this:
In each of those pieces I address substantive issues with particular “standards.” But the same sorts of criticisms that I level against these particular standards can and should be generalized to the rest of them.
Bob and all,
A colleague and I were discussing the writing standards at the high school level yesterday. She commented that the word “essay” is never used in the standards. Is his another hasty generalization some have made that writing actually means “essay,” rather than, as you have often pointed out, bullet points?
When I make reference to the “bullet list” or to the “Powerpoint bullet list for U.S. education,” I am referring to the specific, enumerated, grade-level “standards.”
When people defend these “standards,” just as in the comments made by Ms. Weingarten and quoted in Mr. Cody’s article, they always do so based on vague generalizations about these “standards,” not on the basis of what the “standards” actually say.
Ms. Weingarten seems to be under the completely bizarre impression that using these “standards” will somehow result in students doing more “critical thinking.” I don’t know where she got that notion unless she read it in a Thomas B. Fordham or Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation press release.
The defenders of the Common Core never make the defense based on the actual standards themselves–the enumerated list of items that make up these standards–because that list is completely indefensible.
But it is that list, of course, that specific list of specific items, that is driving curriculum development and pedagogical approaches.
I really think that it is time that people started reading these bullet lists to the defenders in open forums and asking them to defend them, and if people were to do that, I think they would soon find that the defenders of the CCSS haven’t a clue, really, what they are talking about. They don’t actually know what is in these “standards,” what the problems are with those “standards,” and what better alternatives those “standards” preclude.
I have been meaning to get around to writing short pieces about
the antiquated and discredited New Critical approach to literature resurrected by these “standards,”
the lack of specificity and thus uselessness of the new writing “standards,
the theoretical and empirical misconceptions regarding persuasion, argument, and evidence instantiated in the writing and thinking “standards,”
what the authors of these “standards” clearly didn’t understand about what science teaches us about acquisition of the grammar of a language,
the counterproductive approaches to acquisition of vocabulary, entailed by these “standards,”
and
the lack of authenticity and thus invalidity of the reading and writing assessments based on these “standards.
To an enormous extent, these “standards,” written by amateurs, enshrine and write in stone misconceptions–folk mythologies–about learning and teaching in ELA. To the extent that these myths are widely believed by noneducators like the “authors” of these “standards” (and, unfortunately, by educators not themselves schooled in the relevant disciplines), the misconceptions go uncorrected. I would have hoped that these “standards” would have met with near universal derision, but alas, that has not been not so. It is particularly shocking to find a number of well-known ELA edupundits and educonsultants cheerleading for this backward claptrap.
I have a lot of notes toward a book on the problems with these “standards” generally–a book that would address these and many other issues, general and specific. It’s difficult, however, for me to find the time work on that book, though the book is sorely needed, for people keep referring to the amateurish CCSS ELA bullet list as “higher standards,” and it’s astonishing that they can continue to get away with that. In the meantime, a lot of really counterproductive curricula and pedagogy is being based on the misconceived bullet list and any progress that we were once making in ELA has been stopped cold.
Perhaps I should apply for a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to give me time to work on my book about the “standards.” Those folks, after all, are all over improving U.S. education.
cx: I would have hoped that these “standards” would have met with near universal derision, but alas, that has not been so.
Time for the AFT to take another poll on CCSS.
Preceded by a full and open discussion among members about the issues involved. *I am especially in favor of the lead backers, architects and promoters of the CCSS—including Arne Duncan, David Coleman, Candace McQueen, Bill Gates and Michelle Rhee—engaging in public forums with critics of their pet project.*
If such an accessible and wide-ranging dialogue were to take place, I predict overwhelming support for the position adopted by CTU.
Of that, I have more than a 98% “satisfactory” [thank you, Bill Gates!] chance of certainty.
😎
P.S. Congratulations to the owner of this blog for hitting the 12 million views mark!
“A decent boldness ever meets with friends.” [Homer]
There is no way such a forum will take place. Reformers never, EVER put themselves in positions where their ideas are challenged by real educators. Whether its backing out of a debate with Dr. Ravitch or holding town hall meetings during school hours, they know the public will catch on if they’re called out by informed parents and teachers.
If another “survey” were taken, it would be probably be written by PARCC or Pearson and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and vetted by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the CCSSO and would ask questions like
Do you believe in ensuring that students get a high-quality education based upon high-quality standards that ensure that they will be properly prepared to succeed in their lives?
Do you believe in having students read significant literature as opposed low-quality selections of no intrinsic merit?
Do you believe that it is important for students not only to express opinions about literary works but to support those opinions with actual evidence?
Do you think it a terrible idea to poke a stick in your eye?
And then, based on such questions, the “research” would show that the percentage of teachers supporting David Coleman’s amateurish bullet list has risen from 75 percent to 98 percent.
LOL.
QUANTITY VERSUS QUALITY IN TESTING
Back in the late 90s, psychometricians were searching for ways to counter attacks against multiple choice testing. Opponents argued that essay exams were needed to measure higher order thinking skills. Too often multiple choice tests relied on fact based information or esoteric vocabulary as indirect measures of analytical reasoning. In response, we added essay components to state-wide assessments. Essay scoring, however, had its own problems. Readers are people–they have their own biases about essay scoring. I remember Mark Reckase, then at ACT, saying that it would take the average score of 7 readers to achieve the reliability of a multiple choice test. It was a conundrum. Do we trade the validity of the essay that could measure critical thinking for the reliability of a fact-based multiple choice test?
Instead, we looked for ways to combine and improve the two types of questions. At the same time, we worked to capitalize on the possibilities for using computers to improve testing and instruction. I remember the excitement over the possibilities of using computers to adapt multiple choice tests to better measure students’ abilities without spending endless hours in testing laboratories. Essay scoring could also be more efficient if computers could substitute for some, but not all human readers. Testing could become part of the learning process as well as less onerous.
Enter the law of unintended consequences. Instead of helping diagnose student learning problems, testing became the face of an accountability driven political agenda to reform rather than fund educational change. Even though testing has now become extremely expensive, it costs less than attracting and retaining high quality teachers and providing the support struggling students need to learn.
We do not have much to show for all the emphasis on accountability driven reform. Serous efforts to evaluate progress have come up short. Excessive testing does not make better teachers, better schools, or better students. Instead, legislators have created a huge profit driven testing industry, but even that industry cannot offer the advantages of new, more efficient ways to measure student learning for everyone. States are not willing to limit the frequency of testing to make it meaningful and affordable. Even the infrastructure needed to deliver these online, adaptive exams is limited.
Equally bad, the temptation to recreate the old paper and pencil drill and practice worksheets on the computer and call it innovative instruction is proving hard for online learning companies and legislators to resist. They are easy to develop and profitable. The question is how we can force reform minded legislators to recognize that there is a difference between quality and quantity. Online learning and testing has possibilities to improve teaching and learning that are beyond exciting. Unfortunately, they may be beyond the critical thinking and problem solving skills of the current wave of school reformers. One wonders if legislators are up to this test?
I read Weingarten’s statements as continuing support of Common Core.
Maybe it’s more about Randi saving face at this point. She was a big cheerleader and she never mentions Bill the bloviating billionaire.
Humm… I know lots of teachers who favor common core but not the tests. There are teachers who still don’t understand how they are related to failing students and sucking our tax dollars for profit. They don’t know who Duncan is when I mention his name.
They must not be up on Chicago politics or basketball.
Clueless period.
jon: deutsch29 [aka Dr. Mercedes Schneider] highlighted a recent money quote re CCSS and standardized testing (December 2013) that comes from a knowledgeable “education reform” insider, Dr. Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute:
[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/
*Frederick Hess is featured in the recently published A CHRONICLE OF ECHOES; he is an authoritative source for the views of the self-styled “education reformers.”*
Perhaps this will help you a little to make your point.
Good luck.
😎
Imagine that: changes this sweeping based on a blueprint as amateurish as the CCSS. Tragic, really.
Thanks, TA! Such a shame when people don’t inform themselves about their jobs.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE unsubscribe. Many have tried to help you. Please figure it out so we don’t have to hear from you anymore.
perhaps everyone should start sending the divine Ms. Wilson emails explaining how to opt out?
It is my fervent hope that prior to this meeting, Ms. Weingarten will educate herself with regard to the problems with the amateurish “standards” in ELA. These standards do a complete hatchet job on the teaching of reading, writing, research, speaking, listening, and thinking. Six general points:
1. For the most part, the new national “standards” in ELA neither cover world knowledge (knowledge of what) nor formulate procedural knowledge (knowledge of how) in ways sufficiently operationalized to allow for valid testing. So, they entirely ignore much of the subject and misconceive the rest of it. Strike out on both counts.
2. The new national “standards” describe outcomes for whole domains of ELA as though these domains primarily involve explicit knowledge, when, in fact, those domains do not, for the most part, involve such knowledge. The “standards” thus reveal profound ignorance on the part of the standards’ “authors” of the crucial distinction, for ELA, between learning and acquisition and lead to (and often explicitly endorse) extremely counterproductive curricula and pedagogy.
3. The new “standards” draw boundaries within the base design space of possible curricula and pedagogy in ELA and say, in effect, that “only the unimaginative, hackneyed crap within these boundaries can be taught, and only in these unimaginative, hackneyed, counterproductive ways.” And so they ossify and stop innovation in ELA cold.
4. One could drive whole curricula–superb curricula–through the lacunae in these new “standards.”
5. Kids differ, and these bullet lists of “standards” do not.
6. The new “standards” have served as midwife to completely invalid, inauthentic summative tests that have then, perversely, themselves become models for curricula and pedagogy that are similarly distorted, narrowed, and debased.
Suppose that you asked the members of the local Rotary Club in some small town–owners of real estate agencies and drive-in ice cream shops–to make a general list of skills they learned in English class back in the day. Well, the result would look very much like these puerile “standards.” The ELA “standards” are an embarrassment on many, many levels and completely unacceptable. I laugh a bitter laugh whenever I hear someone refer to this drek as “higher” standards, and Randi Weingarten ought to know better than to take the PR for them at all seriously.
cx: scratch the word “base” in item 3, above. That was a typo.
Reblogged this on .