A letter from a public school parent:
“Hi Diane —
I am an avid follower of you, Carol Burris, and other brilliant experts who have helped me understand the state of education today.
A lot has been written about CCSS, and we know that advocates love to say “It’s standards, not curricula” and “States are free to teach the standards their own way; it’s not prescriptive.”
What I don’t see addressed is the reality that, across the nation, CCSS curricula from every publisher is frighteningly similar. From viral post from the engineer dad who wrote the letter in his son’s homework to “tell Jack what he did wrong,” to the coffee cup conundrum Carol Burris outlined in WaPo, I find it eerie that these are nearly identical to the questions my kids are having to tackle in workbooks at their NYC public elementary school. I have also compared notes with my mom friends in Colorado, California, Idaho and Texas, and we are finding that questions are nearly exactly the same — in both ELA and math. And incidentally, we are all also struggling with badly written, error-filled material that clearly has not been proofed, fact-checked or reviewed/edited. Insult to injury!
I realize my observation is strictly anecdotal, but it nags at me. How can there be such marked similarity on a national scale? Were they all written by one shadowy non-profit funded by Gates and then licensed out to publishers? How can it be that they all are filled with so many errors? My children (going into 2nd and 4th grade at a public school in Brooklyn) use workbooks published by Curriculum Associates. That company doesn’t seem to have any connection to Pearson or any other big education publisher. So why is their curricula content the same as all the others? Clearly what’s happening on the ground doesn’t jibe with what CCSS advocates keep saying.”
Lorna
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The Curriculum Associates workbooks are pure, unadulterated test prep, not a curriculum. I would send in a note to your children’s teachers and their principal reminding them that there is now a law in New York State that limits test prep to 2% of instructional time, and your children will not be participating in any activities that exceed that limit, in or out of the classroom.
Or you could happily go along with the months and months of destructive test prep but opt out of the test, which seems to be the MO of most parent “activists” in NY. Either way, good luck!
My siblings along with millions of other American students in the ’60s learned to read with Dick, Jane and their lovely dog Spot. I don’t know why these readers were so popular, but it seems as though many schools across the country used them. Was that a bad thing?
It would be interesting to know how different contents were between states prior to the monopoly on big testing. Perhaps curriculum has been tied to testing for a while, but there were more testing companies competing for business?
It does seem as though the root cause of the problem is high stakes tests and the tie in all year long to these tests.
There is a lot of difference between basal readers, which, of necessity, are fairly similar, and textbooks at all levels being similar or identical to each other. What is put in or left out of a textbook will somewhat drive instruction, so those choices are important. If everything is the same, then schools have no choice on what should be focused on.
Oh concerned mom, they have a retort for that one. . .the “we learned this way.” They have preemptively determined that today’s child is different! Because of the internet. And being 21st Century stakeholders in a global economy.
yeah, well I still had to carry my son in my womb for 10 months, feed, change, clothe, soothe, rock to sleep, potty train, delight in his crawling, creeping, walking to running, learning to talk and ride a trike. . .I’d say that is not all that different. There are still noses to wipe and children still will sit and pick at themselves until they bleed just so they can get up out of their seats to get a band-aid. So I don’t have any reason to believe all the hype about 21st Century brains.
I always cover Nursery Rhymes in music with kindergarten within the first few weeks to review with something familiar for those who attended preschool and to introduce some important cultural literature and songs for those who did not. These children become fascinated! They watch wide-eyed as we explore several variations in pictures on the dish that ran away with the spoon and the mouse that ran up the clock.
Who’s different? The kids? Or the people making choices on their behalf? I’d say the latter. Because I saw wonder in their eyes when Little Bo Peep lost her sheep today in music. It was both endearing and slightly sad to me.
Hi Concerned!
I also learned to read with Dick, Jane and Sally. In the 70s there was a big push for authentic texts that mirrored the environments of the students. It was postulated that children in cities should have books with pictures of children in cities. I was living in a gritty blue collar neighborhood, but was not troubled by Dick, Jane and Sally’s suburban paradise. The other issue was lack of representation of children of color.
@NJTeacher: so what is your conclusion? That because you learned to read from Dick & Jane that everyone still should? That the fact that there were no people of color in those books (or any books I recall in any subject when I went to school in north Jersey from 1955-68) is not problematic, because some people successfully learned to read in that era and a few even learned mathematics?
As for @concerned mom’s comments, yes, there were bad aspects to Dick & Jane, some already mentioned. The push to change long predates Common Core and had nothing to do with high stakes tests.
It’s getting frightening to see how much of the commentary here in reaction to corporate initiatives is focusing on attacking progressive education. I don’t know if Diane is noticing (and she has in the past been very critical of progressive education, so maybe that’s not troubling to her), but I know I am. And the counterattack increasingly becomes, “Oh, you must work for Bill Gates, Pearson, Arne Duncan,” ad nauseam.
I’m glad there are still some people commenting here who can separate wheat from chaff, as well as some who can critique Common Core for what it deserves to be criticized for without falling into knee-jerk attacking of progressive ideas that have been included, through no fault of their inventors or supporters, into the Common Core.
Not to flog a deceased equine, but just because the Common Core Initiative is an anti-public school monstrosity that I have opposed from its onset and continue to oppose does NOT mean that every or any idea included in the literacy or math standards is horrific and must be opposed.
What I’m seeing here, thanks to people like NY Teacher, is that some really reactionary educators and ideologues are showing up here to rail against educational approaches they loathed from the Right back in the ’90s. We see consistent hatred being expressed here regularly for programs like Everyday Math, Investigations in Number, Data, & Space, Connected Math, Core-Plus, Mathematics: Modeling Our World, IMP, and now CPM, all of which were ruthlessly and unconscionable attacked in the ’90s by groups like Mathematically Correct & NYC-HOLD. And again, anyone who dares question those attacks or speak in favor of those progressive math programs (or anything at all in the Practice Standards, which derive mostly from the NCTM Standards, c. 1989-2000), is attacked as a shill or otherwise baited with what on the surface must seem reasonable accusations from less political observers, but which I’m starting to realize are in fact quite political (and very much anti-progressive) people.
So, to NY Teacher (who is yet another anonymous coward who makes irresponsible attacks on those who dare (under their real names) to support progressive math education while hiding behind a pseudonym: I’ll be happy to debate you when you post under your real name. Ironically, it’s been my sad experience with the Mathematically Correct/NYC-HOLD cabal that they are quick to file complaints with people’s employers who dare to disagree with them, while hiding themselves behind pseudonyms and/or whining about dirty pool from others. If that’s your game, I have 25 years’ experience dealing with it and am more than prepared to deal with you. I won’t be silenced by someone who is too dishonest to take public responsibility for his/her opinions. I blog and comment under my own name. Sorry you don’t have the guts to do the same.
Tim, Can you provide a link to this new legislature? Would love to research it, am very excited by this mention….but have not heard of it prior to this! Many thanks if you can point me in right direction.
My children have worked with four math programs in three years. The three from Pearsons used the same approach and were really dumbed down, too rushed (typos in a schoolbook, really?). The Houghton Mifflin Harcourt book is a lot different, very good quality, solid instruction. I sometimes wonder if it’s fair to be opposed to CCSS based soley on my Pearsons experience.
Well and now the new thing is for people to say, “well people think CCSS means all the testing and it doesn’t.” I heard two Democratic state candidates get into that yesterday. I support NC state Democrats because we have to get rid of the ALEC guys who don’t even believe in public school and are starving our state. . .BUT I draw the line at feeling the need to whine and lament the slashing of Common Core. I don’t recall moving to the Soviet Union and I don’t expect my child to be raised with a national curriculum that is punitive, such as one might find in a communist or socialist country. Had they truly been ostensible standards, fine. . .but they weren’t. So I consider it a good riddance and I wish the Democrats at the state level would realize they make themselves sound bad when they go there.
Democrats are in bed with Republicans. Watch your back!
Calling R. Shepard, calling R. Shepard.
Perhaps Robert can help this parent.
where has he disappeared to anyway? used to be he was the CCSS comment guy
Maybe he’s (it’s) a persona and changed its name.
Curriculum has long been fairly common across the major publishers. Pre-CCSS, it was geared toward what California and Texas wanted, as they had the most schools and, thus, the most dollars spent on textbooks. At least in mathematics, the vast majority of their product was highly technical, largely devoid of meaning-making, and focused on memorization and application of ‘standard algorithms’. As the CCSS has been rolled out, most large publishers have not significantly changed their offerings and, thus, their product remains largely indistinguishable.
However, CCSS has also led to a crack in the buying cycle for new publishers, whose content is often markedly different from what the big dinosaurs were bringing. Quite often, new offerings also offer far more focus on the practice standards, which traditional textbooks largely ignore (or cover in only the most cursory manner). These offerings are often very different from previous standards. They are also not experienced by most students/parents, because most departments (and elementary schools) either don’t have the money to adopt new textbooks or revert to adopting what they already know, even as they attempt to grapple with new content and practice standards. They like their hammer, so they will hammer away with the tool they know no matter the situation.
Finally, the lack of widespread quality resources from the major publishers that most teachers deal with has led many teachers to develop their own curriculum. What that often means, in effect, is that they are madly searching the internet for quality thought-provoking content, which they then appropriate and adapt to their situation. This is entirely likely to lead to novel approaches to teaching which spread virally. It also often leads to dodgy proofreading and editing, as teachers are often madly overworked and don’t have professional editing teams.
I think that covers all the sources I can think of for why she is seeing what she is seeing. Hope that helps.
Bring back Houghten Mifflin Harcourt… and not CC modified. I really liked it!
The Gates’ Foundation is funding a Consumer Reports for the CCSS materials. There have been several posts about this venture, including one of my own sometime ago.
The criteria for judging the materials submitted to this Consumer Reports project are best summarized by saying they have all of the same anal compulsiveness that we see in the “verbatim requirement” on the use of the CCSS.
I looked at the criteria for this Consumer Reports project as a person with more exposure to text reviews than I ever expected to have or wanted.
This Consumer Reports scheme is off-the-charts “comply with the CCSS or else.”
In their initial look at the submitted materials, reviewers are to make sure that no content relevant to the CCSS place in the proper CCSS grade is treated in any other grade.
If any non-compliant content is found, the materials are out. The review process comes to a halt. There is no way to look for any redeaming features. This rating scheme comes from the CCSSO. It will take hours of time and the initial version looks lie it cannot be done by amateurs.
It is worth noting that prior to the CCSS, the profit potential of curriculum materials in particular markets–in combination with a state-by-state approval process–forwarded what was then termed “an unofficial national curriculum.”
Requirements for Texas and California adoptions influenced what was produced for other states. A Texas adoption was “gold” because there were dedicated funds for texts state-level, some of the money from oil. The major hurdle in Texa was getting past the official state-level reviews. For a long time, the state review process in Texas was set up to accept only complaints about the content in the publishers materials.
The biggest complainers became something of institution. It was the Graber family as I recall. They were easily offended ultraconservative patriots who made publishers of science, history, and social studies dread reviews. Reviewers at the state level could approve different sets of materials for the same grade and subjects. Districts with fat budgets could do their own thing, at least until the Texas testing fever made that unwise.
Apart from the “unofficial curriculum for the unofficial core subjects” (in the olden days) there were hundreds of niche markets. Small publishers flocked to them. This is to say that most teachers were not hog-bound to any master narrative about what to teach, how, and when. At the same time, the large-market “basel series of texts” rarely departed too far from from the tried an true combine with the latest “hot jargon.” They could be broke in no time if they went out on a limb.
Some readers may recall the “Man: A Course of Study,” a program developed by scholar Jerome Bruner (The Process of Education) and based on the premise that experts in a discipline together with experts in instructional planning could collaborate to fashion “world-class” curricula. As I recall there was minimal engagement of experienced teachers and not much small scale field-testing of the various units.
The program had films and all manner of goodies beyond a textbook. It tanked. The developers did not recognize the difficulty of getting teachers, students, and parents to accept the content, especially the documentary film depicting a sick elderly Inuit person choosing to walk into a blizzard in order to die.
Cleveland schools CEO, Eric Gordon, a Bowling Green State University graduate, received the university’s 2014 Alumni Award. He recently testified in Columbus about Common Core. His award was for being part of a group that “lobbied Ohio legislators to pass the Cleveland Plan” and for being “nationally active in the implementation of Common Core”. An on-line resume for the period, prior to his position as Cleveland schools CEO, lists, “Special Accomplishments”,
administration of “Gates Foundation grant of $500,000, renewable.”
BGSU has a unique placement on on-line listings. It’s the only Ohio public university that’s cited at Right-Wing Watch, Sourcewatch, and Conservative Transparency. Reportedly, grants from the Bradley and Earhart Foundations led to the inclusion.
BGSU may have no connection to education reform, as practiced by Harvard, The goals of Harvard, as a private school serving the 1%, would be expected to differ from those of BGSU, an institution that relies on middle class taxes and is assumed to provide quality career opportunity for students of the 99%.
A chummy relationship between BGSU and foundations that selectively reward economists from a single ideology, like the discredited trickle-down, that promotes concentration of wealth, would also be unexpected.
Less paranoia and more attention paid to both the long, sordid history of US ed publishing and the fact that there are publishers guidelines out there as part of the Common Core would answer your question.
And despite all the nonsense published about “Show Jack his error,” along with sensible analysis by really bright, knowledgeable math teachers like Christopher Danielson (http://christopherdanielson.wordpress.com/2014/03/22/the-latest-common-core-worksheet/>, there’s absolutely NOTHING wrong with that question. First, it does NOT ask students to solve a simple arithmetic by using the number line (as if THAT were in and of itself a sin against nature!), but rather to look at work by a COMPLETELY HYPOTHETICAL student and do some error analysis. I understand that’s not traditional, but something that isn’t traditional isn’t by definition bad (or good). And in this case, it reflects one of the practice standards for math, the part of the math standards I find unobjectionable. In particular, it is based on the third such standard:
“3 Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.
Mathematically proficient students understand and use stated assumptions,
definitions, and previously established results in constructing arguments. They
make conjectures and build a logical progression of statements to explore the
truth of their conjectures. They are able to analyze situations by breaking them into
cases, and can recognize and use counterexamples. They justify their conclusions, communicate them to others, and respond to the arguments of others. They reason
inductively about data, making plausible arguments that take into account the
context from which the data arose. Mathematically proficient students are also able
to compare the effectiveness of two plausible arguments, distinguish correct logic or
reasoning from that which is flawed, and—if there is a flaw in an argument—explain
what it is. Elementary students can construct arguments using concrete referents
such as objects, drawings, diagrams, and actions. Such arguments can make sense
and be correct, even though they are not generalized or made formal until later
grades. Later, students learn to determine domains to which an argument applies.
Students at all grades can listen or read the arguments of others, decide whether
they make sense, and ask useful questions to clarify or improve the arguments.”
Seems pretty important to me as a mathematics teacher (and learner) that students can do that.
Of course, the irony is that this problem that’s made the rounds actually is harder to analyze thanks to the silly comments (and errors) of the “electronics engineer” parent who is so up in arms about it and can’t fathom why anyone (even a fictional student) wouldn’t just KNOW the standard algorithm. And that is just one piece of strong evidence for why this fellow shouldn’t be teaching mathematics to young children, regardless of the Common Core, good and bad publishers, or anything else.
[okay, sports fans: who will be first to accuse me of being a paid corporate shill for the Common Core, in the employ of Bill Gates?]
Parents get angry when they don’t understand their children’s homework. I certainly have. But I was getting angry about my children’s math homework before the Common Core.
Than you take homework more seriously than I ever did, as a parent especially. And I only got annoyed when I knew that an assignment was busywork, which happened with my son most often outside of math and science classes. (fyi, he graduated in June 2013)
Could be. I may also be more generally angry than you are.
Sounds like someone could use a “wow” letter!
“Wow! Right in the kisser!”
“Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others”
This is a good example of a very bad math standard. Un-teachable, and un-testable on a standardized assessment. It is vague and subjective. Asking questions that require thinking, is not the same as teaching kids how to think (beyond the specifics of the problem). In fact Jack’s error is not a mistake in reasoning at all, just a plain old fashioned brain fart brought about by using a ridiculous solution to a very simple subtraction problem. This type of standard and question will end up doing way more harm than good. It does fundamentally change math because it still makes the process the end instead of the means. It still is the same old, same old, just another fragment of white numerical noise. Just more meaningless math. When I was a kid, even following the traditional subtraction method, I was left wondering, “One hundred and eleven what?”
If you are a CC shill you are not a very good one.
cx. “it does NOT fundamentally change math . . .”
I am dismayed that there are teachers who believe that constructing viable arguments and critiquing the reasoning of others is unteachable and untestable. I can’t say I am surprised, but I am dismayed.
Also, your preference for application notwithstanding, there is still value to be found in reasoning about numbers as abstract entitities in addition to thinking about them as a tool to solve applied problems. You are correct to note that the CCSS does not reject this basic tenet of mathematical thinking and instruction the world over.
The Common Core Kool-Aid Drinkers Challenge
Critical thinking skills, the very foundation and main selling point of the Common Core standards, I contend, are not only un-teachable, but un-testable as well. If you think I’m wrong, show me. Present just one amazing lesson, one fantabulous activity, or one earth shaking discussion that teaches students “how to think”. Just one. That really works. One that teaches thinking skills so amazing that they can be used successfully in any circumstance, for any issue, or to solve any problem. Truly transferable thinking skills. If you’re convinced that I’m just an old dinosaur, yelling at David Coleman to get off my classroom lawn, please prove me wrong. Just copy and paste your best lesson plan for all us doubters to see. I won’t hold my breath. And please don’t post any constructivist/discovery activities. Presenting activities that require students to think outside (or inside) the box is not the same as teaching them how to think. One, two, three, GO!
The BASKETBALL Kool-Aid Drinkers Challenge
“BASKETBALL skills, the very foundation and main selling point of the ATHLETIC TEAM standards, I contend, are not only un-teachable, but un-testable as well. If you think I’m wrong, show me. Present just one amazing lesson, one fantabulous activity, or one earth shaking discussion that teaches students “how to PLAY BASKETBALL”. Just one. That really works. One that teaches BASKETBALL skills so amazing that they can be used successfully in any circumstance, ON ANY COURT, or to BEAT ANY TEAM. Truly transferable BASKETBALL skills. If you’re convinced that I’m just an old dinosaur, yelling at David Coleman to get off my classroom lawn, please prove me wrong. Just copy and paste your best lesson plan for all us doubters to see. I won’t hold my breath. And please don’t post any activities WHERE KIDS ACTUALLY PLAY BASKETBALL. Presenting activities that require students to PLAY BASKETBALL is not the same as teaching them how to PLAY BASKETBALL. One, two, three, GO!”
It is a glorious thing to declare something impossible and then also restrict methods for attempting that thing to only those you would use. It is pretty much a declaration that “I can’t do it my way, so your ideas suck.”
In short, I think that teaching critical thought is possible, happens over time, and isn’t a lesson you present, but an activity student engage in while being coached and critiqued… much like basketball.
Are you seriously trying to equate very teachable physical skills (dribbling, rebounding, passing, zone defense, pick-and-roll plays, etc.) to abstract and subjective thinking skills. You shot yourself in the foot with this try.
By the way I’m still waiting for your lesson plan. Maybe narrowing your focus will help. How about a lesson on teaching 8th graders HOW TO critique someone else’s mathematical reasoning.
Really, how do you manage to make such a grandiose assertion which runs counter to the viewpoint of so many math educators over the past quarter century with no actual evidence or argument? Can you get the “Common Core is the work of Satan” blinders off long enough to make one substantive statement about how it is a bad idea for math students to learn to analyze and critique the reasoning of others and themselves, given that the vast majority of math involves just that? Or have you never read a math text beyond elementary calculus? They consist of proofs, definitions, axioms, and moe proofs, axioms, and definitions. Try getting through, say, five pages of elementary number theory or abstract algebra without the skills that this standard calls for.
And seriously, your complaint is that this is vague and subjective? I have to wonder if you know anything about math. But what is particularly intriguing is your claim that this can’t be assessed on a standard test: if so, which I doubt, that would be great. Because it is the bloody testing that is making teachers, parents, kids, and everyone else crazy.
And if reasoning in math can’t be taught, how do people learn to do it? Because we have thousands of years of evidence that in fact, they do. Just born knowing how? I wasn’t, but I have been learning it from teachers and books for the last thirty years. Amazing.
Since I am not a shill, for Common Core or any corporate entity, plutocrat, 1 per center, or organization, I take your last jab as a compliment. If only I could respect your obvious ignorance of what it means to teach, learn, know, and do math. You do recognize the difference between practice standards and content standards, don’t you? And if you don’t yet realize how vital the process is in mathematical reasoning and problem-solving at every point in a student’s development, I truly hope you are not charged with teaching math to anyone. Ever.
So the CC claim to fame/emphasis on higher order and critical thinking skills requires nothing more than asking students questions that require them to think. Gee, glad David Coleman had this epiphany because I just spent 34 years wondering what I should do with all this content I was teaching.
Let’s move on to “un-testable” standards. I spent five years as a consultant, free-lance item writer for Measured Progress. I received superb training and have become a fairly good judge of test writing. If critical thinking and abstract, subjective standards, is in your view, “testable” I’d love to see just one good old objective MC item that would accurately measure as student’s ability to pose a viable argument or critique someone else’s mathematical reasoning. Glad I didn’t hold my breath on the last challenge.
You have successfully outlined some impressive basketball content standards. If that is all that you ink basketball is, then is am well and truly sad for you. I do believe that a solid practice standard would read something like “makes consistently good in-game judgements and attacks the poor decision making of others”. Pro-tip: there isn’t a magic lesson for teaching that.
In addition, I guess I need to spell out more clearly that the above was a critique on your implied assertion that if it can’t be taught in one lesson, didactically, then it cannot be taught. Since you seem intrigued, I am quite happily and successfully using CPM math in my current position. It doesn’t have a magic lesson for pouring critical thought into student’s heads. Instead, over the course of a year (or. Ore, as they stay in the program longer) it provides students with ample time to practice this skill while being coached by a capable instructor (and other students, when they notice faulty reasoning). Not only are our test scores showing solid gains, but our students have begun showing significant gains in their ability to craft and critique mathematical arguments, largely because they practice that skill every day.
But again, I doubt that counts for you. It involves tons of discovery learning and also fails to upload the requisite program directly to the students mind in one simple lesson.
MPG
“And if reasoning in math can’t be taught, how do people learn to do it? Because we have thousands of years of evidence that in fact, they do. Just born knowing how? I wasn’t, but I have been learning it from teachers and books for the last thirty years. Amazing.”
Not exactly “born knowing how” to think, but humans are born with brains wired TO think, reason, solve problems, and create. No instruction necessary.
And yes, it is amazing that you gained all these higher order thinking skills over 30 years without the benefit of CC practice standards.
Still no lesson plan? No test item?
“I need to spell out more clearly that the above was a critique on your implied assertion that if it can’t be taught in one lesson, didactically, then it cannot be taught.”
Never meant to imply this. I asked for one lesson because that’s easier than asking for 180 lessons. But it has to be somewhere in your teaching.
“I am quite happily and successfully using CPM math in my current position.”
“Position”???? I love the smell of shills in the very early morning
From the CPM “not-for-profit” website:
CPM (College Preparatory Mathematics) began as a grant-funded mathematics project in 1989 to write textbooks to help students understand mathematics and support teachers who use these materials. CPM is now a non-profit educational consortium managed and staffed by middle school and high school teachers that offers a complete mathematics program for grades six through 12 (Calculus). CPM provides:
◦ Professional development programs for CPM and non-CPM teachers
◦Curriculum materials (standards- and researched-based) that use problem-based lessons, collaborative student study teams and spaced practice with course concepts.
◦Learning strategies that are consistent with the CCSS “Standards for Mathematical Practices” and other models such as the strategies identified as effective by Dr. Robert Marzano at McRel.
You are a strange duck, NY Teacher. I use my full name on my comments, unlike you. It wouldn’t take much to figure out that I am not an employee of CPM (who only employ about 7 full time staff). I am a teacher at a HS in NM and am not particularly hard to find, if you actually care to do so instead of insinuating nefarious motives. Take off the tinfoil hat, dude.
Also, nice description of CPM. Not sure why it is relevant, but it does clarify why I like it.
This strange duck is still waiting for a CPM activity that teaches students how to think. The link to samples on the website was not working. One sample activity or problem to make your case. Be sure its revolutionary CC math stuff. Not the activities that you have used over the last 30 years to accrue your advanced mathematical braininess. And don’t forget, just one test item that measures thinking skills. CC without testing is like pancakes without flour, eggs, and milk.
Note the smile on Gates’ face just after he says “The state-led, Common Core state standards initiative”. Granted, that’s a mouthfull, but Gates also knows full well what went on behind the scenes to get states to agree to adopt Common Core, including some like MA that already had much better standards.
Difficult indeed to say that in front of an audience of state legislators without cracking a smile.
“The Common Store”
The Common Core
Is common store
When tests align
The corps will dine
A standard test
For corporate fest
Is by design
And not benign
Perhaps the publishers are the same, just with different names? That’s what all the think tanks are. That is what all the ed reform foundations are. When you look to some of those charts that have been prepared, its a circle of the same players, playing the same game. They make up some authoritative educational name, and open up a non-profit. Perhaps they are all in the publishing as well. Hey, why not? More for them, none for anyone else — all paid for by the duped public.
In response to the public school parent’s concern I search the net to find the names of the book companies Pearson bought out and this is what I found:
“On the Rise of Pearson (oh, and following the money)”
http://teacherblog.typepad.com/newteacher/2012/11/on-the-rise-of-pearson-oh-and-following-the-money.html
“The Pearson Monopoly” by Jennifer Job, Oklahoma State University
“Pearson owns Adobe, Scott Foresman, Penguin, Longman, Wharton, Harcourt, Puffin, Prentice Hall, Allyn & Bacon (among others such as Random House and Ladybug Bks.). They publish the tests, like the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the Stanford Achievement Test, the Millar Analogy Test, or the G.E.D. Or their data systems, like PowerSchool and SASI. …
Pearson has taken over our educational system. It is the largest educational assessment company in the U.S. Twenty-five states use them as their only source of large-scale testing, and they give and mark over a billion multiple choice every year. They are one of the largest suppliers of textbooks. …
Pearson partnered with University of Pheonix, where Teach for America comes from.
Pearson was involved with the development of the Race to the Top, Pearson is a key partner of the NGA and Council of Chief Stated Schools Officers. They
were involved with the Common Core Standards- through bribes Pearson’s educational methods are used….
Pearson is involved with NY’s teacher licensure program
Pearson funded a large about of money to Stanford in designing edTPA (Teacher Performance Assessment)
‘Krashen found that 53% got educators oppose the CC -nearly every state has adopted it anyway, they encourage a 20-fold increase in the number of tests given every age from preschool to grade 12. Tests that will be administer by Pearson.’
Gaddafi’s son Seirf al-Islalm, owns 3% of the company. Kock brothers, Teach For America have connections. When “Boundless Learning” tried to offer free and alternative textbooks to create a choice for students, Pearson helped sue the company out of existence.
Doesn’t Pearson also “own” The College Board? Speaking of which, and monopolies, recently issued a survey to AP English teachers about teaching Microsoft Word as part of the AP language course? Since when did teaching the use of a software program constitute the teaching of English. Oh, right. Follow the money…Pearson, College Board, Microsoft.
Remember when the government went after Gates as a monopoly? Time to go after Pearson.
I absolutely LOVE (note sarcasm) teaching subject/predicate to my first graders in September. WOW……….that’s Pearson Reading Street for you. Why in the world does a first grader need to know subject/predicate AT ALL??? Have we lost our collective minds?Never mind. I already know the answer.
Sidebar: Diane…..you rocked it on TV last night. You give us hope. I would have loved to have seen the Deasy interview following yours. I wonder why he never engages with you? Never mind. We know.
The evolution of K to 12 curriculum:
Gutenberg to 2001: The de-facto curriculum was the textbook.
2002 to present: The high-stakes test is the de-facto curriculum.
I’d like to see an investigation of Curriculum Associates. The founder seems to be an educator but the CEO is affiliated with Aspen, hedge funds, and other nefarious rentier activities. Florida is using their iReady online diagnostic/teaching software this year and so far it is a disaster, requiring Kindergarten and 1 st grade students to type in a 27 character username just to start. It also crashes frequently and the attached lessons are abysmal. They made millions though and I would guess has made hefty donations to politicians in Tallahasse and that is what counts today.
I would dig more to find out who is behind Curriculum Associates.
Please, please, please keep speaking out as a parent. Teachers face being fired for speaking truth to power. (Though we must do it. More good teachers are going to have to be sacrificed.)
And are you using SpringBoard? Just curious. This is true of that program.
I imagine you see this all over because there is a small number of large publishers who are stealing bad ideas from one another.
Another fine analysis of the much ado about Jack’s mistake problem, this one from Guy Brandenburg, the retired DCPS math teacher who continues to expose the many sins of Michelle Rhee. Make sure you read it all before drawing conclusions about what Guy thinks, because there’s a shift as he gets a clearer handle on the situation.
http://gfbrandenburg.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/jacks-famous-427-316-common-core-math-problem/
It is hard for me to take seriously people who have just started comparing textbooks or curricula or standards and never spent any time thinking about them prior to CCSS. Here’s the truth: The textbook business died in the 1980s when most companies kicked the bucket or were bought out by a few monopolies. Today’s textbooks are spewed out at an accelerated rate and proofread overseas. State standards were, in many cases, far more ridiculous than you find CCSS today; they were cobbled together by committees and looked like patchwork quilts of add-ons and internal battles that were never resolved. Curricula based on these standards were never really local unless there was a local decision to have teachers create all their own materials. Usually textbook companies fought to include as many “important” states’ standards as possible; “important” meant that the states adopted books whole hog and spent millions. The result was a hodgepodge, but at least there were real editors with educational experience and training who tried to put it all together. Nonetheless, textbooks often looked fairly similar, even back then, because guess what? Adding two-digit numbers is pretty much the same from place to place, and so is combining sentences with conjunctions.