Robert Pondiscio, who now works for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, shows here how a Common Core lesson can be deadly dull. New York put one of its “experts” on NPR to demonstrate how exciting a Common Core lesson was . But it wasn’t.
“I referred my listeners to a recent NPR effort to get “super-specific about what makes a good Common Core–aligned lesson.” The reporter enlisted the aid of Kate Gerson, who works with EngageNY, a New York State Education Department’s web site. She’s one of the leaders of New York State’s transition to Common Core; NPR asked her to walk through a supposedly exemplary ninth-grade lesson—a close reading of a short story by Karen Russell entitled, “St. Lucy’s Home for Girls Raised By Wolves.”
Pondiscio didn’t think much of the lesson. It was the same old skills-based lesson. Same old, same old.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
To the contrary, this is exactly what a great Common Core lesson looks like…and frankly it sucks.
Kate Gerson, a well-compensated member of the privately-funded Regents’ Research Fund, had the effrontery to represent herself as a person qualified to teach reading. She has had fewer than 3 years’ actual classroom experience, and displays here a curiously inept approach to instruction and learning. Has she ever spent time with 9th graders? Does she have any evidence that this awkward approach helps readers? This RRF is notorious for its staffing, composed mostly of non-educators, who have disproportionate influence with Commissioner King and Regent Tisch. Grifting is grifting.
Common Core will kill the joy of reading. I cringe when I look at the reading assignments that my 10th grader is given. They are extremely detail-oriented, with little room for creative thought. The questions are difficult, confusing, and wordy. Virtually every assignment is on either “compare and contrast” reading selections, or find the exact passage to prove something. They are NEVER allowed to give any personal opinions or speculations about the books in their writings. Everything must be found from the text for a decent grade. Over-analyzing literature in the classroom will turn kids away from reading. Then again, the “machines” have already done that.
If you insist upon making it a central requirement to teach young kids how to use skills they won’t actually need for another 5-8 years, this is what happens. I learned how to do close readings when I took a graduate level Philosophy course. Before that I didn’t need it; before that I used other skills, the ones, dare I say it… The ones that High School lit teachers were giving their kiddos before the Common Core came on the scene.
A new phrase we can add to ‘Dictionary of Oxymorons’
A “Great Common Core Lesson”
The lesson IS what it IS because the teacher IS teaching to the test. The author can defend Common Core Standards all he wants. But the fact remains, students and teachers are measured by scores on SBAC or PARCC. Teachers in fear of bad evaluations or in Idaho…afraid that they might slip on the licensure tier (if the state board has its way) are going to teach to the test. The test drives the curriculum.
Mary Ollie, you just explained why and how Duncan broke the law by funding CCSS tests. The tests are the curriculum, and the law forbids any federal officer from trying to direct, control, or influence curriculum or instruction in public schools.
Any guess as to why there has been no court challenge this de-facto federal over reach?
Bobby Jindal filed one last month.
And no public official in WA State will go against our gov and his good buddy Arne. Plus we have an ed Deformer as a possible State Supe candidate for the next election – funded by Gates money and charter school lovers – so it’ll be nothing but Common Core love here in the Evergreen State.
Wendy~
I agree that we are presenting materials & contents years above the children’s ability level, interest, need to know, enjoyment, deveopmental level & tons more.
I have been asking all along, where is the content appropriate for the children? For the age & grade? In the name of the nauseous word ‘RIGOR’, the Deformsters push nonsense & undue stress to finance their corporate agenda.
My other major concern is that we respond to and engage in debates/discussion with these self-made non-educators as if they had credentials, knowledge and experience, per journalist & Fordham Institute gadfly buddy of Michael Petrilli. Neither of them have education knowledge, but play so on Twitter.
EVERYTHING THEY KNOW THEY LEARNED ON TWITTER!
Could Mike and Robert demonstrate CCSS lessons, just the way they like them? Would love to see that on YouTube. Create an entire library of specific CCSS lessons in ELA & Math brought to us by Mike & Robert Show! Show Us! Dare them!!!
Since when do we discuss detailed educational issues with these folks? Oh, forgot…Gates bought them & he owns America.
I’ll catch on one of these days…or never!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Nothing like a demo lesson to bring into crystal-clear focus the serious problems with CCSS-ELA. As teachers and scholars, we here often debate the theoretical issues with abstract terms like “skills-driven.” The NYEngage module as demo’d by Gerson– and as critiqued by Pondiscio, Senechal’s blog post (cited by Pondiscio) and Tampio’s Huffington piece (ref in Pondiscio article comments))– is here painted in realistic, ground-level detail.
The only question remaining: is NYEngage simply off in left field, creating nightmarish classroom applications of perfectly good standards– i.e, ‘just’ another implementation problem? Can anyone devise ‘good’ demo lessons from the same standards?
Rob Pondiscio doesn’t drink the Kool-Aid – he makes it for others to drink.
Welcome to “Colemantown”
The self-styled “education reformers” have scored another cage busting achievement gap crushing 21st century victory in the race to reinvent teaching and learning—
They’ve rediscovered ennui and malaise!
And like John Deasy in his billion dollar quest for that perfect iPad, they’re doubling down on the boredom and listlessness!
I am excitedly awaiting their use of fire and their invention of the wheel and most of all—
I am on the edge of my seat while they come up with the most newfangled gosh darn it never-before-seen thing that’s ever been thought of—
Education.
Wake me up when they do it.
Mmmmmmmmmm…
😴
KTA
I for one will be forever indebted to the likes of Gates, Duncan, Coleman, and Pondiscio. I have spent the last 35 years floundering in failed pedagogy. My students trying their best to decipher the endless stream of babble that spewed forth from my un-enlightened pie hole. Thanks to the amazing new reform ideas, I can finally present lessons that are interesting, effective, lessons destined to produce college and career readiness. I bow to their educational elegance and chant prayers of thanks nightly.
On a side note,I was cooking blueberry pancakes for my kids this weekend and I swear on a stack of copyrighted CC standards that one of them had the image of Arne Duncan formed out of what I thought were random blueberries. Thought about putting it on ebay, but decided it looked to good enough to eat.
If you missed Denny Taylor’s excellent essay connecting ALL the dots in ed reform, here’s the link. It’s a long post, well worth the read, particularly the “Reading Wars” history and Texas NCLB connection. In short, the edushysters don’t want kids to understand literature as it might lead them to think and reflect, rather than regurgitate.
Can We Win the Struggle For Democracy When Big Money Writes Public Education Policy?
http://www.livingindialogue.com/response-marc-tucker-can-win-struggle-democracy-big-money-writes-public-education-policy/
I know we’re supposed to appreciate his slicing and dicing of this person, but I personally think this sort of commentary leads right to local schools and teachers being blamed for their inability to translate the abstract, pure beauty of the Common Core into practice 🙂
There are a whole bunch of people who have had this thing dumped into their laps and are hard at work trying to deal with it. I’m not crazy about the sneering tone in the piece, because this probably runs downhill once he’s done with the EngageNY person, right to local schools and teachers.
They’re cutting it into small pieces at my local public school, too (I see my 6th grader’s work) which is what I anticipated they would do, because it’s a huge change and these are middle schoolers. They haven’t had it before and it’s an ordinary Ohio public school- neither “failing” or “wealthy and suburban”. The middle schoolers are going to be expected to perform on this when they’re tested this spring and everyone knows it, including them.
I think they’re doing the best they can, and if it’s like every other ed reform in this state, they won’t get any support but they’ll get plenty of biting commentary 🙂
Chiara, Kate Gerson is not a regular classroom teacher. She works directly for the State Board of Regents and is supposed to be an exemplar.
I understood that Diane. I’m just wary of attributing “implementation” problems to individuals because I think that probably comes back to bite the people who have to try to do this, and that is a LOT of people, most of whom had absolutely no control over designing it.
Chiara, Kate Gerson is following the plan as it is written. And make no mistake, she is implementing the script. It seems incoherent because the texts do not connect thematically; they connect based on the standards taught that students review at the beginning of each lesson. There is no knowledge taught nor is there any insightful,or original thinking. This IS the common core. These are the scripted (now optional) plans for New York teachers and students.
Sorry you perceive a sneering tone (it’s not my usual style). I was shooting for dismay since I see value in the Common Core, which I know will not endear me to readers of Diane’s blog. But I’m sure as heck not extending my dismay to local schools and teachers, especially since I’m still actively teaching.
I agree entirely that teachers and schools are doing the best they can. I’m not in a position to fairly judge whether they are getting enough support. But what I have a tough time ignoring is when the support we get is unhelpful or worse.
rpondiscio: “endearment” aside…
😏
I simply read it as your reaction. Nothing “sneering” about it. You told it like you saw it.
Thank you for your comment.
😎
Thanks for the response. The math isn’t that different from what they’ve been doing. They have been doing “number sense” for quite a while. This is my 4th through the public school so I can compare from child to child and year to year.
The english is really different. I read his first crack at a “wholly text-dependent compare and contrast essay” (not how it was described, but I read the goal) and he genuinely does not know what it is they’re asking him to do. He’s only been at it a month. Will he know by the time he gets graded or tested on it? Maybe. I hope everyone in his class does.
ROB WRITES:
“CCSS implicitly rescues literacy from its status as a content-free, skills-driven intellectual wasteland . . .”
“I choose to be optimistic. The essential point made by E.D. Hirsch for nearly 30 years – literacy is a function of background knowledge –is settled science. For the first time in the reform era, American education is having a deep and fruitful conversation about what gets taught. The understanding that the more kids know across knowledge domains, the more likely they are to read, write, listen and speak with comprehension and confidence, is enshrined in the Common Core ELA standards.”
______________________________________
I could not agree more strongly about the importance of content and knowledge as the key to reading comprhension, coherent writing, and critical thinking.
I could not disagree more strongly on the notion that CC standards in ELA are “content rich”
Rob
I must be something here. Could you please provide just two or three exemplars for “content rich” CC standards. Thanks.
I must be [missing] something here.
ROB WRITES:
“American education is having a deep and fruitful conversation about what gets taught.” Seriously Rob????
A deep and thoughtful conversation about what gets taught – WHILE EXCLUDING AND IGNORING TEACHERS. It is a very strange way for a thought leader like yourself to define “American education”
There aren’t any “content rich CC standards.” I’ve written volumes about what I call the “57 most important words in education reform” which are these:
“By reading texts in history/social studies, science, and other disciplines, students build a foundation of knowledge in these fields that will also give them the background to be better readers in all content areas. Students can only gain this foundation when the curriculum is intentionally and coherently structured to develop rich content knowledge within and across grades.”
And that’s pretty much the whole ball of wax. The standards are not curriculum (they can’t be by law; and most of us would reject a set curriculum). So the best any set of locally-implemented ELA standards can do is to say, in essence, “Hey, none of this works if kids don’t know a lot of stuff. So teach kids lots of stuff.” It’s up to educators at the local level to pick and choose the curriculum, and that’s appropriate.
Nothing else in ed reform makes this point — not charters, testing, data, teacher quality, etc. What kids learn matters. A lot.
Rob, this is an absurd response. The Common Core ELA standards are almost entirely devoid of content regarding the English language arts. To suggest that English teachers are going to deliver instruction that is content rich in biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology, global history, US history, US government, civics, economics, or any other discipline is an outrageous claim. It is the pipedream of those stuck in their ivory towers. Five years in the South Bronx was no ivory tower, but it seems to me you have forgotten what life is like in the trenches. The teaching and learning of significant science and history content in ELA classes will never happen. The CC assessments (the tail) will be driving curriculum and pedagogy (the wagging dog). I have seen the assessments and trust me they do not even come close to testing a student’s knowledge in any subject area; just abstract and subjective skills that do not even relate to the way any normal person reads for enjoyment or understanding. And try as you might, you will never be able to provide specific ELA standards that are content rich because they do not exist. The vague paragraph you cited has no teeth, because it will not tested.
I get the impression that you really do believe what you are saying about content rich standards and really do care about children and their educational opportunities. And I completely agree with your comments about the importance of content knowledge for improving reading and writing skills. I am a big fan of the ED Hirsch and his Core Curriculum Series; it is unfortunate that the goals of this program were misunderstood by so many. And I am completely flabbergasted that so many young teachers have been indoctrinated with the corrupt versions of discovery learning and constructivism – to the point where they cannot see the supreme importance of content knowledge. On this we agree whole-heartedly.
You left the trenches in the South Bronx a long time ago and things have changed dramatically. The punitive and threatening nature of NCLB and especially RTTT and the Regents Reform Agenda here in NY has negatively impacted school climates, classroom instruction, and student attitudes toward school beyond your wildest imagination. The high stakes federal testing regime wants little to do with student knowledge and content rich standards. They have exacerbated the backlash against traditional teaching with their misguided emphasis on thinking skills. Skills which cannot be taught or tested accurately. Your two periods a week at Democracy Prep charter school cannot possibly give you a sense of just how wrong the Duncan/Obama education policies are playing out in New York’s public schools. I really wish you would reconsider your stance as we could you use someone with your great passion for education, intellect, and writing skills on the side of the Resistance. And if you ever want to sit down over a beer or two to discuss this I would be glad to meet you on the porch of the MGS.
rpondiscio,
Perhaps the “value in the Common Core” that you “see” would vanish if you read and understand why educational standards and standardized testing are educational malpractices that are COMPLETELY INVALID due to the myriad epistemological and ontological errors inherent in the making, using and disseminating the results of said practices. Noel Wilson has proven so in his never refuted nor rebutted take down of those malpractices in “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700
Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine. (updated 6/24/13 per Wilson email)
1. A description of a quality can only be partially quantified. Quantity is almost always a very small aspect of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category only by a part of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as unidimensional quantities (numbers or grades) is to perpetuate a fundamental logical error” (per Wilson). The teaching and learning process falls in the logical realm of aesthetics/qualities of human interactions. In attempting to quantify educational standards and standardized testing the descriptive information about said interactions is inadequate, insufficient and inferior to the point of invalidity and unacceptability.
2. A major epistemological mistake is that we attach, with great importance, the “score” of the student, not only onto the student but also, by extension, the teacher, school and district. Any description of a testing event is only a description of an interaction, that of the student and the testing device at a given time and place. The only correct logical thing that we can attempt to do is to describe that interaction (how accurately or not is a whole other story). That description cannot, by logical thought, be “assigned/attached” to the student as it cannot be a description of the student but the interaction. And this error is probably one of the most egregious “errors” that occur with standardized testing (and even the “grading” of students by a teacher).
3. Wilson identifies four “frames of reference” each with distinct assumptions (epistemological basis) about the assessment process from which the “assessor” views the interactions of the teaching and learning process: the Judge (think college professor who “knows” the students capabilities and grades them accordingly), the General Frame-think standardized testing that claims to have a “scientific” basis, the Specific Frame-think of learning by objective like computer based learning, getting a correct answer before moving on to the next screen, and the Responsive Frame-think of an apprenticeship in a trade or a medical residency program where the learner interacts with the “teacher” with constant feedback. Each category has its own sources of error and more error in the process is caused when the assessor confuses and conflates the categories.
4. Wilson elucidates the notion of “error”: “Error is predicated on a notion of perfection; to allocate error is to imply what is without error; to know error it is necessary to determine what is true. And what is true is determined by what we define as true, theoretically by the assumptions of our epistemology, practically by the events and non-events, the discourses and silences, the world of surfaces and their interactions and interpretations; in short, the practices that permeate the field. . . Error is the uncertainty dimension of the statement; error is the band within which chaos reigns, in which anything can happen. Error comprises all of those eventful circumstances which make the assessment statement less than perfectly precise, the measure less than perfectly accurate, the rank order less than perfectly stable, the standard and its measurement less than absolute, and the communication of its truth less than impeccable.”
In other word all the logical errors involved in the process render any conclusions invalid.
5. The test makers/psychometricians, through all sorts of mathematical machinations attempt to “prove” that these tests (based on standards) are valid-errorless or supposedly at least with minimal error [they aren’t]. Wilson turns the concept of validity on its head and focuses on just how invalid the machinations and the test and results are. He is an advocate for the test taker not the test maker. In doing so he identifies thirteen sources of “error”, any one of which renders the test making/giving/disseminating of results invalid. And a basic logical premise is that once something is shown to be invalid it is just that, invalid, and no amount of “fudging” by the psychometricians/test makers can alleviate that invalidity.
6. Having shown the invalidity, and therefore the unreliability, of the whole process Wilson concludes, rightly so, that any result/information gleaned from the process is “vain and illusory”. In other words start with an invalidity, end with an invalidity (except by sheer chance every once in a while, like a blind and anosmic squirrel who finds the occasional acorn, a result may be “true”) or to put in more mundane terms crap in-crap out.
7. And so what does this all mean? I’ll let Wilson have the second to last word: “So what does a test measure in our world? It measures what the person with the power to pay for the test says it measures. And the person who sets the test will name the test what the person who pays for the test wants the test to be named.”
In other words it attempts to measure “’something’ and we can specify some of the ‘errors’ in that ‘something’ but still don’t know [precisely] what the ‘something’ is.” The whole process harms many students as the social rewards for some are not available to others who “don’t make the grade (sic)” Should American public education have the function of sorting and separating students so that some may receive greater benefits than others, especially considering that the sorting and separating devices, educational standards and standardized testing, are so flawed not only in concept but in execution?
My answer is NO!!!!!
One final note with Wilson channeling Foucault and his concept of subjectivization:
“So the mark [grade/test score] becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark that implicitly predicted the now self evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.”
In other words students “internalize” what those “marks” (grades/test scores) mean, and since the vast majority of the students have not developed the mental skills to counteract what the “authorities” say, they accept as “natural and normal” that “story/description” of them. Although paradoxical in a sense, the “I’m an “A” student” is almost as harmful as “I’m an ‘F’ student” in hindering students becoming independent, critical and free thinkers. And having independent, critical and free thinkers is a threat to the current socio-economic structure of society.
By Duane E. Swacker
Rob,
Why not step into the rink and debate standards, curriculum & content w/ Real teachers & Curriculum Specialists in detail. Put your Fordham Institute Gadfly Think Tank brain where your journalistic column inch is. Step into the rink! We know our field, we know children, and we have integrity!
Well?
HA
Rob, like every other ivory tower reformer I have challenged in the past, will refuse your offer to debate in this open forum. The only case they have relies on bogus, snake oil claims. They do not want to be challenged by real educators who have spent their careers in the trenches. Its a lose-lose for them.
Read above: We’re still waiting for something as simple as a copy and paste of a few content rich CC exemplar standards. When I administered the grade 8 Common Core ELA test last spring, I had the chance to get an up close look at the only CC standards that count – those being tested. I searched long and hard for items that tested for ELA content knowledge – to no avail. Test items focused entirely on abstract and subjective skills.
…abstract and subjective skills…good luck teachers with those tests…
Always happy to discuss anything about education and defend what I write. But like many others, I don’t particularly relish being called names (“ivory tower reformer,” etc.). I taught full-time for five years at PS 277 in the South Bronx, worked for many years for the Core Knowledge Foundation and, in addition to my work for Fordham, I work at Democracy Prep, where I still teach (civics and journalism) two days a week. I’m quite well aware of the disconnects between policy and practice and insist on keeping my classroom lens sharp and in focus by actively teaching (that was a non-negotiable for me in accepting Fordham’s offer)
If that makes me “not a real educator” then there’s nothing more I can say. Or will. I don’t wish to sound combative, but I’ve long tired of arguing about who is or is not qualified to have a voice in education “debate.” I try to use mine responsibly and authentically. It’s all I can do.
Rob, I don’t understand why Michael Petrilli was the spokesperson & ‘shining star’ in the so-called CCSS debate, he claimed he won, when Mike has no education credentials – only a BS in PoliSci. If you are the resident educator, most likely the only one who may have worked with kids, according to your comments above, why are you behind the scenes and only writing for Fordham Institute, known only for Corporated reform & non-educators? If you have taught five years, RealTeachers cannot possibly defend the bias, opinions & corporate funding of the destruction of public schools. What about Fordham Institute promotes what’s good for kids?
Only focus is to push Gates’ & Co. agenda.
Rob’s comments and affiliation are especially surprising because he has been an outspoken critic of Obama’s education policies. Makes one wonder how and why he was lured to the dark side from his cushy classroom in the South Bronx??????
Rob’s critique of this exemplar CC lesson was spot on. Saying it sucked would be an insult to vacuum cleaners everywhere.
But we won’t hold our breath waiting for Rob to take on HA’s challenge. Everyone’s a critic Rob, but a real educator would demonstrate what a great CC lesson looks like, rather than beating up on an obviously bad one. Still waiting for that Youtube lesson.
And since you still teach at “Democracy Prep” you have the perfect venue to strut your stuff. Checked out the web-site and did NOT see you listed as any of the “45 of the best educators in the world”
http://democracyprep.org/schools/team/democracy-prep-charter-high-school
Ms. Hurley
Again, I don’t mean to sound combative, but it would help if you were a little less eager to attack. Here and on Twitter, I can’t post a word without you jumping down my throat, making assumptions about my work and interests. Now you’re surprised to find out I’m a teacher, but since I’m not anti-reform, I must not be a “real teacher,” etc.
I just don’t find these kinds of broad brush assertions helpful or interesting. I’m interested in curriculum and instruction, educating for upward mobility, helping the low-income kids I work with get the same benefit from education that I got. That’s pretty much it. If you read some of the columns I wrote with Deb Meier at Bridging Differences earlier this year and last, I think (I hope) you’ll find that I’m as committed to earnest dialogue and exchange as anyone. But — and again, please forgive me — I’m just not interested in dividing the world into warring camps, or deciding who are the good guys and bad guys. When people start fulminating about “corporate ed reform” on the one hand or “people who put the interest of adults ahead of children” on the other, I just move on. I have great respect for those who bring activist zeal to their work. But waiving my fist in the air is just not my thing, I’m afraid. But I’ll work with, listen to and reason with anyone whose blood pressure in within a normal range.
I tend to view everything in education through a simple (even simplistic) lens I call the “Tiffany Test,” whether it’s policy, pedagogy, etc. I named it after a former student of mine who was bright, committed, hard-working and wildly underserved by my school — and by me — years ago in the South Bronx. Here’s how it works: I ask, “Will this make it more likely or less likely that someone like Tiffany (who works hard, is invested in her education, and plays by the rules) will get an education that will set her on a path to be upwardly mobile, so that she can raise her kids in circumstances that are better than she had. Sometiimes the answer is “no”; most often the answer is “no difference.”
When the answer is “yes” I get excited. But I just don’t care, frankly, if someone makes a buck off it, if it’s strengthens or weakens unions, or if the idea was dreamed up by someone I don’t like.
That’s pretty much it. Want to talk about it? My personal email is rpondiscio@aol.com. Want to yell and call me names? Do me the favor of doing it in the subject line so I can just delete it.
Robert
On the basis of your “Tiffany Test” I can understand why you got excited about the Core Knowledge Series from ED Hirsch. Implementation would have clear and direct educational value for kids like her, burried in chaotic, dangerous, and unstructured environments.
Using the very same “test”, I just don’t see how the Common Core can get you excited for improving Tiffany’s chances for upward mobility. We now have 13 years of test-and-punish data in New York State that proves that punitive, high-stakes testing is a FAILED reform idea. The last two years of data form CC assessments prove that doubling down on this idea does not work either. Raising the bar to impossibly high standards is helping no one. Labeling 80+% of minority students and 95% of special ed students as failures is doing nothing to help them improve their prospects for upward mobility. The students I teach in 8th grade have now had at least seven years of intensive math instructuion geared toward improving their test scores. Trust me, the math skill they bringing into my classroom are embarassingly weak despite their teachers best efforts to IMPROVE TEST SCORES. And that Rob is the essence of the failure here. If the goal of math and ELA instruction is to simply imrove test scores (and make no mistake, that is the only goal under the federal, test-and-punish regime) we do nothing to help Tiffany to value her education and use it properly as a stepping stone for a bettre future. We have young teachers now worshiping (and praying) on the altar of the almaighty test score, This is nothing short of tragic for kids like Tiffany as the opportunity cost is imeasurable. Please reconsider your views as you are clearly an oulier from the reform side.
On a side note Rob. Much of the combative tone, fist in the air anger you are sensing from teachers on this blog is the residue of enormous frustration and even fear. The test-and-punish reform agenda has poisoned the atmosphere of NY’s public schools to a degree that no one on the outside could possibly understand. Under the Obama/Duncan federal testing regime, the voices of experienced teachers have been ignored, their professionalism has been insulted, their experience in the field has been discounted.
We are angry Rob. But we didnt start out this way. We were never invited to the table because we were told that those outside our field, people with not a single minute of classroom time, somehow new better than us. There was no conversation or discussion. But we are rejecting the Regents Reform Agenda not because we were ignored, insulted, and discounted; but because it is that bad. Had an educationally sound reform package been rammed down our throats, one that was good for the Tiffany’s of the world, do you honestly think it would have been met with such strong oppostion from educators? And here in NY public schools we have had two years to see if any of this is any good for kids. And most of us have decided that its not, that its detrimental to their chances for a better future, And so, if we sound a little too defensive or a little too angry, or a little too insulting for your taste, I can make no apology. Please try to be a little more understanding and a little less sensitive. Our profession is under attack and frankly we have enough.
Robert, you can’t be so naïve as to make us believe that your involvement with Fordham Institute and your regular writings to support the Reform and distructions of Public Education is something you participate in because you care about bettering the Tiffany’s of the world. You are judged by the company you keep and whose $$ you take.
It is not news to me that you claim to be a credentialed teacher. We had that convo several times before and you were very evasive, and your background lacked details. You see, there is a pattern of holes left in so-called teachers’ vitas. Having hired many teachers and administrators in my career, I am used to reviewing résumés and I listen to people’s descriptions of their experiences. I have also been at this long enough to spot it a mile away.
There have always been people who joined teaching later, went to university while on the job, and became career educators. That is not my objection and that situation is not harming our profession. What you and your Reformers practice is that the Teaching Profession does not need credentials, knowledge, research, facts, ethics, integrity and experience. Telling teachers how to teach and what to teach as if we are some dumb uneducated bunch of second class citizens is outrageous. Most of us have more education than you and your Reformers – in fact consistently!
One thing we may need to consider for Education Reform – improve the undergraduate programs for political science, journalism and public policy studies. These are the fields you Reformers are coming from and feel absolutely entitled to tell us how to do our jobs. What can anyone do with a BS in those fields? Grad school? What a JOKE!
Anybody can Teach, especially, TFA? What an insult to those of us who did it the Right Way, for the Right reasons, and we will not back off! Whatever your background, you Robert, are not a RealTeacher. You fit very well with all the others at Fordham Institute.
Saving Public Education is at a Fever Pitch because our kids and their teachers are being harmed! There is no more soft peddling these discussions. Crisis Time! We have been passive since NCLB and never saw RTTT coming and choking the life out of education until it was too late. You and the Reformers treat all this as a game, create skits, participate in fluff debates, Win, Lose, bring in more CorpTypes to the table, as if we were having some stupid reality show in an adolescent dorm room.
Man, this is real and lives are at stake. Teachers have lost careers and kids have dropped out and are staying home to be homeschooled…not by choice.
There is so much wrong with what is going on today, your comments about lah di dah, and you just want to elevate kids, give them opportunities, and avoid controversy is naïve and not true. You and your Reformers have TOTALLY DISRESPECTED, ignored, shunned, p***ed off thousands of us because you PLAY AT THIS, which is Dead Serious for millions of children, millions of parents and their teachers. We are not going to let this happen, not on my watch, not on the watch of thousands of us.
Now, I have work to do and no interest to continue this.
I am doing my part to protect public schools for my grandchildren and all our children.
He does write clearly, though.
Amen H.A.