Peter Greene knows that breaking up is hard to do. But it is happening. The people who love charters also were promoting Common Core. They had a common goal: make public schools look bad, then watch the stampede to privately-managed charters.
What is it about Common Core that has made it toxic? The more teachers use it, the more the polls show they don’t like it. Rhetoric to the contrary, CCSS does tell teachers how to teach, based on the likes and dislikes of the authors, few of whom ever were classroom teachers. Rhetoric to the contrary, the early grades set absurd expectations that some children will meet easily, and others won’t reach for a year or two. No one on the writing team had ever taught little kids or had no idea that they develop at different rates. No one had any experience teaching students with disabilities, most of whom will look bad on Common Core tests. Greene points to the number of governors, like Malloy and Cuomo, who disowned the Common Core, but I think it is better to wait and see what happens now that the election is over.
Greene writes:
The Ed Reform movement has always been a marriage of different groups whose interests and goals sometimes aligned, and sometimes did not. The Systems Guys, the Data Overlords, the Common Core Corporate Hustlers, the Charter Privateers, the Social Engineers– they agree on some things (we need to replace variable costly teachers with low-cost uniform widgets), but there are cracks in the alliance, one seems to be turning into a fissure.
The Common Core Hustlers are being dumped by the Charter Privateers. It’s not an obvious break-up– the privateers haven’t texted the Core backers to say, “Hey, we need to talk.” It’s the slow, soft drop. The unreturned phone calls. The unwillingness to even say the name. Not even making eye contact when they show up at the same party. It’s awkward. It’s painful.
It wasn’t always like this. Charters and the Core were a match made in heaven. To spur financing and enrollment, the Charter forces needed a way to “prove” that public schools suck, and that meant finding a yardstick with which public schools could be measured and found failing. That meant some sort of standardized test, and that meant something to test them on. So, Common Core. The Core and the Tests (from which it could not, must not, be separated) would be the smoking gun, the proof that public schools were failing and that only privatizing schools would save Our Nation’s Youth.
The corporate folks liked it because it was another opportunity for market growth. The fake liberals liked it because it could be packaged as a way to bring equity to the poor. The fake conservatives liked it because it could be packaged as a way to use market forces to get those slacker poor folks into line.The Core and Charter really got each other. They wanted all the same things.
But soon, the love affair between charters and the Core started to show strain. The Core would show up late at night, smelling like Big Government. And while everybody’s friends liked the Core when it first started coming around, but as they got to know it, they started whispering behind its back that it was kind of an asshole. Pretty soon, old friends like Bobby Jindal were calling the Core out in public. And when election season came, they weren’t invited to the same parties together any more. Jeb Bush had been the Core’s oldest and best friend, and even he had a huge party where Charters were held up for praise and applause and the Core wasn’t even mentioned.
There was no longer any denying it. When Charter walked into the cafeteria, instead of sitting down with the Core and telling friends, “You should come sit with the Core. It’s cool” instead Charter would sit on the other side of the room and say, “You don’t want to sit at that table with that thing.”
Once the Core had been a marketing point. Public schools were bad news because they couldn’t do Common Core well enough. Now public schools are bad news because they are trying to do Common Core well enough. We used to market charters as a way to run toward the Core; now we market them as a way to run away from it.
None of the reformsters who now disown Common Core are dropping any other part of the reformster agenda, especially not privatization.
And you can bet they are not dropping high-stakes testing either, unless the public revolt gets loud enough for legislators to hear it.

Dear Dr. Green:
Thank you for the absolute truth about the relationship between Charters and Common Core, as well as their followers. It is all about to take hundred of million dollars annually away from Public tax fund in order to replace American Public Education, precious HUMAN INTERACTION with ipad, idiocy of rules regarding NO respect for: human creativity, the joy of learning from children, and the dignity of teaching profession. Back2basic
LikeLike
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
LikeLike
Democratic and liberal ed reformers are in a horrible tactical position.
Republicans don’t need them anymore, on the Common Core or anything else. Republicans will be running ed reform in 31 states and DC. They’re going to do all the privatization and none of the liberal and Democratic ed reform agenda. Democrats won’t be able to run against that in the next election because they backed all the privatization in the hopes they’d get some part of their own agenda along with it. What are they going to say, next election, in states and at the federal level? “We backed privatization but we hoped it would be much more equitable and progressive”?
Well played. Democrats. You dealt away public schools (and the public school supporters in your base), Republicans won an election, and now you’ll get absolutely nothing in return for the deal.
LikeLike
I beg to differ. They are not “liberal ed reformers”, they are neoliberals –a huge difference.
“The Liberal Education Reform Revolt: Are liberals finally ready to oppose neoliberal education reform?”
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2013/07/the-liberal-education-reform-revolt/
“Liberal” has become a dirty word in the Democratic party, as Rahm Emmanuel demonstrated in 2012 when he referred to liberal activists as “f…ing retarded” because they were targeting conservative Democrats who were against ObamaCare. The Democrats have evolved into a party that has no problem with alienating their liberal base.
LikeLike
Maybe the article by Lois Weiner supports your assertion. However, I think that Democrats like Michelle Rhee, who is married to a black Democratic mayor and who has supported many right wing Republicans, were never really liberal minded about public education to begin with.
Here’s an article about Emmanuel’s faux pas:
“Rahm Apologizes for Privately Calling Liberal Activists “Retarded””
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/02/rahm-apologizes-for-privately-calling-liberal-activists-retarded/
LikeLike
Over the past week, I saw a propaganda commercial which aired a couple dozen times, ostensibly sponsored by the National Urban League (NUL), extolling the supposed virtues of the Common Core. It looks like, in desperation to try and save “The Core,” Gates has called in his marker –the nearly $4M that he gave to NUL in 2011 for “communications.” We can no longer depend on civil rights groups to advocate for children of color because they have been bought by Gates et al:
“Corporate Funding of Urban League, NAACP & Civil Rights Orgs Has Turned Into Corporate Leadership”
http://www.blackagendareport.com/corporate-funding-urban-league-naacp-civil-rights-orgs-has-turned-corporate-leadership
LikeLike
The last time I looked, advocating for “civil rights” did not involve labeling a generation of young children of color as chronic failures using tests designed to produce exaggerated failure rates. For the same reasons that MLK did not believe that turning fire hoses on blacks would make them better swimmers or that cattle prods would teach them Ohm’s Law.
LikeLike
Hard to find many groups that have not been purchased by Gates, Koch and corporations who “partner” with any group willing to let them advertise in exchange for a package of corporate or legislative perks.
Here is some old data from the parties who launched the Common Core and for the same years it was being launched (2009-2010)
In 2010, the National Governors Aassociation received over $2.9 million from 126 Corporate Partners, with part of that from a ”Corporate Fellows” program with an annual participation fee of $20,000. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/cf
The Council of Chief State School Officer’s Corporate Partnership program offers annual sponsorships to help defray the cost of the meetings, conferences, and forums planned for corporate leaders. I estimated the 2011 income at $2,275,000 based on the last published tiers in 2009. Non-profit corporations are noted with an asterisk.
Level 1. Partners paying $100,000 were AdvancED, Cisco, Data Recognition Corporation (DRC), Educational Testing Service,* ENI (Evans Newton Incorporated), McGraw-Hill Education, Microsoft U.S. Partners in Learning, Pearson, Pearson Evaluation Group, Promethean, and TaskStream.
Level 2. Partners paying $75,000 were the American Institutes of Research,* Intel, Measured Progress,* Measurement Incorporated, MetaMetrics Northwest Evaluation Association,* Renaissance Learning, Scranton, Wilson Language Training.
Level 3. Partners paying $50,000 were America’s Choice, Apple, Avanta, Celt, Dell, Discovery Education, Public Consulting Group, Questar Assessment, Texas Instruments, Wireless Generation.
Additional sponsorships at four annual meetings, ranged from $7,500 to $25,000 per event, or $148,000-$200,000 for the complete program. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Who_We_Are/Business_and_Industry_Partnerships/Corporate_Partners.html
Notive that this listof “pay to play insiders’ includes some charter chains..
More. Pearson sponsors international “summit“ conferences, co-hosted by the CCSSO. The first was in Singapore (2008 on science and mathematics education), followed by Finland (2009 on teacher quality), and London, (2010 on digital technologies).
After each conference Pearson publishes a Report and Policy Recommendations for Education Leaders. At the time of this corporate report, Pearson owned SchoolNet and its “Service partner” iSphere. Both provide multi-platform services (web, internet, mobile) to schools engaged in alignment studies, including reports on students skills needing improvement, school performance measures (with Kaplan K-12 learning services), and staff performance appraisals. Retrieved from http://www.pearson.com/investor/ar2009/governance/remuneration-report.html
LikeLike
Yohuru Williams and I wrote an op-ed about the National Urban League’s media campaign for the Common Core.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/27250-common-core-betrays-the-civil-rights-movement
LikeLike
Amen!
LikeLike
the math may actually be the worst part: senseless, wrong headed, intimidating, and maddening! we created a beautiful movement to reform math education in the 80’s and this dreck is standing it on its head!
LikeLike
Lauren,
That was 30 years ago. How much progress has been made in a generation?
LikeLike
How much has math changed in 30 years?
LikeLike
Duane,
Math instruction has changed very little. That is perceived by many as a problem.
LikeLike
How much has math changed in 30 years?
LikeLike
Duane,
A hard question to answer. The math that is taught in K-12 has not changed a bit. How it is taught has not changed appreciably. Mathematics itself of course changes. One recent issue concerns what constitutes a proof. If you are interested, you can read some articles about proofs and computers here: http://www.ams.org/notices/200811/
LikeLike
Thanks for the answer to my question and also thanks for the link!
If math hasn’t changed, what is the need to change the curriculum? (that question is for all not just TE)
LikeLike
Duane,
Your question presupposes that the curriculum 30 years ago did a good job of teaching mathmatics. I don’t think it did. What the curriculum did and does do today is teach calculation, a skill that is far less important now than it was 30 years ago.
LikeLike
Wow. Great post. “Fake liberals”….. that made me laugh. I’ve been up since 4 a.m. and drove most the day so I needed a chuckle. And, the scene in the cafeteria. Priceless, Peter Greene.
LikeLike
I may be warming up to the Common Core a little bit. A brilliant math teacher friend of mine likes the math standards. He may be wrong to like them –I don’t trust him implicitly– but he’s caused me to be more open minded about them. The ELA standards are hardly different than the old CA standards: nothing very useful, but not catastrophic either. Adapting to the Common Core is mostly a grand waste of time, but it’s not armageddon either. I still suspect the SBAC/PARCC tests might be armageddon because of their likely impact on teaching and their potential to discredit public schools.
LikeLike
Ponderosa, that was my initial assessment, too. But The changes between are old CA standards and CC, at least in middle school, are hidden away in the appendices. That’s where the nonsense about close reading and the increased Lexile level are revealed.
LikeLike
English,
Close reading in the math standards?
LikeLike
Excellent.
LikeLike