Most states have adopted Common Core. A few states have backed out. A few have dropped the federally funded tests. Here is a 50-state overview.
The website RealClearEducation posted a different view of the 50 states, showing the states where the standards are at risk of being repealed.
If you have any updates from your state, let me know.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“the investment of time and funding into repealing the Common Core, then developing and implementing entirely new standards could cost states substantially more than tweaking the Common Core standards that are already in place and nearly fully implemented”
This statement from “Real Clear Education” reflects the reality that the issue is not really the cost of an “alternative.” Politicians seem to be clueless about the Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) document that officials in each state signed and the verbatim requirement attached to signing up for the CCSS. They still think that the CCSS can be rewritten, or used like a pick and choose menu, and divorced from the tests that are in the works with those scores used for accountability under No Child Left Behind–instead of state ELA and math tests .
LikeLike
Very true. But that’s been built into the Common Core shell game from the beginning. The Educrats who run our schools have either lied to the public or repeat in willfull ignorance the lies that come from the pro-CC factions.
We can no longer trust our education leaders to be honest with the public or to care about the interests of our children. It’s all about money and corporate control now.
LikeLike
They talk as if states were running rampant with no sense of standards before the federal government imposed the CCSS. The reality that states already had standards which, in most cases, were better than what replaced them, is lost.
I’ll take the NYS standards over common core any day.
Ellen T Klock
LikeLike
The imposition of the Common Core standards in math and ELA was a significant downgrade for New York State students and teachers. How this has been overlooked speaks to the “boiled frog” implementation. Fortunately, the frog’s not cooked yet and is about to jump the pot.
LikeLike
I am going to ask what i think is a very obvious question- since when did corporations and/or the federal government take over developing stat standards? According to the Northwest Ordinance neither of these groups have any business being involved. Plus, this comment begs to ask who developed curriculum during the 60’s when we put men on the moon?
LikeLike
Is the link correct? I clicked on it and it takes me to an ABC News page.
LikeLike
Look for multiple bills in Maine to remove CC, SBAC, evaluations, performance-based education, and protect student and family privacy in early 2015.
LikeLike
Arne Duncan was here in New Orleans earlier this week: http://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2014/12/arne_duncan_new_orleans_educat.html
More troubling, TP commentator Jarvis DeBerry—normally a progressive voice for clear thinking—believes the hype about American education falling evermore behind the rest of the world, and seems to think Common Core is the answer. Largely because Jindal, Vitter, and the far right are against it:
http://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2014/12/education_secretary_says_us_is.html
Diane, what is your response to the many prominent African American figures you support Common Core because they believe the hype about raising standards for ALL students?
LikeLike
Most poor and African American students will fall farther behind because if the Common Core tests. Taking standardized tests does not improve instruction or achievement. Tests don’t close score gaps–they reflect and measure them. In New York, 70% of all kids “failed” the Common Core tests. More than 80% of black and Hispanic kids “failed.”
It is totally a fraud to say that harder tests will help black kids. Lowering class size will help; that should be a civil right. So too for health clinics and school nurses, librarians, social workers, and the arts. Music, band, dancing, singing, drawing, making videos, writing stories and poems will do far more for Adrican American children than harder tests, which will label many children as failures–unfairly.
LikeLike
I always questioned the philosophy of rigor – in other words, if children are doing poorly, make the curriculum even more difficult so they’ll try harder to “pass”.
Of course, in NYS, no matter how industrious they may be, the system is rigged to fail more than 2/3rds. Even if the exams were reasonable, this set up does nothing to inspire students to do their best work, thus negating the intended purpose of the common core.
Ellen T Klock
LikeLike
There is no magical answer that will satisfy one and all, but if I may piggyback on the above comments of dianeravitch:
Every child should have access to the same sort of school that Bill Gates went to, and to which he now sends his own children.
And since the present state of education is (allegedly) an existential threat to the USofA, then whatever it takes to ensure every child that kind of quality education. No excuses for not taking on all comers and poneying up whatever is needed.
A final point. The high-stakes standardized tests in vogue among the self-proclaimed “education reformers” are fair worse than an inadequate response to the [supposedly widespread] “soft bigotry of low expectations”—it makes matters much worse by giving a seemingly scientific & objective patina to the most base prejudices regarding the alleged incapacity of the vast majority to learn and grow.
That is, that the vast majority are by law, natural and divine, measurably incapable of being anything more than the hewers of wood and drawers of water for the select few. Which is why [in part] I refer to that sort of testing as the “hard bigotry of mandated failure.” But isn’t that just a hyperbolic and tendentious overstatement?
Not at all. Because the makers of those high-stakes standardized tests design, produce, give trial runs and review them—backed up by many decades of practical experience—to the specifications of their clients. They are very very good at delivering what the buyer requires.
The NY tests that had an approx. 70% failure rate for all students could have been made for an approx. 70% success rate.
Yes, the psychometricians are that good. And that last statement is coming from someone who is far from being one of their biggest fans…
😎
LikeLike
“The soft bigotry of low expectations”
It is very important to understand that teachers in urban schools with predominantly black and Hispanic, low SES populations are forced into lowering expectations by the reality of the chaos and hopelessness that pervades these communities. The degree to which teachers expectations are constrained by reality is unimaginable for anyone who has not experienced it first hand. If politicians and educators fail to address the issues that force low expectations, high standards and ridiculously difficult tests are noting more than a mirage, a snake oil cure that only those in denial would fall for.
LikeLike
Diane, Please comment about the link – it just takes me to the news page and I cannot find the over view that you reference.
LikeLike
Kathie, the link is wrong. I can’t fix it because I’m working on a cell phone and the search feature on the NY Times website is not working for me. When I get to a full size computer I will fix it.
LikeLike
It is interesting that Real Clear Education continues the real clear lie that the CCS are benchmarks not curriculum. The other lie that keeps bugging me that I keep hearing is that it is a State lead initiative not Government mandated.
LikeLike
Chuck Jordan,
CCSS is both standards and curriculum. The CC tests will determine what is taught and how.
CC was not state-led. It was funded entirely by Bill Gates and written by a small number of DC insiders.
LikeLike
There is so much disinformation in the article that it makes me wonder what sources the author used and whether the slant was purposeful.
LikeLike
In Missouri, where we are currently reviewing the CCSS…
While the piece below is in direct response to the NGSS, it evolved as a result as a review of the CCSS as they were looking at each content area. The information below (which was a press release) is emerging to be a concern during the review process that our state has put in place (Missouri).
State Science Leaders Release Statement on Missouri Science
The following statement is being released to educators, public. and media:
The Science Teachers of Missouri (STOM) is an organization run by a member- elected board of volunteers that promotes great science teaching and great science teachers in the state of Missouri. In recent weeks and months there has been much discussion and news regarding work groups tasked with writing new Missouri Learning Standards for Math, Science, English Language Arts, and History as part of the passing of Missouri House Bill 1490. The STOM organization would like to convey an educator’s point of view of the happenings regarding this process.
The Process
From the very start, the work surrounding HB 1490 has been a concern of STOM due to the potential for bias and lack of transparency in the make-up and running of the committees. Each subject area is divided into an elementary and secondary workgroup. Some of the workgroups contain very few educators. In most cases, fewer than 10 educators are tasked with writing standards for the entire state of Missouri. Specifically, some content areas within science (such as chemistry or physics) are not represented at all on the committees, which means some standards are being debated and written without guidance from experts in the field. STOM believe parents should always be part of the educational process but a disproportionate percentage of the parents seem to come from a particular special interest group aligned and selected by the HB 1490 sponsors.
Of even greater concern, most recently House Speaker Jones has attempted to remove an educator that he selected for the committee. The House Speaker’s decision seems to be politically motivated since members of the committee unanimously voted to keep this educator as a member of the committee. The bill does not explicitly give any government official the authority to remove a committee member mid-process. Yet the bill’s sponsor, Kurt Bahr, was quoted in one newspaper as saying “The speaker (even) could un-appoint anyone who was qualified and just rubbed him the wrong way if he wanted.” STOM believes that this shows that the legislature is not interested in having educators debate what they believe are the best standards for Missouri.
On September 19, 2014, House Speaker Jones sent a memo to workgroup members that stated: “First of all, please understand in HB 1490 nobody is in charge of the work groups, not DESE (Department of Elementary and Secondary Education) or the Legislature”…and… “There is nothing in the legislation telling the work groups how to operate. Thus, you are free to operate any way you choose.” These quotes seem to contradict what Speaker Jones and Representative Bahr are now indicating. STOM believes that educators should feel free to voice their opinion on what is best for students without fear of being removed from the committee they were appointed to participate in.
Our Recommendation
Speaking specifically about science education, STOM supports learning expectations that reflect the most current research on student learning within the field of science. STOM believes they should be written as rigorous performance expectations that challenge students to use, apply, and critically think about science rather than memorize content. The current science standards in Missouri lead students who can only regurgitate facts for a state test.
STOM also believes that many educators should be involved in the development of new science standards and not just a handful of educators selected in a politically-driven process. It is the position of STOM that the Next Generation Science Standards, which were developed and vetted by over 10,000 science educators, be used to educate and excite Missouri students. The Next Generation Science Standards provide the appropriate content, framework, and integration that will allow our students to develop into citizens capable of understanding and evaluating the world and information around them.
The Science Teachers of Missouri organization is not interested in bringing politics into science education. STOM simply wants a fair, unbiased, and non-politically-driven process to develop a high-quality science program in Missouri.
STOM strongly encourages school districts to adopt the Next Generation Science Standards and the organization is here to help those districts with the professional development, advice, and support to develop a meaningful and high-quality K-12 Science Program.
Sincerely,
Science Teachers of Missouri
Carrie Launius -2015 President
Mike Szydlowski – 2015 President Elect
Eric Hadley – Past President
Liz Petersen – Past President
LikeLike