Paul Thomas decribes the futility of rebranding the Common Core.
He writes: “Careful examination of both adopting Common Core and then the backlash resulting in dropping Common Core reveals that states remain firmly entrenched in the same exact accountability based on standards and high-stakes testing that has overburdened education since the 1980s. “The names and letters change, but not much else—except for throwing more money at a game of wasteful politics labeled “reform.” “Political posturing and public responses to all this Common Core puffery suggest that the next time a hurricane is plowing toward U.S. soil, the Weather Channel can lessen public panic by simply announcing a kitten is off the coast of Florida. “New and different standards and tests—these are jumping out of the frying pan into the fire, rearranging chairs on the Titanic. “We need to abandon ship.” It is time to aim for equity, for equality of opportunity, not a race with winners and losers.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
” a kitten is off the coast of Florida.”
Love it!
LikeLike
I have been thinking a useful metaphor for the forces at work here would be the crusades!
LikeLike
Bill Gates is busy “rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.” This egomaniacal billionaire is not going down without a fight. After all, he still has Jeb Bush in his corner. It has been reported that Gates has spent $2.3 billion to force the adoption of his misguided agenda.http://bigeducationape.blogspot.com/2015/03/stunning-revelation-bill-gates-has.html
LikeLike
I realize that Common Core is simply a set of standards, it is not a curriculum. Imagine if every state used the same test for its students to determine learning. What would happen? We would conclusively know which states were offering substandard education to their students. Would all of those states be the red states that are complaining the most?
LikeLike
You must have a lot of faith in the ability of standardized tests to show what kids know. I don’t share this faith — I see too many kids who do well on standardized tests but can’t do any authentic problem solving — and others who are very good problem solvers, but don’t do well on standardized tests.
LikeLike
“What would happen? We would conclusively know which states were offering substandard education to their students.”
NO, Elizabeth, we wouldn’t “conclusively know” anything, nor is the CCSS “simply a set of standards”. Wake up and smell the coffee and then do some reading into why what you have stated is not true.
To help you I suggest that you begin with Wilson’s never refuted nor rebutted treatise on the COMPLETE INVALIDITY due to the many epistemological and ontological falsehoods and errors involved in the making of, usage of and disseminating the results of educational standards and standardized testing educational malpractices “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.
LikeLike
If every one took the same test, the same issues would exist for everyone, the field would be the same. Why are the red sates so scared of being ranked against their peers? Because red states have inferior education. Yes, CC is simply a set of standards, it is not a curriculum. I know, because I have been actually teaching for decades. Cheryl, list one math standard for fourth graders that is too rigorous. Gordon, corporations have made money off of education since the first publishing house produced a text bookk.
LikeLike
“If every one took the same test, the same issues would exist for everyone, the field would be the same”
That is irrelevant to the argument that I am making. It’s like saying that it’s okay to play Russian roulette because everyone has the same chance of not blowing his/her brains out.
The fact is that standardized tests are COMPLETELY INVALID. No amount of fudging, hemming and hawing about “equal treatment”, etc. . . can change that fact.
And again, no the CCSS are not “standards” but curriculum goals/objectives. No amount of calling them “standards” changes that fact either.
LikeLike
Which states are “falling away”? Red states that historically have poor educational outcomes. The political point you are all ignoring is that this “debate” about national standards (just standards, not methodology) involves the conservative red states protecting their inability to actually teach well.
LikeLike
Elizabeth,
I’m not sure if your response is directed at my last post or to someone else. I don’t see how I (or anyone) could “ignore, the political point about ‘red’ states protecting their inability to actually teach well” when that point hasn’t been brought up by anyone other than you said something to the effect that red states don’t want to be compared on the NAEP because of “inferior education”.
I was responding to your statement that we would “conclusively know. . . ” which I denied and attempted to show why.
As far as your contention about those “red states”, please list those states and cite references that include that they are “protecting their inability to actually teach well”.
Help me out! TIA!
LikeLike
We can say we know because we already use NAEP. Having taught for 44 years in preschool to grade twelve in rural, suburban, urban, impoverished to wealthy schools, I realize that not everyone brings the same background knowledge to the table, that not everyone learns in the same way on the same day, and that education is exponential not incremental. Teachers have had a common curriculum called a textbook forever. How it is presented has to be tailored to the group one is teaching. Much depends on what the student can bring to the lesson, particularly in relation to comprehension.
Imagine teaching a story beginning with the following sentence: “Checking fence.” This in a text said to be written to a fifth grade level. Imagine the difference in visualization between a rural and urban student.
Imagine teaching the concept of rounding to students enrolled for the sixth year in an ESL class and your not understanding why they don’t get it, until you realize they do not know what “about” means in this context.
No “test” will show whether the state has a good or bad standard of education.
Some have students whose language and belief system do not match the set curriculum.
I taught a story illustrating that one woman’s behavior contradicted the sexist notions of the male characters. This interpretation of the story simply went over the heads of my male students from a machismo honoring culture. Just refused to see it.
Presented with such concepts on a test what would they do. I know, get the answer wrong. Wouldn’t be because I didn’t try to teach it.
LikeLike
NEAP only tests in schools that allow them in. I know, I worked for them. Of course, NEAP shows positive learning outcomes because the failing schools will not allow them to test.
If you teach in an ESOL class, you must know that your first objective is to teach vocabulary and definitions.
LikeLike
By any other name, what is the CC?
An unimpeachable inside source, knowledgeable and [in this instance] plain spoken, charter member of the self-styled “education reform” establishment, Dr. Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, at the end of 2013:
[start]
In truth, the idea that the Common Core might be a “game-changer” has little to do with the Common Core standards themselves, and everything to do with stuff attached to them, especially the adoption of common tests that make it possible to readily compare schools, programs, districts, and states (of course, the announcement that one state after another is opting out of the two testing consortia is hollowing out this promise).
But the Common Core will only make a dramatic difference if those test results are used to evaluate schools or hire, pay, or fire teachers; or if the effort serves to alter teacher preparation, revamp instructional materials, or compel teachers to change what students read and do. And, of course, advocates have made clear that this is exactly what they have in mind. When they refer to the “Common Core,” they don’t just mean the words on paper–what they really have in mind is this whole complex of changes.
[end]
For the source of the above and essential contextual information and other sources click on—
Link: https://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/the-american-enterprise-institute-common-core-and-good-cop/
Literally a verifiably accurate description of what the leading CC promoters, advocates and enforcers have been doing, are doing, and want to do.
Cat out of the bag, toothpaste out of the tube.
😱
Perhaps by now Dr. Hess has regretted not spending more time reading one of those very dead and very old and very Greek guys:
“I have often repented speaking, but never of holding my tongue.”
Thank you, Xenocrates.
😎
LikeLike
And I almost forgot:
Thank you, deutsch29 aka Dr. Mercedes Schneider aka KrazyMathLady.
I look forward to receiving CC DILEMMA today.
😎
LikeLike
Reblogged this on stopcommoncorenys.
LikeLike
The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) has been tracking what is happening with the Common Core, state by state.
As of June 2015, 29 states have engaged in rebranding the Common Core, 17 have legislative deliberations about the CCSS, 12 have taken executive action bearing on the CCSS, and 6 states have had judicial action or have pending cases bearing on the CCSS. One of the most interesting cases is in Utah. It was initiated by a teacher whose lawsuit says that the process of adopting the CCSS failed to comply with the Utah Administrative Code, the standards were never to subjected public debate and they were illegally foisted on teachers and students.
This is the truth of the matter in almost every state, because the adoption process only required the signatures of two state officials on a memo of understanding (MOU). The MOU was written in the future tense, signed in many states before the standards were even published. It is a length and really bizarre request to buy a pig in a poke or a horse without getting to inspect it. You can find a copy of the MOU here http://www.google.com/search?q=MOU+for+Common+Core&hl=en&gbv=2&oq=&gs_l=
Recall that the CCSS were never adopted in 4 states. Among those states that signed up for the CCSS agenda (including tests), only 2 states are now using other standards.
But the picture of state activity is more complex. According to the June report from the NCSL, 39 states are using a permutation of the CCSS and 29 are re-branding the standards. Since their initial adoption 17 states have initiated legislation bearing on the CCSS, 12 have taken executive action.
A small number of states are replacing the CCSS with new standards (3), or they are reviewing the CCSS while using them.
Since 2012, 32 states have had members of the legislature introduce 114 bills bearing on the CCSS, SBAC or PARCC tests.
This is to say that the the initial vision of having standardized education, including verbatim compliance in every state with 1620 CCSS standards (counting parts a-e),
no more than 15% added ELA standards within any state;
no more than 15% state-added standards in math;
strict compliance with publishers criteria for CCSS-compliant teaching materials;
the millions spent on the SBAC and PARCC tests;
the vanished curriculum materials prepared for those tests,
the federal complicity in this grand scheme, known to be out of bounds, illegal;
the millions and millions spent on promoting the CCSS by GAtes and other foundations,
were not enough to close on the CCSS deal as planned.
So, more power to the people in dismantling this terrible idea.
For a great interactive map that shows what states are doing (anydonly a few of the adopters are doing nothing at all) go to http://www.ccrslegislation.info/CCR-State-Policy-Resources/common-core-status-map
LikeLike
Quoting from a very biased site (http://truthinamericaneducation.com/common-core-assessments/what-states-have-pulled-out-of-their-common-core-assessment-consortium/) nine states have “pulled out” Utah, Oklahoma, Georgia, Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Alaska and Florida. In truth, Florida has not pulled out but merely renamed the CC standards as Florida standards. Politically, it is wiser for these mostly conservative states to hide the fact that they are not doing a good job educating children to compete in the world.
LikeLike
“Names are changed to protect the innocent”, innocent of course being the corporate money makers, politicians.
LikeLike
The NewYorkTimes has an article on CC:
While the basic concepts are the same as when we were learning the three R’s, the push for the so called ‘rigor’ and make 4th graders read and do math that is two years ahead of their ability is nuts.
LikeLike
It seems to me that there are two separate expectations embedded in the common core debate. The first one is that kids will come out all knowing some common body of knowledge, and the second is that they will all be equally proficient at analyzing this knowledge through some standard teachable procedures which will make this knowledge equally useful to all learners. The current falling away of states perhaps recognizes that maybe we all don’t need to learn the same things in the same lockstep fashion on a national level. Somehow mandating it on a state level is supposed to solve the problem?
LikeLike