Newsday, the major newspaper for Long Island, New York, had the ingenious idea to ask high school valedictorians what they thought of the Common Core standards. Understand that Long Island has some of the best high schools in the state and in the nation. These students have their pick of elite colleges and universities; they are super-smart and super-accomplished. Here are their reactions.
“Simply, I think the Common Core is absolutely terrible,” Harshil Garg, Bethpage High School’s 2015 valedictorian, said. “It suppresses freedom and boxes children into a systematic way of thinking.”
Garg said he was concerned that the standards actually stifle innovation and discourage exploration.
“Kids are special, because they color outside the lines, and think outside the box, no matter how preposterous their ideas may seem,” he said. “To restrain that inventiveness at such an early age destroys the spark to explore.”
Some of the valedictorians drew from their experiences with younger students who have been more directly impacted by the implementation of Common Core.
“I tutor a few elementary and middle school aged students and the transition has been pretty hard on them,” said Emily Linko, valedictorian of Hauppauge High School’s Class of 2015. “All the effects I’ve seen have been negative.”
Another tutor, Rebecca Cheng, Smithtown High School West’s valedictorian, said she does see the purpose and potential benefit of Common Core, but is still against it.
“It closes your mind and forces kids to think in one particular way,” said Cheng, who tutors third and fifth graders. “There isn’t just one way to solve a problem, and it almost hinders the ability to solve a problem on your own.”
Kacie Candela, a private math tutor and valedictorian of H. Frank Carey High School, said the curriculum itself is good, but the roll out was botched.
“You can’t build a building without a solid foundation, and students just don’t have the knowledge base to do well,” Candela said. “Schools should have adopted it gradually.”
Watching his 6-year-old brother embrace the new standards, Vincent Coghill, Massapequa High School’s valedictorian, said he, too, can see a positive side to the Common Core’s approach to learning.
“I’ve seen him solve math problems in so many different ways, but it seems as though he has a better understanding of what is being taught,” he said.
Still, Coghill said he opposes the initiative, because he feels “uncomfortable” with federal government intervention into education, which he said should remain a “state priority.”
Hailey Wagner, Bellport High School’s valedictorian, agreed with Coghill, saying the federal government has no business dealing with a state matter like education.
And Alex Boss, valedictorian of Rockville Centre’s South Side High School, said politicians should stay out of the process altogether, stating: “Education should be left to teachers and parents, not legislators.”
Central Islip High School valedictorian Radiyyah Hussein finds herself somewhere in the middle of the debate.
“I like the fact that it is challenging and forces children in school to do more critical thinking,” she said. ” … However, I don’t like how much agonizing work has to go into solving simple problems or questions.”
She added, “If we want a more progressive world, we need ways for kids to figure things out in an easier and quicker fashion.”
Tyler Fenton, valedictorian of Plainview-Old Bethpage John F. Kennedy High School, had smiliar thoughts, acknowledging that students learn in their owns ways and also at their own pace.
Fenton said it’s “unrealistic” and “unfair” to hold everyone accountable to the same standards, and trying to causes “unnecessary stress and anxiety among kids.”
And Natalie Korba, valedictorian of Walter G. O’ Connell Copiague High School’s graduating class, said Common Core just puts too much emphasis on exams.
“Teachers are being unfairly judged on student performance and students are suffering as they are crushed under the pressure of standardized testing,” she said.
Korda added, “School should be about learning life skills and gaining knowledge, not about learning how to take a test.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“Out of the mouths of babes…”
LikeLike
Good.
They should have been asked for ideas about going in a different direction or just doing things differently.
LikeLike
A lot of common sense.
LikeLike
“An Island in Restormy Sea”
Long Island is a rock
That stands against the wave
Of school restormer flock
And never will it cave
LikeLike
Thank you, Diane. This speaks volumes. Too bad the yahoos have another agenda: CONTROL and make huge sums of $$$$$ at the cost of our young, teachers, parents/guardians … yltimately to IWN this entire country … the Hunger Games.
LikeLike
I only wish that these self evident truths would make a difference.
Power, money, these have usurped the democratic process, the schools ad nauseum.
LikeLike
The future of innovation is developing the imagination of children that contributes to critical thinking and problem solving—NOT test taking, and if you click on this link and read what I read this morning, you will understand why a high-stakes test crazed country will destroy what leads to real innovation.
http://qz.com/433131/the-story-of-the-invention-that-could-revolutionize-batteries-and-maybe-american-manufacturing-as-well/
LikeLike
Quite interesting article along with one referenced in that article about John Goodenough.
Thanks!
LikeLike
“Kacie Candela, a private math tutor and valedictorian of H. Frank Carey High School, said the curriculum itself is good, but the roll out was botched.”
What curriculum? I thought they were standards. If Kacie likes the curriculum, she must be tutoring in a district that is able to invest a lot of time and effort into choosing and developing materials that meet their needs. I would also suggest that the teachers have been at the forefront of the curriculum effort and have also been afforded ample time to train other teachers in the materials they have chosen and/or developed.
Those who come from communities of higher socioeconomic background have probably missed almost all of the negative effects on instruction. It’s telling that most of them at least have a sense of unease that I think probably speaks to the growing unease among the public in general.
LikeLike
No offense to these bright young people, but they are not the true common core guinea pigs. The Class of 2015 was introduced to common core when they were already in 10th grade; in other words, they pretty much escaped the brunt of the common core math and ELA lunacy that was inflicted on the elementary school aged children beginning in 2012. Newsday needs to revisit this theme in a few years and ask the valedictorians of the Classes of 2017, 2018, 2019, up through 2022 — because THEY were the ones who got slammed with common core head on in the midst of their elementary school education. Just my humble two cents.
LikeLike
Quite correct in your analysis Deborah!
My prior year’s 9th and 10th graders (2017-8 grads) have been brought up completely under the testing regime and it shows. I never thought I’d see that much of a difference in different cohorts as teens are teens much as we all were but the intellectual curiosity appears to have been driven from many if not most of them (those underclassmen). “What’s the answer?” Are we going to be tested on this? NO, then why are we learning it? No need to study, work with or play with the material.”
LikeLike
“I like the fact that it is challenging and forces children in school to do more critical thinking,” she said. How much do these kids actually know about Common Core?
LikeLike
Many of the students did not substantiate their claims with any empirical evidence, thereby making an argument FOR Common Core. Are the standards themselves a problem or was it the interpretation and implementation in combination with the systemic maligning of the public school system, the vilification of teachers, the dispossessing of union power, and the flawed performance and funding metrics?
LikeLike
The fact that some of them admitted that they were not informed indicates to me that the answers the students gave were off the cuff. I doubt they had the chance to prepare their answers, so expecting them to document their responses with much more than anecdotal information is silly. They were giving gut reactions to personal opinion questions.
LikeLike
Even the anecdotal information seemed to be…underwhelming. Many of the responses seemed to be parroting of sound bites…Expecting subjects of an interview about CCSS to be informed or prepared is silly? Oh…OK.
LikeLike
Sorry, Kathy, I was not attempting to dismiss your comment. I was suggesting that they were not asked nor given the time to prepare. It sounded very sound bite, man on the street. Now if they had asked some students who have actively been opposing testing and the Common Core, my reaction would be different. I may have missed something, but I didn’t see any indication that such was the case.
LikeLike
I agree with you, Kathy. Were all valedictorians interviewed? How many understood what Common Core is, and can distinguish its merits from the over-reliance on standardized testing? This anecdotal evidence frames the conversation, but doesn’t provide rigorous evidence to assess the value of the standards. Yes, testing needs to be reduced or eliminated, but let’s get to work on those politicians who believe with all their hearts that holding teachers and superintendents accountable using test scores is the right thing to do.
LikeLike
“Are the standards themselves a problem. . . ?
YES! The CCSS are THE problem. To understand the COMPLETE INVALIDITY of the educational standards and standardized testing regime (and those go together like two sides of the same coin) read and comprehend Noel Wilson’s total destruction of those educational malpractices. It is one of the most important if not most important educational writings in the last half century and has never been refuted nor rebutted (other than comments-ha ha-like “post modern clap trap” or “epistemological relativism”). Wilson shows thirteen “errors” each one of which renders the standards/testing regime COMPLETELY INVALID. Read and understand his work: “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
Thank you for providing such a thorough response. I appreciate your time and effort very much. I will read the information you provided to try to understand your view.
LikeLike
Kathy,
You’re welcome. Realize that his dissertation is quite long-250 pages but it is well worth the read. Once you read it and understand what he is saying I think you won’t ever look at the educational standards and standardized testing regime and even the “grading” of students the same as before.
I am not against valid assessment of student work within what Wilson calls a “Responsive” framework. Were we to truly value the student and his/her work that is the framework within which we would work. And I’ve seen it done at the K-5 public school level and work very well, especially for those students who struggle, have IEPs etc. . . . But it takes time, resources-especially smaller classes with more adults in the room and the commitment to each child. It can’t be done on the cheap as the testing regime malpractice is supposedly done.
Before reading that you might take a venture into Wilson’s analysis of validity in his “A Little Less than Valid: An Essay Review” of the AERA’s testing bible “Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing” found at: http://www.edrev.info/essays/v10n5.pdf
LikeLike