As the title of this post says, there are three things you must read if you want to understand the origins of Common Core.
First is this article that appeared in the Washington Post in June 2014. It was written by Lyndsey Layton of the Washington Post, and it is called “How Bill Gates Pulled Off the Swift Common Core Revolution” It is an amazing piece of reportage. Layton did her homework, then interviewed Bill Gates. She explains how he paid for everything required in the writing and development of the CC, then paid every major interest group in D.C. to support it, as well as groups across the nation. He couldn’t buy everyone, and that it why the CC has run into trouble.
Layton writes:
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation didn’t just bankroll the development of what became known as the Common Core State Standards. With more than $200 million, the foundation also built political support across the country, persuading state governments to make systemic and costly changes.
Bill Gates was de facto organizer, providing the money and structure for states to work together on common standards in a way that avoided the usual collision between states’ rights and national interests that had undercut every previous effort, dating from the Eisenhower administration.
The Gates Foundation spread money across the political spectrum, to entities including the big teachers unions, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, and business organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — groups that have clashed in the past but became vocal backers of the standards.
Money flowed to policy groups on the right and left, funding research by scholars of varying political persuasions who promoted the idea of common standards. Liberals at the Center for American Progress and conservatives affiliated with the American Legislative Exchange Council who routinely disagree on nearly every issue accepted Gates money and found common ground on the Common Core.
The second must-read is Mercedes Schneider’s The Common Core Dilemma: Who Owns Our Schools? It was published by Teachers College Press, and it is a thorough exploration of the genesis and evolution of the CC. If the nation’s education writers read this book, they would never again state that the Common core was written by “the nation’s leading education experts” or by the governors and teachers.
The third valuable read is Terry Marselle’s “Perfectly Incorrect: Why the Common Core Is Psychologically and Cognitively Unsound.” It explores the pedagogical problems with the CCSS.
One more thing you need to know about Common Core: there is no evidence that students who master it are ready for college or careers. We won’t know whether that is true for many years. At this point, it is a claim lacking evidence. Frankly, it is difficult to understand how the same standards and tests can determine both college and career readiness.
Be informed.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Thank you! Just this morning I read the following quote attributed to John Dewey and it feels applicable here: “It is…advisable that the teacher should understand, and even be able to criticize, the general principles upon which the whole educational system is formed and administered. He is not like a private soldier in an army, expected merely to obey, or like a cog in a wheel, expected merely to respond to and transmit external energy; he must be an intelligent medium of action.”
John Dewey, 1895
Great quote. I lament that few education schools equip their teacher candidates to do this. Mine simply indoctrinated me in the theories du jour. I had to do lots of unassigned reading to gain a comprehensive grasp of the field. Terry Marcelle seems to be one of the rare teachers who is able to do what Dewey prescribed. Thanks to Diane for bringing him to my attention.
It’s amazing, isn’t it. If we brought Dewey forward to 2015, he could make the same criticisms he made in 1915.
Ed Detective: yes! And listen to this quote from the 1920’s: “As in biological evolution, the chances that a variation will mean real improvement become smaller the more extreme is the change…[therefore] wherever possible, radical proposals should be subjected to controlled experimental tests before being put into effect on a wide scale.” –education theorist William C. Bagley, as quoted in Diane’s “Left Back”. The CCSS is just the latest untested radical proposal foisted on our schools. We have a terrible track record of reckless change in this country. And we don’t learn from the track record because…we don’t know it. A good masters of education program would require mastery of the contents of Diane’s “Left Back”.
You could say the same thing about a great deal of lit from late 1880’s to early 1920’s. I find pre-Revolution Russian lit particularly on point. Reading Chekhov at the moment…
A group of my colleagues who are Dewey scholars have been looking for the original source of this quote in Dewey’s works and we have not been able to locate it. It’s interesting how sometimes quotes are attributed to Dewey that he actually never said (but certainly could have).
Craig Cunningham, what quote of Dewey’s are you referring to?
Sorry that wasn’t clear, Diane. I was responding to one of the comments that someone made to your blog.
By the way, I found out where the quote is from. An 1895 book coauthored by James A. McClellan and Dewey on the psychology of number in the teaching of arithmetic.
https://archive.org/details/psychologynumbe04dewegoog
This post explains how when “money talks; democracy walks.” Gates’ masterminding and manipulating of the adoption of the Common Core are what are wrong with our current system. People with deep pockets should not be allowed to insert themselves in policy while usurping the democratic process. Political leaders are supposed to serve at the will of the people, not oligarchs. They should not be free to change educational policy without the input of citizens. No parents or community groups clamored for the adoption Common Core, which is not research based. All of the changes made deliberately excluded parents, communities and teachers, and continue to take place behind closed doors. Shameful!
One thing that horrified me was when 46 states had signed up for something that was not even made yet. I kept hearing the phrase, ” building the plane as it flies” as if a pithy saying is all that is needed to address any critical view of the CC or its implimentation.
This phrase was particularly grating because I came from a military aviation background. There are overlaping areas of responsibility in aviation. If a bolt is replaced at least three people inspect and sign off on it before the pilot himself inspects it. Redundancy is purposfully built into the system because if anything goes wrong you cannot simply pull over and call for help. You fall out of the sky and die along with your copilot and any crew you have.
To use that phrase shows a level of ignorance andlack of forthought that has become a. signature of the rheeform movment. Every single step an aircraft mechanic or pilot takes is taken with a thought – how could this break/ fall out/ become unfastened and what would the chain reaction of events be if it did? Peoples lives depend on it.
Building a plane as it flies will only result in a quick firey death that sometimes takes out inocent people and wastes millions of dollars. Maybe the phrase is more prophetic than I at first thought.
Yeah, it’s pretty scandalous that the whole country’s been enrolled in the educational equivalent of a first-round drug trial.
Spiked Colemanade
“Don’t drink the Colemanade”
Stop! Don’t drink the Colemanade!
The Coleman Core that Coleman made
What Coleman aided has culminated
In public schools calumniated
I like how “Coleman aided” echoes “Colemanade”. Thank goodness I know what “calumniated” means since I don’t think the fashionable “reading skill” –using context clues –would have done the trick here. I did “activate background knowledge”, but that happened automatically and unconsciously. I don’t think a brain needs to be taught how to do this pseudo-reading skill. Sadly, teaching these dubious skills passes as “best practices” these days.
I don’t quite understand your disdain for using context clues and background knowledge to aid comprehension in reading. As a special ed teacher for struggling readers at the high school level, I needed to teach these skills along with other word attack skills. While I did teach phonics when students were weak in that area, at the secondary level direct phonics instruction is less effective. As far as I know, no one has discovered “the way” to teach all students how to become lifelong readers.
The Colemanade that Coleman made
Has percolated unallayed
In classrooms Coleman has created
His Standards march on, unabated
Now Coleman’s Core and Coleman’s aid
Do flow to schools now desiccated
The urgency must be conveyed
to clean the mess that Coleman made.
@2OldtoTeach: my gripe is that, while these strategies have some efficacy (well, not “activating BK”), they should by no means be the centerpiece of ELA, much less of the whole school day. The main pillar of reading comprehension is general knowledge, the transmission of which should be schools’ central mission, but it is not –in part because the literacy gurus tell us it is dispensable; that these reading strategies are the true royal road to reading. This is a huge falsehood that is harming our kids, especially those from lower-class families who don’t get a giant endowment of world and word knowledge from their parents.
” The main pillar of reading comprehension is general knowledge,..”
That’s one place where background knowledge comes from! Background knowledge does not just refer to an individual’s lived experience although the emergent reader has little else on which to rely. I don’t see either/or as even a consideration when talking about becoming a competent reader. It depends where the reader is in their development what factors are going to be more heavily weighted. I agree that the heavy emphasis on skill development exacerbated by skill based proficiency tests as the determining marker of learning has warped the whole process. If you have ever given an informal reading inventory that uses both familiar and unfamiliar topics in their reading selections, you know that the amount of general knowledge that a reader has on a topic greatly influences their performance. The heavy reliance on lexile measures for choosing appropriate reading materials does not explain the drive to read material that is far above an individual’s reading level. Interest in and knowledge of a topic can compensate for weak skills when a child (or adult for that matter) wants to learn more about something.
I know, but the idea that there is a skill called “activating background knowledge” (as Cris Tovani and other gurus claim) is a farce. You either have the background knowledge and it deploys automatically, or you don’t. The idea that legions of kids are failing to comprehend texts because they fail to “activate” their BK is ludicrous. The problem is they don’t HAVE the BK. By redefining the BK problem as a failure of activation (which can be remedied with some mini lessons) instead of possession (which takes years of dedicated content teaching to remediate) the literacy gurus utterly mislead our teachers.
“You fall out of the sky and die along with your copilot and any crew you have.”
You’ve neatly summed up what’s happened to our public schools, Bob!
Reblogged this on Crazy Normal – the Classroom Exposé.
Reblogged this on 21st Century Theater.
There is also no guarantee that the FEW students who master Common Core will want to go to college or ever will. For instance, long before I graduated from high school I had decided that I never wanted to go to college, but a Vietcong sniper, who almost took me out of this life, changed my mind—not a high stakes test.
And I know for a fact that I would have failed the Common Core high stakes tests as not college or career ready. I would have been one of the 70%+ who are failing that test annually.
Yet, my first career job was at 15 while I was still in HS, because isn’t every job a career while you are earning money? If you wait tables or wash dishes in a coffee shop, isn’t that is a career. If you are an auto mechanical, isn’t that a career? If you sell new cars, isn’t that a career? If you drive an 18 wheeler, isn’t that a career? Isn’t doing yard work a career? Isn’t owning a pool cleaning business a career? Isn’t being a crooked, fraudulent corporate education reformed a career? Isn’t being Eva Moskowitz a career earning money being a psychopath?
Then, after that sniper, I went to college, graduated and ended up in several more careers including being a public school teacher for thirty years.
I hear Harvard is now offering a MPA (Master of Psychopathic Administration)
I thought that major had been around for some time. Doesn’t it lead to an MBA too?
Well, until recently, MPA was subsumed under MBA, but they decided it should really be distinct, the logic being that while all MPA’s are MBA ready, not all MBA’s are MPA ready — and to be a successful CEO, one really needs to be MPA ready.
One needs extra courses (and a preexisting tendency) for that.
Hope that helps.
A reliable source tells me that Norman Bates (PsD) has agreed to head up the program (after getting offers from Princeton, Yale and several other prominent universities)
He teachers the intro course: Psycho 101: “Killing your competition in the shower”
Yes, and that Harvard MPA also requires three classes in union busting.
the common core standards should be adapted but not forgotten. our school has been very successful with the common core and we do very little test prep if none at all. Personally, I find the ccss and ccss tests two completely different sets of standards. That’s the main problem. The ccss are not really testable if you plan on teaching them correctly.
“Personally, I find the ccss and ccss tests two completely different sets of standards. That’s the main problem.”
The main problem is your confusion is that CCSS “tests” anything. They don’t. The main problem is that both are COMPLETELY INVALID and are discriminatory and harmful to many students as proven by Noel Wilson in his never rebutted nor refuted treatise “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.
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 words 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.
The tests are bad but the standards are good. When I read the questions on the test, I do not believe they fully represent the standards. Also, It is very rare to see curriculum materials that are truly common core. I work in the state of New York in a middle school. I would like to know which standard is harmful to children. Not the questions on the test or curriculum materials, but the standards themselves.
David, do you think that kindergarten children should be able to read? That is a fluency standard for K
David,
Do you agree with the CCSS arbitrary division of reading into 50-50 in grade 4 and 30-70 (favoring informational text) in grade 12?
If so, can you cite the research that supports this division?
Don’t tell the NAEP testing specifications because those are instructions to test developers, not to teachers.
Please reread my post, David.
Educational standards as a concept are false, error filled and COMPLETELY INVALID as a foundational concept in guiding curriculum decisions. Are the CCSS a metrological standard or a documentary standard, or even some hybrid? (HINT: They are neither nor any hybrid) Since by definition the CCSS are neither type of known standards used to assess various human activities any resultant usage will be invalid. It is the usage of invalid assessments based upon invalid concepts (standards) that harm the students as some are rewarded and others are punished, denied “rewards” based upon those falsehoods.
Read Wilson’s work to understand why. And then get back to us.
i would like to add that I completely disagree with you about the ccss hindering independent, free and critical thinking. The standards are completely research based. How could that produce anything but an independent, critical and free thinker?
David,
The CC standards were never given a field trial. Would the FDA permit national imposition of a drug that had not been thoroughly tested?
Ms. Ravitch, please understand, I am not meaning to sound argumentative. I read your blog every day and a couple of your books. As a teacher, I can never thank you enough for all your hard work and effort. I just don’t want to throw blanket statements and start from scratch again. There really are good things about the ccss that I don’t want to lose. Reading through the standards, we are teaching children to become researchers. That is so important today in this media driven society – never mind “college and career ready”. I just looked at the ny state standards for kindergarten. With all due respect, the standards listed under reading aren’t meant to read a book or anything. It’s enjoying the activity of reading.
Those supposedly “really good things” have always been there. If you were not aware then your teacher preparation can be easily viewed as inadequate or you chose to not avail yourself of “those good things.”
Years ago, before even my aministration knew anything about the core, I went to some meeting and was first introduced to “text complexity.” We were told right away that the division of 50/50-70/30 included ELA, SS, Science and Technical Subjects (just not textbook materials). I am not sure where that got lost in the translation. it’s the same as text complexity. Everyone focused on Lexile scores cause that was the easiest to check off. But Lexile was just one of many and it wasn’t necessary if you could explain otherwise.
David, in the CCSS, there is a chart showing 50-50 and 30-70 division between informational text and literature. It says the division is based in NAEP instructions to test developers. This is absurd. You could read only one or the other and still be able to read complex text.
I agree with the field trial. the implementation would have been so much easier.
David,
I recommended field trials to key people in 2009 and 2010. No interest
David said “The standards are completely research based.”
Finally I get to read some of this research. Can you point me to some references?
As you probably well know MW, you won’t be getting any new readings of that research as it doesn’t exist.
I meant the standards themselves are based on the elements of research. Those are skills needed wherever you live in this country or whatever you do in life.
Don’t know if your old enough David but my thoughts go immediately to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dnUs2AqWvs
Where’s the research?
David wrote “It’s enjoying the activity of reading.”
In kindergarten? Why should kids start reading in kindergarten?
Here is an opinion from Cambridge University. I’d like to see a similarly authoritative opinion (not testimonial) in support of the other side.
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/school-starting-age-the-evidence
I quote “[a New Zealand study shows] By the age of 11 there was no difference in reading ability level between the two groups, but the children who started at 5 developed less positive attitudes to reading, and showed poorer text comprehension than those children who had started later.”
The Cambridge U. opinion is based on this research
Click to access dr_david_whitebread_-_the_importance_of_play.pdf
If nothing else, it’s worth reading the last paragraph on page 4 about an international effort (including the 29-country European Union) to introduce policies regarding children’s right to play.
You mean in the standards? Because I can list them off one by one. Actually, you bring up a great point. There must be written research based on the skills addressed within the common core. Common core promotes independent reading. I mean, isn’t there plenty of research with that one? We must all agree with independent reading, right?
You are the one who claims that the CCSS are research based: Show us the beef!
Show us the research and more importantly how examples of that “research” was used to inform decisions in the CCSS making process.
You are misunderstanding what I meant. If you read through the standards, they are scaffolding the elements of research. From k-12, the standards are trying to develop reading comprehension and researching skills.
I’m not getting paid to say this. I am working very hard along with all the teachers at my public school to make this work, and the students are responding. They are amazing (both students and teachers).
First, David, if you and your colleagues weren’t doing this way before CCSS then you weren’t doing your complete duties. And I don’t give a sh!t if your are paid or not to say this, I’m looking for the research and how that research was used in the decision making process for “scaffolding the elements of research” into the standards themselves. Curriculum mapping, both vertical and horizontal has been available for quite a lot longer than the magical CCSS, which aren’t magical but invalid and toxic, see Wilson-a piece of research that has never been refuted nor rebutted. Wilson is your starting point for further learning. If you choose to not read and acknowledge his concerns that would by your loss and then I’ve really don’t have much more to say to you as you have refused various requests to supply that supposed research.
David,
What are the elements of research? Can you name specific studies?
David writes “I meant the standards themselves are based on the elements of research. Those are skills needed wherever you live in this country or whatever you do in life.”
I happen to be a researcher, so I should have a great bias. But learning *formal* research skills should probably wait till high school. Start it too early, and you get math-haters and nerds.
One can certainly argue about what the *fundamental* research skills are. Being able to read *complex* nonfiction is not one of them. This particular skill can safely wait till college, anyways, where it is mostly automatically acquired as needed.
One can also argue that many (most?) college textbooks are written using unnecessarily complex language and concepts. Math, history, biology textbooks are often prime examples.
Ms. Ravitch,
I live not that far away. I am more than happy to share the kind of assignments we created based on the common core.
And I am also willing to go over each and every standard, and together find the research that backs up each of those skills. Again, independent reading is part of the standards. I know there is plenty of research on that one.
I am not for corporate reform. I am not for charter schools. I am not a fan of Eli Broad, Michelle Rhee, Eva Moskowitz, etc. As a teacher, I spent a lot of time dissecting the ccss, working with teachers to produce curricula without corporate materials. I see a lot of good. I never post things online. People feel so comfortable fighting and not listening. I just wanted to look at the positive on a site that discusses better education for all.
But apparently I’m the crazy dancing guy.
I gotta do some lesson planning for tomorrow. Peace.
David, there are some good things about CCSS and some not so good things. The K-3 sequence is not so good. The instruction about how much time to devote to literature has no research base. The tests are rotten. I always say to those who like the CCSS. Use them if they work for you.
David, You are doing what thousands of teachers are doing across the country: scrunching what they know about teaching and learning into a framework being imposed from above. There is nothing wrong with trying to make work something you are being compelled to make work whether you like it or not. Educators had very little to say about the whole process. The fallout from the development and implementation of CCSS and the push to use them to demonize teachers and demoralize students through endless testing has made it plain that the whole sorry mess should be dumped. The one thing positive to come from it has been what you have experienced: the chance for educators to get together, reflect on their practice, and pilot resources that may meet their criteria. Unfortunately, I suspect most of that reflection is occurring in districts that have the resources to encourage a teacher led process. In too many places, the biggest decision is an administrative one–what (guaranteed) CC aligned material is commercially available that they can afford.
I appreciated your replies. I support what you do, and like I said before, can never thank you enough for your hard work and endless dedication.
David,
Have you read Wilson’s work? If so your thoughts please.
Duane
2o2t,
Have to disagree with you on “There is nothing wrong with trying to make work something you are being compelled to make work whether you like it or not.”
Yes, there is a lot wrong to “make something work”. It’s a part of the banality of evil of which H. Arendt wrote. It’s a part of being a GAGAer and instituting harmful educational experiments (and that is what CCSS and the accompanying tests are, a giant unethical experiment). Survival is one thing but most would survive if they refused to be “good Germans”. Can self interest override concerns of (in)justice? I’ll leave you with the thoughts of A. Comte-Sponville on that:
“Should we therefore forgo our self-interest? Of course not. But it [self-interest] must be subordinate to justice, not the other way around. . . . To take advantage of a child’s naivete. . . in order to extract from them something [test scores, personal information] that is contrary to their interests, or intentions, without their knowledge [or consent of parents] or through coercion [state mandated testing], is always and everywhere unjust even if in some places and under certain circumstances it is not illegal. . . . Justice is superior to and more valuable than well-being or efficiency; it cannot be sacrificed to them, not even for the happiness of the greatest number [quoting Rawls]. To what could justice legitimately be sacrificed, since without justice there would be no legitimacy or illegitimacy? And in the name of what, since without justice even humanity, happiness and love could have no absolute value?. . . Without justice, values would be nothing more than (self) interests or motives; they would cease to be values or would become values without worth.”—Comte-Sponville
I’m sorry, Duane, but I disagree with you. Teachers can be very effective underground subversives. If the aim of the powers that be is to get rid of subversives, shouting in their face that they are idiots is a quick way to get canned. There may come a time for each teacher when they can’t take it anymore, but staying in the classroom may be the better option for the kids. Unless teachers act as a group, their protests are quickly forgotten. How many teachers do you know who returned to the classroom because of protest from their colleagues, parents, or students? You may be remembered fondly, but don’t count on anything more than a pat on the back. Then who is in the classroom?
David wrote “But apparently I’m the crazy dancing guy.”
I think the whole thing began when you used the expression “research based”. To most of us (including the CCSS writers) this means that the material in the standards were developed after lots of research to make sure they work. This turns out to be not true, and the lack of research preceding the CC is a fundamental flaw: it makes the implementation of CCSS a nationwide experiment with kids, parents, teachers without their consent.
But then you stated that we misunderstood what you meant, since what you were thinking about was that the CCSS helped kids to develop research skills. I dunno how “research based” can be understood this way, but I am not a native speaker.
Personally, I wouldn’t try to formalize standards to develop “research skills” , since there is no precise description of these skills anywhere. Such a formal description doesn’t exist for good reason: If the teaching is interactive, kids constantly ask and answer questions, the necessary research skills appropriate for K-12 are acquired.
Amazingly enough, in your last comment you write “And I am also willing to go over each and every standard, and together find the research that backs up each of those skills.”
So now you do claim that the CCSS is supported by research (which necessarily means experiments). The reason this claim and your offer are interesting is because you appear to be the first who offers to show some peer reviewed research to justify at least parts of CCSS.
Do you understand now, how we got confused about what you were trying to say?
I would add, as an invaluable supplement to THE COMMON CORE DILEMMA by Mercedes Schneider—mentioned above—this bit from her blog ( deutsch29):
[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]
Link: https://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/the-american-enterprise-institute-common-core-and-good-cop/
She is quoting from a blog posting by a well-informed charter member of the self-proclaimed “education reform” establishment, Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute.
This doesn’t appear in her book. IMHO, it is irreplaceable as an insider’s description, sober and realistic, of what CCSS is really all about.
😎
Good to get the word out.
I listened to a rerun of a C-Span discussion of the Common Core last night at http://www.booktv.org/
The broadcast was from a Press Club appearance with sponsorship by the “free market, limited government” think tank: The Pioneer Instutute. The Institute just published the book “Drilling through the Core,” edited by Peter Wood, President National Association of Scholars Other contributors and authors were Williamson Evers (Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution at Stanford University), R. James Milgram (Professor Emeritus Stanford University Mathematics Department), Sandra Stotsky, (Professor Emerita University of Arkansas, Fayetteville-Department of Education Reform, and Ze’ev Wurman, (former Senior Policy A\adviser, Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.
Stotsky and Milgram discussed why they were among five people on the “Validation Committee” who did not sign off on the CCSS (and who had good reasons to question that process). Since 2009, both have been vocal about flaws in the process and (in their opinion) the lowering of standards that are promulgated by the CCSS.
Notably absent from the C-Span discussion were the financial reasons for standardizing core subjects, with on-line tests, namely reducing the cost of delivering instruction, standardizing content and lessons in digital formats and with the “adaptive” programming touted as personalized learning.
In any case, the CCSS and sloganeering on behalf of “college and career-readiness” will not go away soon. Gates has managed to make that meme a virus-like infection, as immune from sustained criticism as possible by dumping tons of money on a huge number of parental, professional, scholarly, and political organizations and catching many people who should be critics in the peer-pressure of “get on board” or else.
Indeed, in a speech last week Bill Gates said the foundation is determined to give teachers the tools they need to implement the college and career readiness standards, close the achievement gap, and suggested Denver’s model of teacher evaluation was fine, nothing more than “a framework for (teachers) moving up the learning line together.”
This information is from EdWeek, Oct.14, 2015. Fortunately the article included perfect pitch quotes from Carol Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education and Melissa Westbrook, a public education advocate in Washington State.
Vicki Phillips, a senior official at the Gates Foundation, intimated that their next big investments in education, in addition to “implementation and tools for college and career readiness” could be so-called “personalized learning.” Of course there is not much personalized at all, you just substitute a computer “recommendation system” for the judgment of mindful and living, breathing teachers.
“Of course there is not much personalized at all, you just substitute a computer “recommendation system” for the judgment of mindful and living, breathing teachers.”
As usual Laura, astute and masterful.
“Bill Gates was de facto organizer, providing the money and structure for states to work together on common standards in a way that avoided the usual collision between states’ rights and national interests that had undercut every previous effort, dating from the Eisenhower administration.”
I love how Gates’ blatant end runs around any public review or debate of his goals is always portrayed as admirable efficiency.
Also? The Common Core is going to cost a hell of a lot more than 200 million, so this idea that he can do what he wants because he’s paying for it is nonsense. He’s not paying for it. Not even close. We’re all going to pay for it, which is one of the reasons it should have been publicly debated.
Agree
If I could add to your list of three, I would highly recommend a short, well-articulated article, by UNH professor Thomas Newkirk. “Speaking Back to the Common Core” is easy to read and easy to digest. He says it all. I leave it on my living room coffee table for guests to read…
Click to access Newkirk_Speaking_Back_to_the_Common_Core.pdf
Good article. I especially liked the critique of ELA standards.
“Write informative/explanatory texts in which students introduce a topic, use facts and definitions to develop points and provide a concluding statement.”
This Common Core ELA standard is an expectation established for all children, regardless of their disability or primary language. This standard was written for students who are __ years old.
a) 13
b) 11
c) 9
d) 7
money doesn’t talk/it swears/propaganda/all is phony…Bob Dylan said
that…Bill Gates money can’t turn wrong into right…I said that…
eventually Gates will be unmasked as a phony propagandist…a matter of
time…
The Common Core is considered a huge success in ed reform circles now that the testing is in place:
http://educationnext.org/so-far-only-ohio-is-backing-off-a-high-standard-for-proficiency/
They really could have done this a lot more cheaply and easily by simply raising the cut scores for the NCLB tests children were already taking.
Petrilli, the author of this article, is clueless. Perpetuating bogus claims will never make them true and history will not look kindly on his ilk.
For decades, the de-facto standards/curriculum n any school was the “textbook”.
Thanks to Gates, Duncan, Obama, et. al. the de-facto standards/curriculum is the “test”.
Reblogged this on StrangeLander2015 and commented:
More on the same.
The first recommendation, the article from the Washington Post, actually changed my mind about Gate: he is just a billionaire. But there is this huge mass of weak people who are waiting to be bribed. I think the article makes it clear that the bribes are not always recognizable. They are given as grants, and sometimes the strings that are attached don’t seem too unacceptable.
The depth of the Gates machine is amazing. But the speed with which it can work is the scariest part, and that has nothing to do with Gates, and has everything to do with the readiness of the people to be bribed.
I wonder if the majority of the people in this country are weak like that, so are susceptible to bribes?
A poll could show.
For one, I am not sure univ profs would fare well on a poll like this. In some sense, public universities may be in worse position than public K-12 schools: For example, I am not sure if most research done at public universities are still done for the public good. Certainly not when it comes to medical research.
“For example, I am not sure if most research done at public universities are still done for the public good. Certainly not when it comes to medical research.”
Funding through public sources is practically nonexistent. If you want to do research, private funding is necessary in most cases, another example of the wonders of the public-private partnership. In order to pursue a particular research path, you have to be able to convince the private sector that there is enough profit in it. If you don’t produce fast enough they are likely to pull funding, just like Bill Gates does. Unfortunately, the public good doesn’t always fit into a company’s profit demands.
“I wonder if the majority of the people in this country are weak like that, so are susceptible to bribes?”
In K-12 public education I call them GAGA*ers. Perhaps not susceptible to bribes, as that would be beneath them-teachers, administrators-state ed folk, etc. . ., but very susceptible to threats, coercions and bullying by the powers that be whether those powers that be are the school or district administrators, state ed folk or federal DoE people/policies.
*Going Along to Get Along (GAGA): Nefarious practice of most educators who implement the edudeformers agenda even though the educators know that those educational malpractices will cause harm to the students and defile the teaching and learning process. The members of the GAGA gang are destined to be greeted by the Karmic Gods of Retribution** upon their passing from this realm.
**Karmic Gods of Retribution: Those ethereal beings specifically evolved to construct the 21st level in Dante’s Hell. The 21st level signifies the combination of the 4th (greed), 8th (fraud) and 9th (treachery) levels into one mega level reserved especially for the edudeformers and those, who, knowing the negative consequences of the edudeformers agenda, willing implemented it so as to go along to get along. The Karmic Gods of Retribution also personally escort these poor souls, upon their physical death, to the 21st level unless they enlighten themselves, a la one D. Ravitch, to the evil and harm they have caused so many innocent children, and repent and fight against their former fellow deformers. There the edudeformers and GAGAers will lie down on a floor of smashed and broken ipads and ebooks curled in a fetal position alternately sucking their thumbs to the bones while listening to two words-Educational Excellence-repeated without pause for eternity.