Peter Greene read the WSJ article that was just posted on the blog, and he saw it as confirmation of what he long ago predicted: the dream of national standards and tests is dead. Whatever you may call the Common Core, there will not be one big set of standards and one big standardized test for all (or even two big standardized tests for all).
In other words, the dream that Common Core would be the single educational vision of the entire country– that dream is dead. Dead dead deadity dead.
But Rothfeld’s piece lays out a not-always-recognized (at least, not by people who don’t actually work in education) culprit for the demise. He lists the usual suspects– politics, testing, federal overreach. But the article is most interested in another malefactor– finances.
“The total cost of implementing Common Core is difficult to determine because the country’s education spending is fragmented among thousands of districts. The Wall Street Journal looked at spending by states and large school districts and found that more than $7 billion had been spent or committed in connection with the new standards.”
That’s billion-with-a-B (and that rhymes with P and that stands for “Probably still underestimating the total cost”). WSJ looked at all sorts of records and figures that still doesn’t count things like the training budgets that have been turned into Common Core training budgets.
So it isn’t working, states are dropping out of the tests and the standards too.
And he allows Vicki Phillips to repeat her claims about the awesomeness of Kentucky without being challenged. In fact, Rothfeld doesn’t really challenge anything about the Core, and in a way, that’s what makes this article so brutal– whether the Core is any good or not is beside his point, which is that the whole business just isn’t working, and it’s costing a ton of money to boot.
Will historians in the future look back and review the short life and rapid death of the Common Core standards as the educational equivalent of the Edsel? New Coke? There must be a Museum of Failed Educational Experiments and Fads somewhere. If there is, a special place should be reserved for CCSS, because it not only was imposed by the federal government and the Gates Foundation without any deference to democratic process, but it wasted billions of dollars that might have been better spent on reducing class sizes, restoring arts education, promoting desegregation.
I confess that I once believed in the value of national standards. The experience of Common Core has proven that national standards are a waste of time and money, that we will best improve education by improving the conditions of teaching and learning and by reducing poverty and segregation. These are hard but achievable goals. They will change the lives of children across the nation for the better. National standards and tests might be imposed, but even if they were, they would do nothing to improve the lives of children or communities or our society.

First, Bill Gates blew a couple of billion dollars on the smaller high school experiment that failed and that he then abandoned.
Next, Bill Gates blew billions more pushing the Common Core Crap down our throats through stealth methods by ignoring the democratic process and buying everything and everyone he could even the two largest national teachers’ unions.
What will Bill Gates do next in this one corrupt and psychopathic billionaire’s crusade to destroy and/or buy the community-based, transparent, non-profit, democratically controlled public schools that were working and improving just fine when he showed up and changed coarse to run them into an iceberg as if they were the Titanic?
He recently stated that he is not going to throw in the towel and walk away from this.
LikeLike
National education standards (with the centralized control that accompanies them) are not only a waste of money, they are actually inimical to democracy.
The local control of schools is one of the last bastions of true democracy in the United States. Schools not only represent democracy in action, but are the means by which knowledge of democratic principles is passed to our children.
This is undoubtedly why so many powerful interests are bent on destroying public schools and local control in particular.
“Rooting out Democracy”
Public education
Democracy in action
Demands eradication
By oligarchic faction
LikeLike
From Peter’s article:
“There’s plenty that goes unsaid in this piece, particularly about the actual merits of the Common Core, and in fairness to Rothfeld, that’s kind of beside his point. Still, it’s more likely that people will find a purchase “too expensive” if they discover they are purchasing something that is technically ‘a piece of crap.'”
Thank you, Peter, for hinting at-“that is technically ‘a piece of crap'”-Noel Wilson’s fundamental epistemological and ontological critique of the two educational malpractices that are educational standards and standardized testing. As the wise old saying points out “Crap in, Crap out”! And those two educational malpractices are definitely a prime example of that sagacious adage.
For any new readers here today, tomorrow and beyond, I suggest that you read and comprehend Noel Wilson’s never refuted nor rebutted 1997 treatise that thoroughly destroys the conceptual bases for those two educational malpractices. See: “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.
LikeLike
For me, the basic premise is very suspect.
Children, people are different, Times and places are different.
Children must be ready for the next century to be sure but who knows what will come?
A common core sounds so very good and it has of course does have some merit but to stricture a curriculum in such a myopic way is to handcuff educators.
AND
when the government tells teachers where “truth” lies, we are in deep doo doo.
LikeLike
It seems to be human nature to seek out silver bullets, quick fixes, and magic elixirs. In this case the, teachers didn’t do the seeking. Instead it was foisted upon us by the most successful snake oil salesman of the 21st century.
LikeLike
Jay P Greene University Arkansas comments on his blog today; I don’t recommend him or his approach (charter/voucher/ed savings accounts) but I point out his statement today…. ” I’m convinced that a top-down strategy that falsely invokes science to identify “best practices” and then attempts to impose those practices on our highly decentralized education system is always doomed to fail, regardless of how it is “messaged” and no matter how earnest we are about implementation.” sometimes he gets the diagnosis correct; it is his policy approach that I disregard as he is wrong-headed in that arenas.
LikeLike
Jean, maybe Jay could advise the Walton Family Foundation that funds his program to stop imposing top-down reforms on reluctant parents.
LikeLike
I definitely agree; that was part of my point that after Greene has been beating the drum for the voucher/charter and what they call ESA all these years, now he suddenly starts pointing fingers at those other “thinky tanks”… Smarick at Bellwether also does this; as does Petrilli. They were all pushing these reforms for the past decade and now that the parents have been strong in opposition Smarick and Petrille and Greene say “oh, it was those other guys” who caused this. Petrilli bothers me the most because they have Fordham Institute and Education Next pushing the agenda while Paul Peterson is training “leaders” in his viennese economic destructive theories from Schumpeter and calling it “free market”. The Greene blog is often hidden behind snark, what they think is humor and special effects from the adolescent male culture…. yet they are all dangerous because of the misinformation they are selling as “research” . David Driscoll is locked into these boards as well so we have Martin West at Education Next telling NAEP to measure “grit”. It bothers me that Fordham Institute which has nothing to do with the university trades off the good reputation the University had built and many parents believe they are reading from Fordham U. what is coming out through Paul Schumpeter Peterson /Petrilli/ outfit with a Cambridge address (again to have people think it i Harvard U). I don’t trust anything that is called “research” today and that includes West Ed (formerly had a good reputation) Measured Progress (they work with Sir Michael Barber to send out marketing hype etc.)
LikeLike
how to find Jay P Greene http://jaypgreene.com/2011/07/26/gates-foundation-follies-part-2/
LikeLike
However, if the Core always was a Trojan Horse to infiltrate and destroy public education, it may yet prove to been remarkably successful. Charters have built a presence and a clearly identified constituency. The widespread adoption of uniforms in up to 75% of charters was a brillint political strategy ( TV and movies always picture classrooms of uniform clad students now.) As I work with younger teachers now, I find their dedication and enthusiasm truly amazing considering the circumstances under which they are forced to operate. However the generational loss of personal and institutional experience in public education caused by the CC,NCLB and RTTP as 30 and 40 year veterans left is cause for concern. Add to all this the fact that many opponents of CC were actually just opponents of modern schooling in general. We shall see.
LikeLike
“Add to all this the fact that many opponents of CC were actually just opponents of modern schooling in general.”
Please elaborate on that thought as I’m not quite sure I understand who those “many opponents” are.
TIA!
LikeLike
Diane, the choice is not between national standards and “improving the conditions of teaching and learning and by reducing poverty and segregation.” The choice is between standards and curriculum. Even the CCSS authors say that standards are not enough, that districts must write comprehensive, coherent, and content-rich curriculum if children are to benefit…. I suggest anyone in the NYC area attend the Johns Hopkins-Hunter Forum for Education Policy and Core Knowledge event on November 10 for “a conversation assessing the role that a strong curriculum might play in narrowing the achievement gap.” Panelists include David Coleman, President of the College Board; Michelle Allen, Icahn Charter School Principal; Valarie Lewis, Core Knowledge Fellow and Dispelling the Myth Award Winner; and Ian Rowe, CEO of Public Prep.” See here for registration information: http://us11.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d8cdd7eb722a777dd339e4601&id=d26a8446d8&e=36fcb419fc.
LikeLike
Peter Meyer,
We must improve the conditions of teaching and learning and we must strive to reduce poverty and segregation.
Schools must not remain the way they are now. They are out of touch with children’s motivation and passions.
Education should be alive, not inert. No one can stuff knowledge into kids’ heads, or even try.
LikeLike
Agreed, Diane, except that the two goals are not mutually exclusive. Poor kids in “bad” schools — while waiting for poverty to be alleviated and school conditions to improve — need a good curriculum as much as — even more than– rich kids in private schools. And the big plus is that good curriculum doesn’t cost much. But no sane or sober proponent of knowledge or the curricular delivery system would advocate “stuff[ing]” it into kids’ heads. When I first visited a Core Knowledge school (25 years ago!) the kids were absolutely enthralled by learning, excited to be in the classroom and learning lots of facts. As with a dollar bill, knowledge is demographically agnostic. best, peter
LikeLike
It is the job of the classroom teacher to make knowledge come alive. Students crave knowledge that is interesting, surprising, personal, or useful. Ed Hirsch got a bad name when he let himself be inaccurately associated with the CCSS. It was his mistake and it unfortunately turned many people off to the idea that content knowledge is a critically important aspect of schooling. Especially for disadvantaged and underprivileged children. They need a content rich curriculum that comes alive to fill in for parental neglect. The Common Core standards did nothing to encourage content rich curriculum; in fact CC offered just the opposite: a narrow, prescriptive, and ultimately boring school experience. Hey Peter, looks like we found some common ground!
LikeLike
If it’s a David Coleman event, shouldn’t it be retitled: “a conversation assessing the role that a white supremacist core knowledge curriculum certainly plays in perpetuating oppression”?
LikeLike
To quote Stephen Krashen: “Why should we give a **** what David Coleman thinks?”
LikeLike
David Coleman? I love fiction. I hate close reading. In my view, people’s feelings are important.
LikeLike
While the Common Core State Standards and associated tests may be on their way to the morgue, the intent to have kids “college and career ready” will have a longer life.
The meme and the end-game of “college and career ready students” is thoroughly entrenched in educational policy and practice, including the language in the pending reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Act, and the various content standards developed under the policy and rhetorical aura of the Common Core. That includes deliberations about tests such as SAT, ACT, and NAEP. That includes the national standards in science, social studies, the arts, and in foreign languages.
Example ”The National Core Arts Standards’ philosophical foundations and lifelong goals establish a definition of artistic literacy that clarifies how students can be involved in the arts beyond the high school level, and how the that arts involvement contributes to college, career, and lifelong learning (p. 18).
Even the relatively new ‘hottie topic” being pushed into schools—“social emotional learning” (SEL)— is rationalized as “critical” to academic success in school, starting in preschool and up the line to college and career readiness.
.
The National Association of School Social Workers and National Association of School Counselors have reframed their professional work to say that developing “skills” needed for “academic success” in school includes becoming college and career ready.
What remains to be seen is whether the decade ahead will focus on “college OR career” or “college AND career.” The conceit of the Common Core was that either path—college or career—required the same sort of entry knowledge and skills, with no difference between attending a community college, completing an online certificate, or being ready for Harvard or MIT. The “Common Core” standards were also marketed as if there was no difference for entry into career paths as diverse as film-making, professional athlete, or lawyer.
Officials in the U.S. Department of Education, at the behest of some researchers (most in psychology) are now calling for “interventions” and tests of so-called “non-cognitive” or “soft skills” or “social-emotional skills” with these explicitly taught in schools and where possible integrated into every subject. Why? These skills promote “success” in academics, and readiness for college and career.
USDE’s recent Skills for Success funding ($2 million for year one) targets students in grades 5-8 who are “at risk” and in “high minority” schools. The focus is on interventions designed to enhance “student attributes, such as growth mindsets, resilience, self-control, and other social and behavioral skills, such as self-efficacy. (All) can have a significant and lasting impact on student achievement and behavior. … research suggests that non-cognitive factors may play an important role in students’ academic, career, and life outcomes.”
In other words, educational projects and policies are likely to continue a relentless focus on getting a job and/or going to college well past any sense of obligation to be faithful in implementing the 1,620 Common Core standards.
What is likely to remain for a long time is a truncated and rather dismal idea about school as a path to “success” with success meaning that this generation has acquired a solid work ethic, is disinclined to rock the boat, and is judged by the things they manage “to do” and “to avoid doing.”
They are a “success” if they go college, get a job, do not end up in the prison pipeline, avoid substance abuse and stay healthy, do not have an unwanted pregnancy, and so on.
What life may offer, and require of this generation —beyond the thousands of grade-level specifications and tests for college and career readiness and now tests for social-emotional “competence”—is too rarely considered. Our students deserve a more ample and generous views of education and possibilities for the “good life” than have been foisted on this generation of students and their teachers.
LikeLike
Excellent comment, Laura. Not time for us to stop and chortle yet, you remind us. Wish it weren’t so.
LikeLike
Here’s a good one!
http://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/family/the-third-grade-math-question-thats-baffling-parents/ar-BBmLgxz?li=BBgzzfc&ocid=mailsignout
LikeLike
My vision of the education fad graveyard. I suggest housing Common Core materials in the open concept schools with no walls next to the New Math curriculum. We can post data walls and behavioral objectives on the floor. Most of the shelves and cabinets house obsolete technology Apple IIe’s with Fraction Munchers next to Mac SE’s with Oregon Trail. I am sure many of you all have other items to add.
LikeLike
This is a beautiful post!
You forgot about lining the birdcage with Marzano (or Danielson) rubrics.
LikeLike
I just don’t trust any organization or top down movement anymore. When I see the word “grant” for professional development I a.) cringe. then b.) run
Education is PERSONAL, local, organic, fluid, art….Reform and those seeking control have no clue what genuine whole child education looks like.
LikeLike
The Common Core story should be a cautionary tale for our leaders. They should know the difference between “think tank” and research. A fish tank has more value than an think tank. The KKK could convene a think tank, and if they had enough money behind them, some of their ideas could gain traction. That’s a scary idea; nevertheless, the Common Core has no more process validity than that. I hope the CCSS are in a downward spiral, and that Gates is not just pausing to figure out a way to whip public education into submission. We need to send the message that our children and schools are not for sale.
LikeLike
“We need to send the message that our children and schools are not for sale.”
Or for baseless experimentation.
Ask any parent with an 8 year child if they are willing to wait ten years to see if the Common Core test-and-punish experiment will work.
Parents will answer this question in the spring.
LikeLike
People like Bill and Melinda Gates who perform experiments on children without informed consent of their parents are completely lacking in ethics.
They don’t subject their own children to the experiments, of course, but believe that simply because they have the money, they can do whatever the hell they please with and to other people’s children.
LikeLike
Well said.
LikeLike
The Common Core must die…along with the bashing of our teachers and attacks against our public education system. The testing “consortiums”, the Pearson dragon, and VAM must die as well, never to ever again harm our nation and its children.
The hijacking of our democratic principles by corporate wealth, and political prostitution by governors who falsely blame our education system as a failure, when they have in fact, failed as leaders must end as well.
They must be eradicated for our nation to remain free, for all Americans…
The Common Core will eventually die…sooner rather than later…
So that our nation and our children may once again live.
LikeLike
I like your use of words: for instance, the Common Core must DIE and THEY must be eradicated (what they do to termites that infest a house) for our nation to remain free.
LikeLike
Nevermore.
LikeLike
I wonder if NY will remove the Common Core words off their Regents exams….I suspect NY will be the last state to give in.
I also saw on the news that the college board did not have the SAT scores from Oct ready for early admissions….guess DavidColeman is ineffective.
LikeLike
The SAT/early admissions issue is a MAJOR problem for concerned parents, anxious students, and university admissions directors.
And just another nail in the CCC.
Guess they’re still trying to decide the meaning of “college ready”.
LikeLike
From today’s NYT, re: The NEW DC SAT test:
Only TWO sections:
1) Math, 2) “Evidence-Based Reading and Writing”
“draws heavily from the Common Core”
Only 3 MC distracters per item (a, b, c, d. – No e)
LikeLike
Oh man, the “distractor” word. When I taught, we were forced to make “action plans” based on standardized test results every quarter. These action plans included how we were going to review the problems/concepts with students, with special attention to the “distractor”. We had to teach to these plans. Essentially, we took content that appeared on ACT and only taught that (regardless of the actual content students needed in their classes).
When I say “we”, I don’t mean “me”. I didn’t partake in this activity because I refused to teach to the test. Also, my class was not ACT Test Prep. I did, however, discuss very good standardized test questions with the students on material we were covering, but I didn’t teach to the test.
FYI: I taught the content that was most meaningful to my students to catch them up (they were many grade levels behind) and prepare them for the next math course they would be taking the following year – a huge balancing act that a national curriculum couldn’t address. I call it “teaching”. It’s also a curriculum they needed (that I designed) that would never fly in a surrounding upper-echelon suburb. Why? I had to catch the kids up, push them hard, and teach them everything I could to prepare them for the next course. Despite this, I still didn’t “teach the whole book”. The sad part is that the school I worked for reprimanded me and told me I was “harming the kids” because I wasn’t following the teach to the test model. Talk about inequity.
LikeLike
Whoops! Inequality, not inequity. Dang autocorrect. All of this craziness in our schools is caused inequity.
LikeLike