Michael Rothfeld of the Wall Street Journal has written the best, most balanced account that I have seen of the perilous condition of the Common Core standards. The article fails to explain adequately why 46 states adopted the standards, as if everyone was waiting and hoping for the chance to endorse untested national standards; it happened because of the $4.35 billion offered as a state competition, but only to states that agreed to do what the Obama administration wanted them to do, which included embracing the standards.
Rothfeld documents why states are dropping out. A few have repealed the Common Core standards. Half of the 46 states that signed on to one of the two federally-sponsored tests have backed out. It wasn’t simply the political controversy from right and left, from parents and educators. The cost turned out to be a deal-breaker.
Some states couldn’t afford the cost of retraining teachers. Some could not afford the technology. Some could not afford the new tests.
But the standards and tests arrived at a time when districts and states were strapped.
“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. To come up with that number, the Journal examined contracts, email and other data provided under public-records requests by nearly 70 state education departments and school districts.
“The analysis didn’t account for what would have been spent anyway—even without Common Core—on testing, instructional materials, technology and training. Education officials say, however, that the new standards required more training and teaching materials than they would otherwise have needed, and that Common Core prompted them to speed up computer purchases and network upgrades.
“Much more money would be needed to implement Common Core consistently. Some teachers haven’t been trained, and some schools lack resources to buy materials. Some states haven’t met the goal of offering the test to all students online instead of on paper with No. 2 pencils….
“Common Core advocates hoped to make standards uniform—and to raise them across the board. Their goals were to afford students a comparable education no matter where they were, to cultivate critical thinking rather than memorization, to better prepare students for college and careers, and to enable educators to use uniform year-end tests to compare achievement. They wanted to give the tests on computers to allow more complex questions and to better analyze results.
“The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which signed on to the effort in 2008, so believed in the cause that it has spent $263 million on advocacy, research, testing and implementing the standards, foundation records show. Vicki Phillips, a Gates education director, says its Common Core-related funding of new curriculum tools developed by teachers has led to student gains in places such as Kentucky.
“But after a burst of momentum and a significant investment of money and time, the movement for commonality is in disarray.
“Some states, including South Carolina, Indiana and Florida, have either amended or replaced Common Core standards. Others, including Tennessee, Missouri, Louisiana, New Jersey and North Carolina, are in the process of changing or reviewing them. A total of 21 states have withdrawn from two groups formed to develop common tests, making it difficult to compare results.
In California, the costs of implementation are staggering.
California has allocated $4.8 billion to local school districts that they can use for Common Core implementation, but some have asked a state commission to order more funding for giving the Smarter Balanced test.
“For some urban districts struggling to pay for basic educational needs, preparing for the standards has been challenging.
“The Philadelphia school district unveiled a plan in 2010 to implement Common Core and won a $500,000 grant from the Gates Foundation. But a budget crisis the next year resulted in nearly 4,000 layoffs, including of some putting the plan in place.”
There is something bizarre about pouring billions into untested standards and tests at a time when districts like Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee, and many others are struggling to maintain basic services in their schools and at a time when privatizers are targeting the very existence of public schools.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The enormous amounts of money spent, is sickening!
As I understand them, both the Senate and House ESEA reauthorization bills end Common Core at the federal level, leaving it up to the states and districts to do or not do anything with it.
Yes. But Obama will still have to sign the final bill. Common Core is a toxic political brand and it is doubtful that Obama will veto a bill that excludes Common Core. He will veto a bill that reduces the yearly testing requirement or one that fails to hold teachers accountable using test scores+.
$$$$$ rules. Ka-Ching!
Can you imagine what would have happened if all of that money had been spent on professional development, including targeted time for teachers to work together on unit design?
Something equally but differently horrifying?
“Something equally but differently horrifying?”
I had to laugh loudly at this question, because I think it is true. The oligarchs behind this are not going to hand their money over without strings that they control. It’s obvious to me that they are incapable of letting anyone else—especially public school teachers and educators that they clearly detest and do not respect—spend their money without them in control of every cent.
Don’t listen to what the oligrachs say. Pay attention to what they do with their money to get what they want.
“The article fails to explain adequately why 46 states adopted the standards, as if everyone was waiting and hoping for the chance to endorse untested national standards; it happened because of the $4.35 billion offered as a state competition, but only to states that agreed to do what the Obama administration wanted them to do, which included embracing the standards.”
Unfortunately Diane, that excuse won’t work for state legislators because the cost of RttT ITSELF often exceeded the RttT grants. If state lawmakers are saying their agency and free will and ability to add and subtract was somehow compromised in the heady days of the national ed reform “movement” craze in 2009-10 I’ll accept that as an apology, but it’s not an excuse. This is their job.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/03/10/race-to-top-grants-not-worth-costs-officials-say.html
Chiara: you wrote—
“… the cost of RttT ITSELF often exceeded the RttT grants.”
Spot on!
You are not wise in hindsight. I started to read ed blogs about that time and I remember folks pointing that out.
The shot-callers and enforcers and enablers of self-styled “education reform” often brag about their “bidness smarts”—how can explicit short-term painful gain [remember: they’re literally buying into rheephorm test-to-punish regimens] at the cost of predictable long-term pain be described, charitably, as anything but worst business practices and fiscal mismanagement?
Thank you for your comments.
😎
KrazyTA,
Former Superintendent Ken Mitchell, while still in his position, wrote that six districts in his part of New York State won a total of $400,000 from New York’s Race to the Top grant, but the mandates associated with that money will cost the districts $11 million. https://dianeravitch.net/2012/11/03/the-very-expensive-mandates-of-race-to-the-top/
From the point of view of an oligarch with the agenda of the Waltons, Eli Broad and Bill Gates, it makes sense, because adding this cost to the public schools when they are hurting for money is a lethal blow that could drive them into bankruptcy and make it easier to use the media and justify turning them into autocratic, opaque, for-profit corporate charter schools.
In other words, the Common Core Crap was never meant to improve education. It was tool that was meant to be used to justify the destruction of the community based, transparent, non-profit democratically controlled public schools so America’s children, the children of 99% of the population, would be in the hands of the oligarchs who would then make sure to mold them and control the future thinking of those children they could control and mark those they couldn’t for the streets-to-prison pipeline that is also becoming a private sector for-profit business.
The ultimate goal: cradle to grave control of every individual in the country who must live their lives according to rules created by the oligarchs funding this war against the 99%.
This isn’t about more freedom and a good live. This is about who is in charge and rules the country.
What do you think about this?
http://edushyster.com/most-likely-2-succeed/?utm_content=buffer7ee2e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
We had a series of community meetings last year on the public schools here and project based learning was the most popular idea, by a mile. I thought it was interesting because it was presented as “21st century” and this area is quite conservative and yet they just loved it. One guy at my table said “that’s what 4-H does” and that’s true- the kids do year-long projects with adult advisers.
The public schools where I taught were doing project-based learning back in the late 1980s and that program expanded through the 1990s. I was even involved in one aspect of this program that was funded by a grant that lowered class size to 20 for one year down from an average of 34 or more. It was an incredible experience but the teachers were in charge back then. No one was telling us how to develop these programs. Instead, we met in cooperative groups and worked together to make it happen. The results were incredible and rewarding. In fact, even many of the most difficult and at risk kids got involved and shared the work in their peer study/project groups.
But said to say, the grant ended and so did that project based learning once we were back up to 34+ students in each class.
Bill Gates and Microsoft win regardless because schools everywhere are facing new technology demands as testing demands have increased. I’d like to think Gates wants to make a positive contribution, but he also wants more profits and Common Core has created a school necessity to upgrade technology for college and career ready testing for Common Core and other standards as well. Can we spell p-r-o-f-i-t-s?
Don’t be silly. Tech companies are purely disinterested and work only for the common good.
The US Department of Education lists them as “stakeholders”, first, ahead of parents, teachers and children.
“His heart is in the right place”
His heart is in the right place
Although he may seem cold
He has a little wallet space
And heart is in the fold
Cross posted at
with this comment which has important embedded links…so go there and see it
Some links which tell you facts better than I can!
The best explanation is here:
David Hursh: Obama’s “Testing Action Plan” Changes Nothing
https://dianeravitch.net/2015/10/30/david-hursh-obamas-testing-action-plan-changes-nothing/ This post was written by David Hursh, Professor at the University of Rochester. It ably summarizes the critiques of President Obama’s proposal to reform testing and reduce the burden on students and teachers. It also contains excellent links.
But here are some I have in my file:
Whatever Happened to Scientifically Based Research in Education Policy?
Do High-Stakes Tests Improve Learning?, Michael Hout, Stuart Elliott, Sara Frueh
Is There an Alternative to Accountability-Based, Corporate Education Reform?
“Lloyd Lofthouse
November 3, 2015 at 1:27 pm
The public schools where I taught were doing project-based learning back in the late 1980s and that program expanded through the 1990s. ”
Thanks. Most of the people in the meeting seemed to understand it wasn’t “new”, even though it was presented as new.
My son did a long project last year that was his teacher’s experiment at this. He really enjoyed it, but he liked her generally so maybe that was part of it.
The high school where I taught developed a Career Pathways program while I was still teaching there that culminated with the students presenting their projects.
“Imagine getting hands-on experience in a career while still in high school! The award-winning Career Pathways program at Rowland Unified is one of a kind – students at both Nogales and Rowland High schools have the opportunity to learn and experience first-hand about six different career field areas:
Arts & Communication, Business, Family & Consumer Sciences, Health & Medical Services, Technology and Public & Human Services.”
It was developed starting in 1989-90 (I retired and left in 2005), and the teachers developed the program with help and input from the local business community. The key here is local.
http://careerpathways.rowland.k12.ca.us/
of course it is all local..15,880 districts are no accident… but that is KEY. The oligarchs needed to control the schools, and by taking out the real professionals the caused the failures; the final death knew was defunding schools ending all programs. Now the legislatures are takin over the local control, and with no educators on board, they can hand taxpayer money over to charlatans, as our children lose.
But here’s the rub…kids are not kids for long; they are voting citizens soon. How can they distinguish truth from lies with out the shared knowledge of history. http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/winter2009/hirsch.pdf
… and when curricula schools are controlled by the oligarchs, as this link will show,https://dianeravitch.net/2014/12/05/north-carolina-plans-to-adopt-koch-funded-social-studies-curriculum/
our democracy is down the tube.
I too, remember 40 years of teaching, and the assesments I used in order ortolan lessons and know what each child knew.
I too as all great teachers did, provided performance evaluations that let the kid apply their learning.
I admire you Lloyd!
And a second comment that I made there, explains what TESTS do,– the important use of assessments:
things to know about tests.
1- TO really know a student’s performance so a TEACHER can plan lessons to meet student needs for LEARNING, the TEACHER must do the evaluation.
2-The ONLY PURPOSE for evaluation of any kind” is to inform the teacher, so lessons can be planned. It also allows a teacher to explain to a parent and a child whether or not the child is learning. Evaluations /tests of any kind WAS NEVER INTENDED TO EVALUATE A TEACHER OR A SCHOOL!
3- TESTS ( quizzes and multiple choice tests) were NOT even mentioned in the standards research, as these were merely classroom devices that were available to a teacher to inform the accession of facts, and did not, in any way, evaluate a student’s ability TO APPLY KNOWLEDGE or to GAIN SKILLS.
Thus, Evaluation belonged in the classroom, for the use of the teacher.
It was the charlatan and grand liar Bush, who put forth his NCLB act
which created this testing nonsense for the sole purposes of the Education Industrial complex to show that schools ar failing ” and it has left ALL children behind.and to do that THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF HAD TO BE SILENCED AND REMOVED.
How else could a multiple choice test be USED to know how a teacher teaches little Johnny, Leroy, Juanita or any child?
“It was the charlatan and grand liar Bush, who ALONG WITH THE DIMOCRATS LED BY SENATOR TED KENNEDY put forth his NCLB act. . . .
Can’t pin this all on George the Least!
AND, I PUT A THIRD COMMENT BELOW THE LINK TO THE ARTICLE, also linking back to this site:and, for those of you, who want the simple story, the reality…don’t miss this one: Jan Resseger: Arne Duncan’s Shameful Legacy
https://dianeravitch.net/2015/10/05/jan-resseger-arne-duncans-shameful-legacy/
A few words from the post below… GO AND SEE WHAT Obama’s ARNE DID!
“Jan Resseger writes here of the calamities imposed on our nation’s education system by Arne Duncan, who changed the national education goal from equality of educational opportunity for all to a “race to the top” for the few. He shifted our sights from equal opportunity and equitable funding to test scores; he pretended that poverty was unimportant and could be solved by closing public schools and turning children over to private entrepreneurs who had little supervision. ”
“Read Jan’s entire piece: Duncan was a disaster as a molder of education policy. He ignored segregation and it grew more intense on his watch. His successor, John King, was a clone of Duncan in New York state. He too thinks that test scores are the measure of education quality, despite the fact that what they measure best is family income. He too, a founder of charter schools, prefers charters over public education. His hurried implementation of the Common Core standards and tests in New York were universally considered disastrous, even by Governor Cuomo; John King, more than anyone else, ignited the parent opt out movement in New York. And his role model was Arne Duncan.”
Jan Resseger writes: “School policy ripped out of time and history: in many ways that is Arne Duncan’s gift to us — school policy focused on disparities in test scores instead of disparities in opportunity — a Department of Education obsessed with data-driven accountability for teachers, but for itself an obsession with “game-changing” innovation and inadequate attention to oversight — the substitution of the consultant driven, win-lose methodology of philanthropy for formula-driven government policy — school policy that favors social innovation, one charter at a time. Such policies are definitely a break from the past. Whether they promise better opportunity for the mass of our nation’s children, and especially our poorest children, is a very different question.
School policy focused on disparities in test scores instead of disparities in opportunity: Here is what a Congressional Equity and Excellence Commission charged in 2013, five years into Duncan’s tenure as Education Secretary:”
GO TO THE LINK AND READ!!!!