A new study published in the AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice concludes that the discarded New Jersey standards were more effective at teaching critical standards than the Common Core standards.
The study was conducted and written by Dario Sforza, EDD, a principal in East Rutherford, New Jersey; Christopher H. Tienken, EDD, an associate professor at Seton Hall University; and Eunyoung Kim, PhD, a professor at Seton Hall.
Here is the abstract:
The creators and supporters of the Common Core State Standards claim that the Standards require greater emphasis on higher-order thinking than previous state standards in mathematics and English language arts. We used a qualitative case study design with content analysis methods to test the claim. We compared the levels of thinking required by the Common Core State Standards for grades 9-12 in English language arts and math with those required by the New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards in grades 9-12 English language arts and math (used prior to the Common Core) using Webb’s Depth of Knowledge framework to categorize the level of thinking required by each standard. Our results suggest that a higher percentage of the 2009 New Jersey high school curriculum standards in English language arts and math prompted higher-order thinking than the 2010 Common Core State Standards for those same subjects and grade levels. Recommendations for school administrative practice are provided.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
So…someone who teaches in NJ makes the claim that their standards of old were better than CCSS…Two thoughts: I don’t seem to think that NU has been in the top of any state rankings recently – so what does that say about the standards? And two – CCSS was created as a floor, not a ceiling. So, if the state standards WERE so much better, I am sure that they could be incorporated and used alongside CCSS…
CCSS are neither floor nor ceiling, but walls and barriers. What we need are doors.
NJ always ranks in the top tier of schools nationally, up there with MA and CT.
Critical thinking requires real, not rheeal, facts.
Copyright. Adopted before created. 85%. 15%. [Google] *Hint: Show some grit and determination by doing your homework.*
And the actual thrust of CCSS? Delineated by an extremely well-informed charter member of the education establishment and fierce rheephorm advocate, Dr. Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute at the end of 2013:
[start]
In truth, the idea that the Common Core might be a “game-changer” has little to do with the Common Core standards themselves, and everything to do with stuff attached to them, especially the adoption of common tests that make it possible to readily compare schools, programs, districts, and states (of course, the announcement that one state after another is opting out of the two testing consortia is hollowing out this promise).
But the Common Core will only make a dramatic difference if those test results are used to evaluate schools or hire, pay, or fire teachers; or if the effort serves to alter teacher preparation, revamp instructional materials, or compel teachers to change what students read and do. And, of course, advocates have made clear that this is exactly what they have in mind. When they refer to the “Common Core,” they don’t just mean the words on paper–what they really have in mind is this whole complex of changes.
[end]
Link: https://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/the-american-enterprise-institute-common-core-and-good-cop/
Click on the above to get much valuable contextual info and other links.
😎
you are wrong about NJ ranking; they are higher then you are giving them credit for… In MA we are only permitted to bring 15% of the curriculum material from our standards into the common-ness of core — and you assumption that the older standards can be incorporated is false. Also, your third point, a floor should also include questions that measure creativity…. at some level; it doesn’t mean that “at the floor” you can leave out the problem solving, creativity you just do it at certain skill levels (depending upon the ages of your students you are testing)… So on all three points I think you have raised I believe you are wrong on all 3.
jeanhaverhill: you have demonstrated mastery of “common core-ness.”
Too bad supporters of CCSS haven’t mastered even the 15% permitted under the copyright that was slapped on it before it even existed.
Shouldn’t people that support such standards have to meet certain standards themselves—like knowing the ABCs of the standards they support?
😧
I guess I still don’t understand how to properly do the ‘closet’ reading of decontextualized informational tests demanded on CCSS-aligned standardized hazing rituals, er, tests.
Pardon me while I get my vomit bag.
Thank you for your comments.
😎
I much preferred the older form of the New York Regents exams; my niece’s daughter in parochial school was even receiving those and I would bring home the practice tests from NY to show teachers in MA what I thought was an example of a good practice item for regents (it was a lesson/lesson plan format as well). Bob Shepherd’s essay here on the “new new lite” reading explained what they have done with this common-ness. I also read through the study as to how they built their qualitative review and I found it to be impressive — worry that we don’t have enough of that kind of information in the knowledge base at the colleges training teachers .
decontextualized informational tests demanded on CCSS-aligned standardized hazing rituals, er, tests.
jeanhaverhill@aol.com
NJ is #6 on Mike Petrilli’s list at Education Next… not that I always agree with Mike P. but there is better “showing” of NJ than you have given them credit for NJ was near the top on that list… you might want to check out some others and think it will show you are underestimating NJ.
I didn’t have time to find this until today but Ed Week lists NJ pretty high on their list
MaSSachuSettS B
new JeRSey B-
newhaMpShiRe c+
VeRMont c+
MaRylanD
NYS also had some excellent standards which we had been tweaking for about ten years. They took into account feedback from the teachers and it was educators who designed them, not politicians.
Why discard what is working and replace it with unproven (and in the case of the CCSS) dreck?
I bet this is true of most states. Was the whole country punished because a few states hadn’t “done their homework”? Not an effective approach.
It’s all snake oil. No one really knows how to make good critical thinkers. Yes teachers can elicit critical thinking, but that’s not the same as building the foundations. It’s probably the case that teachers are taking credit for something parents had a lot more to do with. So much fuzzy thinking when it comes to discussing critical thinking!
California’s standards were proven to be superior. Somehow that didn’t stop them. I think teaching critical thinking isn’t easy – but has been done by creative thinkers themselves, who know how to elicit deep thinking in students and involve them in scenarios that require problem solving. It isn’t easy but it can be done.
Gosh, after all of those teachers and other professionals who vetted those CCSS standards … oh.
The Common Core claim to being the ultimate elicitor of so-called “critical thinking” skills is an even more bogus claim than “college and career ready”.
Does anyone actually believe that three million teachers were somehow incapacitated in this regard until the magical Core came to the rescue?
Requiring that students think critically is easy and has been done since Plato.
Actually teaching students how to think critically has no known pedagogy.
Critical thinking also requires something to think about. An important issue or decision against which competing arguments can be made. The very best the Core has offered has been “supporting evidence” or “author’s tone or intent”. Not very impressive at all.
CC math is virtually devoid of critical thinking engagement.
When it come to critical thinking, the best teachers can offer is a content rich classroom experience – something the Core flat out ignored.
While I believe that children must have some innate skills in order to become critical thinkers, these skills need to be developed and not left dangling in the netherworld. Opportunities to use their minds and come up with creative solutions to everyday problems is part of the skill set needed in order to be ready for what life throws their way. Let’s face it, the problems the world faces need a lot of creative solutions if the human race is to survive.
And a child doesn’t have to be a scholar to exhibit critical thinking. Survival on the streets in the inner city requires some heavy duty decision making, some done Johnny on the Spot.
Even simple thinking skills – organizing thoughts, following directions, asking questions – can be taught to everyone through examples and practice.
Drills and rote answers are more for robotics, not humanity.
I can certainly agree with this statement: “The Department strongly suggests that the test administrator document the student refusal and keep it on record at the school in case questions arise later about the school’s participation rate.” and I believe that we do not have the knowledge base to disseminate the way that we need for “pedagogy” principles as Testocracy states (I think I got the understanding)…. so we have absolutely no business testing these skills/abilities…. one giant experiment in R&D (wasting funds)
Flos: You say that “simple thinking skills can be taught” –but can they? How? I think the skill is built-in. As you yourself say, street smart kids have very sharp minds. The problem is that they can only apply their sharpness to what they know about: the street. If we want them to apply their innate sharpness to other realms, e.g. accounting or chemistry, we must expand their knowledge base in those areas. We decry kids’ lack of critical thinking ability, but what we really mean is that they’re inept at critical thinking IN CERTAIN DOMAINS. They don’t need critical thinking skills implanted in their brain; they need to broaden the scope of their innate skills. The way to do that is to broaden their knowledge base. Teach kids about Syria and suddenly they’re able to think critically about Syria. You didn’t give them critical thinking skills; you gave them knowledge.
Ponderosa – Opportunity, practice, follow through are the key. Design a problem for the kids to solve, brain storm solutions, discuss the results, come up with a plan, have the children describe or illustrate their ideas and there are no right or wrong answers – let them be as creative or as anal as they want. Unfortunately, creativity is tamped down and discouraged so that children are taught to find the answer the teacher wants to hear. This limits discussion and eliminates the thinking process. I’ve done the same lesson with kindergarteners and fourth graders and gotten better responses from five year olds who still exhibit free thinking and are not hemmed in by expectations. In this way school actually discourages rather than enhances the critical thinker.
One of my lessons to promote thinking skills:
If a library has 10,000 books there must be some way to organize them so you can find the book you want to read. Let’s brainstorm some ideas of how we can sort the books. There are no right or wrong answers (almost every idea they have has a parallel in the real world). Now think of the books in your own home and devise your own personalized system. Describe and/or illustrate your idea.
Another lesson – is the book fiction or nonfiction? Divide the children into small groups. Describe a book and have them go to the appropriate section in the library. Be sure to include book topics which could be both fiction and nonfiction – such as topics like the Titanic – give them scenarios for each and let them demonstrate then explain the differences.
Organizing Books – have each child pretend they are a fiction book and create a call number with the first three letters of their last name. Now have them in small groups put themselves in ABC order. Make the groups larger and larger until the whole class is involved. If a student winds up in the wrong spot have another student help them find the right location. (You can easily see who doesn’t understand alphabetical order). I would do something similar for the Dewey Decimal System.
Draw a picture illustrating the main idea of a picture book. (This is much harder than it sounds – and they can’t copy the current cover of the book).
Given an obscure animal, predict the continent where they live then use the encyclopedia to see if you are correct. Find two fun facts about this animal to share with the class (don’t forget to look for illustrations and captions for details).
Small steps to be sure, but when they student does the majority of the work, they must think about what they are doing before they can successfully participate in the process.
Since library skills are not very exciting, I tried to make them fun by engaging the student and making my lessons into a game of sorts. Play, after all, is a child’s first opportunity to develop their mind and their thought processes.
Poor kids really get the shaft when it comes to getting credit for “critical thinking” skills. Just because they may not be solving complex mathematical proofs or designing original physics experiments or something we think they’re not thinking or solving problems. But when you’re whole damn life is one continuous problem starting with where are you going to sleep tonight and what are you going to eat and how are you going to get where you need to be without getting your butt kicked and how are you going to handle your mother’s boyfriend if he comes home drunk, etc., it sure seems that you would learn to think and solve problems. Either that or you don’t survive long. My husband grew up dirt poor in Ghana and by age 15 he was almost completely on his own with almost no high school education. Just finding a way to get food every day was a huge challenge, yet he survived and, eventually, thrived. To this day he is a far better problem solver than i am with all my fancy degrees and high test scores.
Flos,
These sound like stimulating activities. In each one complicated mental operations are going on. What I’m asking is that we analyze these operations and determine what’s really going on and how they might be beneficial or if they’re really beneficial at all. Are mental muscles being built? Is knowledge being acquired? Are critical thinking skills really being taught here, or just elicited? Too few teachers even seem interested in these questions. Too many teachers launch kids into activities like these and take it on faith that something beneficial is going on, though if you try to pin it down they cannot say (though perhaps you’re different). This worries me. Activities like these are all the rage at my school. Teachers claim these are building “critical thinking skills”. But I think our profession is in trouble if we cannot give a clear account of how our pedagogy works. This seems like a fuzzy, faith-based pedagogy. It smacks of Lumosity, the recently discredited brain training program. At this point I’m tempted to call it voodoo pedagogy –like Reagan’s voodoo economics –something that sounds plausible and desirable, but doesn’t add up under close scrutiny. If someone can lay out a clear account of how EXACTLY such critical thinking activities benefit the brain, I might be convinced.
You make a valid point.
While I tried to engage as many children as possible, there were always some who “fell through the cracks”. However I did follow these same kids over numerous years so I could see growth. Was it due to my efforts? Well, school is a team effort and there are also outside influences, so I really can’t take any personal credit (although I hope I had a positive impact on these students lives). And can I pinpoint exactly how my strategies work? While I took some workshops on thinking skills, I’m definitely not an expert.
However, what an interesting study that would make.
Ponderosa – there is already all sorts of research on this topic (which has been ignored by CCSS). I’m just not willing to read through all the data, although while I was working I did develop my lessons based on the current teaching philosophies which I thought made sense (as well as my own intuition).
It still would have been interesting to follow a small group of children from pre-K through high school and assess their critical thinking skills at each level. That, however, was never my focus.
True “critical thinking” is clear, rational thinking that involves a critique of competing ideas, solutions, or viewpoints based on related knowledge and principles.
A generic problem solving activity like “book sorting” is a bit different and anyone can engage in it as related knowledge is not required.
A true “critical thinking” activity might involve assessing the use of nuclear energy to replace fossil fuels, or critiquing the implementation of democracy in Iraq. Both of these require domain specific knowledge before a reasoned decision can be made.
The ideal subjects to pursue critical thinking are science and social studies – two subjects mysteriously put on the back burner during CC implementation. Interesting enough, engaging in critical thinking in these subjects requires both careful reading skills and mathematical analysis as well.
Yet the very best that CC offers us regarding true critical thinking is the never ending search for supporting evidence in informational and fictional texts combined with the demand to ignore related knowledge. The whole four-corners BS.
I think Ponderosa is correct because it is still “Theory”. I was pleased to see Sternberg on the bibliography because he has one of the better theories that would include the skills they are saying they want to measure. Scott Barry Kaufman has done some recent work in this area with Sternberg; but the point is we DO NOT have the knowledge base to make these promises. Again, it is testing students on what they have never been taught so we rely on the student’s “intuitive” abilities…. I don’t know how they can call this “achievement”… These experiments belong in a research lab and should not be foisted on the public school population until they have been worked out (and the states have found some way to pay for these additional requirements .) When they sell the rhetoric and promises that they can predict future success in career and college then Ponderosa is correct in calling it “snake oil.”
“Survival on the streets in the inner city requires some heavy duty decision making, some done Johnny on the Spot” Sternberg is one who includes this in his model… that’s why I was pleased to see Sternberg in the bibliography..
Judging from the criticisms of Common Core and it’s attendant standardized tests coming from school children, I’d say it has inspired lots of critical thinking.
“Critical Thinking”
The Common Core
Inspires critiques
And many more
Than old techniques
Inspires critiques
Of Common Core
Of VAMmy geeks
And Coleman lore
Of reading close
And standard test
Reformer boast
And all the rest
These conclusions are just false. They miscoded the complexity of the standards. The old NJ standards had some nebulous statement about “use real world examples of xyz” but allows the teacher/students to use some BS stuff to “check the box”. All of the old NJ standard were overrated by at least one level and the CC standards underrated by the same amount.
We should let the parents decide to which standards they want their kid taught. Just like kids can take an “honors” and regular track, let the parents decide. All the teachers/parents who think CC is developmentally inappropriate can be left behind with the fluff standards and the parents who want rigor and for their students to be able to compete in the real world can choose CC. What’s so wrong with that? We should be able to disagree on letting parents choose within the public school system.
Could you cite one or two rigorous CC math standards? Just copy and paste for all to see. Be sure to include grade level.