At 10 am I posted a story from the San Francisco Chronicle about Marshall Tuck, who is running for State Superintendent of Public Instruction. The original headline said that Tuck lowered standards to get a higher graduation rate.
This was the original:
Marshall Tuck, candidate for California schools chief, lowered the bar for graduation to make struggling schools look better
I just learned that the Tuck campaign complained about that headline, and the newspaper agreed to change it.
Now it reads: “TEACHERS AT 8 OF 10 SCHOOLS TUCK OVERSAW REJECTED HIS LEADERSHIP.“
Same story, new headline. He might as well have stuck with the original.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Tuck will Walmart-ize our schools if elected. I oppose him.
However, our schools have a big problem even without Tuck: we’re using a curriculum that isn’t working. Why are we blind to this? All kids “learn” is reading and math in many of our schools, and yet reading and math scores are flat (or going down). If this isn’t proof of failure, what is? Who will rise to defend the Common Core curriculum now?
“…yet reading and math scores are flat (or going down). If this isn’t proof of failure, what is?”
Really? Do you need another repetition of Wilson?
The SBAC/PARCC ELA tests are bogus not because all standardized tests are bogus, but because they claim to measure one thing (metacognitive reading skills) when in fact they mostly measure another thing (the background knowledge that enables advantaged students to understand the passages, and thereby answer the convoluted “skills” questions connected to the passages). If schools were really making kids better readers, scores would go up on these tests. The fact that the scores are not going up implies that the schools’ approach, teaching “reading skills” in lieu of background knowledge, is a failure.
“The SBAC/PARCC ELA tests are bogus not because all standardized tests are bogus, but because they claim to measure one thing (metacognitive reading skills) when in fact they mostly measure another thing. . . ”
That reason is just one of many reasons that Noel Wilson pointed out that shows “all standardized tests are bogus”. So what you’ve picked out as THE reason, ponderosa, is just one of many that each and every one renders the standardized testing process COMPLETELY INVALID. Why do you insist on using something that is COMPLETELY INVALID as a supposed valid and reliable indicator of supposed student learning?
That makes no sense, ponderosa.
“If schools were really making kids better readers, scores would go up on these tests.”
No, they wouldn’t necessarily rise because of all the psychometric fudgings involved in getting the scores to be “reliable” across various administrations of the test. All the questions are normed before being used, even if the test is supposed to be a criterion referenced test which results in normal curve distribution (or at least fairly close to that) of the test scores. And even with that then the cutoff points are manipulated for various reasons having nothing to do with the test construction itself. The game is rigged so that not all can get all the answers right.
In other words it’s a big effin game that is played on the backs of the students, using them to get data that has nothing to do with their learning. Can’t get much more unethical or unjust than that. It’s plain wrong!
The mislabeled and, misidentified as “liberal”, Center for American Progress continues to step to the plate to defend Common Core. A CAP 2018 paper cited a study funded by Bloomberg, Hewlett, Helmsley (the usual suspects) calling for a common set of standards and assessments across states i.e. Common Core. And, CAP continues to proclaim that the use of the most effective textbook provides gains as large as the difference between novice and experienced teachers. CAP buries that recurring theme behind a window dressing recommendation for higher teacher salaries. In March, they recommended the higher salaries should be funded by selling advertising on buses but, definitely not taxes.
It wasn’t enough that CAP was part of losing 1000 legislative seats during Obama’s terms, they also were largely responsible for Hillary’s loss. They are the gift that keeps giving (sarcasm).
I’m OK with common standards –just not these awful standards. They’re awful because the way they’re written implies that teaching reading comprehension demands teaching metacognitive strategies like using context clues, when in fact it demands teaching background knowledge. So the standards are inducing us all to perform malpractice.
My gut tells me there will be no Blue Wave –in part because of Democrats’ mealy-mouthed messaging –the same problem that afflicted us in 2016. I liked Hillary, but she gets an F for conveying to masses a compelling reason to vote Dem. “Trump is horrible” did not and does not suffice (though it should). Bernie was and is much better. He is concrete and clear, focused on bread-and-butter issues. In my 15 months of canvassing in a swing district, I’ve met many Trump supporters who tell me they would have voted for Bernie over Trump. I even meet Republicans whose Trump-support folds surprisingly quickly when I give them facts about US income inequality and how workers fare better in Canada and Europe (knowledge matters!) The Kavanaugh issue thrills CAP-types in DC and Palo Alto, but it’s not a winning issue amongst the blue collar masses. The Democrats have a winning hand –Bernie-nomics –it’s scandalous that they’re not shouting about that.
On Democrats’ vagueness:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2018/10/02/feature/will-the-democrats-wake-up-before-2020/?utm_term=.5ffff09d4ea1
CAP’s “awake” churning out reports that match the agenda of Gates/Bain Capital. Gates gave them $2,000,000 and a Bain Capital co-partner is on the Board. Which of the following do you think is true? Randi is CAP’s useful idiot or her personal ambition trumped standing up for an organization, whose members she cares little about?
How many times do noxious ideas from conservatives have to appear in CAP reports, how many times does CAP have to devalue teachers in comparison to digital and printed curriculum, how many times does CAP have to beat the privatization drum, how many times do AFT’s members have to be knifed in the back before CAP is exposed in every arena possible?
“I’ve met many Trump supporters who tell me they would have voted for Bernie over Trump.” – likewise, I know people who voted for Trump because they were denied Bernie, this was their middle finger to the Dems.
That’s why Trump was elected. Feel better now?
BA- You’re wrong. Bernie led his followers, like Michael Moore, to Hillary. Bernie worked very hard for Clinton, even after the unethical shabby treatment he received.
Responsibility for the loss is squarely on Podesta’s campaign. The Black activist, Nina Turner, was denied her time at the convention, Bloomberg was invited. The 30-year son of venture capitalists and a graduate of Cincy’s most expensive h.s. and of an Ivy League college was sent to pivotal Ohio as a campaign manager (an economically depressed state with an aging population). Moore told the world in a televised film aired on cable, exactly how Clinton would lose and Podesta did nothing. Podesta gave his password to hackers, inadvertently. The Center for American Progress is Podesta’s think tank. Look at what they continue to do to drive away union members like teachers.
Those giving the finger to the Dems voted for the green candidate. But the vote between Trump and Clinton would not have been close, if stewardship for the campaign was with those outside of Podesta’s sphere.
Common Core was simply a Trojan Horse to bring back NCTM-designed programs like Core Plus Math and NCTE-supported Whole Language concept. It is clear that nothing happens in isolation, and Common Core is not an isolated event, it is tightly linked to NCTM concepts like discovery, “technology” and group work, to ANAR, to “we need better schools” and hence to choice, vouchers, privatization and, ultimately, money. Publishers can make more money by designing Whole Language readers than by printing simple phonics books. These are all different wings of the same multi-prong attack, which lasts for at least four decades now. It is not new.
What will it take to prove its failure? I recently gave my seventh grade history students a simple word problem (something they practice ad nauseam in their double-period math classes). Most failed to solve it. One of the major stumbling blocks was inability to do subtraction of two three digit numbers without a calculator. While many have been taught how to “carry”, they never learned it well enough to remember quite how to do it. Learning it to the point of automaticity would entail medieval rote learning –can’t have that in these enlightened modern times with our superior modes of pedagogy.
Ponderosa wrote “Learning it to the point of automaticity would entail medieval rote learning –”
Repetition and rote learning can be used in learning vocabulary along with math. I suggested a method of rote learning to the Spanish students. Those who did actually use it had no problem learning the vocabulary. One has to have a base on which to build on further in many subjects, and actually without that base of knowledge more learning becomes damn near impossible (as you’ve rightly pointed out many times.)
Duane,
The little Spanish, French, German and Greek that I possess is the fruit of brute memorization. I’ve never understood the conventional “wisdom” that the only real language learning comes through conversation and watching Telemundo (or Deutchewelle, etc.). I’m lost without a trove of memorized vocabulary and grammar rules in my head.
How about a subtitle to the new title?
Teachers at 8 out of 10 Schools Tuck Oversaw Rejected his Leadership:
In those schools, Marshall Tuck, candidate for California schools chief, lowered the bar for graduation to make struggling schools look better
Holy cow! Actually CHANGED the headlines because Tuck felt threatened.
I’m not sure which headline is more damaging/derogatory? What think ye all? A little unscientific poll? Vote
#1–MARSHALL TUCK, CANDIDATE FOR CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS CHIEF, LOWERED THE BAR FOR GRADUATION TO MAKE STRUGGLING SCHOOLS LOOK BETTER.
or
#2–TEACHERS AT 8 OF 10 SCHOOLS TUCK OVERSAW REJECTED HIS LEADERSHIP.
Please reply with a #1 o #2 below!
I’ll hold my vote in case we need a tie-breaker.
2
Is there a signifiant difference between lowering scores and what Atlanta teachers did that resulted in their imprisonment?
Oh right, punishment is for the 99%, not for the 1%. Contributing to GDP is for the 99%, not the 1%. Getting to the top the Chester Finn way is for an isolated few in the right place at the right time.
I’d say not. And your answer is correct also.
Can I vote twice? The options are both heinous.
Only if you are a Ruskie.
Remember the Trump supporter that was charged with voting twice in Iowa? She might look like a Russian but I don’t think she was a Russian.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/29/trump-supporter-charged-with-voting-twice-in-iowa/?utm_term=.d4a7574dc862
That is hysterical! Thanks for sharing. Kas Winters