Archives for category: Common Core

Laura Chapman writes:

Unfortunately, this next generation of teachers is not just subject to manipulation by Teach for America.

The new EdTPA (Teacher Performance Assessment) is one of the new gatekeepers for entry into teaching. EdTPA was designed by scholars at Stanford. It has been rubber-stamped by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE). AACTE represents 800 teacher education programs..

EdTPA is aligned with the CCSS. It honors direct instruction made evident in video snippets of teaching and plans that prospective teachers submit for scoring. Scoring has been outsourced to Pearson who charges a minimum of $300 per test, while paying $70 per hour to raters of the tests. In early 2014, edTPA was being used in 511 educator preparation programs in 34 states and the District of Columbia. CCSS plus training for direct instruction over authentic education will not just fade away. http://edtpa.aacte.org/about-edtpa

States can use edTAP scores for teacher licensure. Teacher education programs can use the scores for state and national accreditations.

The edTPA scores of graduates, and gains in students’ scores that they produce on the job will now be used to rate the “effectiveness” of teacher education programs. In other words, Obama+Duncan’s flawed K-12 policies are being foisted on teacher education. The Gates’ desire to track student test scores produced by graduates of teacher education programs in on track for becoming the new normal. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/barack-obama-arne-duncan-teacher-training-education-106013.html#ixzz2zwfJdsRs

it is hard to be optimistic. In addition to EdTPA, other tests for teacher certification require knowledge of the CCSS (e.g. Praxis http://www.ets.org/praxis/ccss). Other certifications of teacher education programs are no less troubling.

For example, the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), approved new standards for teacher education in August, 2013. CAEP is a new entity merging NCATE, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education and TEAC the Teacher Education Accreditation Council. In 2013, the merged organizations had accredited over 860 programs. CAEP standards must still be approved by USDE and appear to have been written for that purpose.

The standards from CAEP illustrate how hard it is to bury bad policies, and overcome horrific language about education.

Programs that prepare teachers are now called “providers.” Teachers who graduate are now called “completers.” The CAEP standards rely on 110 uses of the term “impact” to describe what teacher education and teachers are supposed to do. (Ask Diane what “impact” meant for her knee, or consider how ‘impacted” sardines may feel in a can).

Here is CAEP’s Standard 1.4 for teacher education: “Providers ensure that completers demonstrate skills and commitment that afford all P-12 students access to rigorous college-and career-ready standards (e.g., Next Generation Science Standards, National Career Readiness Certificate, Common Core State Standards).” http://caepnet.org/accreditation/standards/standard1/

CAEP Standard 4.1: “The provider documents, using multiple measures, that program completers contribute to an expected level of student-learning growth. Multiple measures shall include all available growth measures (including value-added measures, student-growth percentiles, and student learning and development objectives) required by the state for its teachers and available to educator preparation providers, other state-supported P-12 impact measures, and any other measures employed by the provider.” http://caepnet.org/accreditation/standards/standard4/ This standard is absurd. It requires the use of “measures” that are known to be invalid and unreliable.

CAEP Standard 5.4: “Measures of completer impact, including available outcome data on P-12 student growth, are summarized, externally benchmarked, analyzed, shared widely, and acted upon in decision-making related to programs, resource allocation, and future direction.” http://caepnet.org/accreditation/standards/standard5/

Clearly, the demolition derby on K-12 is expanding to damage the independent voice of faculty in higher education, especially those most directly responsible for teacher education.

The “provider” language signals that alternative paths to teachers preparation are being honored. The 42 member “commission” charged with developing CAEP’s standards was dominated by high-level administrators in education and entrepreneurs who appear to be totally unaware of (or indifferent to) the meaning of due-diligence in developing standards. They ignored sound scholarship that should have informed their work, including extensive peer-reviewed criticisms of the CCSS, value-added and related “growth” measures, as well as all the well-document flaws in industrial strength management strategies from mid-century last.

Damn the torpedos, ignore the evidence, full steam ahead.

Eduardo Porter recaps the conventional wisdom about American schools, recapitulating in one column all the same tired cliches as Rhee, Gates, Duncan, and our other corporate reform titans.

Our scores on international tests are mediocre. Yes, they have been mediocre since 1964, when the fist such test was given. No, I take that back. We were not mediocre in 1964, we came in last. And in the last fifty years, we surpassed the nations with higher scores.

There is a shameless gap between the test scores of rich and poor, which is true, but that’s because we have such a huge proportion of children who are poor (23%), more than any other advanced nation. Porter talks about various ways too raise the test scores of kids in poverty (the latest unproven fad: blended learning), quoting the salesmen.

Of course, the best way to reduce the gap would be to provide jobs and a decent living wage for the parents of poor children, but that seems to be off-topic. Best to keep up the pusuit of ever higher standards and harder tests, the failed strategy of the past dozen years.

Porter ultimately concludes that our biggest problem is “a dearth of excellent teachers.” How does he know? The OECD told him so.

Maybe he believes this. Maybe he just watched “Waiting for Superman.” I would love to have an hour with him.

The Néw York Times is unusually out of touch when it comes to the issue of education.

Over the years, we have seen a steady dumbing down of American culture, especially in the mass media. Whether newspapers, radio, or television, we have lost many of our well-educated, cultured, well-informed thinkers. Often they have been replaced by shock jocks, ranting talk show hosts, and an entire cable channel devoted to trashing liberals, liberal social programs, and labor unions.

I miss Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, and dozens of other smart journalists who brought more than their opinions to their journalism. Bill Moyers is one of that breed. We need more.

Another thing I don’t understand is why people on the far right like to paint their own country in the most negative tones while pretending to be patriots. I used to see a lot of this in rightwing think tanks, where people seized gleefully on every negative statistic to prove what a bad country this is; how horrible our public schools are; how dumb our teachers are; how we are doomed. Michelle Rhee’s advertisements often make me think she really hates this country, that no one is smart enough or good enough for her. .

All of this is a long-winded way of disassociating myself from Glen Beck’s screed against Common Core and public education. It is called “Conform: Exposing the Truth about Common Core and Public Education.”

Here is a review by Hilary Tone of Media Matters that gives you an idea of how false and hysterical this book is. It is clear that Beck did not read “Reign of Error.” I won’t be reviewing “Conform.” I am not interested in reading or writing about crazy rightwing attacks on our great American tradition of public education or on our nation.

In the same vein as the one now being mined by Glenn Beck is a video about a Florida legislator denouncing the Common Core because it will make all children gay. Seriously.

This is crazy stuff, and it makes it difficult if not impossible to have a reasonable discussion about the pros and cons of the Common Core. The Common Core is not wicked, evil, or dangerous, nor are those who wrote it.

Perhaps my critique of Common Core is too sophisticated for those who want simplistic answers. I don’t condemn those who want to use Common Core. I don’t think they are wrong or unAmerican. If they like it, they should use it.

My advice to states that want to use it, who think it is better than what they do now, is this:

1. Convene your best classroom teachers and review CCSS. Fix whatever needs fixing. Recognize that not all students learn at the same pace. Leave time for play in K-3.

2. Do not use the federally funded tests. Do not spend billions on hardware and software for testing. Let teachers write their own tests. Use standardized tests sparingly, like a state-level NAEP, to establish trends, not to label or rank children and teachers.

3. Do not use results of CC to produce ratings to “measure” teacher quality. Study after study, report after report warns that this is a very bad idea that will harm the quality of education by focusing too much on standardized tests, narrowing the curriculum, and forcing teachers to teach to the tests.

4. Do not let your judgement be clouded by people who make hysterical claims about the standards or those who wrote them.

Mercedes Schneider here reviews the transcript of a board meeting of Pearson in April 2014. Anyone can read the transcript but is allowed to quote only 400 words. That was Mercedes’ challenge.

What struck her was that Pearson’s business plan is heavily tied to adoption of CCSS. In this case, contrary to the assurances of Bill Gates, national standardization promotes monopolization, not competition.

What struck me was that the leaders of this behemoth, now taking control of large sectors of American education, had nothing to say about education. The discussion, not surprisingly, was all about profits and business strategy. Who decided to outsource American education?

Randi Weingarten and Linda Darling-Hammond have co-authored a major new statement on accountability.

They write that:

“If we assume that the goal of accountability should be better education, the test-and-punish approach must be replaced by a support-and-improve model. A new approach should ensure that students get what they really need: 1) curriculum, teaching, and assessment focused on meaningful learning, 2) adequate resources that are spent wisely, and 3) professional capacity, so that teachers and school leaders develop the knowledge and skills they need to teach much more challenging content in much more effective ways.”

They add:

“Implementing the standards well will not be accomplished by targets and sanctions. It will require more adequate and equitable resources and greater investments in professional capacity, especially for currently underfunded schools that serve the highest-need students.

“Raising standards in ways that punish children and educators for not meeting them produces the wrong responses from schools. Evidence shows that, rather than improve learning, sanctions tend to tamp down innovation, incentivize schools to boost scores by keeping or driving out struggling students, hasten the flight of thoughtful educators from the profession, and disrupt learning for students whose local schools are shut down.”

They use Néw York as an example of how do accountability wrong, and California as an example of how to do it right.

There are some very good ideas in their statement. I would add my two cents: when some children and families live in such desperate circunstance, not even the best standards, curriculum, assessments, and professional development will be enough to create equality of opportunity. Some kids have tooany strikes against them, and that is a societal failure.

I think there are plenty of well meaning people on different sides of the Common Core issue. It serves no useful purpose to divide people into good guys and bad guys. This is one of those tangled questions where we do best to debate the pros and cons of the Common Core, without challenging the motives of those with whom we disagree.

No doubt, there are some who seek to make profit or who are troubled by Bill Gates’ overwhelming investment in the CCSS. It would be easy to come up with a list of dubious motives for the CCSS, but our national discussion should deal with consequential issues, such as the quality of the standards, whether they are appropriate for students of different age groups, and how they are likely to narrow or increase these gaps among different student groups.

Among the most one sided treatments of CCSS is that of the Southern Poverty Law Center. This is a group that is usually very grounded in its criticisms.

Unfortunately, SPLC chose to paint opposition to the CC as Tea Party and/or rightwing extremists who want to destroy public education. This is odd indeed because the critics and supporters of CC are strange bedfellows.

Jeb Bush, who does not like public education but loves vouchers and charters, is one of the most outspoken supporters of the CC , as is Michelle Rhee, and others on the right. The Chicago Teachers Union just voted unanimously against the CC. CTU is not an enemy of public education

More thinking is needed, less name calling.

Pearson, the multi-billion British publisher, plans to launch a new PR offensive to push back against the anti-testing and anti-Common Core groundswell. Pearson has been steadily buying up every aspect of American education: it recently won the contract to adminster the Common Core test called PARCC, which is worth at least $1 billion; states using Pearson tests buy Pearson textbooks; Pearson bought the GED; Pearson owns the online EdTPA, to evaluate teachers as they finish their training; Pearson owns virtual charter schools called Connections Academy; Pearson owns a curriculum aligned with Common Core.

This interview appeared on politico.com:

PEARSON TO PUMP UP THE P.R.: Pearson CEO John Fallon came by the POLITICO office to talk about a whole range of issues – and to make a pledge: His team is going to be more active, he said, in fighting back against the anti-testing, anti-Common Core movement that has swept through a number of states. Rather than see the opposition “as threats to our traditional business,” Fallon said, the company is trying to forge common ground.”We’re all in the business of trying to improve educational outcomes,” he said.

– Fallon said Pearson will step up its social media presence and will also make more of an effort to engage with teachers unions, talk to parents and generally “be very transparent about what we’re doing and why we’re doing it … We’re willing to be held accountable.”

– Asked how he would grade Pearson’s public outreach so far, Fallon demurred. “You probably wouldn’t grade us very highly at the moment – which is probably fair,” he said. “We’re going to try to be more proactive.”

– Don Kilburn, President of Pearson North America, also weighed in. He said he expected Pearson’s sales to pick up after a couple of rough years crimped by tight state budgets for both K-12 and higher education. The company has reorganized and now has a “much cleaner mission and structure” which is expected to propel faster growth, he said.

Anthony Cody recently read Simon Head’s Mindless: Why Smarter Machines Are Making Dumber Humans. This book, Cody says, shows how society is organized to benefit corporations, not people. He then includes a video clip from the CEO of Knewton, who claims that education is ripe for data mining.

He says:

“Education happens to be the world’s most data minable industry by far. And its not even close…. The name of the game is data per user. So one of the things that fakes us out about data in education is because it is so big – like the fourth biggest industry in the world – it produces incredible quantities of data. But data that just produces one or two data points per user per day is not really all that valuable to an individual user. It might be valuable to like a school district administrator, but maybe not even then. So let’s just compare. Netflix and Amazon get in the ones of data points per user per day. Google and Facebook get in the tens of data points per user per day. So you do ten minutes of messing around in Google and you produce about a dozen data points for Google. So Knewton today gets five to ten million actionable data points per student per day. Now we do that, because we get people, if you can believe it, to tag every single sentence of their content – we have a large publishing partnership with Pearson, and they’ve tagged all of their content. And we’re an open standard, so anyone can tag to us. If you tag all of your content, and you do it down to the atomic concept level, down to the sentence, down to the clause, you unlock an incredible amount of trapped, hidden data.

“We literally know everything about you and how you learn best. Everything. Because we have five orders of magnitude more data about you than Google has. We literally have more data about our students than any company has about anybody else, about anything, and it’s not even close. That’s how we do it.”

The day of Big Data grows closer. Arne Duncan sees it. David Coleman sees it. Do you see it?

Gerri Songer compares ACT and PARCC and finds them both wanting , both developmentally inappropriate.

She begins that she used to think that ACT “is a dreadful attempt to assess student learning. Now that PARCC has hit the scene, ACT is beginning to look significantly better!”

Songer shows that both tests are beyond the cognitive levels of most high school students.

She then argues:

“Albert Einstein once said, ““Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Making things simple is true genius. Einstein’s first job was that of a patent clerk. He analyzed the ideas of others and simplified them, communicating them in a way most could understand. “Anyone can complicate things. But it takes patience, probing questions and creative thinking to simplify. Whatever problem you are facing it’s probably not as complicated as you think – but we often make it so. If you want to solve more problems, simplify them. The real genius is turning complexity into simplicity.”

“As much as our test makers seem to love using archaic language from primary sources written by our founding fathers at the birth of our American nation, somehow they must have overlooked Thomas Paine‘s Common Sense, “IN the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense: and have no other preliminaries to settle with the reader, than that he will divest himself of prejudice and prepossession, and suffer his reason and his feelings to determine for themselves that he will put on, or rather that he will not put off, the true character of a man, and generously enlarge his views beyond the present day.”

“Let me break that down for our test makers, “I’m going to make this plain and simple, using the mental faculty of common sense: Keep an open mind and listen to what I have to say!”

“Perhaps Arne Duncan would benefit from taking a look at Henry David Thoreau‘s Civil Disobedience, “I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — “That government is best which governs least”; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — “That government is best which governs not at all”; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.“

“In case you didn’t get that, Arne, let me help you, “Keep your nose out of public education – you obviously know nothing about it, and educators clearly do.”

“Students are not developmentally able to complete the multi-step, finitely detailed, mental manipulation of text needed to process information at the level of sophistication used by PARCC. The frontal lobe of the human brain is not fully developed until after age 20. The frontal lobe is concerned with reasoning, planning, problem-solving, parts of speech, executive functions (organization), judgment, emotions, and behavioral control. It allows for abstract thinking, an understanding of humor (subtle witticisms and word plays), sarcasm, irony, deception, and the mental processes of others. Other functions include: memory, sequencing of events, flexibility in thinking processes, attentiveness of focus.

“High school students are at varying stages of their cognitive development, yet both ACT and PARCC require they perform intellectually at the graduate level (1395L), or at the level of an accountant (1400L) or scientist (1450L). This is an unfair, unrealistic, and inappropriate expectation that assessments such as ACT and PARCC has placed on students. Educators MUST stop bending to legislative controls and demands upon education. Studies show that standardized testing is not the best predictor of college success.

“Human intelligence is so multifaceted, so complex, so varied, that no standardized testing system can be expected to capture it,” says William Hiss. Hiss is the former dean of admissions at Bates College in Lewiston, Maine — one of the nation’s first test-optional schools. “My hope is that this study will be a first step in examining what happens when you admit tens of thousands of students without looking at their SAT scores,” Hiss says. “And the answer is, if they have good high school grades, they’re almost certainly going to be fine.”

“The nonsubmitters [of Standardized Testing Scores] are doing fine in terms of their graduation rates and GPAs, and significantly outperforming their standardized testing.” In other words, those students actually performed better in college than their SAT and ACT scores might lead an admissions officer to expect. For both those students who submitted their test results to their colleges and those who did not, high school grades were the best predictor of a student’s success in college. And kids who had low or modest test scores, but good high school grades, did better in college than those with good scores but modest grades.

“Educators MUST remember the original intent of standardized testing: “A big test, the theory went, would allow more ‘diamond in the rough’ students to be found and accepted to top schools, regardless of family connections or money.” Today, standardized testing is used to filter students and to attack teachers, school districts, and public education as a whole. It is used as a means for capitalists to exploit children, dedicated professionals, and democracy to gain control of what they perceive as a new, untapped, money-making entity, public education. If the American public has any difficulty figuring out what this will look like, read Upton Sinclair’s, The Jungle. This novel portrays the impact American greed has on the weak, the innocent, and the underprivileged. The Jungle is the novel that brought about attention to our need for unions and federal protection over its American workforce.

“I urge educators to call for an indefinite moratorium on the implementation of Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) to assess Common Core State Standards (CCSS). I also advocate eliminating standardized testing all together, and replacing it with the use of GPA and class placement as an indicator of college and career success.”

Carol Burris says that Common Core is dying “the death of a thousand cuts.” Its supporters claim that the critics represent the extreme right, notably the Tea Party. Of course, the Tea Party is vociferous against the Common Core, but they are not alone.

In Néw York, the Tea Party does not have a large presence, yet opposition is strong, coming mainly from suburban parents. The Chicago Teachers Union voted unanimously to oppose Common Core, and they don’t have many Tea Party members.

Common Core has plenty of friends in the Obama administration and major corporations. For the tech industry and the testing and textbook industry, the Common Core is a huge multi-billion dollar industry.

Burris responds to those who say there is no alternative to the Common Core. New York had a new set of standards in reading developed by educators. It was swept away by Common Core.

Can Common Core survive the intense controversy it ignited? Speaking as a historian, having seen great theories sweep in and out, I would say that the rushed creation and implementation of the standards doomed them. This was a time for deliberate speed, not a hurried and untested plan. Buying the support of education interest groups in D.C. is not the same as winning the support of the American public.