Archives for category: Common Core

The Worcester Telegram commended parents who choose to opt out of state testing and reminded parents that they–not the federal government, not the GatesFoundation–are the ultimate controllers of their children’s education. The paper laments the fact that Massachusetts dropped its successful state standards to chase federal dollars.

After reviewing the genesis of Common Core,the newspaper concluded:

“Thus, the purity of the motives at play, and the content of Common Core and PARCC, are important issues, but not the first ones that must be addressed.

“That first issue is the unprecedented and illegal wresting of the core of public education from the hands of local players. Parents, teachers, and local school boards alike must first understand that what is happening is authorized by no law, and has no basis in the Constitution.

“Just as importantly, they must understand that they have the power to wrest it back. We urge them to start by rejecting Common Core and PARCC. Massachusetts should return to its own proud and successful traditions — the civil disobedience embodied by Henry David Thoreau, and the independence in public education pioneered by Horace Mann. In so doing, we can set an example for every state.”

The School Committee of Worcester gave parents the right to opt out of PARCC pilot testing, but Mayor Joe Petty is pressuring the School Committee to reverse its vote. Politicians who deny parents their right to say “no” should be voted out of office. If they don’t listen to parents, who will? I mean YOU, Mayor Petty.

Conservatives have a problem: they don’t like federal overreach. They supposedly like local control. But so many conservative thought leaders like Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush, and Michelle Rhee support the Common Core that they have to figure out how to justify why a program beloved by the federal Department of Education should appeal to conservatives.

Peter Greene explains what a heavy lift this is and how unconvincing it is.

Carol Burris, principal of South Side High School in Rockville Center, New York, and Alan A. Aja, assistant professor of Puerto Rican and Latino Studies at Brooklyn College (City University of New York) here explore and explode the claims that the Common Core Standards will promote equity for the most disadvantaged students. The assertion is often made that these standards, because they are common and because they are rigorous, will lead to higher performance by all students. The theory is that students will learn more and try harder if the standards are made “harder.”

What Burris and Aja show is that the Common Core testing to date has widened the achievement gap between haves and have nots.

They write:

In New York for example, one of the first states to roll out the new curriculum, scores from Common Core tests dropped like a stone—and the achievement gaps dramatically widened. In 2012, prior to the Core’s implementation, the state reported a 12-point black/white achievement gap between average third-grade English Language Arts scores, and a 14-point gap in eighth-grade English Language Arts (ELA) scores. A year later enter the Common Core-aligned tests: the respective gaps grew to 19 and 25 points respectively (for Latino students the eighth grade ELA gap grew from 3 to 22 points). The same expansion of the gap occurred in math as well. In 2012, there was an 8-point gap between black/white third-grade math scores and a 13-point gap between eighth-grade math scores. In 2013, the respective gaps from the Common Core tests expanded to 14 and 18 points.

Despite these dismal results, the New York State Education Department and the Board of Regents decided to go full steam ahead:

Rather than heeding the warning that something is very wrong, New York’s Board of Regents adds the highest of stakes for students—their very ability to graduate high school. In February, the New York State Board of Regents established the college-ready scores that students will need for graduation, beginning with the class that enters high school in four years. These scores, which up until now have been known as “aspirational” measures, have been reported by the state in the aggregate and by sub-group for the past several years. If these scores were used last year, the New York four-year graduation rate would have plummeted to 35 percent. This low rate masks even worse outcomes for students with disabilities (5 percent), as well as black (12 percent), Latino (16 percent) and English Language learners (7 percent). New York Education Commissioner John King even told reporters that he was disappointed that the scores were not phased in sooner because the delay means more students would leave high school “unprepared.” He need not worry. With his preferred cut scores, most students—especially students of color, poverty and disability–will not leave high school at all.

The current path that is mistakenly called “reform” but might as well be called “destruction” will have terrible consequences for students, educators, schools, and communities, they warn:

In the meantime, the Common Core aligned-tests will be used to justify the continuance of market-based education reforms. This means firing teachers and principals based on test scores, closing urban schools with higher low-income populations and the proliferation of charters as punishment (which ironically scored worse in language arts and the same in math as New York City public schools in the latest round of Common Core-aligned tests). These strategies, straight from what economist Naomi Klein calls the “shock doctrine” school of economics, lead to further gutting and pseudo-privatization of the most necessary of our public goods, while continuing the false narratives that teachers and their unions are the problem or that racism, poverty and inequitable resource distribution are merely excuses.

 

 

Bill Gates lectured the Nationally Board Certified Teachers on Friday about the joys of Common Core and why standardization unlocks creativity. Not being a NBCT, I was not there to hear him, but this teacher was there.

She writes:

“As a high school English teacher, one of the first things I taught my 11th grade students was to know their audience when speaking and writing; knowing about the expertise, hopes, fears, vision, etc. of the audience is essential for getting one’s message across and engaging in dialogue that can foster learning and evoke meaningful change.

“As an NBCT who came to the Teaching and Learning Conference to engage in meaningful dialogue to evoke change in the teaching profession, I was insulted to see that Bill Gates did not seem to “know” the expertise represented in the audience.

“I didn’t need to hear a history of, or plug for, Common Core standards. I know them backwards and forwards. The standards are actually pretty good – the demoralizing high-stakes strings attached, and the reason they came to be, not so much.

“I didn’t need to hear more about the miracles of the Khan Academy. I saw the TEACH film during the pre-conference where it was plugged plenty. I get it: technology is a useful teaching tool. Duh.

“I didn’t need to hear more about what a flipped classroom was. That’s called Tuesday in room 741.

“What I *needed* was a flipped-conference in which NBCTs could broadcast *their* expertise out to people like Bill Gates.”

Stephanie Simon reports at politico.com that big business is launching a major campaign to counter Tea Party opposition to the Common Core standards.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable have endorsed a major advertising and public relations campaign on behalf of the Common Core.

Within days, Indiana will very likely become the first state to officially scrap the standards, though it is far from clear that they will be replaced with anything too radically different. Bills to undermine the Common Core are pending in at least a half-dozen other states as well. Major conservative organizations such as FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity have jumped in to help guide and grow the grass-roots opposition. And teacher unions, though they still back the standards in concept, are warning that their implementation has been badly botched.

“It’s a critical time,” said Dane Linn, vice president of the Business Roundtable and one of the architects of the Common Core. “State leaders, and the general public, need to understand why employers care about the Common Core.”

The Business Roundtable, he said, is urging members to work their connections with “governors, committee chairs, House speakers, presidents of Senates” to stop any bills that could undercut the standards.

This narrative may actually be part of the marketing plan for the Common Core standards.

By pitting business against the Tea Party, the voices of teachers, researchers, liberals, moderates, and non-ideological parents are silenced.

This is the same narrative that Arne Duncan presented when he spoke to the American Society of Newspaper Editors.

But this narrative doesn’t explain widespread opposition to the Common Core among people who have nothing to do with the Tea Party.

When I think of Stephen Krashen and Susan Ohanian, I don’t think Tea Party.

When I think of Carol Burris, the principal of the year in New York state, I don’t think Tea Party. She has been one of the most outspoken critics of the Common Core, but this new game plan ignores her.

When I think of expert teacher Anthony Cody, who taught in the impoverished schools of Oakland for more than two decades, I don’t think Tea Party.

When I think of Leonie Haimson, leader of Class Size Matters in New York City, I don’t think Tea Party.

When I think of the 500 early childhood experts who criticized the Common Core standards, I don’t think Tea Party.

When I think of the thousands of parents in New York who turned out for public meetings with State Commissioner John King to complain about the Common Core and the testing, I don’t think Tea Party.

And for the record, I do not belong to the Tea Party, nor do I have any sympathy whatever with its goals.

Nor does the narrative acknowledge that Common Core’s biggest supporters, aside from Duncan, are rightwingers like Jeb Bush, Bill Haslam, and Bobby Jindal.

This new narrative–big business vs. the Tea Party–is more smoke in our eyes to put across standards that need to be reviewed and revised in every state by expert teachers and decoupled from high-stakes testing.

Full-scale adoption without these changes will harm children and widen achievement gaps among racial groups.

I have a suggestion: How about if the leaders of our major corporations agree to take the PARCC tests and publish their scores?

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/big-business-takes-on-tea-party-over-common-core-104662.html#ixzz2vx3NloLj

Mercedes Schneider was not at all pleased that Bill Gates lectured teachers about teaching at the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards annual conference. He has never taught but he thinks he knows how to teach. Messing with education is his hobby.

Why was he invited? Schneider thinks he bought the platform by donating millions to the NBPTS.

She takes him to the woodshed and gives him a talking to or a paddling, I am not sure which.

Bill Gates released an advance copy of his speech to the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, and as reported in the Huffington Post, he defended the Common Core standards as the key to creativity in the classroom.

The article says that the Gates Foundation had spent $75 million on the standards, but we know from Mercedes Schneider’s study of the Gates’ website that the foundation has spent nearly $200 million to pay for every aspect of the Common Core: the writing, the reviews, the evaluation, the implementation, the promotion and advocacy by numerous groups inside the Beltway and across the nation.

Gates told the teachers:

“Gates argued that America’s education system currently does not prepare students adequately for college, because it’s not asking enough of them. So the transition to the new standards is hard because it has to be, he said, and asked teachers to explain the standards to local families.

While the initiative was supported by most state schools chiefs and governors, a recentpoll from Achieve, a group that supports the Core, found that almost two-thirds of American voters have heard “nothing” or “not much” about the effort.

Gates went on to address critiques that the Common Core represents a national curriculum, a federal takeover or the end of innovation. He said these claims are false and distract from teaching — and that teachers can provide the most effective response to critics.”

This blogger created an infographic to show “how Bill Gates bought the Common Core,” relying on the information gathered by Schneider from the Gates Foundation website. She says the total spent by Gates was closer to $300 million.

Of course, $300 million is not much to a foundation as large as the Gates Foundation, but it is not peanuts either. Clearly, Bill Gates believes that if everyone in every school studies the same material, then there will be equity for all. That is a theory that has yet to be demonstrated.

And in any discussion of the rapid adoption of the CCSS by 45 or 46 states, it is best to be frank and acknowledge that this movement was not spontaneous; it occurred because the U.S. Department made adoption of the standards a requirement for states to be eligible for a piece of $4.3 billion in Race to the Top funding.

There seems to be a concerted effort on the part of Common Core advocates to halt the erosion of support that is occurring in states across the nation. In the past week or so, major editorials have appeared in many newspapers defending the Common Core, and the Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable have agreed to redouble their campaign to persuade opponents to support the CCSS.

What Gates’ presentation demonstrates is that he really doesn’t understand the reasons for the pushback in many states, some of it coming from the right (fearful of a federal takeover of local schools), some from the left (opposed to standardization), some from parents who don’t understand why it is a good thing to make standards and tests so “hard” that most students are bound to fail them. Nor does Gates understand that there is scant, if any, evidence that high standards alone are enough to produce either high achievement or equity. If we expect everyone to run a four-minute mile, that won’t make everyone run a four-minute mile. Some will, most won’t. What we know from the states that have tested the standards is that the majority of students fail the tests and that the failure rate for English language learners, students with disabilities, and children of color is staggeringly high. In New York state, for example, only 3% of English learners passed the ELA exam; only 5% of students with disabilities passed it; only 16-17% of African American and Hispanic students passed; and overall, only 31% of all students passed in grades 3-8. Will that change in years to come? Let’s hope so, or we will have a vast army of young people without high school diplomas.

This is a wide-ranging interview with Salon that started as a discussion of the Network for Public Education, then went on to discuss budget cuts, high-stakes testing, Common Core, Race to the Top, privatization, and much more.

For reasons unknown, Connecticut appears poised to endorse New York state’s odd lesson plans for Common Core.

This Connecticut blogger pulls apart the first grade lessons, previously discussed on this blog.

The blogger refers to a small portion of what first graders are supposed to learn (subjects that might well fit better in high school and/or college, that is, if one expects depth of understanding):

“A further examination of Domain 4 means reviewing its 81 student objectives. That number is not as intimidating as the language in the content area objectives. The first ten objectives state that “by the end of this unit, students will be able to….”:

“Locate the area known as Mesopotamia on a world map or globe and identify it as part of Asia;
Explain the importance of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and the use of canals to support farming and the development of the city of Babylon;
Describe the city of Babylon and the Hanging Gardens;
Identify cuneiform as the system of writing used in Mesopotamia;
Explain why a written language is important to the development of a civilization;
Explain the significance of the Code of Hammurabi;
Explain why rules and laws are important to the development of a civilization;
Explain the ways in which a leader is important to the development of a civilization;
Explain the significance of gods/goddesses, ziggurats, temples, and priests in Mesopotamia;
Describe key components of a civilization…”

Why do six-year-old children need to learn the word “perplexed”? There is actually a good reason. The content of the first grade lessons will surely make them feel perplexed. Better: why should they know the word “apoplectic”? You know why.

This new blogger dissects Gerald Graff’s defense of the Common Core standards,and his second post says that I can learn a lot from Saul Alinsky.

The writer is a former high school teacher, who taught for many years in the Chicago public s hools.

Among other trenchant comments, he writes about Graff:

“Graff reduces education reform to a set of standards, but he’s not alone in doing so. He’s in good (loathsome?) company. In fact, he can now join the ranks of a long list of so-called education reformers, including our own Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, for whom the idea of actually teaching in our most difficult schools seems absurd. (His claim to his current post rests on the fact that his mother was a teacher.) This brings to mind a quip that made the rounds during the last CPS teacher strike: Those who can, teach. Those who can’t, pass laws (or write essays) about teaching.

“Of course, such a stance begs the question: How might Graff (or Gates or Duncan) feel if a group of folks, say a handful of successful people from outside their institution were to hijack their department or business or institution and tell them how they aught to run things? To take this a step further, why not apply the same logic that Graff deploys in his response to Ravitch to his own English department at UIC? According to Graff, in his own courses at UIC he sees evidence that the American education system has done little for “the great majority of students who are essentially confused about how to do academic work, about how to analyze a text and summarize its argument, or about how to make an argument of one’s own.” Then why doesn’t he simply compel his colleagues to raise their standards? Why doesn’t he just raise his own standards, for that matter?”

And in his advice to me, he knows I despise the “reformers'” efforts to disrupt the schools to impose their ideological and commercial agenda. So he writes:

“When it comes to creative disruption in our schools, though, I disagree with Ravitch. I understand that there’s a place and a time for stability in school; I understand that teachers and students need a space where they can think for themselves about their lives and decide what to learn and what to do. But now is not the time to dutifully follow the mandates in order to preserve some sense of stability and calm. It’s precisely because of the current instability in our schools that we have an opportunity to turn the tables on these reformers. By creating more disruptions, more chaos, and more upheaval, we can reset the reform agenda.

“And, this is the lesson of Alinsky. He reminds us that disorganizing communities can be a powerful tool; it’s exactly what so-called reformers like Arne Duncan, David Coleman, Michelle Rhee, and Joel Kline have been doing to teachers across the country. These people are disorganizing our schools and communities. They are running actions against us in order to make us feel powerless and disorganized. And, what’s worse, it isn’t just another empty exercise: this is real. They’re trying to change education forever. They want to hijack and narrow the curriculum. They want to give away public education to private corporations. They want to debase and deskill the profession of teaching. And, they want to reduce education to a test score.

“We can change this. Now is the time to organize and occupy our schools in order to disrupt and destabilize current reform efforts. We can go on the offensive—one grounded in creative disruptions that we design and produce. We can construct our own chaos and upheaval in ways that compel education reformers to stop what they’re doing and start listening to the people most affected by their decisions. And, as Diane Nash reminds us, we can opt out; we can refuse to participate in our own oppression.

“Only after we create enough disruption can we (students, teachers, parents, and community members) then demand the right to develop our own standards: ones that best address the needs, desires and aspirations of our communities, rather than the desires and aspirations of corporations and private foundations. Only then can we create stable schools that foster creativity and innovation, rather than conformity and obedience. Only then can we create schools that take as their starting point that building great schools and communities are reciprocal projects, not separate ones.”