Paul Horton, who teaches history at the University of Chicago Lab School, here ponders a famous remark by David Coleman, architect of the Common Core standards. Coleman said, while giving a speech in New York that was taped, that students need to learn that no one gives a s— about what you think or feel, which was his way of saying that your opinions and feelings matter little in the world, as compared to the ability to write or read a memo or informational text.

He writes:

Perhaps more studies are needed to determine whether there is a similar bundled connection between exposure to narrative stories and creative writing and the development of social and emotional intelligence, empathy, tolerance, and sensitivity to the needs of others. To take things a step further, our codes of ethics, morality, and connection to the spiritual dimensions of experience have always been intertwined with our reading and writing about sacred texts, great poetry, and great literature.

When we marginalize storytelling, literary fiction, and creative writing within K-12 language curricula in favor of nonfiction documents and the construction of analytical memos that might please Pearson Education, McKinsey consulting, and Bill Gates; we risk losing something more important than the ability to construct analytical memos.

To do so would be to risk severing our connection to the rest of humanity, to fall away into the cold, endless, zero gravitational space: the existential reality of the jackhammering of human connection that is the object of uninhibited capitalism.

According to a report by Valerie Strauss of the Washington Post, Maryland will spend at least $100 million for Common Core testing.

The testing is wreaking havoc in states like Néw York, where absurd failure rates have outraged parents across the states. Now we learn that the cost of all-online testing are likely to cause fiscal strain, larger classes, and cuts to necessary programs and courses. Los Angeles alone has committed $1 billion to buy iPads for Common Core testing even though class sizes are growing and the arts programs have been decimated by previous budget cuts.

Who had the brilliant idea that all testing had to be online? The vendors? Ka-Ching.

This may turn out to be the innovation that ate American education.

This is Mercedes Schneider’s critique of AFT’s position on the Common Core. The post includes many, many links. If you want to see the links, open the original post on her blog.

Schneider writes:

AFT’s 10 Myths: Unyielding Devotion to the Common Core

December 31, 2013

In my hands I am holding the latest issue of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) quarterly publication, American Educator. It is open to page 43, Tools for Teachers: 10 Myths About the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).

The piece was written by AFT’s Educational Issues Department.

Their position is one of unreserved support for CCSS.

Of course.

I find it remarkable the degree to which AFT and Randi Weingarten will go in order to protect and promote CCSS. One of the more telling pieces is a post Weingarten wrote for Huffington Post entitled, Will States Fail the Common Core?– As though CCSS is a personality, complete with feelings that will be hurt by states’ betrayal.

In that post, Weingarten maintains that CCSS is “not a silver bullet” but that the problem is not with CCSS but with “bad execution.”

Here’s a question– How can Weingarten state with such certainty that CCSS is not the issue? Has she or anyone else piloted these so-called standards?

No.

If CCSS is “not a silver bullet,” why have neither AFT nor Weingarten herself published anything remotely appearing to be a critical evaluation of CCSS, standard by standard, grade level by grade level, for both English Language Arts (ELA) and math?

Now that would be a critical examination.

Instead, the AFT/Weingarten tact resembles that of the Fordham Institute’s President Chester Finn, who states that CCSS is “not perfect” and even grades it accordingly– then promotes it without reservation.

Ergo, the AFT propaganda, 10 Myths about the Common Core State Standards.

CCSS Is Not Meant to Stand Alone

An important component to making this propaganda work involves divorcing CCSS from other reforms. After all, by itself, CCSS more easily appears innocuous. However, do not forget that in June 2009, the National Governors Association (NGA) promoted a set of “internationally benchmarked standards and assessments” as part of a larger reform package that includes teacher evaluation/pay for performance, “turning around” schools (i.e., handing traditional public schools over for charter operation), and building data systems.

These reforms are meant to be a set.

The federal government was at that 2009 NGA symposium. US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan endorsed the spectrum of reforms and even commented about “more enlightened union leadership” in regard to the NGA effort.

CCSS is a critical component in the vehicle of American education privatization. So, don’t be distracted by AFT/Weingarten insistence of the innocence of this single reform component.

No carburetor alone ever drove a car off of a cliff. No flint alone ever burned down a building. No bullet alone ever shot a human being.

However, introduce the carburetor, the flint, and the bullet as components of a given destructive system, and each contributes toward an end result of destruction.

That, my friends, is CCSS: A component of a dangerous, NGA- and Duncan- (and Aft/Weingarten-) promoted system.

In its 10 Myths, AFT steers readers away from CCSS as part of an intended reform system. I cannot emphasize this enough.

For now, let us consider what AFT is promoting in each of its 10 “myths.”

AFT Myth One

In Myth One, AFT maintains that “the standards tell us what to teach” is a myth. AFT regurgitates the oft-heard CCSS slogan that CCSS “defines what students need to know.”

Where is the evidence for this? What students need to know for what? The outcome assessments that PARCC and Smarter Balanced consortia are throwing together? PARCC is supposed to field test this school year, as is Smarter Balanced. Florida dropped out as PARCC’s fiscal agent. Maryland took over, as a “favor to Obama.”

AFT maintains, “Teachers will have as much control over how they teach as they ever have.”

Says who? AFT cannot guarantee this, and AFT cannot prove this. What they are trying to say is that the inflexible, copyrighted CCSS allows for teacher freedom within the classroom.

On one level, AFT is right:

Most prisoners are allowed to pace inside their cells.

What teachers don’t get to do is modify CCSS based upon their own expertise and for a given set of students in a given class in a given school in a given district in a given state.

One size fits all. And AFT’s answer: You could always pace, and you still get to do so. Pay no attention to the fact that you’ve been placed in a cell.

AFT Myth Two

The second so-called myth is that CCSS “amount(s) to a national curriculum.” Here AFT goes for the “voluntary adoption” of CCSS.

For the sake of space, let me outline only one key point here:

If CCSS were truly “voluntarily adopted,” it could easily be “voluntarily un-adopted.” However, CCSS “adoption” is primarily tied to federal, Race to the Top (RTTT) funding, the contract for which is quite detailed.

If CCSS adoption is truly voluntary, why is Weingarten partnering with former Michigan Governor (and businessman) John Engler to tell governors to “stay the course” with CCSS?

Note that Weingarten and Engler offer no cautions about governors signing on for CCSS before it was finished. They offer no encouragement for governors to critically consider what exactly they have signed onto with the now-completed, inflexible CCSS, especially as concerns the cost of implementing CCSS, monetary and otherwise.

Instead, Weingarten and Engler offer the overused privatizer’s creed of forging ahead despite notable resistance in at least half of the states that “adopted” CCSS.

On to so-called Myth Three.

AFT Myth Three

Here’s AFT’s Myth Three: “The standards intrude on student privacy.”

One reminder here: Carburetors don’t drive cars off of cliffs. CCSS is part of the package of reforms that includes increased data collection efforts– Data Quality Campaign.

Consider this excerpt from a 2009 speech by Duncan:

The Data Quality Campaign, DQC, lists 10 elements of a good data system. Six states, Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, and Utah, have all 10 elements. Other states are also making progress. For example, Arkansas has a data warehouse that integrates school fiscal information, teacher credentials, and student coursework, assessments, and even extracurricular activities.

The system has allowed for better student tracking to enable the state to identify double-count enrollments and is saving it more than $2 million in its first year.

We want to see more states build comprehensive systems that track students from pre-K through college and then link school data to workforce data. We want to know whether Johnny participated in an early learning program and completed college on time and whether those things have any bearing on his earnings as an adult. [Emphasis added.]

AFT wants to downplay this issue of unprecedented data collection and tracking by observing that “some states already had data systems.”

Never before has any group of general-populous Americans run the risk of being tracked by the federal government from cradle to grave like this current cohort of American citizens of ages preschool through young adulthood.

The public should be concerned.

AFT Myth Four

Now, for Myth Four: “The English standards emphasize nonfiction and informational text so much that students will be reading how-to manuals instead of great literature.”

Here AFT gets it right. However, the idiocy behind CCSS proportions of nonfiction and fiction amazes me every time I write about it.

In order to determine proportions of nonfiction and fiction present in CCSS, some CCSS “architect” decided to model these proportions after the proportion of nonfiction vs. fiction questions on the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

For example, since 70 percent of the questions for grade 12 on the 2009 NAEP involve nonfiction, inexperienced CCSS creators decided that there would be some magic in having seniors exposed to 70 percent nonfiction and 30 percent fiction across all subjects, that these proportions would somehow guarantee that seniors would graduate (tongue in cheek) “college and career ready” with “the knowledge and skills to help students succeed.”

Now keep in mind that NAEP is not the CCSS assessment. Keep in mind that even if NAEP were the CCSS assessment, this attempt to match proportions with NAEP is a partial-lobotomy rationale for proportions of nonfiction vs. fiction included in CCSS.

AFT offers no explanation for how the above “logic” supposedly “prepar(es) them (students) for college and work.” However, AFT insists that it does.

AFT Myth Five

For Myth Five: “Key math concepts are missing or appear in the wrong grade.” AFT explains this away as an artifact of shifting from standards for 50 states to one set.

If the goal is to standardize, something has to go. Oh, well.

AFT notes that “educators and experts alike” are fine with the CCSS math standards. AFT cites no particular studies. I wonder who those “experts” are who are not “educators” (a term already loose enough to include those who never taught). I’m guessing one is Chester Finn of the Fordham institute. He actively promotes CCSS even though calculus is missing from the math standards and even though other state standards outrank CCSS math in Fordham’s own published estimation.

Here is what CCSS “lead architect” David Coleman had to say at the 2011 Institute for Learning (IFL) senior leadership meeting– in a keynote address, no less– about his company’s central involvement in writing CCSS :

Student Achievement Partners, all you need to know about us are a couple things. One is we’re composed of that collection of unqualified people who were involved in developing the common standards.
With one foot in mouth, Coleman continues:

I’ll probably spend a little more time on literacy because as weak as my qualifications are there, in math they’re even more desperate in their lacking.

Feel free to watch the entire Coleman train wreck for yourself: http://vimeo.com/35318592

And here is more information on SAP, “founding partner” Sue Pimentel, and the $4 million from GE.

AFT Myth Six

Moving on to supposed Myth Six: “Common Core is a federal takeover.” AFT writes, “The federal government had no role in developing the standards.”

Bill Clinton said, “I did not have sex with that woman.” While technically true (ahem..), Clinton’s words were carefully chosen with the intent to deceive.

So too are AFT’s words in this case. Here is what AFT attempts to downplay: Duncan is undeniably and deeply involved in promoting CCSS and its assessments. Duncan publicly defends CCSS. Duncan awards money for CCSS.

American Enterprise Institute (AEI) “Scholar” Rick Hess has even advised the federal government to “come clean” regarding its involvement with CCSS.

The federal government is all over CCSS.

AFT’s line that CCSS was “created by state education chiefs and governors” is not true. These two groups own the copyright on CCSS, but that does not mean that they actually “created” CCSS.

AFT’s next point is that teachers “were included” in CCSS development.” So, who created CCSS? Governors? State superintendents? David Coleman and his Student Achievement Partners?

We must include teachers in the mix in order to sell the product.

AFT Myth Seven

In its Myth Seven, “Teachers weren’t included,” AFT is again careful with its wording. “Included”– to the degree that “many teachers report seeing their feedback added verbatim.”

That sounds impressive.

How about the feedback from teachers who did not agree with CCSS at all? Or feedback from those who thought CCSS was happening too fast? Or feedback from those who wondered why highly-paid non-educators were at the CCSS epicenter?

What happened to their feedback?

If “hundreds of teachers” were involved on state review teams, certainly not all agreed.

AFT presents the number “hundreds of teachers nationwide” as though it is impressive. So, let’s follow that vein for a moment.

In its CCSS survey, AFT reported surveying 800 teachers. It also reported that 75 percent “overwhelmingly support” CCSS. I take issue with this survey, but allow me to set that aside for a moment and pretend that 75 percent of 800 teachers do support CCSS.

That leaves 25 percent (or 200 teachers) who do not.

So, according to AFT, for every three teachers who support CCSS, one does not.

That would present notable dissension in a group of “hundreds of teachers nationwide who served on state review teams.”

Skipping to AFT Myth Ten (With a Splash of Myth Nine)

At the conclusion of its 10 Myths, in so-called Myth Ten, AFT states, “Unions support the Common Core because their members do.”

Not all of their members. Thus, according to AFT’s own reporting, AFT is willing to dismiss– to leave wholly unaddressed– the concerns of 25 percent of its teachers. AFT publishes nothing opposed to CCSS. Instead, AFT “opposition” is against faulty or rushed implementation– including the testing. (In supposed Myth Nine, “Common Core accelerates overtesting,” AFT does not write against CCSS assessments– it merely attempts to delay the testing.)

AFT cites other surveys of “teacher support” for CCSS (AFT is careful to avoid Gates’ name in connection with the Scholastic survey).

I dissect a number of these surveys:

AFT CCSS survey (and here)

NEA CCSS survey

Gates/Scholastic CCSS survey

Stand for Children Louisiana CCSS survey

NAESP CCSS survey (principals)

Each of these survey results has been shaped. It is easy enough to do via 1) Word selection in the question, 2) word selection and limiting response choices, and 3) select reporting.

(Unlike AFT in its 10 Myths, I provide references to support my assertions. Do read my work on the shaping of pro-CCSS survey results to see how malleable survey results truly are.)

Back, to AFT Myth Eight

I skipped around a bit. I don’t want to overlook Myth Eight: “The standards make inappropriate demands of preschoolers.”

Another smooth choice of words. AFT dodges the issue of CCSS’ making inappropriate demands of elementary and middle schoolers.

However, let’s address what AFT offers. Indeed the current CCSS is for kindergarten thru grade 12. However, if CCSS is part of the reform package in which standardization is the order of the day (reread AFT’s Myth Five), and if Duncan has designs on extending data collection from preschool to age twenty, then why shouldn’t the public be concerned that preschool would be grafted into CCSS? After all, CCSS is finding its place in higher ed.

AFT attempts to explain, “[CCSS] were written for grades K – 12. Several states added their own guidance foe preschools.”

If CCSS is supposedly “state led,” why does AFT try to distance CCSS from the “state leading” of CCSS into preschools?

AFT Sell Out: Not a Myth

In supposed Myth Ten, AFT offers this sentiment: “Rank and file teachers don’t support it– and their unions sold them out.”

CCSS development did not follow the democratic process. Teachers are not key decision makers in CCSS. They have been relegated to a role on the fringes. Upon first glance, their “verbatim” commentary makes the CCSS paint-by-number appear to be an original work of art.

AFT and Weingarten never question why teachers are not key decision makers regarding CCSS. Their silence on this point is deafening. Instead, AFT and Weingarten are expending much effort in trying to preserve CCSS.

Well done, AFT. And well done, Randi Weingarten. For your attempts to sell out your constituency in an effort to preserve CCSS, I give you a solid “C.” Sure, your arguments could strain cooked pasta, but you persevere.

I’m sure your next pro-CCSS sales pitch is already in press.

__________________________________________

Note: Randi Weingarten and I are to be members of the CCSS panel scheduled for Sunday, March 2, 2014, as part of the Network for Public Education conference in Austin, Texas, (March 1 and 2).

Anthony Cody will also be part of the CCSS panel, as will Paul Horton and Ethan Young.

Come hear us.

The latest issue of the AFT American Educator publication contains an article that presents “Myths of the Common Core” and responds to each one with “facts.”

Tim Farley, principal of the Ichabod Crane Elementary/Middle School in Valatie, New York, did not agree with the publication’s definition of the facts. Here is his rebuttal:

The magazine contains an “informational” article about the Common Core standards. Over the past few years, AFT has received millions of dollars from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has invested heavily in the development, evaluation, and dissemination of the Common Core. Below each of the “Myths of the Common Core”, AFT has enumerated some “FACTS.” What I have added to each “Myth/FACT” is what I consider to be the “TRUTH” (or information that was conveniently left out).

1. “The standards tell us what to teach.”

FACT: The Common Core State Standards define what students need to know. How to achieve that is up to teachers, principals, school districts, and states. Teachers will have as much control over how they teach as they ever have.

TRUTH: When teachers’ jobs are literally at stake, they will inevitably “teach to the test” or teach what is being demanded by their administrators. Many teachers in NYS are being directed to use the poorly designed scripted lessons/modules from engageNY.

2. “They amount to a national curriculum.”

FACT: The standards are shared goals, voluntarily adopted. They outline what knowledge and skills will help students succeed. Curricula vary from state to state and district to district.

TRUTH: The standards are not “shared goals”, just as they were not “voluntarily adopted”. The CCSS were written and developed by a group of non-educators and the architect was David Coleman. The only two content specialists (Dr. Sandra Stotsky and Dr. James Milgrim) served on the Validation Committee and refused to sign off on the standards because they were not good enough. As for the curricula varying from state to state, I find it difficult for AFT to back up that claim. However, whatever curricula are available, they are aligned to the developmentally inappropriate designed CCSS.

3. “The standards intrude on student privacy.”

FACT: Long before the Common Core, some states already had data systems allowing educators and parents to measure student achievement and growth; those states remain responsible for students’ private information, whether or not they’ve adopted the Common Core.

TRUTH: No one is disputing that some states/school districts had data systems allowing parents and educators to measure student achievement and growth. What parents are concerned about is that NOW this sensitive data is being given to third party vendors and stored in a “cloud”. Third party vendors like inBloom (financed by Gates) take no responsibility for any student information that may be compromised.

4. “The English standards emphasize nonfiction and informational text so much that students will be reading how-to manuals instead of great literature.”

FACT: The standards require students to analyze literature and informational texts, with the goal of preparing them for college and work.

TRUTH: The concern from educators is HOW MUCH emphasis is being placed on informational text on the CC-aligned state tests. Student results on these state tests could result in the loss of the teacher’s JOB. Where do you think the emphasis will be?

5. “Key math concepts are missing or appear in the wrong grade.”

FACT: Moving from 50 state standards to one means some states will be shifting what students learn when. Educators and experts alike have verified that the Common Core progression is mathematically coherent and internationally benchmarked. And now, students who move across state lines can pick up where they left off.

TRUTH: Again, Dr. James Milgrim (the only math specialist that served on the Validation Committee) refused to sign off on the standards. The CC math standards were NOT internationally benchmarked, and if you go to the Common Core State Standards website, you can see that they corrected that claim to now read, “relevant to the real world”. The standards were never internationally benchmarked.

6. “Common Core is a federal takeover.”

FACT: The federal government had no role in developing the standards. They were created by state education chiefs and governors, and voluntarily adopted by states. States, not the federal government, are implementing them.

TRUTH: The CCSS were created by NGA and CCSSO (two lobbying groups financially supported by Gates) and mostly written by David Coleman. States that “adopted” CCSS were the same states that accepted Race to the Top (RTTT) funds in the false belief that the money being “given” would help stop the laying off of teachers. Adopting CCSS was a requisite for “winning” RTTT monies. This also allowed states to receive a waiver from the unfair and onerous NCLB requirements. What they call “voluntary”, I call “extortion”.

7. “Teachers weren’t included.”

FACT: Lots of teachers were involved in developing the standards over several years, including hundreds of teachers nationwide who served on state review teams. Many teachers are pleased to report seeing their feedback added verbatim to the final standards.

TRUTH: Again, I would like to see proof of that claim. Technically speaking, there were teachers “involved in the process”, but their role was perfunctory at best.

8. “The standards make inappropriate demands of preschoolers.”

FACT: They were written for grades K–12. Several states added their own guidance for preschool.

TRUTH: When you have developmentally inappropriate expectations for Kindergarten students, wouldn’t the logical thought be that the expectations for Pre-K students rise to a level that is also developmentally inappropriate? And, although not in its implementation phase yet, there are plans for a P-20 initiative developed by the Data Quality Campaign (financially supported by Gates).

9. “Common Core accelerates over-testing.”

FACT: The standards say nothing about testing. Some states are falling into the trap of too much assessment—by testing before implementing or rushing to impose high stakes. Others, however, are taking a more sensible approach. Before administering new tests, states must get implementation right.

TRUTH: It is RTTT that demands over-testing. If your state accepted RTTT money, you adopted CC AND agreed to the over-testing of students. If your state did not accept RTTT, then your state is still held to the NCLB mandates which require over-testing of the students.

10. “Rank-and-file teachers don’t support it—and their unions sold them out.”

FACT: At least four national polls, conducted by the AFT, the NEA, Education Week, and Scholastic, show that teachers overwhelmingly support the standards, though some haven’t had the time or tools to implement them correctly. Unions support the Common Core because their members do.

TRUTH: AFT polled 800 teachers. (I strongly recommend you read this: (http://www.aft.org/newspubs/press/2013/050313.cfm) to see all of the results that AFT left out. NEA’s poll surveyed 1200 teachers. Again, please read the full survey results to see what data was left out (http://neatoday.org/2013/09/12/nea-poll-majority-of-educators-support-the-common-core-state-standards/).

Part of the information from these two polls that AFT neglected to print was that teachers overwhelmingly support a moratorium on the student test results being tied to their effectiveness rating. The other piece that was left out was that most teachers felt that they did not receive enough “training” for the implementation of CC. The large sums of money from Gates to NEA, AFT, and NYSUT were earmarked for Teacher Professional Development. I have two questions. One, why are Teachers’ Unions receiving money to provide professional development? Isn’t that the job of the school districts? Also, since they have received so much money for this purpose, why don’t teachers feel that they haven’t had enough training?

Lastly, my question to AFT is, “Whom do you represent, Bill Gates or your teachers?” You cannot have it both ways.

Thanks,

Tim Farley

Kinderhook, NY