Archives for category: Common Core
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Paul Thomas: Time for AFT to Take Another Look at Common Core

By dianeravitch
January 16, 2014 //
9

Paul Thomas believes that the Common Core standards do not answer any of the most pressing problems in American education, most of which are economic and social, not pedagogical.

In this post, he commends Randi Weingarten for turning against VAM but worries that states will push ahead with it anyway. He expresses the hope that AFT will take the next logical step and recognize that the Common Core standards are not a great new idea but rather a continuation of the standards-based, test-based reform that characterizes NCLB and Race to the Top. These strategies always leave those with the least far behind. They never close the achievement gap. They reflect it.

He writes:

It is now time for leaders in education—including political leaders, union leaders, professional organization leaders—to acknowledge the historical record on standards-based accountability, the research base on standards-based accountability, and the real-world consequences related to standards-based accountability; and then, CC should be rejected, the real problems facing schools should be identified, and a new reform paradigm embraced.

AFT and Weingarten could offer a brave and powerful voice in that fight, and it would be welcomed.

 

Categories Common Core, Testing, Unions

Mercedes Schneider: AFT Is Wrong About the Common Core

By dianeravitch
January 16, 2014 //
10

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.

Categories Common Core

Tim Farley: AFT Is Wrong about the Common Core

By dianeravitch
January 16, 2014 //
30

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

Categories Common Core

The AFT Criticizes Myths about Common Core

By dianeravitch
January 16, 2014 //
24

The American Federation of Teachers is a strong supporter of national standards and has been for many years.

Soon after the release of the Common Core State Standards, the AFT emerged as one of its strongest advocates.

Randi Weingarten, president of the AFT, contends that the standards are valuable but the implementation has proceeded without adequate preparation. Last year, she called for a one-year moratorium on Common Core testing until teachers had time to learn the standards, resources with which to teach them, and time for students to learn them. She told a breakfast meeting of the Association for a Better New York, attended by the city’s civic and political elite, that the standards would fail unless implementation was done appropriately, with enough time for teachers and students to prepare for the demands of the new standards.

In the current issue of the AFT journal, American Educator, the AFT educational issues department published a memorandum called “Debunking Myths of the Common Core,” and responded to each of them in turn.

For example, the article maintains, it is a myth that the standards tell teachers what to teach. It is a myth that the standards are a national curriculum. It is a myth that the standards were imposed by the federal government and are mandatory. Etc.

Categories Common Core, Teachers and Teaching

Paul Horton: The Cure for the Common Core

By dianeravitch
January 15, 2014 //
51

Paul Horton is a history teacher at the University of Chicago Lab School.

He writes:

The Cure for the Common Core

The Common Core is like that insidious commercial that creeps into the darker recesses of our short-term memories: the jingle that we wake up hearing; the embarrassingly male enhancement ad that we wince at; or the little message that penetrates the space between the paragraphs of every online news story we read. It has become the unintentional trope of market driven education: the separation of learning from creative, non alienated interaction between two subjects: the teacher and the learner. The Common Core Standards seek to reify the learning and assessment processes into code intended to objectify and operate skilled 21st century workers.

Stephen Pinker could not explain its staying power!

Readers of New York Times editorials who read nothing else about “The Core” tend to be down on trash talking critics. The message from the Times editorial board is that informed citizens want higher standards because we are fighting an educational multipolar Cold War with other countries that take an international test. We have to catch up or we are toast. Critics of catching up are ignorant cretins who are either burned out hippies who cling to warm and fuzzy notions of “progressive education,” lazy disgruntled teachers who will have to work harder for less, or “white suburban moms” who hover.

“Get real! say the Tiger moms, we have got to get our kids prepared for the ultimate multicultural meritocracy! The Spartans were wimps, we need real discipline!”

Well, I am hear to tell you that we did not need Common Core last year, and we don’t need it this year, just like we don’t need a lot of other things that we are told that we need.

Here is why:

1) The Common Core will not raise international test scores and there is no correlation between how we perform on international tests and the growth of our economy

2) The Common Core will not create high paying jobs. In fact, the net effect of the long-term implementation of the Common Core will be to drive down the salaries of teachers as their work is standardized to conform to digitalized instruction and standardized testing. The bargaining power of unions will be diminished as more charter schools are licensed and as digital learning forces students all over the world to compete for job qualifications (their test scores as well as transcripts will become what McKinsey calls “liquid information” that will follow them)

3) The Common Core will not lead to a more democratic society: the Common Core is funded by the 1% to make the one 1% more money. The corporations and foundations that have sponsored the Common Core are in it for the money, not kids, parents, or communities who effectively lose control of the educational process with its implementation. Microsoft, Pearson, Amplify and Rupert Murdoch have no loyalty to this country or any another country: they are loyal to stockholders all over the world. Money will be made by penetrating global educational markets with gadgets, software, and virtual learning systems. The leaders of the global movement to standardize education like Microsoft, Apple, and HP, to name three corporations have already set up schools in production and assembly areas that will interface with American and global educational standardization. So the corporate education reform movement might be sold in America as an effort to catch up with other country’s scores. The reality is that global corporations seek global skills alignment to be able to force workers around the world to compete with each other in acquiring a measurable set of skills. Value will thus be added by creating more competition between workers worldwide as test scores will create a scarcity of qualified employees worldwide. Competition for quantified qualifications will drive wages down even for the best jobs. Far from reducing income inequality, Common Core will make it worse locally, nationally, and globally. If you are a great test taker, you will have the opportunity to work for a global corporation, but you will always be competing against great test takers from all over the world.

4) The Common Core will not reduce the achievement gap. No credible study suggests that it does or will. Remember that the big foundations and companies that are pushing Common Core can create “independent studies” that skew results. Remember as well that our media consistently reports foundation “think tank” studies and not academic studies. Remember as well that the Gates Foundation’s resources are virtually limitless. Is there anyone on the Harvard Education faculty who has not received a grant that has origins in the Gates Foundation?

5) The Common Core Standards are top down, not written by experienced educators, and do not consider the individual needs of students of varying abilities who might need to be challenged more or who face steep learning challenges. The National Council of Teachers of English was given the opportunity to review the Common Core literacy standards and their review was scathing. The Common Core Math Standards are confusing, developmentally inappropriate for many students in grades one through three, and do not end up preparing students for college level calculus courses. As more students, parents, and teachers are exposed to the shoddy quality of the scripted lessons, software, and assessments that are being rushed out by for profit testing companies, they begin to understand that they are purchasing a lemon without ever being involved in a decision to buy at any level. The adaption Common Core Standards was required as a part of the Race to the Top competition that states entered to qualify for federal grant money. Our Education Secretary, working with two top aides who were previously employed at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, devised the RttT competition to compel compliance with more charter school creation, state mandated testing aligned with the Common Core Standards, data collection on students and their families, and Value Added Assessments for teachers based on student standardized testing. In many cases applications were prewritten and modified by the Gates Foundation. In most states, only two signatures were required: the governor’s and the state superintendent of education’s. There was very little involvement of experienced educators in this whole process from framing to drafting to mandating. Effectively, local districts gave up control without understanding how or why. Perhaps more importantly, despite Mr. Duncan’s claims, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and leading officials within the DOEd successfully collaborated on creating the requirements for RttT in violation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Together, they successfully mandated the framework for the creation of a national curriculum and coordinated efforts between the National Governor’s Association and Achieve to fund the writing of national assessments that constitute a national curriculum that will be used as the foundation for a national testing regime.

New Year’s Resolutions:

1) We need a new non-aligned movement: against RttT, the Common Core, standardized assessments, and VAM evaluations

2) State and local school boards and major teacher unions need to seriously examine all current and proposed standards to determine the standards that they will support and implement

3) We need to end standardized for profit assessments: why are we paying for shoddy products that will be used to punish kids, schools, parents, and the poor?

4) Allow only those charters that will be administered by the public and for the public. They must be transparent and not for profit. They need to serve communities and kids, especially in underserved neighborhoods

5) We need to end the involvement of for profit investors in education. We need legal transparency that identifies Wall Street influence on Education policy at all levels. We need to be able to identify which local politicians and investors have profited from the possession of Microsoft or Pearson stock or stock in charter companies

6) DOEd funds for special education and other support services should not be held hostage to compliance to RttT mandates

7) Teachers should mentor new teachers to reduce reliance on scripted curricula; teachers should create authentic assessments and grade authentic assessments. Boards of teachers at grade levels and subject departments should create authentic assessment rubrics and should control and examine the state wide assessment process

8) Laws should be passed at the Federal level and in every state to insure that policy makers have at least ten years in a classroom before they are allowed to assume an administrative or policy level post. Our educational system is being destroyed from within by policymakers who are more loyal to corporate and foundation interests than they are to students, communities, and parents. Increasingly, these policy makers have no experience in Education. They are hired to turn Education into for profit businesses

9) Citizens United must be repealed. Because both major parties are beholden to Wall Street interests, our education policies are beholden to bundlers who fund political campaigns in exchange for investment opportunities

10) Remember that although many on the corporate reform side are well intentioned, they care nothing for due process or democracy: they have pulled off a power play and we must resist by coming together. They have demonstrated to the American people that they have contempt for the democratic process. They have the money, the big media, the talking points, the PR firms, and the Chamber of Commerce and Exxon making speeches. We have the passion and the fight! Resist Moloch we must!

Happy New Year in Solidarity!

Paul AFT Local 2063

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Categories Common Core, International

Why I Defend Randi

By dianeravitch
January 12, 2014 //
135

A reader who calls himself or herself “Democracy” left comments criticizing me for defending Randi Weingarten–or perhaps for not attacking her.

Here is my response to Democracy:

Democracy, you ask a good question, and I will answer as best I can..

As you know, I have criticized the Common Core in many posts. I have criticized the lack of transparency and the lack of educator participation in its development. I have criticized the fact that the Gates Foundation paid out nearly $200 million to develop and promote the CCSS, which really means they are the Gates Standards. I have said that rigorous standards will not solve–let alone address–the economic dysfunction at the root of educational inequality–and is likely to exacerbate it.

Randi Weingarten is certainly more positive about Common Core than I am. She is the president of the AFT and has been willing to engage on the issues, while the NEA has remained supportive of Common Core and silent.

I have long believed that Randi would ultimately change course, and she has done so recently. First, she called for a moratorium on testing. only days ago, she came out in opposition to VAM, saying that VAM is a sham. She has followed her reasoning to its logical conclusion, which is that Common Core should be decoupled from testing. If Common Core is in fact decoupled from testing, it loses its power as a means of rating and ranking students and teachers and principals. It becomes a set of standards that may or may not prove useful but has no power to ruin lives and careers

The next, inevitable step is to recognize that Common Core must be amended by teachers and scholars. As it currently exists, it is an infallible edict encased in concrete. No standards are so perfect that they need never be updated.

I will not attack Randi, not only because she is a personal friend, not only because she is showing the capacity to evolve and change her mind, but because we who object to the current demolition derby can’t prevail without the support of at least one of the major unions. In short, we need her leadership. To turn against her is to wound our cause irreparably, our cause being the survival of public education and the teaching profession. To attack one of our few national leaders in the middle of a crucial war will aid those who are attacking public education and teachers. If we who are allies fight one another, we lose. I prefer success to defeat. Too much is riding on the outcome of these questions to indulge in ideological purity and cast out those who are not in complete agreement.

Categories Common Core, Privatization, Teacher Evaluations, Testing, Unions

Randi Weingarten: Decouple the Common Core from the Testing

By dianeravitch
January 11, 2014 //
169

Randi Weingarten believes in the promise of the Common Core standards, and she has strongly defended them.

But she recognizes that the rushed implantation, notably in New York, jeopardized the standards.

In this post, Randi says that the standards must be separated from the testing.

They must not be used to rank and rate teachers or to apply value-added measurement, where teachers are judged by computer-generated algorithms.

She writes:

“It’s time to call the question. Will the powers-that-be continue to be more concerned with creating a testing and data system that ranks and sorts schools and educators, in the quest for the perfect industrial algorithm to judge teachers, students and schools? Or will they look at the evidence and join educators, students and parents in fighting to reclaim the promise of public education?

“We can’t reclaim the promise of public education without investing in strong neighborhood public schools that are safe, collaborative and welcome environments for students, parents, educators and the broader community. Schools where teachers and school staff are well-prepared and well-supported, with manageable class sizes and time to collaborate. Schools with rigorous standards aligned to an engaging curriculum that focuses on teaching and learning, not testing, and that includes art, music, civics and the sciences — and where all kids’ instructional needs are met. Schools with evaluation systems that are not about sorting and firing but about improving teaching and learning. And schools with wraparound services to address our children’s social, emotional and health needs.”

We know who “the powers that be” are. Will they listen?

Categories Common Core, Testing

Gary Rubinstein: An Open Letter to the New Leaders of TFA

By dianeravitch
January 9, 2014 //
15

Gary Rubinstein was one of the original members of Teach for America. He has been involved in TFA from the outset. However, he became a critical friend of TFA when he attended the corporate-funded 20th anniversary celebration, bringing together the leaders of the “reform movement” who were attacking the nation’s public schools and their teachers, closing public schools, and promoting charters. He saw a very different organization from the one he had joined two decades earlier. It had morphed into an arm of big business.

In this important post, he patiently explains to the new leaders of Teach for America why he strongly disagrees with the organization–beginning with their boasting about their results–and explains why they are on the wrong track.

He begins this way:

On February 12, 2013, founder and long time CEO of TFA, Wendy Kopp, stepped down. Two new co-CEOs were appointed, Elisa Villanueva-Beard and Matt Kramer. Elisa was a 1998 corps member and Matt had never taught. Both were working as very high administrative positions in TFA before this recent promotion.

I was pretty surprised by this announcement. I did not expect Wendy to ever not be the CEO of Teach For America. I was also puzzled that neither of the new co-CEOs were required to relocate to be near the national headquarters in New York City.

Over the past four months they have co-written three blog posts on the ‘Pass The Chalk’ site which had points of view that I definitely object to. The first was about a bogus study ‘proving’ that certain TFA teachers teach significantly more than their non-TFA counterparts (I analyzed that report here). The second was about a bogus interpretation of the recent NAEP gains ‘proving’ that corporate reform strategies are working (I wrote about NAEP ‘gains’ here). The third was about their support for the common core (Me and others have written a bunch about the problems with the common core).

Gary then writes an open letter to Matt and Elisa. It is a very strong letter, written by someone who understands Teach for America and knows its potential and its weaknesses. Gary has remained in teaching for many years and understands the challenges of teaching as Matt and Elisa do not.

Here are a few snippets: read the whole thing:

Based on what I’ve seen in this first year of your appointment, I am not encouraged that the issues I have with TFA are improving in any way. In your language and your writings I see the same kind of unsophisticated logic that I see in the rhetoric of people like Michelle Rhee and Steve Perry. Things about the ‘status quo’ and about the power of ‘raised expectations.’ As someone opposed to the kinds of strategies that Rhee and Perry promote, I know that my resistance has nothing to do with a desire to preserve the status quo, nor do I think that very many teachers have unreasonably low expectations for their students.

I have no particular attachment to the ‘status quo.’ But I’ve done a lot of research about what is now called ‘reform’ and I fight against it because I believe that it will, if permitted to gain momentum, make education in this country much worse. My prediction is that teachers will flee the profession even faster than they already do under the stress of the new brand of ‘accountability.’ And I’ve seen this start already in California where there are fewer teacher candidates to fill the vacancies. This will exacerbate if market-driven reform is not curbed. I think college students would be crazy to pursue teaching in this current anti-teacher climate. I’d wager that you are already seeing the effects of this, even among TFA corps members. A few years ago, the statistic was that 60% of TFA corps members taught for a third year. Recently I saw an article celebrating that South Carolina, I think, had about 40% stay for a third year. I believe that this is not going to be abnormal and you will see fewer TFAers stay beyond their two years. Teaching was already a pretty stressful job before the standardized test mania infected our schools. Now, for many, it is unbearable.

I do not believe in ‘low expectations.’ I also know that ‘high expectations’ is a very weak silver bullet. Expert teachers know how to set their expectations at an appropriate level to maximize student learning…

You recently penned a blog post in support of the controversial common core standards. Of course Randi Weingarten is one of the biggest common core cheerleaders in the country so it is not like you came out in favor of school closings, for instance. But still, it was interesting to me that you would take a side on this. What does it mean to be ‘for’ the common core? Does it mean that you wholeheartedly believe in the 7th grade math standard which states:

CCSS.Math.Content.7.NS.A.2a Understand that multiplication is extended from fractions to rational numbers by requiring that operations continue to satisfy the properties of operations, particularly the distributive property, leading to products such as (–1)(–1) = 1 and the rules for multiplying signed numbers. Interpret products of rational numbers by describing real-world contexts.

(Note: If you don’t know what they’re talking about, don’t worry. Most people don’t know that math majors in abstract algebra, during junior year of college, learn that rather than justifying that a negative times a negative is a positive, informally any number of ways, you learn that since -1 * 0 = 0, which means -1 * (-1+1) = 0 (since -1+1=0, additive inverse property) and then, by the distributive property (which says a * (b+c) = ab + ac) (-1) * (-1) + (-1)*1 = 0, but since 1 is the multiplicative identity, (-1)*(-1) – 1=0, but then if you add 1 to both sides, you get (-1)*(-1)=1, Q.E.D.)

Or do you just mean that you approve of school being more than just memorizing a bunch of shallow facts, but having opportunity for deep thought-provoking learning opportunities? If that’s what you mean, is is really necessary to spend billions of dollars on new textbooks and new ‘common core aligned’ assessments for this? Isn’t this the first thing we learned at the TFA institute (not you, Matt, but I’m sure you get the idea still), that we need to get kids to the higher levels of ‘Bloom’s Taxonomy’? Elisa, when you taught in Arizona did you not try to teach to a deep level because the common core had not been invented yet along with new assessments which would make sure you were accountable for getting your students to achieve that type of deep mastery of those standards?

One of my favorite sections of this long letter is where Gary suggests that TFA should adopt a value-added approach to its own organization and be prepared to shut down regions where there is high attrition of TFA recruits:

If you are so enamored with the strategies of Rhee, Daly, Huffman, White, and Anderson, why don’t you use them, yourself, in helping TFA maximize its own ‘value added’? This would be pretty easy to implement. First you would publish an annual A-F report card on the different TFA regions. One of the best metrics would be the ‘quit rate’ — the percent of corps members that quit before completing the two year commitment. Though the national average for all the regions is somewhere around 10%, there are some regions that have much higher quit rates. I believe that Kansas City and Detroit are two regions where around 25% of the corps members don’t complete their commitment. Regions like that would get an ‘F’ and after two ‘F’s or something, they would get shut down using the market-driven reform strategies. Then, for recruiters you could track the test scores of the students of the corps members that each recruiter recruits. Some recruiters will fare worse than others on this metric and those recruiters would be labeled ‘ineffective’ and fired. The various staff at the institutes could also be rated by tracking the test scores of the students of the corps members they trained. Basically, you would want to change the culture of TFA management to one which assumes that all TFA employees are lazy and don’t care about doing a good job and can only be motivated by the fear of being fired. If you admire the TFA leaders mentioned above so much, it would be hypocritical to not use their methods with your own employees.

Be sure to follow Gary Rubinstein. He is one of the wisest and smartest of all teacher-bloggers, and his views are always firmly rooted in evidence, which he supplies.

Categories Common Core, Education Reform, Teach for America, Teacher Evaluations

A Brilliant Idea for Raising and Improving Standards: Open Source Them

By dianeravitch
January 9, 2014 //
90

A comment arrived on the blog with a link to a great idea for standards: Open source them.

Right now, the Common Core standards are mired in controversy, and the controversy seems likely to grow worse as more states begin to test the standards and most parents discover that their children have failed.

The criticisms come from right and left and middle, from parents and educators of all stripes.

The blog called Uncommon California looks at the issue in the context of standards found in other walks of life and asks, why not open source the standards and the tests?

Open standards have been used successfully across many industries and technologies. They give flexibility to customize and adapt, while providing a foundation of available standards and interoperability.
Perhaps this framework could be used by states and individual schools as an alternative to Common Core?
Here is the brilliant idea:
Open standards have been used successful across many industries and technologies. They give flexibility to customize and adapt, while providing a foundation of available standards and interoperability.
Perhaps this framework could be used by states and individual schools as an alternative to Common Core?
Open Standards:
  • Seed a growing and ever updating list of standards, drawn for the best from state standards, around the country and around the world.   Encourage standards experts, to participate, evaluate, score them, encourage or discourage them.  Provide an open forum for standards to be evaluated, questioned, commented upon, rated, etc.  Include parents, teachers, education experts.
  • Provide ways to classify, group and sort them, by subject, recommended grade(s), ratings.  When standards are similar or identical, they could be combined to reduce redundancy.  Groups can work to evaluate, combine, rate them to “narrow” the list down or put forward their “recommended” set of standards.   States and schools should just not be monetarily incentivized or forced to use any particular set.
  • For each standards, test and materials publishers (see below) could “claim” alignment for their tests and study tools.  Users would be able to “rate” and/or question this alignment (or lack thereof).
  • Even the Washington D.C. lobby groups that created Common Core could “donate” their copyrights to the Common Core standards by putting them into the public domain & OSS!
  • States and local school districts would be able to pick and choose which standards they would adopt and in which grade level and even within grade levels.  Schools could have 2-3 levels of standards, based on below proficient, proficient and advanced levels. To take it further, schools might have a different set, customized to the level of the child in each subject. Want a particular math standard in 5th grade instead of 6th grade? No problem, just drag and drop it into your set.  Truly “plug and play” standards.

What a fabulous idea.

Similarly, Uncommon California says that the tests could be open source as well.

Open Tests:

  • Any company or individuals should be able to create software and/or paper tests that reference and draw from referenced open standards.  This site is a great example of how aspects of how “open source” tests could work: http://quizlet.com/
  • With software, each school and/or state would have their own, customized test based on their selected set of standards.  Again, could be customized down to grades, subjects, proficiency levels, and even each student.
  • Like the standards, groups could advocate their software or tests, allowing each state and school to choose.  Smarter Balanced and PARCC could even become options, so long as they create tests that are chosen by each state and/or school, customized to their standards and open parent and teacher feedback mechanisms were in place.
  • Reliability of the providers, especially the tests, would need to be well-monitored, especially to prevent sharing of test answers, etc.

And materials could also be open sourced.

As for privacy, any parent should be able to opt their child out of data-mining. “Like just about every other company, surveys and sampling can be used to normalize results if needed, without having to have data on EVERY SINGLE child.”

The Common Core standards as they now exist represent the best thinking of the industrial age. They might have been developed and imposed 100 years ago, in precisely the same manner as they are now.

The industrial age would have demanded that every worker in every factory operate in precisely the same way. How early 20th century!

The 21st century is characterized not by uniformity and standardization, but by processes that are flexible, dynamic, and open to continual improvement.

Categories Common Core

Schneider Responds to Honig on California and the Common Core

By dianeravitch
January 8, 2014 //
39

Mercedes Schneider has been an outspoken critic of the Common Core standards.

After she read Bill Honig’s explanation about why California educators support the standards without the testing or market reforms, she wrote the following:

Should California Embrace Common Core? My Response to Bill Honig

deutsch29.wordpress.com

Yesterday, California Instructional Quality Chair Bill Honig published a letter on Diane Ravitch’s blog in which he carefully details his reasons for supporting the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in California.

In his letter, Honig encourages California districts wary of CCSS to reconsider their positions. He notes, “In California, there is widespread, deep, and enthusiastic support for the common core standards among teachers, administrators, educational and teacher organizations, advocacy groups, and political leaders.”

When I read Honig’s letter, I wondered how it could be true that CCSS would be so well received in California. I have recently blogged about CCSS unrest in California; namely, that the California Republican Party formally drafted an anti-CCSS resolution and that California Governor Jerry Brown is opposed to “government controlled standards and testing.” Brown has been consistent on his criticism of standardized testing.

I would like to address the context in which Honig’s appeal rests. It is a context unique to California. I also offer some cautions in “embracing” the politically-loaded CCSS.

California: It’s the District That Matters

First, let us consider the context of Honig’s letter:

The letter is an appeal to California districts regarding CCSS. California is a local control state. As such, California school districts may reject CCSS. It is not a state-level decision, as is the case in other states.

In California, the district is the entity that decides whether or not to adopt the CCSS endorsed by the state. This means that districts have the right to opt out of CCSS.

A second point: Even though California’s State Board of Education (CSBE) formally adopted CCSS in August 2010, California as a state did not contract with USDOE for Race to the Top (RTTT) funding.

US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan apparently does not care for California’s local control. In 2011, seven California districts banded together to apply for RTTT funding. The California application was the only one rejected:

In another cockfight between California and Washington over education, the U.S. Department of Education has rejected California’s application – and only California’s application – in the third round of Race to the Top. The denial exasperated the seven California school districts that led the state’s effort and were counting on $49 million earmarked for California as critical to do the work they had committed to do.

In a recent statement, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson and State Board of Education President Michael Kirst each criticized the federal government’s inflexibility in not accepting what they described as California’s “innovative” approach of giving control of the reforms to local school districts. Seven unified districts, including Los Angeles, Fresno, and Long Beach, formed a coalition known as CORE, the California Office to Reform Education, to compete for round three and work together on the reform.

Apparently Duncan prefers to draw entire states into his RTTT reformer web. However, in 2012, USDOE began a RTTT funding competition for districts. Three California districts won money. All three agreed to evaluate teachers using student test scores.

The freedom afforded California districts by the state must really irritate Duncan, who desires to nationalize his slate of reforms without calling his effort a federal push.

Moreover, those federal-but-don’t-call them-that reforms are meant to be inflexible. As such, the CCSS Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) requires states to not remove any CCSS content. In her discussion of CCSS “flexibility” with North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest in December 2013, North Carolina School Superintendent Jan Brewer responded, “If any state wants to change those standards, that’s just fine. It’s just that you do not say that you are implementing the Common Core….” 19:15 -19:24, 12-17-13, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZrMgNJqjh8 ).

In contrast, in his letter, Honig discusses implementing the Common Core, yet he also refers to Brown “readopting [the standards] with some changes, in 2012.” Further in the letter, Honig notes,

This is not to say that the standards are perfect or that they shouldn’t be continually reviewed and modified as the schools across the country implement them. Our math framework committee has already suggested several changes which were adopted by our state board. [Emphasis added.]

Logically, the right to opt out of CCSS brings with it the freedom to modify (i.e., if a district is not pleased with CCSS, it holds the trump card to dropping CCSS entirely). The ability to modify CCSS is evident in Honig’s discussion of the CCSS California consortium and “much of the policy making” being “devolved to local districts”:

…Key educational leaders and organizations in the state have banded together to implement common core in an informal network, the Consortium for the Implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CICCSS). They did so, not because of heavy state or federal mandates, since, as discussed below, much of the policy making has been recently devolved to local districts. [Emphasis added.]

California districts have power. That is why some of them are able to directly deal with Duncan, who apparently decided it a better strategy to contract with “some” of California rather than “none” of California regarding California’s request for No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waivers. In August 2013, Duncan issued such waivers to eight California districts provided they would agree to evaluate their teachers using student test scores, among other conditions:

In addition to using test scores to evaluate teachers, the eight California districts pledged to use other measures to determine school performance, including student growth, graduation rates, absenteeism, school culture and student surveys.

Therefore, for better or worse, California districts have power that school districts in other states do not have. For example, my school district in Louisiana, St. Tammany Parish, formally drafted an anti-CCSS resolution in October 2013. In it, the district reaffirms that it did not agree with the state’s decision to adopt CCSS in the first place and that St. Tammany considered its standards rigorous.

Even though my district formally resolved to reject CCSS, we are still tied to CCSS since in Louisiana it is the state, not the district, that has the power to commit to CCSS via RTTT.

California: Pushing Against Arne

I previously noted that Californiahas accepted no state-level RTTT money. This poses another advantage that California has over other most other states. The states that did accept state-level RTTT money are tied to the federal government’s will regarding the spectrum of reforms promoted by RTTT– including CCSS, its assessments, and the tying of testing results to teacher employment. California’s Governor Brown would not agree to evaluate teachers using student test scores. Thus, California was not eligible for either RTTT funds or NCLB waivers.

California is also unique from many states facing CCSS in that neither governor, nor state superintendent, nor school board president, is a die-hard privatizer. As Honig notes:

Our State Board of Education president, the governor and the state superintendent have repeatedly refused to knuckle under to Arne Duncan’s demands that the state institute teacher evaluations based in large part on test scores.

After considering what I have detailed above– that California districts have control over accepting or rejecting CCSS, and that the governor, state superintendent, and school board president all refuse to grade teachers using test scores (and thereby evidence a healthy distance from the federally-controlled puppeting Duncan so desperately desires of all states)– I understand how it is possible for California teachers to positively receive CCSS.

Indeed, there is still one more important–perhaps the most important– component to CCSS popularity in California: Dislike of the California state standards.

California: Dissatisfaction with Former Standards

According to Honig, California teachers view their previous standards as deficient. As Honig notes regarding California’s math standards:

The standards (CCSS)… shift from the current mile-wide and inch deep approach…. All in all, the standards envision a much more active and engaging classroom….

And California’s English Language Arts (ELA) standards:

Similarly, in English Language Arts the standards also encourage a much more active and engaging classroom….

Here’s an issue to reconcile: According to Honig’s letter, CCSS is a great improvement over California’s standards. However, in its oft-cited 2010 review of all state standards and CCSS, the CCSS-pushing Fordham Institute gave California’s standards higher grades than it gave CCSS– A’s for both ELA and math– as compared to the Fordham CCSS grades of B-plus for ELA and A-minus for math.

This is Fordham’s 2010 overview of California’s ELA standards from its 2010 report:

California’s well-sequenced and thorough ELA standards explicitly address all of the essential content that students must master in a rigorous, college-prep K-12 curriculum. With very few exceptions, the standards are clear and concise and exhibit an appropriate level of rigor at each grade. Minor flaws are noted below, but overall, these standards are exceptionally strong.

And here is Fordham’s overview of California’s math standards:

California’s standards could well serve as a model for internationally competitive national standards. They are explicit, clear, and cover the essential topics for rigorous mathematics instruction. The introduction for the standards is notable for providing excellent and clear guidance on mathematics education. The introduction states simply, “An important theme stressed throughout this framework is the need for a balance in emphasis on the computational and procedural skills, conceptual understanding, and problem solving. This balance is defined by the standards and is illustrated by problems that focus on these components individually and in combination. All three components are essential.” California has provided a set of standards that achieves these goals admirably.

Amazing that Fordham refers to the same standards that Honig believes require replacing.

Whereas Fordham’s review is (bafflingly) considered expert information on the issue of state standards evaluation, the real, front-line “experts” are teachers– those who must convert the standards into a meaningful learning experience for their students.

Fordham forms its opinions from the tower of its own high opinion of itself, not from the classroom.

This begs the question: What does the High and Lifted Up Fordham consider to be “ideal” in a set of standards?

It seems that Fordham places its highest value on standards that are “mile wide, inch deep”– a phrase that former California middle school teacher Anthony Cody has used recently in an email exchange to describe his experience with California’s standards.

Cody’s sentiment is echoed in an October 2013 Los Angeles Daily News article:

The Common Core has also attracted fans because it’s viewed by teachers as “more realistic and smarter” than California’s 1997 standards, which are often criticized as a mile long and an inch thick, says Dean Vogel, president of the California Teachers Association.

“It was impossible for teachers to cover everything,” he says, adding that teachers view the new national standards as “a breath of fresh air” because they require much less regimentation than the earlier standards. Districts have more freedom, this time around, to choose their own curriculum, instructional materials and teacher training programs. [Emphasis added.]

To at least some California teachers, CCSS looks like freedom. For California’s sake, I am sorry that CCSS is inescapably politically infused.

District Danger of Test Worship

In his letter, Honig acknowledges that districts determined to use student test scores in keeping with the privatization agenda will still do so and that such a practice ought not be attributed to CCSS adoption:

If a district is hell-bent to use test scores to evaluate teachers for personnel decisions based on flawed assessment assumptions or narrow the curriculum and instruction to look good on tests, the presence or absence of Common Core Standards and their associated tests will not change that district’s direction.

I agree with Honig’s determination. Nevertheless, CCSS and its tests are promoted as part of a package of Duncan-promoted reforms. I cannot emphasize this enough. CCSS is not neutral. It is not “just” a set of standards. Duncan is pushing CCSS precisely because it is part of a determined reform package.

As for the issue of districts being “hellbent” upon using scores, the “hell bending” precedes the testing. Here is an excerpt of the CCSS-test-anticipated goings-on in one California district (unnamed) (full comment can be seen here):

In my high school district, the preparation for the upcoming tests in California are having a devastating impact on both the more challenged incoming 9th graders and the higher achieving math students. The Superintendent and the Principals of the 8 high schools have decided, against the wishes of almost ALL district math teachers, to narrow the curriculum to fit both the high school standards and the NEW Smarter Balanced Assessment. Thereby, they have eliminated ALL math course offerings below Algebra 1 and therein, forcing ALL students to enroll in an Algebra 1 class even though they may have fallen two or more years behind in their math levels according to where the CCSS would expect them to be when entering high school.

This pressure to conform to CCSS and its attendant outcome (in this case, the Smarter Balanced assessment [SB]), is a national pressure brought on by a federally promoted portfolio of reform.

CCSS cannot be divorced from such federally-promoted pressure. It’s too late for that.

Advice to Honig and All of California: Watch Out for Arne

If required to choose between Fordham’s assessment of California’s standards and Honig’s report of California assessment of California’s standards, I would defer to Honig– since his career has been tied to California education for decades– which means he is certainly closer to the reality of public education in California.

And even though both Fordham and Honig appear to be on the same side of the issue– with both promoting CCSS– Fordham’s motives are suspect for its having taken millions from Gates– even for operating expenses– and Gates– a very rich man who is purchasing his view of education for an entire nation–really wants CCSS.

However, I disagree with Honig’s urging California districts to dismiss concerns about the role of CCSS in advancing a spectrum of reforms:

I know some of you believe that the Common Core Standards are a stalking horse for the detrimental policy measures which have been connected to them and, consequently are so tainted that they can’t be separated. I would plead with you to revisit that question.

California has delayed CCSS testing via the Smarter Balanced consortium (SBAC)— but the tests will come. And even though Brown is fighting Duncan on the (mis)uses of standardized testing, do not underestimate Duncan in pushing the set of reforms for which he has been fighting since 2009.

Those SBAC test scores will be his leverage.

He will insert himself into district affairs. He has done so recently regarding new New York Mayor Bill de Blasio’s choice of schools chancellor.

Duncan has repeatedly inserted himself in state and local elections since his appointment as US secretary of education in 2009.

Don’t think he will stop now.

In the case of California, where the power over education policy is at the district level, Duncan will insert himself there. He wants California to be subject to the entire privatizing spectrum of reforms. His foot is already in the door in several California districts.

In Closing

I applaud Honig for his interest in California education and for his detailed accounting of his reasons for promoting CCSS. Whereas one might try to extend Honig’s appeal beyond California’s borders, doing so does not work. As far as other states are concerned that have accepted RTTT funding, the flexibility to alter CCSS to suit a state’s own determined needs in the name of local control is nonexistent.

As to the process of comparing state standards to CCSS and making informed judgments based upon such comparison: This should have been an opportunity provided to all states absent any pre-completion, federal financial bait. The premature federal CCSS lure bespeaks an intent to ensnare– and ensnare it has.

As for the current atmosphere of CCSS unrest in at least half of the states that adopted CCSS: Any individual or group pushing for unquestioned CCSS allegiance has a hidden agenda. Honig is not pushing for unquestioning allegiance– a refreshing statement for me to write. However, his failure to view CCSS as a component of an overall design to completely privatize American public education is not wise given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I wish California my best regarding its decisions about CCSS, wherever those may lead.

Just watch out for Arne.

Categories California, Common Core
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »