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

California Governor Jerry Brown Blasts Test-Based Reform

By dianeravitch
December 30, 2013 //
47

Governor Jerry Brown is certainly the most interesting and thoughtful state leader on education.

In 2009, when he was state attorney general, he wrote a blistering rebuke to Arne Duncan in opposition to Race to the Top.

He has consistently opposed the overemphasis on standardized testing.

In 2011, he vetoed legislation that didn’t go far enough to stop the misuse of test scores.

Earlier this year the state suspended state testing to prepare for Common Core testing, defying Duncan’s specific order to continue state testing.

Several days ago, Brown blasted state and national standards and tests, saying that learning was highly personal and individual. He said that neither Washington nor Sacramento should play a large role in telling teachers what to teach and what students should learn. He is especially critical of standardized testing.

This is all amazing, not only because a governor with a national profile is saying this but because California has committed more than a billion dollars to adopting the Common Core standards.

Which raises the question, Does Governor Brown know that the state is doing what he says he opposes?

Categories California, Common Core, Testing

Schneider: Common Core Pushback in 23 States

By dianeravitch
December 29, 2013 //
18

Mercedes Schneider has been keeping track of the states where there is significant opposition to Common Core standards and/or testing.

Initially, she identified 22 states where Common Core has encountered opposition.

After that post appeared, she learned that California should be added to the list, for a total of 23 states where critics are rallying against the CCSS.

Categories Common Core

Gerson: Why Common Core Won’t Work

By dianeravitch
December 28, 2013 //
68

Raymond Gerson teaches at Austin Community College.

Will Common Core Produce Students Who Become Common?

By Raymond Gerson

Words can become like seeds for self-fulfilling prophecies because of the power of expectation. So let’s take a look at the words “Common Core.”

One definition for the word “common” is “of no special quality.” In other words “ordinary.” According to Roget’s Thesaurus some synonyms for the word “common” are “commonplace, everyday, ordinary, humdrum, standard, mediocre, run-of-the-mill and a dime a dozen”. Some of the antonyms are “exceptional, uncommon, extraordinary, original, excellent, noble, noteworthy, valuable and rare”. At your “core” or essence and foundation which of these would you prefer to be?

Are the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) a one size fits all approach that will produce commonplace students and commonness? Shouldn’t the purpose of education be to develop the whole person and to awaken the unique potential within individuals? Isn’t standardization the antithesis of individualization?

Einstein said, “I believe in standardizing automobiles. I do not believe in standardizing human beings.” He also said, “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” Most of Einstein’s greatest discoveries came from the use of his imagination.

Is a highly standardized approach to education working anywhere? Has it ever worked to try and standardize human beings? If we study highly standardized approaches to education in Chile, Sweden, China or in other countries it has not helped students to develop their imaginations, creativity and wholeness as human beings. In China leaders are now trying to change their educational system because it produced excellent test takers who could not think out of the box. In the U.S. we seem to be moving in the direction that China is trying to move away from.

Why do we not learn anything from systems that have failed? Why do we not learn from successful models like the one in Finland or from models like the one used by Montessori schools? Montessori schools have a one hundred year old model which not only improves test scores, but develops socialization, emotional intelligence and character. Maria Montessori said, “Our care of the child should be governed not by the desire to make him learn things, but by the endeavor always to keep within him that light which is called intelligence.”

The natural inclination of human beings is to grow and evolve. This growth needs nurturing, not force and harshly enforced standards. Positive influences are essential for the development of children’s brains and character. Supportive environments for children are important for lifelong physical and mental health. Brutal high stakes testing and prodding them to learn out of fear of failure will turn them off of learning and education. They will associate learning with lots of pain and emotional upset. Learning for children should involve a lot of play and be enjoyable. The fields of Neuro-Science and Child Development have revealed to us what is needed for human beings to develop into fully functioning human beings. Are CCSS and the accompanying testing aligned with what scientific studies tell us about child development? Are standardization and harsh learning methods the answer? In the wrong environment a flower will die and in the wrong learning environment or soil a child’s spirit will be broken. Children are not rats in a lab who need to be trained to run on treadmills or move through a maze. We can use behavior modification and train them this way, but what kind of adults and human beings will they become? Will they be able to think for themselves and function well in society? Will they develop good character qualities? It is unlikely. Gandhi said, “Education which does not mould character is wholly worthless.” And Martin Luther King put it this way, “Intelligence plus character-that is the goal of true education.”

The purpose of education is to draw out the best from our students. It should be about more than just making good grades on bubble tests and making money after graduation. It should develop a love for lifelong learning. Students need to be prepared to handle problems they will encounter, to live purposeful lives and to learn the value of making a positive contribution to others and society. Mr. Rodgers, who had a great love for and understanding of children said, “We human beings all want to know that we’re acceptable, that our being alive somehow makes a difference in the lives of others.”

Where is the kindness in making kids feel like failures, crushing their hopes and love of learning and destroying their intrinsic motivation to learn and turning them off of education?

Common Core has had little or no field testing. It has come primarily from top down leaders with little input from teachers in the field. Why aren’t the teachers and educational administrators across the nation consulted about what children need? Our schools have thousands upon thousands of wonderful teachers who care about students and know how to teach them. We have seen many examples lately where these dedicated teachers put their very lives on the line to try and save children from harm. Is anyone listening to these teachers who spend endless hours working for the benefit of their students?

Most of the people who are influencing these educational policies have their children in private schools that have nothing like Common Core, high stakes testing, hours of test prep drills, large classes, lack of support services and little time for teachers to actually teach students and collaborate with each other. And yet these leaders say these policies are great for other people’s kids. This kind of hypocrisy is systemic in our society and is prevalent in politics, business and other fields. There are leaders in every field who do not operate under the same rules and conditions that they want for the rest of us. Many people in our society are becoming fed up and sick of these dual sets of standards.

Those who are pushing high stakes testing, Common Core and other forms of standardization on our schools say that most schools in the U.S are failing. This is their mantra. Diane Ravitch, in her latest book Reign of Error, produces evidence to show that these claims are false except where there is poverty and segregation. There is a high correlation between low test scores and poverty. Otherwise more students are graduating from high school, less are dropping out and scores on international tests are good.

Scientists are warning us that there are several major problems including global warming which could lead to the eventual extinction of humanity and other species. Many young people who are the future are seeking solutions to this dilemma. According to Andrew Harvey, author of The Hope: A Guide to Sacred Activism, “the last and best hope for an endangered humanity is a world-wide, grassroots revolution of love-in-action.” This is the type of non-violent protest that was witnessed when Gandhi freed India from British rule.

Maria Montessori said, “Within each child lies the fate of the future.” As adults, parents and educators we have a responsibility to help our young people to develop into well functioning human beings. They are the ones who can create a better world if we give them the right start.

Students, educators and parents are beginning to resist and speak out against educational policies that they believe are unfair and unproductive. This is their right as citizens. They do not want to see standardized human beings who become common to the core.

It is my feeling and prediction that the CCSS and accompanying testing will be the eventual tipping point for a non-violent revolt by a massive number of students, educators and parents. This is why CCSS is either doomed to fail or will have to be significantly changed based on input from educators and parents. And those leading the charge for this revolt will most likely be lots of angry mamas.

References:

1. Einstein, Albert. Saturday Evening Post interview. 10/26/1929.
2. Gandhi, Mahatma. Inspiring Thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi: Gandhi in Daily Life. Compiled by Anil Dutta Mishra and Ravi Gupta. Ashok Kumar Mittal. 2008.
3. Harvey, Andrew.The Hope: A Guide to Sacred Activism. Hay House. September 2009.
4. King, Martin Luther. The Purpose of Education. Morehouse College Student paper. The Maroon Tiger. 1947.
5. Montessori, Maria. The Absorbent Mind. Wilder Publications. March 2009.
6. Ravitch, Diane. Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools. Knoph. September 2013.
7. Rodgers, Fred. The World According to Mr. Rodgers: Important Things to Remember. Hyperion. October 2003.

Copyright 2013. Raymond Gerson

Permission is granted to share this article for non-profit purposes if credit is given to the author.

Raymond Gerson is an adjunct professor of college transition/success and career exploration/planning courses for Austin Community College.

Categories Common Core

Alan C. Jones: What Knowledge Matters Most? Who Decides?

By dianeravitch
December 28, 2013 //
9

A reader added this insight into the debate about standards and which body of knowledge gets sanctified as “national standards” that everyone should know:

 

I have made this comment before, but no domain of knowledge is neutral. Some group has to identify, categorize, organize, and interpret a discipline, a subject, a standard (although the term standard is a foreign concept in academia). What is different from the authoring of standards and what occurs in professional communities is in the latter there is purposeful process of evaluating what theories, ideas, facts, practices are accepted within the community. Using various methodologies particular to each discipline, academics will debate at length in journals, papers, conferences, what knowledge is of most worth — and of course, as Thomas Kuhn has pointed out, as a disciplinary domain proceeds, there will be paradigm shifts where entire foundations of a discipline will be discarded a newer ones adopted and the process continues. The disturbing nature of the accountability regime has been the belief and enactment of the concept of standards or a common bodies of knowledge that everyone should know and that legislatures and their chosen panels of “experts” have a god’s eye view of what that knowledge should be. Although we have always had this type of imposition from textbook companies, when I started teaching in the 60′s we were given wide latitude in the selection, organization, and interpretation of knowledge — which reflected what our academic communities had taught us was important and worth teaching. The standards movement has delegitimized the knowledge they are proposing by removing from its development any process of evaluating the worth of that knowledge. Because they are not academics, they do not understand that merely stating and testing are not sources of legitimization — they are sources of power, but not verifications of claims of the worth of knowledge. As some of these blogs have pointed out, we now find ourselves in a post-modern critique of knowledge — who is in power gets to privilege some body of knowledge and award credentials based on the acquisition of that privileged knowledge — irrespective of whether that knowledge is supported by any disciplinary verifications of knowledge worth.

Categories Common Core

Paul Thomas: Teachers Between a Rock and a Hard Place

By dianeravitch
December 28, 2013 //
12

Paul Thomas taught high school for nearly two decades befor he became a professor at Furman University in South Carolina. He understands the dilemma of teachers caught between Scylla and Charydis, now known as a rock and a hard place. The dilemma arises when federal and state mandates require teachers to act in ways that violate their professional ethics. Thomas has specific advice to help teachers navigate the rough waters created by unethical, unprofessional demands.

What I have often said to teachers, echoing what Thomas advises, is to comply if you must but hold on to your values. Stay true to what you know is right for your students and have faith that this dark night of test abuse, child abuse, and teacher abuse will end, as it must. It will end because it is fruitless and punitive and antithetical to true education. Become a BAT if you dare.. Join the Network for Public Education. Do not jeopardize your livelihood but find allies and do what you can to hasten the day when reason, evidence, and professionalism are once again ascendant in education.

Categories Common Core, Teachers and Teaching

Common Core and the Myth of Neutrality

By dianeravitch
December 28, 2013 //
85

Bill Boyle has come to the conclusion that the Common Core standards are “one more step in the decimation of the common good.”

He got into a Twitter debate with an advocate for the standards, then realized that this–like so many other controversial issues–has no neutral ground, no set of facts that will dispassionately settle the questions.

There is a narrative surrounding the Common Core that has been used to sell it: that it was “created by the states”; that the federal government had nothing to do with creating or promoting the CCSS (which would be illegal); that it will benefit all children; that it will close the achievement gap; that it will raise our national test scores and make us “globally competitive.”

Some of these assertions can actually be tested, in the sense that the evidence for the assertions does not exist. We will know in 12 years which–if any–of these assertions are true. Unfortunately, in matters of ideology, true believers have a tendency to stick with failed ideas no matter what the facts are (see, USSR).

In the meanwhile, the most vociferous supporters of Common Core seem to be in the corporate world. I keep wondering how many people at Exxonmobil, State Farm Insurance, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other cheerleaders have read the standards and how many of their executives could pass the CC tests.

The only path I see out of the present dilemma is to impose a three-five year moratorium on the Common Core tests. Invite experienced teachers from every grade level in every state to revise the standards to make them sound, age-appropriate, and to correct errors of judgment.

That still leaves in solved the staggering cost of implementing the standards: professional development, new resources. And the biggest cost is the budget-killer: the purchase of tablets, laptops, and other technology to administer the tests. Best to put that massive cost off for another’s hte-five years until teachers nd students have had time to make the necessary adjustments.

And then it will be time to assess whether schools should invest in testing or in the arts; testing or social workers and guidance counselors; testing or smaller classes; testing or libraries and librarians; testing or pre-kindergarten.

No, there is no neutrality. There are real costs and real choices to be made.

Categories Budget Cuts, Common Core, Technology, Computers

I Answer Four Questions

By dianeravitch
December 27, 2013 //
208

Ray Salazar, a teacher in Chicago, wrote a blog post asking me to respond to four questions. I will try to do that here. I am not sure I will accurately characterize his questions, so be sure to read his post before you read my responses.

Before I start, let me say that he obviously hasn’t read my book Reign of Error. Consequently, he relies on a five-minute interview on the Jon Stewart show and a 30-minute interview on NPR’s Morning Edition to characterize my views. Surely, he knows that sound bites–which is what you hear on radio and television–are not a full representation of one’s life work or message. I am very disappointed that he did not read my book, because if he had, he would have been able to answer the questions he posed to me, and he might have asked different questions, or at least been better informed about my views and the evidence for them.

First, he objects to my statement that poverty is the most important predictor of poor academic performance, even though it is empirically accurate. He claims I am making excuses for poor teaching and that I am saying that we can’t fix schools until we eliminate poverty. But in my book, I make clear that we must both reduce poverty and improve schools, not choose one over the other. He says that teachers can’t reduce poverty, can’t reduce class size, can’t control who takes arts classes, and have no control over external circumstances. This is true, but he doesn’t seem to recognize that my book was not written as a teachers’ guide, but as a guide to national and state policy. Policymakers do control class size; do control resources; do make decisions that either lift children and families out of poverty, or shrug and say “let the schools do it.” There is no nation in the world where school reform has ended poverty, nor will school reform end it here. Salazar does not seem to understand that I am trying to open the minds of Congressmen, Senators, Cabinet officials, Governors, and State Legislatures, that I want them to take action to improve the lives of children and families; I want them to understand that they should not be cutting the jobs of librarians and nurses and increasing class sizes, and they should not be tying teachers’ compensation to test scores. I agree with Salazar that teachers make a huge difference in the lives of children, but I want him to acknowledge that the deck is stacked against poor children. It is stacked by circumstances, and it is stacked by our schools’ obsessive reliance on standardized tests. Standardized tests are normed on a bell curve. Bell curves do not produce equality of educational opportunity. They favor the advantaged over the disadvantaged. We as a society have an obligation to do something about it. He would understand all this far better if he read my book instead of listening to a TV show and a radio program.

His second point accuses me of opposing standards because I do not support the Common Core standards. That is ridiculous. I support standards, but I don’t support the federal imposition of standards that were written mostly by non-educators, that were adopted because of a federal inducement of billions of dollars, that have never been tested anywhere, and that–as the tests aligned to them are rolled out–cause the scores of students with the highest needs to collapse. In New York, for example, 3% of English learners passed the Common Core tests, along with 5% of students with disabilities, and less than 20% of African American and Hispanic students. The two major testing consortia funded by the U.S. Department of Education selected NAEP proficient as the cut score (passing mark) for their tests; that is an unwarranted decision, because NAEP proficient was never intended to be a passing mark for state tests. It represents “solid academic achievement,” not “passing.” Only in one state–Massachusettts–have as many as 50% of students reached the 50% mark on NAEP proficient. Thus, the testing consortia will either be compelled to drop the cut score (and claim progress and victory) or more than 50% of students in the U.S. (and far more in urban districts like Chicago) will never earn a high school diploma. Of course, I want to see students in Chicago and every other urban district reach high levels of performance, but that won’t happen until politicians stop cutting the school budget, stop laying off teachers, ensure that every school has the resources it needs for the students it enrolls, stop using test scores for high-stakes for students, teachers and schools, and make sure that all children have food security, access to medical care, and the basic necessities of life. Salazar seems to suggest that poverty doesn’t matter all that much, as long as teachers are creating a “college-going” culture. In effect, he is shifting blame to teachers for failing to create such a culture; but no school can create such a culture without the tools and resources and staff to do it.

Third, Salazar criticizes my concern that school choice is intended to create a marketplace of charters, leading to a dual school system. He wants more school choice. I don’t think school choice answers the fundamental challenge to school leaders: how can they create good public schools in every neighborhood? That is their duty and their obligation. Salazar says that good neighborhood schools don’t exist now, and I agree. But choice won’t bring the change we need. It will create a competition for a few good placements, but it wont create more good schools. Choice does not improve neighborhood schools. it abandons them. We will never have good neighborhood schools if we create a system where all kids are on school buses in search of a better school. In some cities, it is the schools that do the choosing, not the students or their families. Many of those “schools of choice” don’t want the kids who will pull down their all-important scores. So, what should happen right now? The mayors of big cities who want to be education leaders should make sure that every school has the resources it needs: the teachers, librarians, social workers, nurses, after-school programs, summer programs, small classes, arts classes, physical education, foreign languages, etc. In a choice system, it is left to students to find a school that will accept them and hope it is better than the one in their neighborhood. I say that students, parents, educators, and communities must demand that the politicians invest in improving every school. As Pasi Sahlberg, the great Finnish expert, has said about his nation’s schools, “we aimed for equity, and we got excellence.” As for Ray’s crack about my “choices,” I attended neighborhood schools: Montrose Elementary School; Sutton Elementary School; Albert Sidney Johnston Jr. High School; and San Jacinto High School. Were they the best schools in Houston? I have no idea. They were good neighborhood schools.

In his fourth point, Salazar repeats his belief that there is both a poverty crisis and an educational crisis. I agree. If he read my book, he would know that. The poverty crisis created the educational crisis. If we ignore the poverty crisis, we will never solve the educational crisis.

Categories Charter Schools, Common Core, Education Reform, Poverty, Teachers and Teaching, Testing

Pelto: Connecticut Governor Malloy Will Pay PR Firm $1 Million to Sell Common Core

By dianeravitch
December 24, 2013 //
14

Blogger Jonathan Pelto reports that Governor Dannell Malloy of Connecticut plans to spend $1 million to a public relations firm to sell the idea of Common Core.

This suggests that he is concerned about the kind of public backlash that was caused by the botched implementation of Common Core in New York.

Connecticut is one of the three highest performing states on NAEP, and parents are not likely to take kindly to the new Common Core tests, which are likely to produce a sharp decline in test scores, as they have in other states. There are quite a lot of “suburban moms” in Connecticut. Lots of moms and dads who will not be easily persuaded that their children are failures. Not by Governor Malloy or Commissioner Stefan Pryor or a public relations firm with a $1 million contract.

Categories Common Core, Connecticut

Teachers: Common Core in Kindergarten Class

By dianeravitch
December 22, 2013 //
80

These comments were posted by a kindergarten teacher in response to a post about the Common Core English language arts standards:

I teach kindergarden. The five-year olds have an incredibly tight schedule to keep in our county: an hour of math, hour of science, 2 hours of language arts, half hour of social studies. We kindergarten teachers have had to sneak in rest time and social centers (such as puppets, blocks, housekeeping, playdough) which are so critical to their development.

My class has 13 out of 16 ELL students (Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Arabic & a dialect from India are all represented). Ten of them are free or reduced lunch (aka low socio economics). Two of them never went to preschool at all, and two are on the spectrum, one severely so. All of them have to read by the end of the year. All of them have been required to participate in two close reading activities which required writing sentences.

Both of my formal observations were done during the first 60 days of school. I was criticized because my students don’t do “turn & talk” correctly (they didn’t respond to their peer by telling them why they either agree with or disagree with them). I was evaluated as “lacking in pedagogy” because I asked them to give me facts from a kindergarten level book on stars and they repeatedly tried to tell me what they knew/thought. I was told I require action in pedagogy because the book I used to sing and act out verbs also included several words (such as jump, paint, swing, march, & slide) that were also nouns and because my students could not do charades without my assistance (which I gladly gave but caused that part of the lesson to go on too long). Apparently, my pedagogy went mysteriously missing over the summer, as I’ve never been criticized for that in any of my previous 20 years of teaching experience.

They have been forced to sit through the two close readings that go on for three days each and require them to write notes and then sentences to explain what they learned. My poor babies turned in papers with sentences made of fragments from our fact chart we had made, but they hung their heads because they couldn’t read the sentences they’d managed to write. I hugged them, told them they were great, and gave them chocolate. Then I reported that only 4 of my students passed….another poor reflection on my teaching.

If this is happening in kindergarten, I can only imagine what is happening in later grades. My school is set in a high socio-economic neighborhood and has been an A school for 12 years now; I shudder to think how this affects the less fortunate schools!

 

This comment came from another kindergarten teacher, responding to the post about the treatment of students with special needs:

I am a kindergarten teacher, stressed to the nth degree from having to push 5 year olds in ways that make my blood boil from the wrongness of it. It is immoral to ask 5 year olds to write facts from a story they are listening to and to write sentences when they are only learning to read & write!!

For trying to show that this is too difficult for my students during observations, I have been given far lower scores that I’ve ever received in 20 years of teaching.

Then there is the matter of my own sweet son. He is 12 years old, has ADHD and feels like a failure. His teachers tell me that his thinking in math and science amaze them; that he comes up with solutions and ideas that they have never thought of….yet he is failing because he forgets to hand in homework or write his name on papers, which is clearly the executive functioning skills which he lacks. They tell me he is immature and needs to repeat the grade, yet stay in gifted because he is so obviously bright….how can these coincide? He is already stressed because his failing grades and bullying on the bus, but now they want to retain him????

Categories Childhood, Pre-K, K, Common Core

Reader: Exxon Mobil and the Devaluing of AP Courses

By dianeravitch
December 22, 2013 //
54

Reader Christine Langhoff writes in response to a post wondering about Exxon Mobil’s fervent advocacy for the Common Core standards:

“Exxon Mobile came into the Boston Public Schools in about 2003, trying to destroy our contract by inserting merit pay through a project called the Massachusetts Math and Science Initiative (MMSI), a branch of the National Math and Science Initiative (NMSI). And surprise! David Coleman is also a member of this board.

“Despite its official-sounding name, this was a private project begun by Tom Luce who served in Bush’s cabinet as an under secretrary of education. Failing to win the governor’s race in Texas in 1990, he was inspired to form “two nonprofit ventures that led public schools across the United States to measure performance based on standardized tests.” One of the first iterations was called “Just for Kids”. An early innovator (read NCLB) – all good ideas come from Texas! Currently, he is now a “reformer”on the board of the Foundation for Excellence in Education (FEE), Jeb!’s spawn.

“The Mass Math and Science Initiative set up shop in my school (89% of our students were minorities). We already had an outstanding track record of well-prepared kids diligently working their way toward scores of 4 and 5 in a host of AP classes. But the goal was not to have kids do well, the goal was simply to get more kids to take AP classes. Why? Follow the money.

“Although teachers had long taught AP courses successfully, no outsider consultants were involved. Suddenly, we were inundated with “verticle alignment” workshops, AP workbooks, CD’s, mandatory extra time for teacher AP training (including Saturdays) and cash payments to students taking the tests, as well as “merit pay” to AP teachers for high scores. In other words, what had been an in-house effort to take our most talented students a step forward toward distinguishing their academic records was co-opted to make bank for test fees, materials and consultants.

“In the same time period, the College Board began to require that AP teachers write up and submit an AP curriculum to them for approval (un-reimbursed, of course), and AP training courses began to be required of teachers so that they would be “qualified” to teach those “endorsed” classes. More “ka-ching” at the cash register.

“Remember that our faculty and students had a long track record of success in this arena. Under pressure from the school department, our numbers of students taking AP classes expanded exponentially, until nearly every student was enrolled in some AP class or another. So we met the goal of more kids, but of course our percentage of high scores fell off precipitously.

“It so happened that my own kids were applying for college during this time period. I noticed that though AP had been on the lips of admissions officers of “elite” schools four years earlier for my older child, now there was little interest. Every admissions person I asked about this at competitive liberal arts colleges had the same answer – that credential has been devalued.

“See:
http://www.nms.org/
http://www.nms.org/AboutNMSI/BoardofDirectors.aspx
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/columnists/robert-miller/20130402-odonnell-foundation-hires-tom-luce-dallas-attorney-and-education-advocate.ece
http://www.susanohanian.org/show_research.php?id=18”

Categories Common Core, Curriculum, Education Industry, Education Reform, Testing
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »