Archives for category: Common Core

New York Commissioner John King held his first meeting in New York City on the rushed implementation of the Common Core and the tests whose cut score was set so high that only 31% of students across the state passed. Among English learners, only 3% passed. Among students with disabilities, only 5% passed. The pass rates among African American and Hispanic students was 15-18%. In NYC, the passing rates were even lower.

Here is a report sent to me by a parent who attended the forum last night at Medger Evers College on Brooklyn.

“I am a Brooklyn public school parent who went to the forum last night at Medgar Evers College with John King. I wanted him to hear the near-universal concerns of my fellow parents that high-stakes testing has gotten out of control. By the time I showed up at 6PM, the speaker’s list was full. My mistake – but the forums had been announced at the last minute, with no information about how to sign up for speaking. Many of us believed (mistakenly) there would be an open mike. Clearly StudentsFirstNY had different information. Apparently they brought in about fifty parents and charter school teachers at 4:30 – one woman from “our” side, a sympathetic teacher, had happened to get there that early, so she was the only speaker who stood up to criticize the NYSED.

The forum began at around 6:45. After the first speaker had criticized was done, a “Parent Organizer” from StudentsFirstNY whooped up her part of the crowd with a racially inflammatory speech charging that “parents in Park Slope don’t want the kids in BedStudy” to get the same education as their kids. She at least had the honesty to acknowledge that she was a paid employee of StudentsFirstNY. I know of at least one other speaker (an ex-teacher) who did not acknowledge that she is an employee of StudentsFirstNY. However, what’s interesting about the first speaker is that (I was told by one of my fellow parents) she is actually a parent at PS321, one of the best schools in Park Slope, where test prep is de-emphasized as much as possible. It seems that she wants test-prep for everyone else, but not for her kid.

Early on a state assemblyman (I think it was Karim Camara) spoke about John King – he said, and I quote, “John King has an Ivy League education. He could be anywhere in the world. But he chose to be here with us. Isn’t that amazing?” I found that a bizarre comment, since John King should consider himself pretty lucky to be NY State Education Commissioner, with precious few qualifications, and listening to the public seems like it should be a basic part of his job, not a favor he bestows on his fortunate subjects.

But then the array of speakers started – one after another, repeating the same talking points, accompanied by cheers. They spoke in turgid cliches which no one could argue with – “Don’t you believe in the children?” over and over again – fending off some mythical Common Core opponent who is against all standards and expectations, and wants minority children to do poorly in school. The majority of people in the audience sat stunned and helpless at the barrage of nonsense being unleashed from the stage – a burst of rhetoric totally unrelated to real debates about common core implementation and high-stakes testing. It’s hard to argue with someone when a) you don’t even get a chance to speak and b) you are called a racist without them hearing any of your arguments.

I actually felt sorry for whatever percentage of charter school parents there who were unpaid. They are right to be angry at the educational inequalities in our society. Their children are not getting the same education as parents on the Upper East Side or even Park Slope. But it is not primarily because of differences in curriculum, and Common Core is not going to make a big difference in those inequalities. What would make a difference is changing the way resources are allocated – why are our poorest schools cut down to the budgetary bone? But none of those parents seemed cognizant of that.

What I find ironic is that they kept saying they wanted the same education for their kids as their richer counterparts. But parents in Park Slope would never put up with the monotonous test prep John King wants to institute in schools state-wide. Of course John King and Meryl Tisch would never expose their own children to that – both send (or sent) their kids to progressive private schools, where their children are taught to think creatively.

After an hour of so of being told we were racists for daring to question King, many of us retreated to the lobby, where we discussed how the event had been hijacked. I don’t even think John King believed he was hearing from true representatives of parents.

I had the temptation to rush the mike and give a Swiftian speech a la A Modest Proposal: Why (I would ask in mock-outrage) had John King refused to allow tests for Kindergarteners? (Note: he recently abandoned the K-2 bubble testing under immense political pressure) Did he not believe in standards? Did he not want low-income children to succeed? Without tests, how can parents know how they’re doing? Does he not believe in the children?”

Commissioner John King finally got a friendly forum about Common Core. At the only hearing in Brooklyn, a borough in New York City with four million residents, every speaker but one praised Common Core and many accused its critics of racism. Reports from those on the scene (directly to me) as well as in the media said that the speakers’ list consisted of people who were affiliated with Michelle Rhee’s StudentsFirst and charter parents. Parents who were not part of these two groups could not get a chance to speak. The list was closed.

I had heard for the previous two weeks that speakers were being trained to support the Regents and King. And they got their chance to do so last night. One estimate sent to me was that 44 people spoke enthusiastically about Common Core and only one was opposed.

In the spring of 2012, Brookings scholar Tom Loveless set off a firestorm when he wrote a study of the Common Core State Standards and concluded that they would make little or no difference in student achievement.

He did not pass judgment on the quality of the standards but on the question of how much standards matter.

He wrote:

“The finding is clear: The quality of state standards has not mattered. From 2003 to 2009, states with terrific standards raised their National Assessment of Educational Progress scores by roughly the same margin as states with awful ones.”

Does rigor matter? In fourth grade, he found, that was some evidence that raising cut points “is associated with increased achievement. But the effect is not large, and it is difficult to determine the direction of causality. At 8th grade, states with lenient cut points have made NAEP gains similar to those of states with rigorous ones.”

Most important, Loveless finds that “Test=score differences within states are about four to five times greater than differences in state means…Common state standards might reduce variation between states, but it is difficult to imagine how they will reduce variation within states. After all, districts and schools within the same state have been operating under common standards for several years and, in some states, for decades.”

In this article, which links to his study and to critics of the study, he concludes that the Common Core State Standards are not likely to make much of a difference.

Hmmm. How many tens of billions of dollars will be spent on Common Core-aligned hardware, software, professional development, and consultants to see if he is right? How many districts will increase class size, abandon the arts, and eliminate other necessary program along the way?

Couldn’t we have tried the idea out first in three to five states before imposing it on 45 states?

This article arrived in my email unexpectedly, and I decided to post it because it contains a good analysis of how decision makers get stuck defending bad decisions.

Sean Brady explains the dangers of cognitive bias. He writes that it is “becoming increasingly apparent that he [King] may be doing more to undermine the implementation of the Common Core than he is doing to support it. For example, his approval of cut points on the 2013 assessments that resulted in the vast majority of the state’s grade 3 — 8 students to be deemed failing has created a firestorm of criticism, galvanized his critics in New York and stalled the implementation of the Common Core in some other states.

“Commissioner King is clearly a very smart man. Why might he take actions that do not support what he is trying to achieve? A search for cognitive biases and fallacies may provide some insight. There are a number to consider. King’s positive assessment of New York’s Common Core implementation despite mounting evidence of serious problems suggests optimism bias. His reference to a few, narrow data sets to defend his policies points to confirmation bias. However, two others seem to be at the the root of his troubles….”

King, he says, suffers from certainty bias and the sunk cost fallacy.

This is well worth reading.

Mercedes Schneider has dug deep into the IRS 990 forms of the various organizations that wrote the Common Core standards and is piecing together the history of that effort.

Although its advocates portray CCSS as “state-led,” that was not quite true.

The creation of the CC was the work of a handful of influential individuals associated with inside-the-Beltway organizations, plus testing companies.

She concludes:

The contents of this post reinforce the reality that CCSS is the result of a few attempting to impose a manufactured standardization onto the American classroom. At the heart of CCSS are a handful of governors, millions in philanthropic and corporate dollars, and a few well-positioned education entrepreneurs handed the impressive title of “lead architect.” The democratic process is allowed entrance into this exclusive club, but only for show. The place for democracy in CCSS development is standing room only, and that near the exit.

Fortunately, democracy gets edgy when relegated to the cheap seats. Achieve, NGA, Pimentel, Pawlenty, and other CCSS peddlers might deliver their best sales pitches; however, the truth is that CCSS is in trouble in statehouses and boardrooms across the country.

Future generations of educators will study CCSS as a colossal education blunder.

 

 

Casey Barduhn, superintendent of the Westhill Central School District, warns New York Commissioner John King that his reliance on high-stakes testing is destroying the promise of the Common Core standards.

Barduhn wrote to King that he was intrigued by the standards when they were unveiled and hopeful that they would lead to creative and innovative teaching and learning.

But with the advent of the high-stakes testing, that sense of joyful anticipation was replaced by an undue emphasis on testing, test prep, and misallocated time and resources.

The rebellion against Common Core testing continues to grow. At some point, John King will have to listen to experienced educators nd change course. One cannot lead without followers.

Until now, Commissioner John King and the New York Regents have played their Common Core testing show on the road. You might call them out-of-town tryouts.

Now the show is coming to New York City, on short notice.

Next week, parents, educators, and other community members in Brooklyn and Manhattan will have a chance to voice their concerns on December 10 (Brooklyn) and December 11 (Manhattan). The other boroughs will be announced later.

Here is the schedule, courtesy of Class Size Matters.

Most of the noise against the shoddy implementation of Common Core in New York has been heard in Long Island, but parents and educators are even angrier in the Lower Hudson Valley than in New York. Here is an excellent explanation by veteran journalist Gary Stern..

This is one of the best analyses I have read about why state officials and the public are on a collision course. Can the Regents continue to push such a wildly unpopular set of policies? How long can they continue to say they they are right and the public is wrong?

Stern writes, for example:

The big picture

The State: New York’s public schools have done a poor job of educating its students. Large numbers of students have received high school diplomas despite being unprepared for college or the workforce. They have poor writing skills, do not grasp key math concepts, and are not adept at problem-solving or working in teams. Minorities in big city school systems have been most poorly served, but even suburban schools are not where they need to be. Educational standards need to be not only higher but transformed to reflect the high-tech, constantly changing needs of industry and to keep our state and nation competitive. Get on board or get out of the way.

The LoHud: A state-imposed, one-size-fits-all approach to reform is naïve and counter-productive. Many suburban school systems do a fine job, pushing their students to excel while leaving room for creativity, individualism and local emphasis on the arts. Here’s the thing: parents and local school officials always have a better sense of their schools’ strengths and weaknesses than state and federal bureaucrats trying to adapt business models to education. The state’s approach to reform is foolish and losing credibility by the day. Get out of our backyards.

The Common Core learning standards

The State: The Common Core standards are smarter, more up-to-the-moment and, yes, tougher than our former educational goals. They present a coherent, rich framework for what students need to know and how students need to be able to think. School districts can still devise their own curricula, lesson plans and creative local programming – as long as students meet the standards. Yes, the transition to the Common Core is difficult and challenging but cannot wait. Today’s students deserve the best possible education this year and next year, not when schools feel they are comfortable with the Core.

The LoHud: The standards are pretty good, better in some areas than others. We need time to review them. However, any good will that the Common Core might have inspired is being lost because its implementation in New York has been irresponsibly rushed. We’re building the plane in mid-flight. The standards for each grade assume that students have grown up with the Common Core, but they haven’t. Teachers and curriculum leaders are grasping to figure out what the state wants instead of doing their jobs. The roll-out needs to be halted for a couple of years so we can figure out what comes next. Stop the madness.

Testing

The State: A limited amount of standardized testing is a necessary way to see if students are progressing. The results can be used as a tool to improve instruction. Our new tests are tougher but also better. We had to put them in place right away to ensure districts would align themselves to the Common Core. Without the new tests, the change would have been too slow. We need to find ways to reduce overall testing, in part by encouraging districts to use other methods for their teacher evaluations. And, yes, we will keep moving toward on-line testing until we’re ready.

The LoHud: Are you kidding? You want us to reduce testing? We set up new pre- and post-tests because we had to rush our teacher evaluations systems into place. The new 3-8 tests set us up for failure to prove your contentions that the schools are failing. Your cut scores are non-sense (which the state quietly acknowledges by not requiring remediation for all students who failed to hit state targets). Now you won’t let us see the tests, meaning that we can’t learn what our students need. And now the state is introducing new high school tests? Here we go again. Oh, by the way, we have a million questions that have to be answered before we’re ready for on-line tests.

Anthony Cody notes that the definition of education has become increasingly utilitarian, thus narrowing what is taught and learned only to the skills that make students college-and-career ready. Joy in learning, aesthetic delight in the arts, the intellectual pleasure of history and literature take a backseat to that which is marketable. Are we all meant to serve the needs of corporate America?

He writes:

“One of the undercurrents fueling concerns about the Common Core is the relentless focus on preparation for “college and career.” Education has always had dual aspirations – to elevate mind and spirit, through the investigation of big ideas, and the pursuit of fine arts and literature, and the service of the economic needs of individuals and society. What we are feeling in our modern culture is the absolute hegemony of commercial aims, as if every activity that does not produce profit is under assault.

“And in our classrooms there is a parallel assault on activities that do not “prepare for college and career,” which has been redefined, in practical terms, as preparation for the tests that have been determined to be aligned with that goal. Preparation for college and career has begun to feel more and more like “preparation to make yourself useful to future corporate employers.”

Cody finds that Mario Savio’s famous rant in 1964 against the ties between the university and the corporations presaged what is happening today. Savio might as well have been speaking for the moms and dads of today when he said fifty years ago:

“There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part! You can’t even passively take part! And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels…upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop! And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!”

Cody adds:

“In our classrooms, the use of standardized tests to measure and monitor learning, and the imposition of ever-more tightly managed and even scripted curricula, make teachers and students feel as if we are part of a machine. The canaries in the coal mine are the students who do not fit in. But our modern system has a pharmacological answer for that, as this recent New York Times magazine article reported that more than one in ten children between ages 4 and 17 are now diagnosed with ADHD, and many of them are medicated daily. That is 6.4 million children. Before the early 1990s, this number was less than 5%. What has changed? According to the report,

“During the same 30 years when A.D.H.D. diagnoses increased, American childhood drastically changed. Even at the grade-school level, kids now have more homework, less recess and a lot less unstructured free time to relax and play. It’s easy to look at that situation and speculate how “A.D.H.D.” might have become a convenient societal catchall for what happens when kids are expected to be miniature adults. High-stakes standardized testing, increased competition for slots in top colleges, a less-and-less accommodating economy for those who don’t get into colleges but can no longer depend on the existence of blue-collar jobs — all of these are expressed through policy changes and cultural expectations, but they may also manifest themselves in more troubling ways — in the rising number of kids whose behavior has become pathologized.”

“Our education system, in attempting to make everyone fit the same standardized mold, so as to be of maximum usefulness to future employers, is medicating those who don’t fit the mold.”

Cody ends with a veiled prediction that spring 2014 may see the biggest effort ever by parents to remove their children from standardized testing.

What’s the gripe of those “white suburban moms” (and dads) who have turned out in large numbers to complain about Common Core and the increase in testing?

Here is a good analysis by a local Long Island reporter.

Jaime Franchi at LongIslandPress.com interviewed parents and leaders of the revolt and gives a full picture of the uprising.

The story begins:

Eighth grader Ryan Pepe, 13, of East Islip, reads his “intense” Common Core-assigned homework in his parent’s dining room. (Jaime Franchi/Long Island Press)

“Uncomfortable. Impossible. My chest hurts,” says Vincent Pepe, 10, pointing to his t-shirt where he feels his heart rate accelerating. He won’t make eye contact. He doesn’t like talking about the state tests he took last year.

“There wasn’t enough time,” he says. “It makes you quit.”

His older brother Ryan, 13, looks up from under a pile of homework. Ryan has served as Vincent’s protector since he was born. But Ryan can’t protect him from everything.

Neither will be taking the state tests this year. And they’re not alone.

A battle is being waged in New York State with Long Island on the front lines. The warriors come armed with manila folders of research on topics such as Common Core, data-mining and a billion-dollar company named Pearson. They have bags under their eyes from long, weary nights in front of sometimes-incomprehensible homework. The battlegrounds are the classrooms, the kitchen table, and auditoriums packed with parents and teachers who are demanding a three-year moratorium on high-stakes testing, but will settle for the resignation of New York State (NYS) Commissioner of Education John B. King, Jr. and the head of Gov. Andrew Cuomo. They are an army formed on Facebook, with groups informed by a national movement but concentrated right here, mobilized and motivated by the stress of their children. Their vow is to defeat Common Core, the educational reform so extreme that kids are mutilating themselves in response to the psychological stress that experts are calling “Common Core Syndrome.”

State officials are intransigent. Despite the near-unanimous condemnation of the state’s high-stakes testing regime, the Regents and the Commissioner of Education have made clear that they have no intention of backing down. The kids will get the tests again and again, no matter how many fail.

Nearly 20,000 parents have signed petitions against the testing; that number will grow. The Long Island principals have led a statewide rebellion against the untested “education evaluation” tied to the high-stakes test.

The parents, teachers, and principals of Long Island understand what state officials do not.

Education policy cannot be rammed down everyone’s throats. Collaboration and respect are needed, not the power to compel compliance.