Archives for category: Common Core

The Gesell Institute of Human Development issued a statement in 2010 that was completely ignored, but its warning bears hearing.

In March 2010, the Gesell Institute released this statement. It fell on deaf ears.

 

The core standards being proposed by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers are off the mark for our youngest learners. We at Gesell Institute call for a new set of standards for Kindergarten through Grade 3 that adhere to solid principles of child development based on what research says about how and what young children learn during the early years, birth to age eight. The proposed standards for Kindergarten through grade 3 are inappropriate and unrealistic. Policy must be set based on hard data and not on unrealistic goals surrounding test scores.

If the achievement gap is to be closed, child development must be respected and scientific research surrounding how children learn must be taken into account. Research clearly shows that early readers do not have an advantage over later readers at the end of third grade, and attempts at closing the achievement gap should not be measured in Kindergarten based on inappropriate standards.

The work of Gesell Institute has long been focused on research and best practice in child development and education – our legacy is based on the ground-breaking work of Dr. Arnold Gesell, a pioneer in the field of child development who observed and documented stages of development with normative data reflecting what children typically do at each age and stage. Currently, our national study collecting developmental information on over 1400 children across the country is in its final stages of data collection. This data, to be released in Fall 2010, is expected to further support what we know about how children develop and what they know at various ages, as well as the importance of focusing on appropriate methods for teaching young children.

We urge the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers to respect the individual developmental differences of children and revise the K-3 standards based on research and the advice of experts in the field of early childhood. Having endorsed The Alliance for Childhood’s Joint Statement of Early Childhood Health and Education Professionals on the Common Core Standards Initiative, we support the call to withdraw the early childhood standards and create a consortium of experts “to develop comprehensive guidelines for effective early care and teaching that recognize the right of every child to a healthy start in life and a developmentally appropriate education.” (http://www.allianceforchildhood.org/) 

Lately, I have noticed that defenders of the Common Core are smearing critics as Tea Party fanatics and extremists. That is what Arne Duncan said to the nation’s newspaper editors last month, when he claimed that opponents of the Common Core are members of “fringe groups,” people who don’t care about poor kids, and people who falsely accuse the federal government of having something to do with the Common Core. When interviewed on PBS, New York State Commissioner John King also said that the Tea Party was behind the criticism of the new standards.

They would like the public to believe that there is no responsible, non-political, non-ideological opposition to the Common Core standards.

This is not true, and I wrote this piece to explain why reasonable people have good reason to be concerned about the overhyping of the Common Core.

I understand that there are good elements to the standards.

In many states, they may be better than existing standards. In others, they may not.

But I don’t see why they are being rushed into production without a fair trial of their strengths and weaknesses.

No set of standards, no new product, emerges straight from the minds of its creators without seeing how it works in the real world of fallible human beings.

Until we see what happens to real children in real classrooms, the “standards” are words on paper without meaning.

It is only when they are tried out by real teachers in real classrooms with real children, when they are improved through trial and error, that we will know how they work and whether they can be called “standards.”

I cross-posted this piece on Huffington Post so it would reach many more readers.

I print it here for your reaction and comment.

I invite you to open the link and leave comments on Huffington Post.

Testing

Boosters of the Common Core national standards have acclaimed them as the most revolutionary advance in the history of American education.

As a historian of American education, I do not agree.

Forty-five states have adopted the Common Core national standards, and they are being implemented this year.

Why did 45 states agree to do this? Because the Obama administration had $4.35 billion of Race to the Top federal funds, and states had to adopt “college-and-career ready standards” if they wanted to be eligible to compete for those funds. Some states, like Massachusetts, dropped their own well-tested and successful standards and replaced them with the Common Core, in order to win millions in new federal funds.

Is this a good development or not?

If you listen to the promoters of the Common Core standards, you will hear them say that the Common Core is absolutely necessary to prepare students for careers and college.

They say, if we don’t have the Common Core, students won’t be college-ready or career-ready.

Major corporations have published full-page advertisements in the New York Times and paid for television commercials, warning that our economy will be in serious trouble unless every school and every district and every state adopts the Common Core standards.

A report from the Council on Foreign Relations last year (chaired by Joel Klein and Condoleeza Rice) warned that our national security was at risk unless we adopt the Common Core standards.

The Common Core standards, its boosters insist, are all that stand between us and economic and military catastrophe.

All of this is simply nonsense.

How does anyone know that the Common Core standards will prepare everyone for college and careers since they are now being adopted for the very first time?

How can anyone predict that they will do what their boosters claim?

There is no evidence for any of these claims.

There is no evidence that the Common Core standards will enhance equity. Indeed, the Common Core tests in New York caused a collapse in test scores, causing test scores across the state to plummet. Only 31 percent “passed” the Common Core tests. The failure rates were dramatic among the neediest students. Only 3.2 percent of English language learned were able to pass the new tests, along with only 5 percent of students with disabilities, and 17 percent of black students. Faced with tests that are so far beyond their reach, many of these students may give up instead of trying harder.

There is no evidence that those who study these standards will be prepared for careers, because there is nothing in them that bears any relationship to careers.

There is no evidence that the Common Core standards will enhance our national security.

How do we know that it will cause many more students to study math and science? With the collapse in test scores that Common Core brings, maybe students will doubt their ability and opt for less demanding courses.

Why so many promises and ungrounded predictions? It is a mystery.

Even more mysterious is why the nation’s major corporations and chambers of commerce now swear by standards that they have very likely never read.

Don’t get me wrong. I am all for high standards. I am opposed to standards that are beyond reach. They discourage, they do not encourage.

But the odd thing about these standards is that they seem to be written in stone. Who is in charge of revising them? No one knows.

When I testified by Skype to the Michigan legislative committee debating the Common Core a couple of weeks ago, I told them to listen to their teachers and be prepared to revise the standards to make them better. Someone asked if states were “allowed” to change the standards. I asked, why not? Michigan is a sovereign state. If they rewrite the standards to fit the needs of their students, who can stop them? The federal government says it doesn’t “own” the standards. And that is true. The federal government is forbidden by law from interfering with curriculum and instruction.

States should do what works best for them. I also urged Michigan legislators to delay any Common Core testing until they were confident that teachers had the professional development and resources to teach them and students had had adequate time to learn what would be tested.

Do we need national standards to compare the performance of children in Mississippi to children in New York and Iowa? We already have the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which has been making these comparisons for 20 years.

Maybe I am missing something. Can anyone explain how the nation can adopt national standards without any evidence whatever that they will improve achievement, enrich education, and actually help to prepare young people — not for the jobs of the future, which are unknown and unknowable — but for the challenges of citizenship and life? Thebiggest fallacy of the Common Core standards is that they have been sold to the nation without any evidence that they will accomplish what their boosters claim.

Across the nation, our schools are suffering from budget cuts.

Because of budget cuts, there are larger class sizes and fewer guidance counselors, social workers, teachers’ assistants, and librarians.

Because of budget cuts, many schools have less time and resources for the arts, physical education, foreign languages, and other subjects crucial for a real education.

As more money is allocated to testing and accountability, less money is available for the essential programs and services that all schools should provide.

Our priorities are confused.

The head of Néw York state’s Board of Regents Merryl Tisch says everyone should calm down about the collapse of test scores across the state. Next year, she promised, the scores will go up.

You can count on that, because the state commissioner can lower the cut score if he wants to avoid another embarrassment like this year.

What you can also count on, sadly, is the humiliation that 70% of the children in grades 3-8 will feel when they learn from their teacher that they failed the state tests. The numbers who failed are even higher among children who are black, English language learners, and students with disabilities.

This year, the state decided to align its categories with NAEP, not understanding that NAEP proficient is set at a very high level–not a “passing” mark at all– and that the only state where as much as 50% of students reached proficient on NAEP is Massachusetts,  after 20 years of NAEP testing. Apparently New York is content to tell the majority of its students that they don’t deserve high school diplomas or the chance to go to college.

Consider this: the proportion of students who “passed” under the new Common Core baseline was only 31.1% in total. (Last year it was 77.4%).

Among English language learners, only 3.2% “passed.” (Last year it was 11.7%.)

Among children with disabilities, only 5% “passed.” (Last year it was 15.5%.)

Among black students, only 16.7% “passed.” (Last year it was 37.2%.)

Among Hispanic students, only 17.7% “passed.” (Last year it was 40.0%).

Among white students, only 39.9% passed. (Last year it was 85.9%.)

But not to worry, litttle children. New York and the Common Core will make you global competitors.

How do we know? We don’t. Forget about critical thinking. Don’t ask for evidence. Take it on faith. This is, after all, faith-based policy.

This petition was written by supporters of public education in New York State called the Coalition for Justice in Education.

They object to King’s insistence on high-stakes standardized testing, especially the Common Core testing that recently led to a collapse of student scores across the state.

They seek a commissioner who cares about public education, cares about the quality of education–not just test scores, and cares about children.

I agree, which is why I wrote a post calling on John King to resign.

He may have the confidence of the Board of Regents, but he has lost the confidence of the parents and educators of New York State.

If you agree with their petition, sign it.

Gary Rubinstein here
analyzes the unimpressive showing
by Democracy Prep on
the recent disastrous Common Core tests in New York State. He takes
apart the effort by Mike Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham
Institute to rationalize the poor performance of the
much-ballyhooed charter chain. Gary writes, “The hardest
thing about trying to have an intellectual debate with ‘reformers’
is every time they start to lose, they try to change the
rules.
First they say “poverty doesn’t matter”
and when it becomes clear that it does, they start saying “Well, it
matters, but we still need to make schools as good as possible and
standardized test accountability is the best way to do that.”
First they deny that charters have a self-selected population that
is easier to teach, and then when you prove them wrong, they say
“Yes, it’s true, but it is a good thing.”
Less than a
year ago, Arne
Duncan gave Democracy Prep $9.1 million
to open new
schools in poor communities. But if you look at the scatterplots
that Gary constructed, it is clear that Democracy Prep is an
average school, no better than the typical New York City public
school. So why did the U.S. Department give Democracy Prep $9.1
million to open more average schools with high attrition rates in
Harlem and Camden, New Jersey?

William Johnson is the superintendent of public schools in Rockville Centre, Long Island, New York.

He is an experienced educator.

He can tell the difference between education and miseducation.

For his willingness to speak truth to power, to defend the children and staff in his care, he is a hero of American public education.

When he saw the scores generated by New York’s Common Core tests, he blew his stack.

He said to a reporter:

“Never at the end of the day could you, as a result of what you saw with a child’s actual performance on these tests, know what they know and what they don’t know,” Johnson said in April.

The data that the tests provided the district, Johnson said, is “uninterpretable and unusable.” He gave an example: in eighth grade, Rockville Centre students take the algebra Regents exam, which is usually administered in ninth grade. This year, about 95 percent of students passed it. The eighth-grade state math exam is supposed to determine how prepared students are to take algebra, yet only 39.5 percent of them passed that exam.

“To hell with these scores,” Johnson said. “They do not matter. They’re not informing us in any way; they’re not giving us any new information. In fact, what they’re doing is serious damage. Kids who had a [Level] 3 last year and ended up with a [Level] 1 this year, how do I tell them they can’t read, when in fact we know they can?”

The story says, “Last year, an average of about 81 percent of Rockville Centre students passed the state exams, which are given in grades 3 through 8 in English Language Arts and math. This year, with the new tests the state gave, the passing rate in Rockville Centre plummeted to 48 percent. The state average was slightly over 30 percent.”

In response to the sharp drop in the district’s scores, Johnson said:

“Our conclusion, after reviewing this with my staff in the central office and talking to a number of colleagues, is that we’re just going to put it on a shelf someplace and just leave it there,” said Dr. William Johnson, the district superintendent. “We’re not going to use this information to make any kind of determination about what kind of services we need for children, and we’re not going to use it in any capacity whatsoever to make informed decisions about our staff.”

 

 

This is only a portion of the English language arts curriculum
for first grade in New York State, aligned to the Common Core standards.

Many children in first grade have not yet learned to read, but they will be expected to understand and explain facts and concepts that belong in sixth or seventh or
eighth or ninth or tenth or eleventh or twelfth grades.

Six-year-olds may have trouble pronouncing some of the words, let
alone developing a historical sense of why these facts matter or
how they relate to one another. When I read this curriculum, the first thought
that occurred was that this is developmentally
inappropriate. I am a strong believer in knowledge and content. But
knowledge must be taught when children are mature
enough to understand and absorb and reflect on what they are
learning. Otherwise, all this content is a circus trick, an effort to prove that a
six-year-old can do mental gymnastics.

“Early World Civilizations” is one of 10 units for the Listening and Learning strand of
the English Language Arts domain of first grade. Keep in mind that
Listening and Learning strand is one of three areas of instruction
for ELA, and ELA is only half of the prepared curriculum.

This is how it is described by the state:

“Tell It Again! Read-Aloud Anthology

This Tell It Again! Read-Aloud Anthology for Early World Civilizations contains background information and resources that the teacher will need to implement Domain 4, including an alignment chart for the domain to the Common Core State Standards; an introduction to the domain including necessary background information for teachers, a list of domain components, a core vocabulary list for the domain, and planning aids and resources; 16 lessons including objectives, read-alouds, discussion questions, and extension activities; a Pausing Point; a domain review; a domain assessment; culminating activities; and teacher resources. By the end of this domain, students will be able to:

“Locate the area known as Mesopotamia on
a
world map or globe and identify it as part
of Asia;

Explain the
importance of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and the use of
canals
to support farming and the development
of the city of Babylon;

Describe the city of
Babylon and the Hanging Gardens;

Identify cuneiform as the system of writing used in
Mesopotamia;

Explain why a written
language is important to the development of a

civilization;

Explain the significance of the
Code of Hammurabi;

Explain why rules and laws
are important to the development of a

civilization;

Explain the ways in which a
leader is important to the development of a
civilization;

Explain the significance
of
gods/goddesses, ziggurats, temples, and
priests in Mesopotamia;

Describe key
components of a civilization;

Identify Mesopotamia as
the “Cradle of Civilization”;

Describe how a civilization evolves
and changes over time;

Locate Egypt on a world
map or globe and
identify it as a part of
Africa;

Explain the importance of the
Nile
River and how its floods were important
for farming;

Identify hieroglyphics as the
system of writing used in ancient Egypt;

Explain the significance of gods/goddesses in ancient
Egypt;
Identify pyramids and explain their
significance in ancient Egypt;

Describe how
the pyramids were built;
Explain that much of
Egypt is
in the Sahara Desert;

Identify the Sphinx and explain its
significance in ancient Egypt;

Identify Hatshepsut as a pharaoh of ancient Egypt and
explain her significance as pharaoh;

Identify Tutankhamun as a pharaoh of ancient Egypt
and explain his
significance;

Explain that much of what we know about ancient
Egypt
is because of the work of
archaeologists;

Identify
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as major monotheistic world
religions;

Locate Jerusalem, Israel, and the
area known as the Middle East on
a
map;

Define monotheism as the belief in one
God;

Identify the Western Wall (or the
Wailing Wall) as associated with Judaism, the

Church of the Holy Sepulchre with Christianity, and the Dome of
the
Rock with Islam;

Identify the Hebrews as the ancient people who
were descendants of Abraham;

Explain that followers of Judaism are called Jewish
people and the term Jewish is used to describe practices or
objects associated with Judaism;

Identify the Star of
David as a six-pointed star and a symbol of
Judaism;
Identify the
Torah as an important part of the Hebrew scriptures;

Identify that a Jewish house of
worship is called a synagogue or temple;

Identify Moses as a teacher who
long ago led the Jewish people out of Egypt

in an event referred to as the Exodus;

Explain that, according to an important story in the
Torah, Moses received the Ten
Commandments
from God and that the Ten Commandments are rules that

tell people how to behave or live their
lives;

Identify important
Jewish holidays such as Passover, Rosh Hashanah, Yom
Kippur, and
Hanukkah;

Explain that Christianity developed after
Judaism;
Explain that followers of
Christianity are called Christians;

Recognize the cross as a symbol of Christianity;

Identify the Bible as the Christian
holy book;

Identify that a Christian house
of
worship is called a church;

Identify that Christians believe Jesus
to be the Messiah and the son of God;

Identify important Christian
holidays, such as Easter and Christmas;

Recognize that both Christians and
Jewish people follow the Ten Commandments;

Explain that Islam originated in Arabia;
Explain that followers of Islam are
called Muslims;

Identify the crescent and star
as symbols of
Islam;

Identify the Qur’an as the holy book of Islam,
containing
laws for daily living and many
stories that appear in Jewish and
Christian
holy books;

Identify that a Muslim place of
worship is
called a mosque;

Identify that Muslims believe that Moses and
Jesus
were prophets but believe that Muhammad
was the last and greatest
of the
prophets;

Identify important Muslim holidays,
such as
Ramadan and Eid-ul-fitr;

Use narrative language to describe (orally or in
writing) characters, setting, things, events, actions, a

scene, or facts from a fiction read-aloud;

Identify who is telling the story
at various points in a fiction read-aloud;

Ask and answer questions (e.g., who, what, where,
when), orally or in writing,
requiring
literal recall and understanding of the details and/or

facts of a nonfiction/informational
read-aloud;

Answer questions
that require making interpretations, judgments, or
giving opinions
about what is heard in a
nonfiction/informational read-aloud,

including answering why questions that require
recognizing
cause/effect
relationships;

Identify the main topic and
retell key
details of a
nonfiction/informational read-aloud;

Describe the
connection between two individuals, events, ideas, or
pieces of
information in a
nonfiction/informational read-aloud;

Ask and answer questions about unknown words and
phrases in
nonfiction/informational
read-alouds and discussions;

Use illustrations and details in a nonfiction/informational
read-aloud
to describe its key
ideas;

Compare and contrast (orally or
in
writing) similarities and differences
within a single
nonfiction/informational
read-aloud or between two or more

nonfiction/informational read-alouds;

Listen to and demonstrate understanding of
nonfiction/informational read-alouds of

appropriate complexity for grades 1–3;

With guidance and support from adults, focus on a
topic, respond to questions and suggestions

from peers, and add details to strengthen writing as
needed;

Make personal
connections (orally or in writing) to events or

experiences in a fiction or nonfiction/informational
read-aloud,
and/or make connections among
several read-alouds;

With assistance, categorize and organize facts and
information within a given domain
to answer
questions;

Use agreed-upon rules for group
discussion
(e.g., look at and listen to the
speaker, raise hand to speak, take
turns, say
“excuse me” or “please,” etc.);

Carry on and participate in a conversation over at least
six turns, staying on topic,
initiating
comments or responding to a partner’s comments, with

either an adult or another child of the same
age;

Ask questions to
clarify information about the topic in a fiction or

nonfiction/informational read-aloud;

Ask and answer questions (e.g.,
who, what, where, when), orally or in writing, requiring

literal recall and understanding of the details and/or
facts of a
fiction or
nonfiction/informational read-aloud;

Ask questions to clarify directions, exercises,
classroom routines, and/or what a
speaker
says about a topic;

Describe people, places,
things, and
events with relevant details,
expressing ideas and feelings

clearly;

Add drawing or other visual displays
to oral or written
descriptions when
appropriate to clarify ideas, thoughts, and

feelings;

Produce complete sentences when
appropriate to task and
situation;
Identify real-life connections between words and
their
use (e.g., note places at home that are
cozy);

Learn the meaning of
common sayings and phrases;

Use words and phrases acquired through
conversations, reading and being read to, and responding to
texts,
including using frequently occurring
conjunctions to signal simple
relationships
(e.g., because)
Identify new meanings for
familiar
words and apply them
accurately;

Prior to listening to
an
informational read-aloud, identify what
they know about a given
topic;

Share writing with others;

With assistance, create and interpret timelines
and lifelines related to an informational

read-aloud;

Demonstrate understanding of
literary language such as
setting;

While listening to an informational read-aloud,
orally
predict what will happen next in the
read-aloud based on the text
heard thus far,
and then compare the actual outcome to the

prediction;
and Use personal pronouns
orally.

This material is aligned with E.D. Hirsch’s Core
Knowledge curriculum. Rupert Murdoch’s Amplify division (run by
Joel Klein) paid an unspecified amount for a 20-year right to the
professional development resources and curriculum
materials
for Core Knowledge from K-3, with the intention
of building out resources for grades 4 and 5. Thus, all curriculum
resources purchased to teach these grades will be paid to
Amplify.

Please leave a comment so that HuffPost readers will hear you.

I made a few changes, adding a new ending.

Four years ago, New
York Times’ columnist David Brooks declared Geoffrey
Canada’s
charter schools to be miracle schools. The
column was titled “The Harlem Miracle.” He did so based on the
assurances of Harvard economist Roland Fryer and his colleague Will
Dobbie. Fryer said in an email to Brooks that the charter schools
of the Harlem Children’s Zone had produced “enormous gains.” Brooks
wrote: “In math, Promise Academy eliminated the
achievement gap between its black students and the city average for
white students.
Let me repeat that. It
eliminated the black-white achievement gap. “The results changed my
life as a researcher because I am no longer interested in marginal
changes,” Fryer wrote in a subsequent e-mail. What Geoffrey Canada,
Harlem Children’s Zone’s founder and president, has done is “the
equivalent of curing cancer for these kids. It’s amazing. It should
be celebrated. But it almost doesn’t matter if we stop there. We
don’t have a way to replicate his cure, and we need one since so
many of our kids are dying — literally and
figuratively.”
Canada is a very charming man, and I
personally like him. We have appeared on various TV shows together,
including a debate on NBC’s “Education Nation.” But I don’t believe
in miracle schools. Not even when they are run by the immensely
personable Geoffrey Canada. And I don’t like it when someone with
the vast resources of Canada, far more than any neighborhood public
school, trashes public
schools because they can’t succeed as his schools do
.
(The link takes you to a TED talk where Geoffrey Canada
speaks with his usual charm and passion about “our failing public
schools.”) As this story in the New York Times pointed out, the
Harlem Children’s Zone has two billionaires on its board, assets of
more than $200 million, two teachers in every classroom, small
classes, medical care for students, and an array of resources and
services unavailable to public schools in poor neighborhoods. I
have always wished that every public school, especially in poor
neighborhoods, could offer the same services as Canada’s schools,
and I salute Canada for providing them for the students at his
charter schools. But are they miracle schools, as Roland Fryer told
David Brooks? After all, miracles should not be a one-time deal;
they should go on forever, right? The short answer: No. They face
the same problems as other schools serving poor kids, and their
results are not miraculous. Below are the scores of Canada’s
charter schools on the recent Common Core tests. The city’s public
schools had an average passing mark of 25% in ELA and 30% in
mathematics. The charters of the HCZ have scores all over the map.
Some are higher than the city average, some are lower. Some are
dramatically higher (like grade 5 in math at HCZ 1 at 46%), some
are dramatically lower (like grade 6 in English language arts at
HCZ 1 at 9%). Bottom line: There is no miracle here.  
  Harlem Children’s Zone 1

3 ELA
22%
3 Math 23%
4 ELA
26%
4 Math 17%
5 ELA
21%
5 Math 46%
6 ELA
9%
6 Math 39%
7 ELA
24%
7 Math 18%
8 ELA
27%
8 Math 31%
Harlem Children’s Zone
2
3 ELA 32%
3 Math
56%
4 ELA 12%
4 Math
20%
5 ELA 35%
5 Math
43%
6 ELA 19%
6 Math
31%
7 ELA 45%
7 Math
26%
8 ELA 15%
8 Math
28%

Charles Blow is one of the columnists in the New York Times that I usually count on to challenge the conventional wisdom and to speak up for the powerless.

Sadly, in this column, he parrots the conventional wisdom and voices the opinions of the elites.

Imagine, he calls the Broad Foundation a “reform” organization. The readers of this blog know the Broad Foundation as the source of malicious policies that are privatizing public schools and destroying communities. Some of the worst, most arrogant leaders in US education have been “trained” by the unaccredited Broad Academy. The foundation issued a guide on how to close schools that is a Bible for the corporate reform movement.

As for the international test scores, Blow should not have relied on Time magazine’s Amanda Ripley. He should have looked at the Rothstein-Carnoy study, which demonstrates that the PISA results were misleading, or the recent article in the UK Times Educational Supplement, where test experts maintained that the scores on PISA are “meaningless,” or considered the more recent TIMSS test, where American students did very well. Or read the chapter in my new book on the myths and facts about international testing.

Why in the world would he enthuse about the Common Core tests, which widened the gaps in New York between affluent and poor, between black and white, between English language learners and native speakers, between children with disabilities and those without? Common Core has no evidence to support its claims. As we see it in action in New York, we see that it is deepening the stratification of society and falsely labeling two-thirds of the state’s children as failures.