Archives for category: Common Core

Sandra Stotsky has emerged as a leading critic of the Common Core standards, based on her experience in Massachusetts in setting academic standards. Here, she takes issue with David Steiner, the former commissioner of education in New York.

New York State Test Results: Uninterpretable But a Portent of the Future

 

In the original version of David Steiner’s talk on the meaning of the drop in test scores in New York State (http://roosevelthouse.hunter.cuny.edu/ciep/test-scores-in-nys-its-on-all-of-us/), he says: 

 

“The truth we are now trying to tell, for the first time, is relative to something called college- and career-readiness, roughly equivalent to the ability to enter a community college without the need for remediation.”

 

That statement is also in the version appearing in his Education Next blog (http://educationnext.org/test-scores-in-nys-it’s-on-all-of-us/). 

 

Something happened to this truth in his op-ed in the New York Post on August 8, 2013.  The truth is still relative to something called college-and career-readiness, but that concept is now “roughly equivalent to the ability to enter and succeed in college.”  Not “community college.”   (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/painful_but_necessary_process_teQvo0ptYRggOyHymASc4M). Two very different meanings and educational goals.

 

The “truth” is at the heart of the problem most critics have with Common Core; it tries, unsuccessfully, to straddle both meanings and goals.  Steiner believes that “if we are going to reduce the vast gap between high-school graduation standards and college- and career-readiness,…high-school graduation standards will have to rise.”  But when grade 11 tests based on Common Core’s standards are given across this country, low scores will not mean that high school graduation standards are rising or that Common Core’s standards are rigorous.

 

First of all, schools will be using a “college readiness” level that is “minimal” and for “non-selective colleges.”  That is the way Common Core’s level was described by Jason Zimba, the lead writer for Common Core’s mathematics standards (http://www.doe.mass.edu/boe/minutes/10/0323reg.pdf).  That level is not very different from the level for high school graduation today.  What will be different is that students deemed “college ready” will get credit for whatever freshman courses they take in that non-selective college even when they know no more than freshmen today who are placed in remedial coursework.   Second, without knowledge of the quality of the test items and the cut scores used in the past decade on high school end-of-course or exit tests, we can’t tell if low student scores on a college readiness test reflect more rigorous standards or the shock of a sudden change to higher cut scores.

 

We can have a meaningful rise in high school graduation standards only after we separate high school graduation standards from college admission standards. The latter should mean in mathematics that freshmen are capable of taking calculus and majoring in science, finance, economics, and other mathematics-dependent fields if they wish.  In fact, a mathematics professor who teaches at the University of Massachusetts/Lowell, Charles Ormsby, has recently proposed trigonometry as the college readiness level for credit-bearing freshman courses (see http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765635383/What-to-expect-of-Common-Core.html).  College readiness should also mean that students read at the high school level—the result of an intellectually appropriate secondary English curriculum.

 

Many will argue that such a level in mathematics and reading is unreasonably high and that a large number of students won’t be able to attend a real college. But maybe students who can’t meet a mathematics or reading standard that means authentic college-readiness should have alternative high schools and high school curricula to choose from, as in Massachusetts with 30 regional career/technical high schools available.  This country doesn’t need more college graduates; it needs academically stronger schools from K-12 and choices among different kinds of high schools.

Alan Singer of Hofstra University has written positively about the Common Core. But he realizes that something very important is missing from them: Any interest in education for democracy. The a core is heavily focused on skills, not content. The skills of citizenship are not among them.

State Commissioner John King, Regents’ Chancellor Merryl Tisch, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Chancellor Dennis Walcott are proud of the Common Core tests that failed 70% of the children of New York State. They say it is “”very good news” that the tests got much harder. They don’t care that the achievement gaps between the advantaged and disadvantaged grew larger. They bask in children’s defeats.

El Diario/La Prensa newspaper, written primarily for the Hispanic population in New York City, ran the following editorial, which reported the devastation to children who are not fluent in English, mostly Spanish-speaking. Only 11.4% of the English language learners were proficient in math. Only 3.4% were proficient in English.

Why are the state’s policymakers so pleased with these terrible results? Are they serial child abusers?

Here is the editorial:

The mayoral candidates have participated in many debates and forums and campaigned all over New York City. But to date, most of them have not discussed or offered plans to improve bilingual education.

In New York City’s public school system, there are 159,162 students who are known as English-language learners (ELL’s). Of them, 100,933 are Latinos.

Among ELL high school students the four-year graduation rate is below 50%, well below the average rate of 62% for non ELL students.

While all results were expected to be low, the outcomes of the most recent student testing under the new Common Core standards paint a bleaker picture. ELLs had proficiency rates of 11.4% and 3.4% in math and English, respectively.

These wide gaps in academic achievement need to be closed, for the sake of these students and the future of this city’s workforce. When strong leadership, teaching and adequate resources are in place, ELL’s are more successful and score higher.

The next mayor must make bilingual education a top priority. And this is a mission not only for the incoming chief executive but also for elected officials, community groups and state government. Among the critical steps needed:

The state must monitor and ensure that the city meets the requirements tied to the funds it receives. There are resources for ELL’s, but distribution is up to the city and whether they are reaching students in need is a big question.

The city’s Department of Education must properly train and qualify teachers and principals to meet the needs of ELL students.

Taking into account that 50% of ELL children in pre-K and kindergarten don’t speak English fluently, bilingual early childhood programs should be created.

The language of tests must match the educational level of the students. Currently, English-language learners must take standardized tests in English, which doesn’t allow for a real gauge of their academic progress. A transition process that is adjusted according to the student’s skills should be considered.

For too long, the challenge of delivering a quality education to ELL’s has been inadequately addressed and put on a backburner. The next mayor must ensure that New York City rises to a first-class public educational system and that begins with making sure all of our kids have access to excellent learning and support

From a teacher in California:

“Our class had the “privilege” of taking the ELA SmarterBalance test for common core 4th grade. It was horrible. There were split screens, essays to type (our students have no keyboarding experience) and things to click and drag. So in addition to getting students ready for the CC standards, we will need time for computer and keyboard lessons AND we will need the updated technology in time to get our students familiar with it.

“Oh, and let’s not forget that in CA we are still expected to teach for the CST [California Standards Tests] next year…no transition time to Common Core. Ridiculous!”

Yesterday I called for John King’s resignation.

This teacher says John King should be fired.

Here are her reasons:

“A New York Teachers Letter on the Failed Leadership of John King

I am dismayed by the leadership provided by John King, Education Commissioner of the State of New York. He is deliberately creating a testing and curriculum that penalizes children – especially children with emotional illnesses and learning disabilities. I have spent my summer working with students who cannot graduate because they have not passed one of the five required Regents or RCT exams. These students have met all other local requirements and have passed the other four required Regents/RCTs – and would have passed the last remaining exam had the cut scores not been raised recently.

“Certainly, it is a lofty goal to want all HS graduates in NY State to achieve superior academic performance at the A+ level. I have been teaching HS English for 30 years and each year I hope that this will be the year that each of my students achieves an A in my course. It has never happened. Until we can eliminate emotional illness, learning disabilities, poverty, and other sources of family strife, this is unrealistic.

“I am dismayed by the changes made to the current HS Regents exams and the proposed Common Core Regents exams. Labeling 70% of our elementary students as failing is atrocious. BUT, preventing students from earning a HS diploma is shameful. This spring, the cut scores were raised on the Comprehensive English Regents. This shift resulted in failing grades for a number of students who would have passed the exam a year earlier.

“Simultaneously, the questions were more difficult and the readings were more complex than on previous exams. This shift was unannounced and therefore unfairly penalized hundreds of children and also prevented many of them from earning a diploma. In addition, the US History and Global Studies readings have also increased in difficulty. I might not object if the tests were more difficult in Social Studies content, but the tests are more difficult in reading complexity. The result is that students who have passed the English Regents or RCTs are failing the US History and/or Global Studies Regents or RCTs because they do not read well enough – not because they don’t understand Social Studies concepts. One of the first things I learned in my education courses is to determine what it is I am trying to assess and then to create a question that assess the appropriate learning. My students are weak in vocabulary and reading comprehension – yet they have all passed the Regents and/or RCTs in HS English. Why must their score on the US History exams be based on their documented disability in reading?

“The newest proposed version of the English Comprehensive Regents will be given in June of 2014. John King proudly announced that this exam is modeled after the AP exam in English Language and Composition. Really? The AP test is our new benchmark for college and career readiness? The AP test is the bar for our graduation requirements? Why?

“I used to believe in the integrity of the Regents exams. I no longer believe that the NY State exams are valuable, worthwhile, or educationally appropriate. The new Common Core curriculum – along with the modules and activities crafted by Odell Learning (promised – but not delivered) – is not a curricular improvement. None of this is best practice. None of it relies on current research. None of it has been field tested. None of it is proven. It is all snake oil. I am ashamed to be part of this sham. Commissioner King is not only overseeing this disaster; he is proud of the fact that 70% of our students will be labeled failures.

“I am no longer interested in “building a plane in mid-air.” I want to teach children. I want to expose them to fiction. I want them to be creative and engaged. I want them to fall in love with learning (preferably through literature) the way that I love learning. I, however, do not love this new way of learning (and teaching.) I do not love watching kids cry. I do not love hearing them as they call themselves stupid after failing a Regents for the third time. I will not love making the phone calls later today that inform children and parents that they have failed a Regents – again”

Susan Murphy Oneonta, NY

This letter was written by a New York City teacher to his union president.

“I am writing as a loyal union member and as a special education teacher in a middle class ethnically diverse neighborhood who knows a lot about testing because I spent nearly two decades assessing disabled children as part of a school assessment team.until this Mayor deemed my psychometric skills to be worthless Nevertheless, under my belt is a lot of graduate level coursework as well as thousands of hours of field experience in administering and analyzing valid and reliable norm-referenced educational assessments.

“Therefore, based upon a lot of research and reading, I have to respectfully disagree with your statement that the Common Core Standards were developed by educators and that these standards represent a valid instrument to determine if a student is college or career ready.. The Common Core Standards were not developed by educators. Many of those who developed these standards are deeply involved in the corporate educational reform movement. Many articles I have read about its development stated that the developers basically worked backwards and often disregarded some basic tenets of child development. Furthermore, we are taking on faith standards that have not even been longitudinally tested. We are basically taking on faith that these standards will make students college or career ready. We all know that so many reforms in the past half a century failed because, like the Common Core, research was lacking. Where are those “open classrooms” or the “New Math” of my childhood? Both were just fads, just as I believe the Common Core is a fad, that led to no significant educational achievement.

“I, and many others, could only accept the efficacy of the Common Core Standards if there were real research over a number of years showing that students who learned by a curriculum derived from these standards had higher achievement than those students taught by a more traditional curriculum. I have a sense that many of your rank and file teachers are unwilling to put their careers on the line based on standards that I feel was developed with a political agenda. The agenda is to convince the American people that our present public school system is a failure and that only a privatized charter-based system is the way to go. A system, that will in the end, destroy our progressive union movement.

“Any assessment in which only 25% to 35% of students can pass is invalid. A valid test is standardized in such a way that it creates a bell curve. These assessments do not come even close to creating a bell curve. Instead these assessments look more like cliffs. Many students are set to fall off such a cliff–especially students with disabilities. Special educators are taught that to help students with learning challenges, one must start where they are at. One does not start at the bottom of an unclimbable precipice. I work with many students who have, through no fault of their own, significant language impairments that make this curriculum impossible to master. What will become of many of these students when they reach 8th grade and modified promotional standards terminate? How many times are we willing to leave back such students and destroy their self esteem before we realize that what is really needed are many vocational programs that will serve the needs of a very diverse disabled population? There is a big difference between a high IQ child with minor sensory problems and one who may have a severe language impairment which results in a borderline IQ. Sadly, this curriculum will result in many special education teachers, like me, who are willing to work with the latter child, being punished by someday being rated ineffective because of an invalid assessment based upon invalid standards that work against the educational needs of such children.

“Every child needs to reach their potential. Unfortunately, I see these Common Core Standards setting up roadblocks based upon a student’s economic class, language proficiency and disability. Those born economically advantaged will either go to private schools or charters exempt from these standards or whose parents have the resources to get them the extra tutoring needed to pass these tests. Those children born to parents who do not have the resources will end up in schools that will not have the funds necessary to create the academic intervention services needed to compensate for their parent/guardian’s inability to afford the extra tutoring needed to pass from grade to grade.

“Our focus is completely wrong. These standards are broken and unrepairable. I fear, in the end, it will lead to the dismantling of our system of public education and social stratification in this great nation. In the 18th century, our founding fathers created a flawed constitution called the Articles of Confederation that they realized was unworkable. But they were smart. They scraped the document and started anew. Many of the best and brightest, at that time, got together, and through compromise and negotiation, came up with something workable. They came up with a constitution that was flexible enough to change with the times. These Common Core standards are unchangeable stone monoliths that block our way to creating a society and nation that has always believed in education as the great leveler as well as creator of economic opportunity and social mobility.

“Let us think before we jump!”

Mercedes Schneider often writes analyses of politics in Louisiana and elsewhere and statistical critiques of studies. She has a Ph.D. in statistics and research methodology.

But she has a day job. She teaches English in high school because that is what she loves.

Recently she has been immersed in learning the Common Core standards.

Here is her account of her experience with them.

Three days ago, I posted about a new group formed to stop Common Core in New York.

I watched and saw vehement arguments among the comments, especially about the extent to which the group was bipartisan or nonpartisan.

The group is called Stop Common Core in New York State. Here is the link to the website: www.stopccssinnys.com or www.stopcommoncoreinnewyork.com. It has a FB group page https://www.facebook.com/groups/607166125977337/

A reader contacted me offline and said she watched part 1 of the group’s video and was disturbed to see the narrator refer to Linda Darling-Hammond as a radical progressive and a friend of Bill Ayers. I want to disassociate myself from these words, and I think the new group should as well. I don’t know whether she is a friend of Bill Ayers, and I don’t care. She is my friend, and I respect her and her scholarship.

Linda Darling-Hammond is one of the most respected education scholars in the nation. If the anti-Common Core group hopes to build a nonpartisan coalition, it should avoid insulting people like Linda and stick to the facts.

Anthony Cody has written another brilliant column, this one explaining the lessons of New York’s disastrous Common Core testing, in which 70 percent of the state’s children allegedly “failed.” I say allegedly because this was failure that was designed and manufactured by State Commissioner John King. King predicted what the scores would be before the students took the tests. How did he know? He decided what the passing mark would be.

In his column, Cody draws certain lessons from the New York debacle:

The biggest mind blower is that this whole project has been sold with the idea that its proponents are pushing “college for all.” Orwell taught us that in the future, those in power will use “doublespeak” to disguise their intentions. This feels like a classic case of double speak. We have been told a string of falsehoods, leading to a huge lie.

Falsehood number one:
Our future economy needs many more college graduates. There is very little evidence to support this and lots to the contrary.


Falsehood number two:
Common Core Standards were developed by educators. Demonstrably false. See this post of mine from 2009 describing the process then under way to write the standards.

Falsehood number three: The Common Core tests somehow predict who will succeed in college. See Carol Burris’ analysis of how these tests were written.

Falsehood number four:
This high stakes testing machine will somehow decrease inequity and create more opportunities for poor and minority students. In fact the achievement gap on these tests is proving to be even wider, reflecting the powerful influence underlying social conditions have on student performance.

As wealth has become ever more concentrated, and social mobility has declined, it is ever more important to create a social rationale for that inequality. People who are disenfranchised and deprived of meaningful opportunities must somehow be convinced that their second-class status is THEIR FAULT. It is because they have not applied themselves in school, not learned to be “critical thinkers,” that they are stuck in minimum wage jobs. Inequities must be rationalized. The sorting will occur. It must be explained so that it is accepted and not rebelled against.

Read the whole column. Cody nails it.

 

What should happen next in New York after the Common Core testing debacle?

I won’t share my thoughts here, which are strong, but instead share the views of an experienced educator. Jere Hochman is superintendent of the Bedford Central school district in Westchester County. This is what he concludes:

“Schools have always used standards, designed curriculum, taught kids, and assessed learning and acknowledged there is a lot of room for improvement. Still, SAT, ACT, and AP participation and scores are up as is college attendance and hundreds of thousands, millions of student success stories.

“But after the “Nation At Risk Report” in the ‘80s and other critiques going back to the late ‘90s, politicians and CEOs saw an Achilles heel that would advance their interests on the backs of kids and teachers while ignoring administrators and local school boards. Well intended efforts to “level the playing field” and “a new civil rights movement” were about as sincere as billionaires using the momentum of sincere Tea Party activists and the same billionaires converting the original Peace Corps mission of Teach for America into a business model to bust unions and segregate and oppress kids.

“Since 1999, since 2009, and since last spring, many of us have written about the attack on public education in the form of No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and the most recent New York reform measures. While trying to make them work and being supportive, protecting local norms and curriculum, and making the best of bad laws, this week the politicos and CEOs chicken little mantras came home to roost.

“So What?
“After numerous position papers, calls for cost-benefit analyses, pleas to slow down, and cries for communication; the convoluted efforts of Race to the Top became the proverbial and overused perfect storm: unproven college and career ready standards, excessive standardized testing, and a rushed teacher and principal evaluation plan. And, the storm hit this week when kids became collateral damage of tests that said, “You used to be smart – not so much now.”

“Yes, “We told you so.” We told you so when NCLB was railroaded under the shadow of 9/11. We told you so when we pointed out that RTTT was just the carrot version of the NCLB’s stick approach. We told you so when we illustrated APPR was not “building the plane while flying it” but rather a train wreck about to happen. We asked for information, explanations, test samples, and definitions. We asked for seats at the table, time, communication, and input.

“So, here we are. We hold our students to high standards and we have the data and work products to prove it. We hold ourselves to high professional standards. Maybe we needed to be hit over the head with a two-by-four to get our attention to high academic standards and meaningful professional evaluation. So, yes, you got our attention but then kept hammering away. And, all the while, you diverted funds from our schools and championed segregated, regimented, uniformed, information regurgitated charter schools.

“Now What? In order to be part of the solution that raises standards and expectations constructively, uses professional evaluation, and fair and meaningful testing, demand that the Board of Regents and Governor

“Re: CCSS and State Testing

1. Declare a one-year moratorium on State testing
2. Implement State testing only in transition grades 3, 5, 8, and 10 beginning in 2014-2015
3. Utilize transition year testing as benchmarks for student and cohort progress in multi-year clusters and review of curriculum implementation and alignment
4. Analyze 2013 tests and result for validity, reliability, and grade level match
5. Provide opportunities for teachers and principals to analyze all test questions, results, and standards for alignment and gaps
6. Utilize 2013-2014 to field test common core standards aligned state tests
7. Provide an extensive comment period reviewing PARCC assessments and other testing options

Re: APPR

1. Declare a one-year moratorium on the 40% tested subject and local assessments component of APPR
2. Utilize 2013-2014 to concentrate on rubric application confidence and inter-rater reliability
3. Utilize 2013-2014 for school districts and BOCES regions to field test local assessments
4. Provide irrefutable evidence for the use of Value-added measures or declare the application ceased

Re: RTTT, CCSS, State Testing, APPR, and State Reform Efforts

1. Report a complete expenditure review of RTTT funds
2. Provide a cost-benefit analysis of all components of CCSS, APPR, and state testing
3. Provide irrefutable evidence of privacy assurances on all aspects of data collection
4. Develop a revised timeline leading to 2014-2015 implementation with bi-weekly communications to the field
=