This reader faults the Common Core standards for claiming that students should engage in “close reading” of texts without context or background knowledge. In this post, he explains that this does not “level the playing field,” as every reader has different background knowledge to decipher meaning in text.

Oh, dear, success on the Common Core requires more than anyone knew. It is not enough to be able to read and do math. What is needed, this article says, is a whole new brain.

I feel sure that my old brain, which has stood me in good stead for lo these many decades, would not be good enough for Common Core.

So, good luck, young ones. Soon you will have a new brain. Soon, you will be good enough for Common Core.

In copying the response of Hart Research, I inadvertently copied only part of Guy Moyneaux’s comments.

Here is his full response:

TO:​American Federation of Teachers

FROM:​Guy Molyneux, Hart Research Associates

DATE:​May 10, 2013

RE:​Methodology for Common Core Survey

Following are some facts about the methodology for AFT’s recent survey of AFT K-12 teachers on Common Core implementation that may help to answer the criticisms and questions raised by Mercedes Schneider.

Schneider’s objections speak to two distinct questions: 1) does the survey reflect the views of AFT K-12 teachers?, and 2) if so, can the AFT results be extrapolated to all U.S. teachers? The answer to the first question is “yes,” for reasons explained below. The answer to the second question is “not necessarily.” When Randi Weingarten refers to what “teachers” think about the Common Core, she is referring to AFT teachers. This shorthand is not meant to deceive anyone; if it were, the press release and various poll materials would not have stated so clearly and repeatedly that the survey was conducted only among AFT members. (Indeed, even the quote highlighted by Schneider mentions “a recent poll of AFT members.”)

In fact, it is likely that a survey of all U.S. teachers would report results broadly similar to what we found among AFT members, for reasons explained below. However, it is true that we cannot be sure of this unless further research is done among non-AFT teachers. Such research would be welcome.

• The survey employed a standard sampling methodology, used in countless surveys by many polling organizations. On behalf of AFT, Hart Research Associates conducted a telephone survey of 800 AFT K-12 teachers from March 27 to 30, 2013. Respondents were selected randomly from AFT membership lists. This process of random selection produces a representative sample, allowing us to generalize from the survey respondents to the larger population being sampled (in this case, all AFT teachers). There is nothing unusual or controversial about this method.

• A sample size of 800 teachers is appropriate and common. Schneider notes that “AFT/Hart only surveyed nine one-hundredths of a percent of the AFT membership (.09%),” and adds for emphasis: “Please don’t miss this. AFT did not survey even 10% of its membership before forming an opinion of teacher acceptance of CCSS.” In fact, a survey sample size of 800 is reasonable and quite common: for example, most national media surveys interview between 800 and 1,000 registered voters. Moreover, researchers understand that survey samples are not properly evaluated as a percentage of the underlying population. By randomly selecting respondents, a relatively small sample can provide an accurate measurement on a much larger population. If Schneider’s 10% standard were correct, pollsters would need to interview 20 million U.S. voters to conduct a single survey of registered voters. Needless to say, not many surveys would be conducted.

• A reported margin of error of +/-3.5 percentage points does not indicate a lack of precision or poorly written questions. Schneider asks “How is it that a research firm only handling 800 surveys cannot get a more precise reading of the data than this? [a +3.5% margin of error]” and notes that “error is introduced in a lack of either question quality or precision in answering format, or both.”

The margin of error reflects the possibility that any single survey sample will not be perfectly representative of the full population. In this case, there is a 95% chance that a survey of all AFT teachers would yield results within 3.5 percentage points of those found in this survey. Schneider is correct that this means that AFT teachers’ approval of the Common Core State Standards could be as low as 71% or as high as 79% (and a 5% chance the proportion is even higher or lower). The margin of error has nothing whatsoever to do with question wording.

• The survey sample is demographically similar to the population of AFT teachers. In terms of age, gender, school type, and other demographic factors, the survey respondents closely resemble the larger population of AFT teachers. This information is available to anyone upon request. Schneider guesses that 95% of respondents reside in New York State, and criticizes the failure to disclose this “fact.” In reality, 36% of survey respondents live in New York, reflecting the geographic distribution of AFT members. As it happens, approval of the CCSS is actually somewhat higher – 82% – among AFT teachers outside of New York.

• A demographic breakdown of the survey sample, and precise question wording for all questions, is available upon request. Schneider claims that “Weingarten presents the results of her survey in suspiciously general terms” and faults her failure to provide comprehensive demographic information “at the outset of the study.” These survey results were presented not in a refereed academic journal, but in a simple Powerpoint slide show designed for a lay audience. There is no obligation to burden readers with exhaustive methodological details there. What is required is disclosure of this information upon request. The AFT does that. Schneider could have received answers to many of her questions – and saved herself a lot of time – by sending an email.

• It is likely that non-AFT teachers have similar views as AFT members, but we can’t be sure. AFT teachers are not demographically representative of all U.S. teachers: for example, they are more likely than average to teach in urban school districts. And of course they are union members.

However, the survey reveals support for the CCSS that is generally similar across most relevant demographic categories. For example, within AFT, 76% of urban teachers and 73% of non-urban teachers approve of the CCSS. For that matter, 71% of urban teachers and 78% of non-urban teachers share the worry that they will be held accountable for results on new assessments before instructional practice is aligned with the new standards. In general, the outlook of urban and non-urban AFT teachers on these issues appears to be more similar than different. The same is true in terms of region of the country. So it is likely that a survey of non-AFT teachers would yield similar findings. However, we can’t know that for sure without further research.

1724 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009 202-234-5570 http://www.hartresearch.com

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, explains here why she supports the Common Core Standards and why she believes there should be a moratorium on the high stakes attached to the testing until teachers have had enough time to master them and students have had the opportunity to learn them.

Randi writes:

It’s no secret that the AFT is a big supporter of the Common Core State Standards. We believe these standards have the ability to transform the DNA of teaching and learning to ensure that ALL children, regardless of where they live, have the critical thinking, problems solving and teamwork skills and experience they need to succeed in their careers, at college and in life.

AFT members were deeply involved in the development of these standards and through Share My Lesson and the AFT Innovation Fund the AFT is working to ensure that teachers, parents and even districts have the tools and resources they need to implement these standards.

I am constantly on the road visiting schools and meeting with AFT members. I continually meet teachers who support these standards and who believe these standards hold great potential for their students and our public schools. But nearly every teacher I meet says that she is not getting the proper tools and resources to make the instructional shifts necessary—and as we have seen there’s been a rush to implement high-stakes tests before getting the implementation right.

The AFT wanted to match what we were hearing on the ground with real scientific data. The AFT takes our obligation to serve our members very seriously. That’s why we worked with Hart Research, the polling firm we’ve used for more than two decades, on a poll of AFT teachers to gauge their support of the Common Core and their concerns about the implementation.

Honestly, I was surprised to see some bloggers and others question the results of a scientific study using standard polling research measures used by nearly every reputable polling firm the U.S. I was also troubled to see anti-union organizations being cited and used as a way to discredit the AFT and the poll.

The AFT publicly released this poll, a detailed polling memo and a powerpoint presentation on the findings. We also held a media availability during the Education Writers Association conference last week with our pollster to discuss the poll and its findings. The AFT and our pollster would have been happy to answer any questions about our poll had we been asked.

I asked Guy Molyneux of Hart Research Associates to address Mercedes Schneider’s post and you can read his memo outlining the strong methodology of the poll and its representative sample of AFT members. (Guy Molyneaux’s memo will be posted in a few minutes).

There may be disagreements on the importance of the Common Core but as a community of educators we should respect the scientific process and the dignity of one another.

Much of the discussion around the AFT poll has focused on the 75 percent of AFT teachers who support the standards. But the poll also brought to light many concerns teachers have about the implementation of the Common Core.

• 74 percent of teachers are worried that the new assessments will begin—and students, teachers and schools will be held accountable for the results—before everyone involved understands the new standards and before instruction has been fully implemented with the standards.

• Just 27 percent said their school district has provided them with all or most of the resources and tools they need to successfully teach the standards.

• 53 percent said they have received either no training or inadequate training to help prepare them to teach to the standards.

• 76 percent said their school district has not provided enough planning time for understanding the standards and putting them into practice.

• 58 percent said their district has not done enough to have a fully developed curricula aligned to standard available to teachers.

• 54 percent said their district has not done enough to have assessments aligned to the standards.
• Just 33 percent, are very or fairly satisfied with the amount of teacher input in developing their district’s plans for the Common Core standards.

• And half, or 51 percent, said there have not been enough opportunities for teachers to practice with students to ensure they are learning key concepts and principles.

Again, we may have disagreements on the importance of the Common Core. But these standards were adopted by 45 states and D.C., teachers are being expected to teach to these standards and teachers and children are being assessed based on these standards. It is clear that teachers are not getting the tools and resources they need and that they do not believe their voice is being heard. These are serious concerns and instead of fighting over polling data, I hope that we can work together to ensure that every teacher is prepared to teach to these standards. That’s what our teachers and students need and deserve.

Randi Weingarten
President, AFT