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

Big Business Supports the Common Core

By dianeravitch
February 13, 2013 //
28

Yesterday, 72 business corporations published a full-page advertisement in the New York Times supporting the Common Core State Standards.

The ad asserts that the CCSS will prepare all children “to be successful in a competitive global economy.” How do they know that since the standards are only now being implemented and have never been demonstrated to be successful?

The ad says that “the need for a strong employer voice is greater than ever.” Why would that be? Is it because so many educators are concerned that the Common Core standards will bust the budgets of their district?

The ad says that the big corporations support “these new, tougher academic standards that are currently being rolled out in classrooms across the country.” Are they concerned that tougher standards might widen the achievement gap?

The ad gives no indication that any of its signatories has ever read the CCSS.

This ad is very curious.

Why would business leaders take out a full-page ad to urge support for something that 46 states and the District of Columbia have already agreed to do?

I am reminded of the wacky report from a task force of the Council on Foreign Relations a year ago (co-chaired by Joel Klein and Condoleeza Rice), which claimed that the public schools posed a “very grave threat to national security.” Its three recommendations: 1) open more charters and vouchers; 2) adopt the Common Core standards; and 3) create a “national security readiness audit” for every school. Thus: privatization and the Common Core are necessary for our survival as a nation.

All very puzzling. How will the Common Core standards protect our national security?

Why are 72 corporations lined up to pledge support for standards that are already adopted but never field-tested?

Do they sell products that have never had a trial?

What gives?

Categories Common Core

The Fleecing of Public Education

By dianeravitch
February 11, 2013 //
15

This is a guest post by Peter DeWitt on a topic that should concern us all.

We lack the infrastructure to be testing factories, and that shouldn’t be our job in the first place.

If the nightly news really wanted to look into the Fleecing of America, they need not look further than the serious fleecing that companies are doing to American schools. At a time when school budgets are being severely cut, many companies are offering to “help” schools and making multi-millions while doing it.

Whether it’s creating products to help in the adoption of the Common Core State Standards or selling schools textbooks that are aligned to high stakes testing, companies are there to meet every possible need of the school system and they are not doing it for free.

As with anything there are pros and cons to the Common Core State Standards. I think the six shifts will be helpful to our thinking as educators and it offers a base to build on. However, what is the most difficult aspect is the fact that schools will be required to buy new textbooks, software and offer professional development at a time when they lack the money to do so. Schools are in a bind because they no longer feel as though they can use products that are not aligned to the core.

We have had the perfect storm of implementing the Common Core and not having the ability to do it properly. Of course, all schools have to do it at a time when they also have to implement the new APPR which includes teacher/administrator evaluation being tied to high stakes testing.

The bigger issue for schools presently is the idea that next year or the year after that many states will be obligated to have their students complete high stakes testing on-line. For those schools that will dive into on-line assessments next year and those who will be required to hold on-line field tests, they have a lot of preparation to do.

On-line Exams
If you have ever taken a comp exam in college or in post graduate degrees you probably remember going to a testing center to take the exam. We all had to empty out our pockets to make sure we did not bring any accoutrements for cheating purposes. We had to sit at one computer with headphones where we could not talk with anyone and had to raise our hands if we needed a break.

The computers we took the tests on were not ones where you could Google something, and you certainly could not take anything in to the exam room with you. It came close to feeling like you needed a brain scan before you were allowed to take the exam to make sure it was really you. It sounds very adult-oriented or something from a sci-fi movie but that level of security may be coming to a school near you next year.

How will schools do it? We lack the infrastructure to be testing factories, and that shouldn’t be our job in the first place. Many schools gave up computer labs in order to use netbooks or get more desktops in classrooms to use for center-based learning. They have cut teachers and administrators so there are less people to police kids when they are taking the exam. Make no mistake, we have been given the task of policing kids. If you do not think that is part of the job of the teacher, you have not been paying attention.

Open up the first page of any NY State high stakes test, not that you were allowed to keep any because that would be cheating, and you will notice that the first page has a warning for anyone who may cheat. Apparently, many state education departments have such low expectations of us that they need to tell us what will happen if we cheat on the very first page of a test. How will teachers check each and every computer? How will they ensure that kids are not Googling answers? Remember, the stakes are high and students feel the pressures of testing.

Schools presently lack the bandwidth needed to support the number of students who will be taking these exams at the same time. In the future this will be beneficial for schools that want to go BYOD. However, right now there will have to be software updates to make sure students cannot multi-task on other sites at the same time they are taking the on-line assessments. Teachers and administrators need to make sure the computers are “secure.”

We all know that there are many very intelligent people out there waiting to “help” schools meet this need, which will be another cost accrued by districts. Schools are seen by many organizations and companies as the something to invest in but remember that invest has two meanings. As educators we invest our time into students so they can be contributing members of a democratic society. Companies are investing in what we do so they can make money.

A couple of years ago, I wrote a blog about the fact that state education departments want us to teach kids 21st century skills at the same time they make students take 90 minute paper and pencil exams. I guess I need to be careful what I ask for.

Peter Dewitt is an elementary principal in upstate, NY and he writes the Finding Common Ground blog for Education Week. Find him on Twitter at @PeterMDeWitt and http://www.petermdewitt.com.

Categories Accountability, ALEC, Budget Cuts, Common Core, Education Industry, For-Profit, Technology, Computers, Testing

Strange Bedfellows Oppose Common Core in Indiana

By dianeravitch
February 7, 2013 //
17

Glenda Ritz, the new State Superintendent of Public Instruction in Indiana, thrashed reform idol Tony Bennett last November. She received more votes than anyone else on the ballot except the Attorney General (she ran ahead of the governor).

Tony Bennett, who famously supports free-market solutions to education problems, is an advocate for charters and vouchers, for evaluating teachers by test scores, and for for-profit online corporations and charters. Tony Bennett is one of the nation’s loudest supporters of the Common Core.

Ritz is a Democrat; Bennett is a Republican.

Ritz was supported by a curious coalition: by parents and educators who disliked Bennett’s privatizing policies and his punitive treatment of teachers. She was also supported by Tea Party enthusiasts who dislike national standards and saw the Common Core as an effort by the federal government to impose national standards and tests.

Some Republican legislators in Indiana want to withdraw the state’s support for Common Core. Now they will have a state superintendent who agrees with them.

The politics of the Common Core are interesting indeed. And they will become even more interesting in the next few years as states are required to come up with the money for implementation, new technology, new materials, and professional development.

Categories Common Core, Indiana, Testing

Susan Ohanian on Common Core Standards

By dianeravitch
February 6, 2013 //
41

If you don’t like the Common Core standards, you will enjoy reading Susan Ohanian’s blast at them.

Ohanian thinks that the CC is a massive error at best, a sordid conspiracy by the elites at worst.

What do you think?

Categories Common Core

NYSUT: Slow Down on Common Core Testing

By dianeravitch
January 31, 2013 //
27

The New York State United Teachers urged the state education department to slow down the rush to testing the Common Core because neither students nor teachers are ready.

NYSUT says: Don’t test what hasn’t been taught.

Sounds sensible.

But this is the strange thing.

Open the link. Look at the old math problem. Look at the Common Core problem.

What do you think?

I understand the old version. The new one–the Common Core example–doesn’t make sense.

Is that just me?

Categories Common Core

Common Core Is Horrible for K-3

By dianeravitch
January 29, 2013 //
57

There is growing evidence that the Common Core standards are absurd in the early grades. They require a level of academic learning that is developmentally inappropriate.

Little children need time to play. Play is their work. In play, they learn to share and to count, to communicate, to use language appropriately, and to figure things out.

A story in a NYC newspaper shows just how ridiculous the Common Core standards are when imposed on 5-year-olds: Here is a story, well worth reading, about how Common Core is being implemented in kindergartens across New York City. The headline is. “Playtime’s Over.”

Says the story:

“Way beyond the ABCs, crayons and building blocks, the city Department of Education now wants 4- and 5-year-olds to write “informative/explanatory reports” and demonstrate “algebraic thinking.”

“Children who barely know how to write the alphabet or add 2 and 2 are expected to write topic sentences and use diagrams to illustrate math equations.

“For the most part, it’s way over their heads,” a Brooklyn teacher said. “It’s too much for them. They’re babies!”

“In a kindergarten class in Red Hook, Brooklyn, three children broke down and sobbed on separate days last week, another teacher told The Post.”

How did this happen?

This article by Edward Miller and Nancy Carlsson-Paige explains that early childhood educators were not included on the committees that wrote the standards, and their feedback was never incorporated.

It is as if a large group of business leaders were asked to write standards for surgeons, or if surgeons were asked to devise standards for plumbers.

When you learn what these standards expect little children to do, you have to wonder if any of the people who wrote them have small children or if they ever taught small children.

I am reminded of a book that came out last year by Elisabeth Young-Bruehl called Childism, about prejudice against children. These days, we don’t put them to work in factories at 5 or 6, and we don’t beat them in public, we just make them do things that they cannot do and make them feel like failures before they turn 7.

Categories Childhood, Pre-K, K, Common Core, New York City, Race to the Top

Special Education Teacher on Common Core

By dianeravitch
January 29, 2013 //
31

This NYC teacher of children with autism is having trouble teaching her students the Common Core.

Readers, do you have any advice for her?

“I just started teaching full-time in NYC as a special educator for children with autism. Upon arriving my new job, I have not received any support and help from my administration. With the new common core alignment for my students, I know that many of them are just not ready for that kind of learning yet. It is ashamed that my administration is pushing me to teach my kids how to retell details from a text when some of them still need to learn how to hold a pencil, do potty training, or drawing a line. I am absolutely opposed to this common core alignment in NYC. I do see this new standard as a way to set up special educators to fail.

As an educator, I like for my students to thrive in their learning at their own pace, especially for students of special needs. However, the more I get pushed around by the hierarchy and “educratics”, I do not feel like this job is a profession that I can respect any longer. I have put too many long hours to make my students learn but only to have the administration telling me that I am not challenging my students enough.

I feel that there has to be a better solution for making our student learn and be ready for the 21st Century. For every state to get funding for RACE TO THE TOP, that is just setting every child to fail and fall in the bottom.”

Categories Common Core, New York City, Special Education

Exploring the Origins of the Common Core

By dianeravitch
January 27, 2013 //
85

Jim Martinez decided to research the sources of the Common Core State Standards. Given their importance as a redesign of the nation’s highly decentralized education system, we can expect to see many more such efforts to understand the origins of this important document.

“Engaging the nonsense – a brief investigation of the Common Core”

A teacher asked me where the Common Core came from, another suggested that I “teach” the Common Core in my Master’s degree level courses.

So my curiosity got the best of me and I spent some time understanding something about Common Core from my perspective as a scholar and educator.

My first discovery is that the Common Core is a political document. That may seem fairly obvious, but what I mean is that there is an identifiable political ideology and history that has contributed greatly to the current document. I’ve attached a link to document that led me to this conclusion.
http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards – English Language Arts Appendix A

This document contains references to supporting representative research for the Common Core. As I read the document something caught my eye, it was the following quote from Adams (2009)

““There may one day be modes and methods of information delivery that are as efficient and powerful as text, but for now there is no contest. To grow, our students must read lots, and more specifically they must read lots of ‘complex’ texts—texts that offer them new language, new knowledge, and new modes of thought””

This bothered me. I don’t agree with the statement and so I decided to read Adams (2009) I did a Google search and found this:

http://www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/adams.htm – The Challenge of Advanced Texts:The Interdependence of Reading and Learning.

From the text I figured out that Adams is a heavy weight in reading and literacy circles (pun intended) there’s just a style of writing and authoritative stance that gives you clues, I then looked her up in Wikipedia to confirm my suspicions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Jager_Adams

If you read the article you find that not only is she a heavy weight, she is politically connected as in, inside the room when policy decisions are made.

I Googled a little more and came to this document.

http://www.niu.edu/cedu_richgels/PDFs/Adams1991.pdf

It’s a critique on her work in the 1990s that refers to her government directed research on phonics instruction. The critique and her response are very informative. It took me a couple of hours to find these documents and read parts of them and I think I found some answers to some questions and was provoked to some other thoughts that I will share with you now.

Common Core includes in it’s history, No Child Left Behind and other national educational policy reports dating back to A Nation At Risk (1983). It’s important to remember that most research is government funded and so it is unfair to critique educational research for it’s funding source. However, it is absolutely fair to question who gets to decide what the research is about and how that research is presented and used.

I happened to pursue a line of inquiry that involved Adams (2009) but there were many other researchers cited (Beck and Mckeown, vocabulary development, are notable as well) in the Common Core. I disagreed with Adams and I wanted to explore the source of the disagreement, the critiques helped clarify my understanding of my disagreement. The critiques also provided valuable insights on the theoretical framework Adams uses in her research. I still disagree with her, but I am respectful of her efforts. Which brings me to my next point.

There are many researchers cited in the Common Core, with many research agendas, using many methodological approaches across many disciplines. There is no cohesive theoretical framework or agreement on what constitutes the best approaches from a scientific research perspective to teaching and learning being represented in the document. Critics of the representative research in the Common Core abound. Some of the representative research consists of laboratory trials with small numbers of students, some include longitudinal studies and some of the research includes significant limitations that should be considered carefully when considering the claims that are made in the research.

Given the ambition of a national educational policy it seems that the best policy makers could come up with are some “best practices” that have achieved some success. It is very helpful to publicize that kind information, however, we have to ask: Is it useful to claim that a patchwork quilt of research underlying a set of standards is a framework for a solution to the educational challenges this country faces?

When teachers are asked to implement standards that they feel “do not make sense” it is not that teachers are simply ignorant and require professional development, it is in my opinion, the initial reaction of a person engaged in a craft/practice that is highly dependent and responsive to local conditions.

The Common Core standards are derived, in part, from an abstraction (the patchwork quilt of research) and are being pushed on to practitioners. The research strands that I examined tended toward the notion that knowledge acquisition is the endgame of school-based learning. I would not be surprised if that were true of many of the other research strands as that sentiment is pervasive in education.

Knowledge acquisition learning is about remembering and being able to manipulate abstract knowledge. We determine that a student has acquired knowledge by testing or providing a task that can only be completed if the individual has the requisite skill or knowledge. The Common Core is intended to set the standard for this type of learning and so there must be tests. Let’s set aside for the moment that the standardized tests we already use are not calibrated to the Common Core. If we believe in an educational system that prioritizes knowledge acquisition in the service of a national security agenda (economic competitiveness, technology dominance, etc.) then testing is necessary.

We experience the consequences of this priority in classrooms every day. I don’t have to detail them here.

If we believe that education is about more than knowledge acquisition, and that national security can be achieved through other concepts such as healthy communities, sustainable resource uses, national unity, world peace, or the elimination of hunger and poverty. Then we need to take responsibility for our practices, assert our own understandings of those practices, expose those practices to peer-review and challenge “what does not make sense” collectively.

I am finding that engaging the “nonsense” has been a good learning experience.

Thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Categories Common Core, Education Reform

What Was Better About Schools in the Past?

By dianeravitch
January 26, 2013 //
35

Anyone who attended public schools knows there was plenty that was wrong with them.

I grew up in Texas and attended segregated schools. That was wrong then, and it is wrong now, even though it is no longer mandated by law.

I had some great teachers and some awful teachers.

Over the years, in my studies of American education, I have documented the rise and fall of reform movements. Some were more successful than others, but one thing is certain: Public schools must constantly get better, and they should today.

In this article, Marion Brady explains what he thinks was better about the era before today’s test-driven, data-driven, privatization-friendly reforms. He thinks the drive for standardization is a big mistake.

What do you think?

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Common Core, Education Reform, Privatization, Teacher Evaluations, Testing

Getting Ready for the Common Core Testing

By dianeravitch
January 25, 2013 //
94

A friend of a friend of a friend passed this along, hoping I might be able to answer the question about the appropriateness of this test question in second grade.

What do you think?

“Please read a question on a quiz that my 7 year old son in the 2nd grade got wrong and tell me if I’m crazy for thinking that the testing and vocabulary have gone a bit nutso?”

Kings and queens COMMISSIONED Mozart to write symphonies for celebrations and ceremonies. What does COMMISSION mean?

A. to force someone to do work against his or her will
B. to divide a piece of music into different movements
C. to perform a long song accompanied by an orchestra
D. to pay someone to create artwork or a piece of music

Categories Common Core, Testing
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »