Archives for category: Common Core

If you have nothing better to do today or tonight, you might enjoy watching my presentation to a lively audience at the Lensic Center in Santa  Fe, where I spoke about the negative result of eight years of “reform” based on the Florida model.

Since I will soon turn 80 and am ending my lecture career to turn to writing a new book (my last, I assume), I didn’t hold back. The warmth of the audience unleashed me to say what was in my mind and in my heart about the fraud that is now called “reform” (but is really privatization).

New Mexico has the highest rate of child poverty (under the age of 5) in the nation at 36.2%,  five points higher than Mississippi, which is in second place. It also has one of the nation’s highest rates of adult poverty. But the education leaders in New Mexico thought they could cure poverty with testing and teacher evaluation. All of it failed. New Mexico, with all its beauty and splendor, has made no education progress during these past eight years of “reform.”

Jesse Hagopian, teacher and author at Garfield High School in Seattle, who led a strike against mandated standardized testing at that school, introduced me and joined in conversation after I spoke.

 

Our very own blog poet has written a wonderful new poem.

“Jabbertalky” (after Jabberwocky, by Lewis Carroll, of course)

“Twas brillig, and the billionaires
Did lie and dissemble in the press
All flimsy were Deformer wares
And the charter rats did nest

“Beware the Jabbertalk my son!
The Cores that bite, the tests that catch!
Beware the Coleman bird, and shun
Felonius charters, natch!”

“He took his opt-out sword in hand:
Long time Deformer foe he sought —
So rested he by the Knowledge tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

”And, as in peaceful thought he stood,
The Jabbertalk, with eyes of flame,
Came bumbling through the teaching wood,
And burbled as it came!

“One, two! One, two! And through and through
The opt-out blade went snicker-snack!
He left test dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

“And, has thou slain the Jabbertalk?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!’
He chortled in his joy.

“Twas brillig, and the billionaires
Did lie and dissemble in the press
All flimsy were Deformer wares
And the charter rats did nest”

 

Tom Loveless taught fifth grade in California, then earned a doctorate in educational policy, taught at Harvard, then landed at Brookings where he wrote reports on the condition of American education and analyzed international assessments. He recently retired from Brookings but continues to write.

He is one of the few original thinkers in the education think tank world. Neither the right nor left claims him. He is a straight shooter and brings a fresh perspective. He was one of the first to knock down the Great Shanghai Myth by pointing out that the student population of that city is not typical of China. Meanwhile the media and Arne Duncan ranted and raved about the superiority of Shanghai, as proven by its ranking on the international tests, which Loveless debunked.

I recently learned that Loveless had written a new paper evaluating the value of standards-based reform, the approach that is central to No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and the Every Student Succeeds Act.  

He presented his findings at a conference sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative D.C. think tank.

It is, as I expected, original and important.

Unless there is breaking news today, this will be the only post.

Please read the paper and feel free to comment.

 

Nicholas Tampio wrote a book about Common Core and its threat to democracy.

It is the zombie of education.

In this article, which was distributed nationally by AP, he warns that Common Core continues to flourish under DeVos.

Arne Duncan hailed it as the greatest thing since the Brown decision; Lamar Alexander said ESSA had finished; education expert D. Trump said it was a disaster. But, said Tampio, it has merely shape shifted. It is wounded but it lives.

”In a speech in Washington earlier this year, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos called the education standards known as the Common Core a “disaster” and proclaimed: “At the U.S. Department of Education, Common Core is dead.”

“The reality, however, is that the Common Core is still very much alive. As indicated in a recent report from Achieve, 24 states have “reviewed and revised” their English and math standards under the Common Core. In some instances, such as in New York, the revised standards are known by a different name.

“This is worth pointing out because, as a political scientist and as I argue in my new book, the Common Core has soured many people on public education and civic life in general. When one group of people decides the national education standards, other people feel alienated from the schools and the democratic process.”

 

 

James Harvey here explores “the problem with proficiency.”

Common Core tests arbitrarily decided that the NAEP proficiency level should be the “passing” mark for all. Test results are routinely reported as if those who did not meet this standard were “failing.”

I have routinely argued on this blog that NAEP proficiency is equivalent to earning an A, and that it was nuts to expect all students to earn an A. Only in one state (Massachusetts) have as many as 50% reached the standard.

Harvey demonstrates the reality.

He writes:

“In 1996, the International Education Assessment (IEA) released one of the earliest examinations of how well 4th grade students all over the world could read. IEA is a highly credible international institution that monitors comparative school performance; it also administers the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), a global assessment of 4th and 8th grade mathematics and science achievement. Its 1996 assessment (The IEA Reading Literacy Study, a predecessor to the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study, or PIRLS) demonstrated that out of 27 participating nations, U.S. 4th graders ranked number two in reading (National Center for Education Statistics, 1996). Only Finland ranked higher. To the extent these rankings mean very much, this second-place finish for the United States was an impressive accomplishment.

”But around the same time, the National Assessment Governing Board of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reported that just one-third of American 4th graders were “proficient” in reading. To this day, the board of NAEP continues to release similarly bleak findings about American 4th graders’ reading performance (National Center for Education Statistics, 2011). And IEA continues to release global findings indicating that the performance of U.S. 4th graders in reading remains world class (Mullis et al., 2012).

“How could both these findings be accurate? Was it true, as NAEP results indicated, that U.S. 4th graders couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time? Or was IEA’s conclusion—that the performance of American 4th graders in an international context was first class—more valid? A broader question arises here, one that has intrigued researchers for years: How would other nations perform if their students were held to the NAEP achievement-level benchmark for “proficient”? How might they perform on Common Core-aligned assess-ments with benchmarks that reflect those of NAEP?

”How Would Other Nations Score on NAEP?

“In 2015, statistician Emre Gönülates and I set out to explore these questions on behalf of the National Superintendents Roundtable (of which I am executive director) and the Horace Mann League (on whose board I serve). The results of our examination, recently released in a report titled How High the Bar? (Harvey & Gönülates, 2017), are eye-opening. In short, the vast majority of students in the vast majority of nations would not clear the NAEP bar for proficiency in reading, mathematics, or science. And the same is true of the “career and college-readiness” benchmarks in mathematics and English language arts that are used by the major Common Core-aligned assessments.

“This finding matters because in recent years, communities all over the United States have seen bleak headlines about the performance of their students and schools. Many of these headlines rely on reports about student achievement from NAEP or the Common Core assessments. One particular concern is that only a minority of students in the United States meet the NAEP Proficient benchmark. Frequently, arguments in favor of maintaining this particular benchmark as the desired goal for American students and education institutions are couched in terms of establishing demanding standards so the United States becomes more competitive internationally.

“But the reality is that communities around the world would face identical bleak headlines if their students sat down to take the NAEP assessments. So, when U.S. citizens read that “only one-third” or “less than half” of the students in their local schools are proficient in mathematics, science, or reading (or other subjects), they can rest assured that the same judgments could be applied to national education systems throughout the world if students in those nations participated in NAEP or Common Core-related assessments. (This is true despite the widespread perception that average student performance in some other nations exceeds average student performance in the United States. The metric applied in our study is not a rank ordering of mean scores by nation but the percentage of students in each nation likely to exceed the NAEP Proficient benchmark.)

“Our findings may not even be surprising when we consider questions that have arisen from previous research on NAEP.”

Harvey goes on to explain why it is absurd to use NAEP proficiency as a passing mark.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Will Fitzhugh is founder and editor of The Concord Review, which publishes outstanding historical essays by high school students. I have long been an admirer of the publication and of Will for sustaining it without support from any major foundation, which are too engaged in reinventing the schools rather than supporting the work of excellent history students and teachers. You can subscribe by contacting him at fitzhugh@tcr.org.

 

He writes:

 

A few years ago, at a conference in Boston, David Steiner, then Commissioner of Education for New York State, said, about History: “It is so politically toxic that no one wants to touch it.”

Since then, David Coleman, of the Common Core and the College Board, have decided that any historical topic, for instance the Gettysburg Address, should be taught in the absence of any historical context—about the Civil War, President Lincoln, the Battle of Gettysburg—or anything else. This fits well with the “Close Reading” teachings of the “New Criticism” approach to literature in which Coleman received his academic training. This doctrine insists that any knowledge about the author or the historical context should be avoided in the analytic study of “texts.”

The Common Core, thanks to Coleman, has promoted the message that History, too, is nothing but a collection of “texts,” and it all should be studied as just language, not as knowledge dependent on the context in which it is embedded.

Not only does this promote ignorance, it also encourages schools to form Humanities Departments, in which English teachers, who may or may not know any History, are assigned to teach History as “text.”  This is already happening in a few Massachusetts high schools, and may be found elsewhere in the country. 

The dominance of English teachers over reading and writing in our schools has long meant that the great majority of our high school graduates have never been asked to read one complete History book in their academic careers.

Good English teachers do a fine job of teaching novels and personal and creative writing, but it is a Common Core mistake to expect them to teach the History in which they have little or no academic background. Treating History as contextless “text” is not a solution to this problem.

The ignorance of History among our high school graduates is a standing joke to those who think it is funny, and NAEP has found that only about 18% know enough to pass the U.S. citizenship exam.

In The Knowledge Deficit, E.D. Hirsch writes that: “In a 1785 letter to his nephew, Peter Carr, aged fifteen, Jefferson recommended that he read books (in the original languages and in this order) by the following authors in History: Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon [Anabasis], Arian, Quintus Curtius, Diodorus Siculus, and Justin.”

We may no longer imagine that many of our high school students will read their History in Latin, but we should expect that somehow they may be liberated from the deeply irresponsible Common Core curriculum that, in restricting the study of the past to the literary analysis of “texts,” essentially removes as much actual History from our schools as it possibly can.

Jamie Gass of the Pioneer Institute (a think-tank in Boston with which I disagree about charters) wrote a terrific piece about the history of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, why it is a classic, and why young people today should read it.

Gass writes:

Until recently, Massachusetts’ nation-leading K-12 English standards were animated by such classic British literature and poetry. Great fiction contributed to the commonwealth’s success on virtually every K-12 reading test known to the English-speaking world.

But in 2010, Massachusetts took $250 million in one-time federal grant money to replace its proven English standards with inferior nationalized ones known as Common Core. These national standards – an educational Frankenstein’s monster – largely decapitated timeless fiction and stitched on brainless so-called “informational texts…”

Frankenstein awakens us to a key lesson of modern learning – science is a powerful tool, but when uncoupled from moral and ethical grounding, it can easily become monstrous.

After pseudo-scientific 20th-century totalitarian regimes – which manufactured mass murder, the Holocaust, and gulags – Mary Shelley’s central message about the limits of human power and modern science is even more relevant today.

How sad for students and teachers.

 

Patty St. Martin of New Orleans remembers that candidate Donald Trump promised to get rid of Common Core.

He has forgotten that promise. He speaks today to the National Governors Association. No mention of Common Core. Does he know what it is?

St. Martin writes:

“Alert! No mention of No to Common Core in the Agenda below. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but most all our USA governors ushered in Common Core under Obama. I’m wondering WHY all the groups and mothers/families/friends of school children aren’t speaking up at this event which was this morning?

“These groups against Common Core can still tweet or FB something. Don’t let this opportunity to be heard just slip away. Shouldn’t it be time to engage our current administration in the perils of common core since it is an issue that plagues us ALL. If our POTUS is for common core instead of against it, then he needs to quickly be educated. It seems our past POTUS wasn’t on top of pro-common core. I believe Trump ran in his campaign that he would stop common core. If so, shouldn’t he kindly be asked why Common Core isn’t even on this agenda below?

“Maybe he doesn’t realize it was ushered in by the Governors of each State? It’s an issue we’ve been fighting against for years now with Governors of each State set in motion in a past administration.

“Stopping Common Core has always been critical. This meeting below would have been a wonderful opportunity for those against Common Core to speak up. I just saw this so didn’t realize the Governors were in DC for the National Governors Association, a group which claims they are bi-partisan yet it was the Governors of each State who brazenly ushered in Common Core while our POTUS at the time allowed it to happen. This seems like a missed opportunity to educate against Common Core unless the moment can still be salvaged. Just a thought.”

 

This morning, President Donald J. Trump is welcoming about 40 of the Nation’s governors to the White House for a business session covering infrastructure, workforce development, opioids, school safety, and other important issues facing America in the year ahead.

The governors are in town for a winter meeting of the National Governors Association, a bipartisan organization founded in 1908. Thirty-three of the Nation’s governors are Republicans, 16 are Democrats, and one is an independent. Of the 16 Democrats, 11 are expected to join the President today.

The governors will attend 8 working sessions with senior Administration officials, with topics including:

Improving investment in American infrastructure
Addressing barriers to workforce development
Bringing down healthcare costs through better competition
Driving rural prosperity and growth
Combating America’s opioid crisis
Reforming U.S. prisons to reduce repeat offenses
Keeping our schools safe and protecting children from violent crime

Bonus read: Learn how President Trump’s infrastructure plan will boost the role of states.

 

During the Obama years, the Center for American Progress reliably cheered on the administration’s education policies. As one after another failed, CAP never backed down. Charter schools good. Closing schools good. Common Core great. Despite the convergence of evidence that these policies did not work, that they destabilized fragile urban neighborhoods, that they demoralized teachers and created shortages, CAP never wavered.

As Peter Greene shows in this post, the CAP has learned nothing from the past 15 years of failed reforms. They are still pushing policy ideas cribbed from the GOP.

They still are pushing state takeovers and turnarounds.

He writes:

”And what example do folks who support takeovers and turnarounds like to cite? Of course, it’s New Orleans. Do we really have to get into all the ways that the privatization of the New Orleans school system is less than a resounding success? Or let’s discus the Tennessee experiment in a recovery school district, in which the state promised to turn the bottom five percent into the top schools in the state, and they utterly failed. As in, the guy charged with making it happened gave up and admitted that it was way harder than he thought it would be, failed.

“The whole premise of a state takeover is that somebody in the state capital somehow knows more about how to make a school work than the people who work there (or, in most cases, can hire some guy who knows because he graduated from an ivy league school and spent two years in a classroom once). The takeover model still holds onto a premise that many reformsters, to their credit, have moved past: that trained professional educators who have devoted their adult lives to working in schools– those people are the whole problem. It’s insulting, it’s stupid, and it’s a great way to let some folks off the hook, like, say, the policy makers who consistently underfund some schools.

“Most importantly, at this point, there isn’t a lick of evidence that it works.

“We have the results of the School Improvement Grants used by the Obama administration to “fix” schools, and the results were that SIG didn’t accomplish anything (other than, I suppose, keeping a bunch of consultants well-paid). SIG also did damage because it allowed the current administration and their ilk to say, “See? Throwing money at schools doesn’t help.” But the real lesson of SIG, which came with very specific Fix Your School instructions attached, was that when the state or federal government try to tell a local school district exactly how things should be fixed, instead of listening to the people who live and work there, nothing gets better. That same fundamental flaw is part of the DNA of the takeover/turnaround approach.

“But CAP is excited about ESSA because some states have included this model in their plan. So, yay.”

Worst of all, CAP ends it’s paean to ESSA by linking to a paper produced by a Jeb Bush’s Chiefs for Change.

If proof is needed of a mind meld between “centrist” Democrats and free-market, DeVos-style Republicans, This is it.

 

 

 

Hurrah for New Zealand!

The Minister of Education in New Zealand, Chris Hipkins, announced that the government is putting an end to national standards and charter schools. 

“Both National Standards and charter schools were driven by ideology rather than evidence. Both were rejected by the vast majority of the education sector. The Government’s strong view is that there is no place for them in the New Zealand education system.”

The bill includes provision for existing charter schools to operate under their contracts while the Ministry discusses possible options, including in the state system, on a case-by-case basis.

“My preferred option is to explore early termination of contracts by mutual agreement.”

My hunch is that New Zealand has a strong tradition of good public schools and common sense. Also, the financial industry and tech sector did not spread campaign contributions to elected officials.