Archives for category: Common Core

Peter Greene read an NPR article about Jason Zimba, one of the principal writers of the Common Core math standards, and he uses it to dig deep into what Zimba understands about the rocky reception of the Common Core. Zimba wrote them, with the assistance of William McCallum and Phil Daro. They don’t really get the reason for the resistance to them.

Referring to the article, Greene writes:

We do get the inspiring story of Zimba and McCallum working long hours, slaving over the standards in the garage (just like Bill Gates starting Microsoft). She notes again that he was human, with a life and a family and a day job, spiced up with a story of some colleague telling him to stop texting about standards stuff while his second daughter was being born.

And yet, despite their good intentions and hard work, there is so much pushback against the standards. They created something really good, but the implementation is not working out as they expected.

Yes, the problem is that we didn’t build a powerful enough bomb. If we built a bigger bomb, then it would be used the correct way.

It is hard not to see these guys as hopelessly naive about How Things Work, about the implications of the work they were doing. I sympathize in part– when he claims that publishers are mucking up the works by using CCSS to market any old crap lying around the warehouse, I don’t disagree, but at the same time, dude, what did you think they were going to do with the bomb once you had finished building it?? You may have thought you were building an instrument of peace and wisdom and growth, but you should have paid better attention to the people who were signing your checks and collecting your work, because this is exactly what they wanted it for.

All three are trying to fix it. McCallum has some little start-up you’ve never heard of to make math apps. Daro is writing a complete math curriculum for Pearson, presumably because, you know, the politics and business are not his problem. Zimba’s trying to work on it, too. None of them seem to see their own hand in the mess that is now choking public education. Granted, I see all of these characters through the smudgy lens of various journalists, but I keep feeling as if Coleman knows exactly what he’s doing, but The Other Guys don’t really get it. They don’t see the battlefield because they are only focused on the bomb.

Zimba does not pick up the lesson that he now realizes that he was wrong back when he thought the standards would fix everything, so maybe he’s wrong again now that he thinks national curriculum is the answer. And he doesn’t seem to have any sense of the moral or ethical implications of trying to rewrite the education system for everybody part time in his garage– did nobody at any point say, “Gee, for a project this massive, maybe there’s a better way and other people who should be involved.” While he seems to lack the strutting ballsiness of Coleman, he still must have the hubris required to think, “Yeah, I could write the math guidelines for every student in the country.”

Categories Common Core

More Than Half of U.S. Students Will Not Take Federally-Funded Common Core Tests

By dianeravitch

February 5, 2015 //

Catherine Gewertz reports in Education Week that 51% of American students will not be taking either the PARCC or Smarter Balanced (SBAC) tests. These tests were underwritten by a U.S. Department of Education grant of $360 million and were designed to test the Common Core standards. Eighteen states will use the Smarter Balanced tests, while only 10 states and the District of Columbia will use PARCC. About a dozen states that initially agreed to administer the PARCC tests have backed out. The SBAC might lose one of its 18 states, since Governor Scott Walker proposed pulling Wisconsin out of SBAC.

Given these numbers, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which tests samples of students in every state (and D.C.), will continue to be the authoritative national gauge of student test scores. With only 28% of the nation’s students taking the same test (SBAC), the public will not be able to compare student performance from state to state, unless they happen to live in the 18 states giving the SBAC. Why it is valuable to compare the performance of students in different states remains a puzzle; why it was necessary to spend $360 million to do so is even more puzzling, given that the same information is gathered and published by NAEP for all 50 states and D.C.

Categories Common Core, Testing

Duncan Urged Parents to Speak Out on NCLB: They Complain About Common Core and Testing

By dianeravitch

February 5, 2015 //

Arne Duncan went to Maryland to urge parents to organize against the House rewrite of NCLB. What parents wanted to talk about was Common Core and testing.

He told them there would be bumps in the road but everything would be fine in the end.

“I’m really afraid that the PARCC assessments are going to take away from my child’s time in the classroom,” one mother said to the education secretary at the Parent Teacher Association town hall at Wiley H. Bates Middle School in Annapolis. (She was referring to common-core-aligned tests being developed by the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, one of two consortia devising such assessments.)

“And another parent asked, “Why are we doing too much too soon on aggressive PARCC testing in schools? … Can’t we take some time to examine this before we use our children as guinea pigs in the classroom?”

Duncan proceeded to make claims about the bill that, strictly speaking, were not accurate. And of course, he won’t back away from Common Core or high-stakes testing.

Categories Common Core, Duncan, Arne, NCLB (No Child Left Behind), Testing

California: Districts and School Boards Sue State to Pay for Common Core Testing

By dianeravitch

February 5, 2015 //

Five districts and the California School Boards Association are suing the state for $1 billion to recover the cost of computers and other technology needed for Common Core testing. They say the state must pay for unfunded mandates. The state says the districts must pay to comply with federal law.

The irony is that Arne Duncan keeps saying that the Common Core was developed by the states and is not a federal program. It is surely not mandated by NCLB.

Categories California, Common Core, Technology, Computers, Testing

The Atlantic: Why the Néw SAT Will Reduce Opportunity

By dianeravitch

February 5, 2015 //

James S. Murphy, who tutors high school students for the SAT, says that the new, redesigned SAT is likely to pose high barriers to the neediest students. The new SAT will be aligned with the Common Core, both under the direction of the same man, David Coleman.

But as Murphy points out, students in at least eight states will have no experience with the Common Core. Many other states are just beginning to implement them. Many students are unprepared for the new SAT.

Murphy says that the math portion of the SAT is particularly daunting.

He writes:

“One problem with tying the SAT to these new standards is that it will force students and schools to play a long game of catch-up. Most states will be gradually implementing the standards over the next few years—assuming it will only take that long and assuming that any student taking the exam attends a school that is successfully using standards. At last check, 42 states are in the process of implementing the Common Core standards—three of the original participants dropped out—but they are doing so at different rates.

“The other consequence of (theoretically) basing the new SAT on what students are doing in their classrooms is that it threatens to makes success on the exam even more subject to socioeconomic background. Students at struggling schools—where teachers tend to have less experience and and support and where Common Core-related textbooks can be scarce—could be at a disadvantage. After all, they haven’t had exposure to the very materials and instruction integral to performing well on the test. This could all amount to an ironic twist: For all the faults of the SAT, one of its merits, at least in theory, is that it can identify students whose formal education might be lacking but who have the mental firepower to succeed given the opportunity.”

If more states pull out of the Common Core, the problems Murphy describes will grow worse. Coleman is betting the future of the SAT on his belief that the Common Core standards will prevail and become national standards. Some students will suffer because of that decision, or the SAT risks becoming irrelevant by its close alignment with a single set of standards whose value remains unknown and unproven.

Categories Common Core, Testing

House Bill Would Keep Testing Unchanged, Allow Students to Use Federal Funds for Choice

By dianeravitch

February 3, 2015 //

While all eyes were on the Senate hearings about the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, the House of Representatives was putting the final touches on its own bill.

Alyson Klein of Education Week here describes the House legislation. Testing, i.e., the status quo, would remain unchanged. Clearly, the Republican leadership has not heard the outcry of parents who are enraged by the excessive testing forced on their children by federal mandates such as they intend to preserve.

On testing: The bill would keep the NCLB law’s testing schedule in place, requiring states to assess students in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school in reading and math. And, just like under current law, science assessments would be required in three different grade spans. Unlike under Alexander’s bill, there’s no first and second option here for discussion. This isn’t a surprise, since both Kline, and Rep. John Boehner, the speaker of the House, want to keep the testing schedule in place.

On Common Core, the bill would prohibit the Secretary of Education from compelling states to adopt it and would leave states free to draft their own standards.

On Title I portability: Just as in Alexander’s bill, states would be allowed to use Title I funds in public school choice programs, by allowing Title I dollars to “follow the child.” This is not likely to make education organizations—which might otherwise embrace a smaller federal footprint—very happy. But it’s unclear just how much of a dealbreaker it is. Advocates for districts, including AASA, the School Superintendents Association, and the National School Boards Association continued to support the bill back in 2013, even after the portability provision was included. (We don’t know yet if that will be the case this time around, however.)

Portability no doubt would spur the expansion of charter schools, further destabilizing public schools.

Categories Accountability, Common Core, NCLB (No Child Left Behind), Testing

California: Districts Object to $1 Billion for Common Core Testing

By dianeravitch

January 31, 2015 //

School districts in California are trying to compel the state to pick up the $1 billion cost of Common Core testing. The districts say it is an unfunded mandate. Many districts are strapped for cash, and they can’t find the money to pay for Common Core hardware for testing.

Categories California, Common Core, Testing

Duncan Threatens to Punish Chicago If They Don’t Give PARCC

By dianeravitch

January 31, 2015 //

Remember a few months ago when everyone was wringing their hands and agreeing there was too much testing? Remember Arne Duncan said testing was sucking the oxygen out of the classroom?

That was then. This is now. Duncan is upset that Chicago is backing away from Commmon Core PARCC testing.

Mike Klonsky reports that Duncan threatened to cut off $1.2 billion in state aid if Chicago doesn’t give the PARCC.

This is crazy. The Secretary of Education is not supposed to tell states and districts what tests to use. He has overstepped his bounds, as he has done so often in the past. He has no understanding of federalism or of the limits of the federal role in education. The law says that no federal official may try to direct, control, or influence curriculum or instruction. Tests influence curriculum and instruction. By funding two tests and then compelling states to use them, he is flouting the law.

If he cuts any funding, Illinois should sue him.

Categories Chicago, Common Core, Duncan, Arne, Testing

Why Is Massachusetts Switching to PARCC?

By dianeravitch

January 30, 2015 //

Massachusetts is switching from its 20-year-old MCAS testing program to PARCC, the federally-funded Common Core test.

Massachusetts is the highest performing state in the nation on NAEP, the federal tests. Why is it making the change?

Some think it is because Massachusetts’ State Commissioner Mitchell Chester is the chair of the PARCC governing board.

“Mitchell Chester, the commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary education, said the PARCC exam would help the state reduce the stubborn achievement gaps between rich and poor, white and minority, by giving teachers better information about which kids need extra support.”

So let’s get this right: a harder test will improve the test scores of kids who are poor? A harder test will raise the scores of minority students but not white kids so the gaps will be reduced? Or the scores of poor and minority kids will increase at a faster pace than the scores of rich and white kids?

And one other question: why do teachers need a new test to tell which kids need extra help? Didn’t they learn that with the MCAS? Don’t they know it by seeing the kids in class daily and reviewing their class participation and homework?

None of this makes sense.

Categories Common Core, Massachusetts, Testing