That is not a standard. It's a good idea, and furthermore it's a good idea that the standards don't preclude. But it's not a standard. |
You do? Could you post it, please? I haven't seen it. |
Actually I think that the Common Core math standards will benefit a lot of students, definitely in elementary school -- if good new curricula are developed to align with those standards, and if the teachers are trained to use the new curricula. Current math education in the US is not good. And no, I'm not blaming the teachers for that. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/why-do-americans-stink-at-math.html?_r=0 |
|
The point is that it doesn't matter. Standards do not affect achievement. |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/class-struggle/post/why-common-core-standards-will-fail/2012/02/23/gIQATLgbUR_blog.html
Third time in two days: standards do not affect achievement. There's a link in the article to the research. |
"States have had curricular standards for schools within their own borders
for many years. Data on the effects of those standards are analyzed to produce three findings. 1) The quality of state standards, as indicated by the well-known ratings from the Fordham Foundation, is not related to state achievement. 2) The rigor of state standards, as measured by how high states place the cut point for students to be deemed proficient, is also unrelated to achievement. Raising or lowering the cut point is related to achievement in fourth grade, but the effect is small, and the direction of causality (whether a change in cut point produces a change in test score or vice versa) is difficult to determine. 3) The ability of standards to reduce variation in achievement, in other words to reduce differences in achievement, is also weak." I suggest you read the whole section on this. There is empirical evidence. |
Thanks, 23:40. I knew that already. Nice to see it in writing.
What a waste of money, time, and effort for a program that is not going to help anyone.-----except the publishing companies. |
From that report, this actually does speak to measurable achievement differences due to different state standards in Part II. What you are getting hung up on is the difference in achievement due to SES, "anyone who follows NAEP scores knows that the difference between Massachusetts and Mississippi is quite large. What is often overlooked is that every state has a mini-Massachusetts and Mississippi contrast within its own borders"
And of course, that confirms that the biggest driver of achievement gaps is SES, and standards can't address SES gaps (and nobody has ever suggested that they can), however the article does support the idea that the non-SES related components of achievement gap (MA vs. MS) can be addressed by having consistent, common standards. In short, the Brookings report doesn't support your argument that things would be better by getting rid of Common Core. It basically says the challenges in educational achievement are currently bigger than what standards alone can address. |
Page 9 of the report:
"Can empirical evidence shed light on the main points of contention in this debate? Not entirely." So much for the report constituting open and shut empirical evidence to support the anti-CCers as claimed. I would also note that the Whitehurst analysis attempts to correlate Fordham's assessment of state standards vs. NAEP scores but there isn't specifically a discussion of how well the state standards actually align to NAEP, which can also drive variability separately. |
|
OK, let's go through the study. They set out three reasons why standards might affect achievement: 1. Achievement will increase because students will study a better curriculum. 2. States won't be able to fiddle with cut scores to make performance appear better than it is. 3. Standardization will reduce redundancy and increase efficiency. For #1, they looked at the Fordham Foundation ratings of state standards and then compared that to state achievement in 2006 and 2009. They found that quality of standards was not correlated with achievement. However, they did not control for the demographics in the states; they only controlled for CHANGES in demographics in the states between 2003 and 2009. I think that's odd and problematic. For #2, they found that it wasn't possible to conclude whether increasing cut scores increased proficiency, or increasing proficiency led states to increase cut scores. For what it's worth, #2 doesn't apply to the Common Core standards anyway, since a lot of states have chosen to give their own tests and will continue to be able to fiddle with cut scores. For #3, they found that within-state variation in test scores is greater than between-state variation in test scores. I really don't think that's relevant to the idea that standardization will reduce redundancy and increase efficiency, though. Of course it will. Then they go on to make two points: 1. Do not expect much from the Common Core. (By the way, speaking of copy editing, somebody mixed up "infer" and imply" in that paragraph.) Why? Because standards do not necessarily translate into curricula and teaching. I actually agree with this; the Common Core is not a panacea, and anybody who said that it was is a fool. 2. [They don't make a second point, or if they do, I can't find it.] So, does this study prove that standards have no effect on achievement? I don't think so. I think it's more likely statistical explanation is that standards have an effect on achievement, but it's a small effect, and it's swamped by the long list of factors that have a much bigger effect on achievement. |
The Brookings report also still goes to show that many of the biggest problems seen in test results are being created and perpetuated at the state and local level (gaming cut scores, variability due to demographics and SES) which certainly does *not* support the anti-CC cause which would only serve to mask and increase those problems. |
And anyone who supports it wholesale is also a fool. The real education comes at the curricula and teaching level. That has to happen at the state and local level. National standards with high stakes testing will only hamstring the teachers' ability to create meaningful curricula that is useful for the students in front of him/her. |