"Teacher of the Year" quits over Common Core tests
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Where's the data that supports what he says. Just citing other organizations does not constitute data. Was there any validating? Haven't seen it yet. |
Anonymous
|
The Pioneer Institute is independent and non-partisan (unbiased) and has studied some of the issues surrounding the CC: file:///C:/Users/Jon/Downloads/The%20Revenge%20of%20K12%209.6.14.pdf |
Anonymous
|
From:
http://commonwealthmagazine.org/education/002-moving-backwards/ "Pioneer Institute commissioned the first independent, comprehensive cost study, which showed that transitioning to the new standards will collectively cost states $16 billion, more than triple the amount doled out in federal Race to the Top inducements. We project that implementing Common Core in Massachusetts will cost approximately $355 million, far more than the $250 million we got from Race to the Top. The central concern for Massachusetts, however, is the negative impact Common Core will have on what happens in our classrooms and the quality of our academic offerings. The commissioner rightly states that our children need to be ready for a competitive world. By the mid-2000s, Massachusetts had already outpaced other states and achieved the goal of international competitiveness. Common Core, which is only slightly more rigorous than the mean for existing state standards, is a step down for the Bay State. Contrary to Commissioner Chester’s claim, the national standards were not internationally benchmarked. That is, in essence, why Stanford University emeritus professor of mathematics R. James Milgram—the only academic mathematician on Common Core’s validation committee— refused to sign off on the final draft. Milgram has noted that Common Core’s math standards have “extremely serious failings,” reflect “very low expectations,” and, by the seventh grade, leave American students two years behind their international peers. Common Core does not prepare students for Algebra I in eighth grade, which is critical to college readiness in mathematics. Bennington College physics professor Jason Zimba, lead writer of Common Core’s math standards, admitted as much during a Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education meeting, noting that passing a Common Core-aligned test in math would ensure only that Massachusetts students would be qualified to enroll in a non-selective community or state college. The news is no better in English language arts. Massachusetts’s success was based on a relentless focus on academics, specifically on classic literature, fiction, poetry, and drama, thanks largely to the handiwork of 1993 reform law co-author Tom Birmingham and former state education official Sandra Stotsky. In contrast, Common Core emphasizes experiential, skills-based learning and “informational texts.” Its anti-intellectual bent includes much more emphasis on nonfiction and analyzing texts shorn of historical context and background knowledge. Despite the commissioner’s protests to the contrary, Massachusetts students’ exposure to literature will indeed be reduced by more than half. He can claim to augment Common Core with Massachusetts-specific “suggested author lists,” but adopting Common Core comes with the limitation that states add no more than 15 percent of state-specific content. National assessments will cover the Common Core’s “national” content, not state augmentations, so Chester’s author suggestions will receive scant attention in the classroom. Goodbye Charles Dickens, Edith Wharton, Arthur Conan Doyle, and Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn. Will Common Core work? The Core itself has never been field tested. However, some of its features, such as a focus on workforce development and non-academic skills, have been implemented. The results were dismal." |
Anonymous
And that kind of money available for "consulting", "testing", "creating materials" can bias some people . . . |
Anonymous
|
http://pioneerinstitute.org/charter_schools/arne-duncan-fiction-writer/
Article with data: Massachusetts has led the nation in all subjects tested on sampled national assessments for a decade. In fact, before Gov. Patrick’s inauguration in 2007, Massachusetts had been one of the fastest improving states in the nation. Secretary Duncan makes glowing reference to Massachusetts’ performance on the international PISA tests. But, again, already in the spring of 2007 the commonwealth’s students had taken the Trends in Math and Science Study (TIMSS), a higher-quality international test than PISA, and ranked in the top six countries in math and science. Only a politician, or an Education Secretary playing one, would attribute Massachusetts’ success to Gov. Patrick. The very best one can say about overall student achievement in the commonwealth during the Governor’s terms in office is that it has been stagnant. An objective observer would note significant areas of decline: Since the adoption of Common Core in 2010, sampled national tests show fourth-grade reading scores, the best predictor of future success, falling more significantly in Massachusetts than anywhere else in the country. During Governor Patrick’s time in office, Massachusetts students’ SAT scores have fallen by 20 points. (Prior to 2007, SAT scores had risen for 13 consecutive years.) When Patrick took office, 67 percent of third graders scored advanced or proficient on the state’s third-grade reading tests (again, an important marker); that number is now 57 percent. |
Anonymous
I'm willing to believe that people had some good intentions about trying to improve education. If a set of new standards is the best they can do, well that's a bit sad (because there are so many other impacts on students that are way more important to success). Anyway, maybe I could have believed the good intentions (maybe), but now I think they have paved the path to hell. They saw how much money could be made and how they could entice people to join this bandwagon. It got out of hand. They are trying to change everything at once including the GED, SAT, and ACT tests---on the faith that this is a positive thing to do---to line everything up with a set of standards that were not thoroughly vetted or debated. Now we are in the midst of that debate. It needs to happen or fingers will be pointed . . . this is turning out to be an issue for the next round of elections. And it's not the most important thing this nation needs to be debating . . . not even close. |
Anonymous
I am not the "pro CC" PP, but I am also not spitting venom at them. Standards aren't going away, folks. These standards are fine. In fact, they're no different from those in the past really. What IS the problem are how the tests are given to every Tom, Dick, Harry, Maria and Ivan -with the expectation that all students reach the same benchmarks at the same time. This is unrealistic and truly disrespectful to our hard workers who are behind due to circumstances beyond an educator's control. Kids aren't widgets; we can't push a screen and instantly change how a kid's brain is functioning. But this is in essence what the tests are expecting educators to do. Ultimately, we're creating an underclass where kids - who could have been successful in a trade - are dropping out or "graduating" with poor skills b/c they're being pushed along. You can't hate the standards. You can only hate how they're being abused to justify positions of those who are not anchored to any classroom setting. |
Anonymous
This is the concern everywhere. The pro posters don't seem to understand the "what happens in our classrooms and the quality of our academic offerings" part. If CC had no impact, we would not be arguing. It does impact the curriculum and teaching. |
Anonymous
The Common Core standards are supposed to affect the curriculum and teaching. That's the whole idea. The question is, how is the way that the Common Core standards affect the curriculum and teaching worse than the way the previous standardsaffected the curriculum and teaching? |
Anonymous
Actually the Pioneer Institute is neither independent nor non-partisan nor unbiased. Pioneer Institute for Public Policy ResearchFrom SourceWatch Jump to: navigation, search Learn more about how the State Policy Network aids ALEC and spins disinformation in the states. Learn more about corporations VOTING to rewrite our laws. The Pioneer Institute (PI) is a right-wing pressure group that describes itself as a "think tank" that is "committed to individual freedom and responsibility, limited and accountable government, and the application of free market principles to state and local policy".[1] It houses and runs the Center for School Reform,[2] the Shamie Center for Better Government,[3] and the Center for Economic Opportunity.[4] It is known for having a staff that has served in various positions in the recent Republican Massachusetts governors' administrations (Weld, Cellucci, Swift,[5] and Romney).[6] The Pioneer Institute is a member of the State Policy Network (SPN). SPN is a web of right-wing “think tanks” in every state across the country. It is an $83 million right-wing empire as of the 2011 funding documents from SPN itself and each of its state "think tank" members. Although SPN's member organizations claim to be nonpartisan and independent, the Center for Media and Democracy's in-depth investigation, "EXPOSED: The State Policy Network -- The Powerful Right-Wing Network Helping to Hijack State Politics and Government," reveals that SPN and its member think tanks are major drivers of the right-wing, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)-backed corporate agenda in state houses nationwide, with deep ties to the Koch brothers and the national right-wing network of funders.[7] In response to CMD's report, SPN Executive Director Tracie Sharp told national and statehouse reporters that SPN affiliates are "fiercely independent." Later the same week, however, The New Yorker's Jane Mayer caught Sharp in a contradiction. In her article, "Is IKEA the New Model for the Conservative Movement?," the Pulitzer-nominated reporter revealed that, in a recent meeting behind closed doors with the heads of SPN affiliates around the country, Sharp "compared the organization’s model to that of the giant global chain IKEA." She reportedly said that SPN "would provide 'the raw materials,' along with the 'services' needed to assemble the products. Rather than acting like passive customers who buy finished products, she wanted each state group to show the enterprise and creativity needed to assemble the parts in their home states. 'Pick what you need,' she said, 'and customize it for what works best for you.'" Not only that, but Sharp "also acknowledged privately to the members that the organization's often anonymous donors frequently shape the agenda. 'The grants are driven by donor intent,' she told the gathered think-tank heads. She added that, often, 'the donors have a very specific idea of what they want to happen.'"[8] A set of coordinated fundraising proposals obtained and released by The Guardian in early December 2013 confirm many of these SPN members' intent to change state laws and policies, referring to "advancing model legislation" and "candidate briefings." These activities "arguably cross the line into lobbying," The Guardian notes.[9] ControversiesTies to the American Legislative Exchange CouncilThe Pioneer Institute has ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). It has been listed as a member of the ALEC Education Task Force[10][11] and the Health and Human Services Task Force. An August 2013 ALEC board document obtained by The Guardian suggests that the Pioneer Institute terminated its ALEC membership on March 18, 2013 after it was "kicked out of ALEC (?) because of education issue"[12] (presumably a resolution in opposition to Common Core that passed the Education Task Force twice but was voted down by ALEC's board).[13] SPN is also a private sector member of ALEC. See SPN Ties to ALEC for more. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pioneer_Institute_for_Public_Policy_Research |
Anonymous
Shouldn't the bar for success be a bit higher than this? CC might not be a whole lot worse, but shouldn't we get better when we spend billions of dollars? This standard for success makes people even more skeptical of where the gains are with CC (like money in the pockets of certain people and businesses). |
Anonymous
If you say that the Common Core standards will make things worse, then you should be able to support that assertion. So, to repeat: how is the way that the Common Core standards affect the curriculum and teaching worse than the way the previous standards affected the curriculum and teaching?[/ Whether the Common Core standards are the best thing to spend billions of dollars on (how many billions, by the way?) is a separate question. |
Anonymous
|
The CC standards are going to be changed. It's just a matter of time. It's what happens with standards. The debate that is going on now is good because it may very well be that what we come up with in the end will be a much more reasonable and workable document. Lots of people are poring over these standards and debating them right now. This is all good. What we want are standards that improve the whole educational process. The PP wants more specifics and if he wants those, he needs to work more closely with people who are actually in schools using these standards (and not hang out on DCUM---because people on here are not all using the standards). I know that I cannot give him the detail that he is seeking. Sorry. I also think it is important to ask ourselves how money is spent because we, the taxpayers, are entrusting our money to our representatives and we do want to see if we are getting any bang for our buck (and who is profiting---is it the students or the testing companies). Do you wonder why people don't want to pay higher taxes? |
Anonymous
I don't understand. You know that the Common Core standards are bad, but you're not qualified to say why you know this? |