readingdoc

Reading and Writing and Dancing as Long as the Music Plays

Archive for the month “November, 2013”

The Bleating of the Sheeple

Not so long ago in the land of Acirema, there was a Chief Shepherd of Education who was sure that he had all the answers to the education needs of his country. With some very wealthy friends, he made an elaborate plan to assure that every kid in his land would be ready for college after high school, whether the kid wanted to go or not. All kids must be “college ready” when they finished high school, he thought, because the economic future of the country absolutely depended on it. He knew that because of the horrible scores of Acirema’s kids when compared to those of other countries. All of Acirema’s kids should be studying the same thing at the same time so he could test them to make sure they were on track and so he could know which sheeple teachers were not doing their jobs.

The plan was for the wealthy friends to hire a few folks who knew how to write tests and ask them to write a new set of rigorous educational standards for the kids, of whom, clearly not enough was being expected or demanded. Once the standards were written, new more rigorous tests could be developed by those same testing folks to match the standards. And the tests could be used to find out which kids refused to learn and which teacher sheeple refused to teach and which schools were failing. Once that was determined, the failing schools could be closed, and the Chief’s wealthy friends would be more than willing to come in and set up charter schools–for a price, of course, and staff them with wonderful idealistic young teacher sheeple with 5-weeks of training who would certainly be able to “teach” with the teacher-proof, scripted curricula that the publishing arms of the testing companies mentioned above were happy to provide–for a hefty price, of course.

But there was a problem with this plan. Acirema had laws in place that said the Chief Shepherd of Education was not allowed to promote a national curriculum. The Constitution of Acirema left the management of education up to the states. And other laws strictly forbade the Chief Shepherd of Education from interfering with that.

And then something terrible happened–a bad recession. Many sheeple were out of work. Schools were running out of money. The Chief Shepherd of Education saw this as a fortuitous opportunity to get approval for his plan. If he could offer the states a chance for money for their schools and a reprieve from the harsh testing of kids that was already in place, they might all be willing to adopt his wonderful new “rigorous” standards–and the tests that went along with them. In fact, he would tell them if they didn’t adopt the standards and the tests, the money would dry up. He was counting on the sheeple to be sheeple and just do as they were told. After all, it was best for Acirema!

And sure enough, almost all of the sheeple leaders in most of the states, desperate for money for their schools, agreed to the standards. Unfortunately, though, very few of the states got the money they hoped for, but they still had the standards that had to be implemented and the new “more rigorous” tests that would require many more computers and a bigger investment in technological infrastructure that would have to be bought and paid for and “new standards-aligned” curriculum materials that would have to be bought and paid for and professional development for teacher sheeple who had to learn how to teach with the wonderful new standards that would have to be paid for. Now the sheeple leaders knew that they would have to march forward with the new standards just to get whatever crumbs the Chief Shepherd of Education might be willing to throw their way. They felt duped, but they didn’t see a way out.

The Chief had set a deadline when all the pieces of the new educational system had to be in place. As the deadline grew closer, some of the parent sheeple became concerned. They didn’t like some of the things they saw in the new curricula designed around the new standards. They didn’t like all the tests their kids would have to take, and they learned that there would be even more tests when the new standards were completely implemented. They didn’t like the fact that the new standards were put in place without their knowing about them or without anyone from their state having a say in how the new standards came to be. They especially didn’t like the plans for all kid data to be sent to one large database and that their kid’s personal information could be released to the companies writing the tests and the curricula and other things they might want to sell to kids and their parents–or goodness knows what other use that data might be put to!

So the sheeple began to bleat, at first just a few. And the Chief Shepherd of Education said they were just a fringe element who didn’t really know or want what was best for their kids. After all, didn’t he know best?

But the sheeple continued to bleat and soon others joined in. The bleating grew louder. The Chief Shepherd of Education got angry. He said these were just well-to-do ewe sheeple who were disappointed that their kids weren’t as smart as they thought they were. This made even more sheeple grumble and the bleating grew louder and louder. Some began to say that perhaps the same standards for all states enforced by the actions of the Chief Shepherd of Education might even be against the law…or perhaps even the Constitution…but no sheeple stood up to challenge the Chief…

I wish I knew how this allegory ends, but I don’t. I do know that the federal education officials are counting on us to be sheep, and they are surprised at the growing level of pushback against their plan. Blogger Mercedes Schneider has documented serious resistance movements in 17 of the 45 sheep states here. Where are the other 28?

Knowledge is power. The pen (or a word processor) really is mightier than the sword. Add to these concepts the effectiveness of social media and you can see that we have a full toolbox with which to stop this usurpation of our right to local control of education in its tracks. But that won’t happen unless the sheeple step up and bleat and email and text and Facebook and twitter as loudly and as often as they can. And maybe some lawyer sheeple will get the ball rolling.

Advertisements

More thoughts about roses and names

In my latest post, I discussed how some of the leadership roles in education are misnamed. Still in that frame of mind, another misnomer reared its ugly head—and this one is no fragrant rose. The term is “achievement gap.”

If you’ve been in or around education in the last 45 or 50 years, you’ve heard the term achievement gap repeatedly. It was coined back in the 1960s to refer to the difference in educational performance between whites and non-whites. It came to be documented clearly on the periodic NAEP assessments, first administered in 1969. The term became standard fair in any discussion of perceived problems in American education and eliminating it became the goal and rallying cry in many quarters. No one likes the idea of an “achievement gap” in the education of a country supposedly committed to educating all of its students.

Just prior to the organization of the board that developed NAEP, another event occurred which I remember well. It was Sputnik. This was the first satellite ever sent into space by man and it was put in place by (horror of horrors!) the Russians! Anyone who was not alive at that time cannot appreciate the abject fear this induced in the American people. The knee-jerk reaction of many was to look around for someone to blame, and guess who they found. Yep, you guessed it—education. It had to be that schools weren’t producing enough graduates who went into science! Congress passed legislation to address the perceived problem, including low interest National Defense Student Loans for college students. I was the beneficiary of one of those early loans.

The fact is, however, that education was not to blame. The blame belonged on the American people who, after World War II, were focused on consumer goods provided by a booming economy, and on investors who saw money to be made in those products rather than in space, and in a government that refused to believe that Russia was willing to commit itself to being first in space. But blaming schools was much easier, so our leaders decided we needed to develop NAEP to keep tabs on these “failing” schools. And so was the “achievement gap” discovered.

Since the 1960s there has been a never ending litany of the chorus–“Our schools are failing!” Why Johnny Can’t Read, A Nation at Risk, the 2012 Council on Foreign Relations Report, the PISA tests, the PIRLS tests, Waiting for Superman, to name a few. The script was “our schools are not “rigorous” enough, we can’t compete economically with the rest of the world, we won’t be able to maintain our position of military strength if we don’t fix (read reform or close) the schools!” And all the time, despite bumps and dips, our economy and our military remained the strongest in the world. Hmmmm…it seems to me, if schools were as bad as we were told they were, we should be living in a third-world country by now.

But, no doubt, the achievement gap was troubling. It became the focus of numerous academic studies and think tanks. What could be done to close it, many worried. Most of those studies pointed clearly and unmistakably to a correlation between the achievement gap and poverty. While no one said that poverty prevented all students who were living in poverty from being successful in school, they were observing that a large majority of those students were unsuccessful, whereas students in affluent schools tended to be successful. Some even asserted that reducing poverty in America would have a positive impact on the achievement gap.

However, another group of influential people thought differently about the achievement gap. They decided that the problem lay with the students, who were lazy and unmotivated and didn’t apply themselves. We simply didn’t expect enough of them. Or perhaps it was the teachers who were lazy and unmotivated and didn’t know how to teach or care enough to learn. The solution to everything, they determined, was to provide both incentives and punishments and demand more of teachers and students and schools. And so, Congress passed NCLB, the first untested and unproven nationwide education experiment. It was a total failure, as we all know, because its demands were unreasonable and its methods draconian. Fast forward thirteen years to the Common Core Initiative, otherwise known as NCLB on steroids. The same groups of people continue to make the same claims with the same, ratcheted-up, unworkable, inappropriate solutions.

Unfortunately the achievement gap term has played into the hands of these reformers. If it’s simply a matter of “achieving,” they conclude students can be bribed or punished to “achieve.” Thus the use of the term achievement gap seems to lend credence to the rationale of the “reformers.” Of course, this flies in the face of decades of psychological and educational research.

Recently amid much controversy, the Oklahoma State Department of Education released the 2013 school and district report cards a few days ago. One blogger took the time to plot the correspondences between schools that got Fs and schools that are located in areas of poverty. See it here. To nobody’s surprise, the correlation was high. Yet, those in the reform camp still want to claim that schools that are making As and Bs are simply doing a better job of teaching to the rigorous standards than those who got Fs. They refuse to accept that affluence may really be the determinate of educational success.

Some have suggested the use of a different term to describe this persistent difference between affluent and non-affluent students’ performance. They propose an “opportunity gap” and this makes sense to me. I believe as long as we focus on achievement in the gap, it is too easy to blame the students, as well as schools and teachers, which is a much too simplistic solution. If instead, we use the term opportunity to describe the gap, we tend to focus on other factors which are extremely powerful but over which the student has little control. It’s a real game changer.

And so we come back to names and labels. What you call it makes a big difference in how you think about it. Looks like Juliet is wrong again.

“A rose by any other name…” Did Shakespeare’s Juliet get it wrong?

The phrase that begins the title of this piece will be recognized by most Americans who took freshman or sophomore English in high school. It comes from Juliet’s encouragement to Romeo to continue to woo her, ignoring the fact that they were born into feuding families. She suggests that names are meaningless; all that matters is what you are. It’s a very idealistic metaphor that we love to quote.

I was thinking about that phrase today with regard to school leadership. Over the last hundred or so years, certain names or titles have been adopted by education, for example, the term superintendent. This term came into vogue in the early part of the 20th Century right along with the factory model of schooling. When you look up the word superintendent in dictionary.com, the first definition you get is the following: a person who oversees or directs some work, enterprise, establishment, organization, district, etc.; supervisor. Superintendents were common in 20th Century factories. They were responsible for the product turned out by their particular portion of the manufacturing process, including how well the individual workers performed. Their job was to see to it that the product in question was produced quickly and efficiently with high quality. We all get that, don’t we?

What we’ve learned over the years, despite the attempt to move the clock backwards by the Common Core Initiative, is that schools are not factories, students are not widgets, teachers are not assembly line workers doing a simple, albeit important job, and superintendents, in the sense used in manufacturing, don’t even belong in this equation. Individuals in what we now call the role of the superintendent should be leaders, i.e., out in front looking for and providing the best resources for teachers and students, not heavy-handed autocrats whose every whim is to be obeyed, especially when it comes to using those truckloads of test-practice workbooks he or she provided for those teachers who can’t possibly know how to prepare their kids for The Tests. Unfortunately, this kind of superintendent seems to be on the rise. I’m thinking of the Broad-trained superintendents (such as Mike Miles, currently in that role in the Dallas school district), who are trained in disruption. The theory is that a new superintendent needs to come on the scene and shake everything up, which they routinely do, undermining much of what is good about a district, and leaving it in shambles, fair game for another Broad-trained candidate. Given what we have learned about how the best leaders lead, this is clearly not what the role requires. Teachers and students need role models and support in dealing with difficult and often unexpected situations, over which their control may be limited.

So, here’s my suggestion. It’s not necessarily new, but perhaps it’s time has come. Let’s change the titles of the leaders in our schools and districts. One of the things research has shown us is the importance of the concept of lifelong learners. We teach our pre-service teachers that they must continue to learn once they leave the hallowed halls of academia. That’s what professional development for practicing teachers is all about. Isn’t that true for principals and superintendents as well? If teachers are ongoing learners (some would have us call them the chief learner in the classroom, or even the Learning Designer), shouldn’t principals be the Chief Learner of the school, and by extrapolation, shouldn’t a superintendent be called instead something like Chief of Learning for XXX School District?

As I said, this is not a new idea, but here is why I think it is important to push for this now. One thing psychology has shown us is that what we call someone repeatedly eventually sticks. If we call our children stupid, they come to see themselves incapable, even if they are in fact very capable. If we label someone in a certain way, they tend to live up or down to their names. As long as the labels we give principals and superintendents are unrelated to their major role as leaders of learning, we can only expect them to take on the attributes of the roles for which they have been named. If a person carries the title Chief of Learning instead of Superintendent, wouldn’t that encourage the person to see his or her role in a different light? I think so. I think this would help both the individual in the position, but also those in the schools and the parents and public adopt a new mindset about what the job should be, because ultimately it shouldn’t be about test scores and budgets. It should be about how well students are learning and how supported teachers feel in their own learning and professionalism.

So, what is in a name? Quite a bit, Juliet, as the rest of your play made crystal clear.

My Common Core Journey

What follows is the testimony I gave on November 5th to an Interim Study on Common Core held by the Administrative Oversight Sub-Committee of the Oklahoma House of Representatives chaired by Rep. Gus Blackwell. I was one of about 12 parents, students, and educators who shared from their particular perspectives their take on Common Core and the Common Core Initiative. In my sixth point below, I refer to a comparison of the characteristics of a five-to-six-year-old child and the CC Kindergarten Standards being included in the printed version. Unfortunately, I am not able to include those here.

My Common Core Journey
Barbara McClanahan, Ed.D.

​Typically the nature of a teacher is to be compliant, and I guess I’ve been an example of that. If I’m asked to do something, I generally do my best to make it happen, even if I question the wisdom of it or even my ability to do it. I really don’t like to disappoint those above me.

​As a teacher educator, I teach primarily reading classes. A major assignment in many of those classes requires that my students create lesson plans and/or units on various topics, and they are required to provide a state standard for every learning objective in those plans. I had taught in Texas for a number of years and was familiar with teaching with standards, so once I began teaching at the university, I quickly adapted to the Oklahoma PASS and felt comfortable instructing my students how to use them in their planning. Then suddenly in 2010, we were told by the State Department of Education that PASS was going away and would be replaced by Common Core State Standards.

​Falling immediately into compliance mode, I began studying the Common Core Standards to see how they were different from PASS, what I might need to do differently to prepare my pre-service teachers. I was assured by the promotional materials for Common Core Standards that these standards reflected higher expectations of students and teachers, that they were intended to require deeper thinking and closer reading, that there would be a strong emphasis on writing, and the reading of more informational texts. That sounded good to me since those were things that I had already been emphasizing with my pre-service teachers and that had been staples in our Elementary Education program for many years. In fact, a principal in a school where I had done some professional development attended a state workshop on Common Core in 2011; she later told me that she remarked to a colleague after the workshop, “That sounds just like the things Dr. McClanahan has been teaching us!”

But as I worked with the Common Core standards, it seemed to me that there was really not a great deal of difference between the PASS we had been using and what Common Core required, at least at the upper elementary and middle school levels. Keep in mind, I was focused on the English Language Arts standards, since this is the area I work in. But I began to wonder, why would our state change their standards so abruptly when there seems to be so little difference between the old and the new? Surely these standards had been developed over a lengthy time frame by a knowledgeable cadre of educators at the state level, and I was just unaware because I was new. Boy, was that wrong! More on that later.

​I did notice that the standards said very little about technology, and I found that Jason Ohler (2013), writing in Educational Leadership agreed with me. The use of technology in the teaching of literacy is one of my areas of study, so I thought it odd that the standards regarding technology seemed so weak, given the fact that technology permeates almost everything we do in the 21st Century. As early as 2000, the International Society for Technology in Education had developed a rich family of standards (ISTE, 2012) to guide the work of students, teachers, administrators, coaches, and computer science teachers in integrating technology into learning, yet the Common Core Standards seemed to draw on none of that.

Then I began receiving catalogues and brochures from scores of publishers, touting their new materials which were “Common Core aligned.” I began to hear that implementing Common Core would take extensive professional development. I wondered, if other teacher education institutions are doing the same kind of work we were doing, why was there this great need to re-train teachers in good teaching practice? What was so different about Common Core that it required such a major professional development effort? Frankly, I couldn’t see it. Unless, of course, teachers were not using the skills we were teaching them. Perhaps that was it. I was still in compliance mode.

​I began noting articles in professional journals that suggested not everyone was happy with Common Core. A group of math experts were the first to come to my attention as complaining about the Math Standards. Since math is not my thing, I made a mental note and kept watching and reading. I read about exemplar texts in Appendix B that were intended to be a list of mandatory texts; but Elfrieda Hiebert (2012/2013) convinced me this was a misinterpretation. Yet in the same volume, Fenice Boyd (2012/2103) complained that the exemplar texts lacked appropriate diversity. McLaughlin and Overturf (2012/2013) explained that Common Core required the reading of complex texts that most state standards did not specifically require, but who gets to determine whether given text qualifies as “complex,” I wondered. I began to read about the angst of many English Language Arts teachers who were forced to adjust their literature assignments to 50% non-fiction in elementary up to 70% non-fiction reading in high school (Gewertz, 2013); although I firmly believe in a balance of fiction to non-fiction, I found these percentages on the high side, and yes, I read the explanation that after students leave school, most of their reading is non-fiction—all the more reason, I thought, to give them a strong foundation in fiction reading. In fact, last month the New York Times reported on a study (Belluck, 2013) published in the journal Science that found that students who read literary fiction are better at social skills than those who don’t. These, by the way, are the very skills that critics of our schools often say students will need in the new global society (Friedman, 2006). Then I read that implementing Common Core correctly would require that students no longer write about anything of personal interest; they should only write about factual topics. This I determined to be a distortion, but how many teachers might be operating under it, I wondered. There seemed to be much disagreement as to how to appropriately interpret and implement Common Core. Finally, last spring I read an article that started me searching out answers to my questions in earnest.

​The article was written by Tom Loveless (2013), a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute. In this article Loveless quoted the Common Core website which states that “[t]he Standards are not a curriculum…Local teachers, principals, superintendents, and others will decide how the standards are to be met.” Although that sounded reassuring, Loveless goes on to explain that school districts are now faced with a range of choices. He used as examples two highly touted and well-known curricula, which both claim to be “Common Core-aligned.” Core Knowledge holds that curriculum should be content-centered, whereas the Partnership for 21st Century Skills focuses on “critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity.” Certainly, a school district has the choice of which curriculum meshes best with its world view of education. The problem is, the tests that will assess students on Common Core are not created in a philosophical vacuum. Which view will the tests test? That is not a trivial question for school administrators and teachers, because, as it is now designed, their very livelihoods are hanging on this decision.

​That article got me digging deeper and here is a summary of what I learned.

• First, I learned that despite the denial of Common Core promoters that the Standards are not a curriculum, the high-stakes tests that are part and parcel of the Common Core Initiative absolutely make them the curriculum (James, 2013). Standards should be a guide or a set of goals for learning, but when the learning is assessed with instruments upon which decisions are made which can dramatically impact lives, the standards have to be the curriculum. When teachers and schools are evaluated on the scores of their students on tests that they had no hand in designing, they will focus strategically on what will be tested. Teaching to the test, once looked down on as unprofessional, is already the modus operandi in most schools, promoted from the top down in many cases. The result is a narrowing of the curriculum. We’ve already seen that under NCLB. It can only get worse under Common Core. One solution to that, of course, is to test everything. I read last month that the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) has released an RFP requesting bids on assessments for “Speaking and Listening.” Seriously? I’m having a hard time imagining a computer-based test that can do an effective job of this, and I’m not the only one (Merrow, 2013).

• Second, I learned that despite protests from Common Core supporters, the connection of high-stakes tests with Common Core will undoubtedly lead to a “one size fits all” curriculum (Darling-Hammond, 2010). Teachers are taught how to differentiate learning to meet the needs of all students in our university classrooms. Using differentiated learning techniques, making modifications and accommodations, how to check for understanding and re-teach using different methods when necessary are part of what we teach pre-service teachers how to do. Nevertheless, the high-stakes aspect of the tests combined with the standards-curriculum that lays out in lock-step fashion exactly what must be learned each year or each month or even each week to achieve an acceptable grade on The Test leads teachers to “cover material” rather than “go deep” or re-teach for those who don’t learn as quickly. William Stevenson says this:

“​​A kind of corollary has developed from the recent emphasis on
​​testing, and now the present emphasis on Common Core Standards.
​​The corollary is unintended and unacknowledged, but it is real. Here
​​it is: all students should learn the same things in the same time
​​frame and preferably in the same way. To most people who have
​​taught school, it would seem foolish to make this assumption. How-
​​ever, if you focus on the reality of what the policies require,
this kind​​ of uniformity is hard to avoid (2013, p. 3).”

Brooks and Dietz (2012/2013) put it this way:

“​​…the Common Core State Standards Initiative goes far beyond the
​​content of the standards themselves. The Initiative conflates standards with standardization. For instance, many states are mandating that school​​ districts select standardized student outcome measures and teacher evaluation systems from a pre-established state lists. To maximize the ​​likelihood of student success on standardized measure, many districts are requiring teachers to use curriculum materials produced by the same​​ companies that are producing the testing instruments, even predeter​​mining the books students will read on the basis of the list of sample​​ texts that illustrate the standard. The Initiative compartmentalizes​​ thinking, privileges profit-making companies, narrows the creativity and professionalism of teachers, and limits meaningful student learning” (p. 65).
​​
• Third, I learned that where Common Core has been in place since 2010, we are reading reports of dramatic increases in children are psychologically stressed; students who used to look forward to school no longer want to go (Calamia, 2013; Ravitch, October 25, 2013). Recently, a group of 129 authors and illustrators of children’s books (Public Letter on Standardized Testing, October 22, 2013) presented a public letter to President Obama asking for an end to the abuses of over testing because of its negative effects on “children’s love of reading.”

• Fourth, I learned that high-stakes testing will dramatically increase. Since the implementation of NCLB, Oklahoma has been testing its students statewide based on PASS, so testing on success with the standards is nothing new. These tests have been used to rate school districts, but have provided no information that is useful to teachers for help with individual students and is never provided on a timely basis. Four to five months separate the administration of the tests and the release of the results to the schools. Thus they are useless to teachers for formative assessment, since the results are for students they no longer have in their classrooms. The proposed Common Core assessments are different; they are NCLB on steroids.

​This past weekend I attended a literacy conference where two highly respected literacy researchers and theorists spoke about the Common Core Standards. Dr. Robert Calfee (2013) of Stanford provided an understanding of the vision of the Core and its goal of integration across disciplines, a concept I totally agree with; however, when I specifically asked about the impact of tests on these goals, he commented emphatically that tests would undermine them. I next listened to Dr. Tim Shanahan (2013), former president of the International Reading Association, who also lauded the goals of Common Core, but went on to provide examples of test items from proposed tests of both PARCC and Smarter Balance. The take away? He questions whether the sophisticated tests will really work for a number of reasons. Although these presentations helped me better understand how Common Core differs from PASS, and why extensive professional development would be required, they both supported my concerns relative to the disastrous effects of the proposed testing.

​Initially, Oklahoma participated in PARCC, one of the two consortia charged by the federal Department of Education with developing multi-state assessments. Instead of one round of testing (for which the two months preceding the test is spent primarily in “test prep”), in a gross distortion of the term “formative assessment,” PARCC requires three rounds of testing—beginning benchmark tests, mid-year “formative assessments,” and end-of-year tests (Hain, 2011). The testing sessions are lengthy and many if not most will be done on a computer. Many of the school districts in Oklahoma do not have the infrastructure to provide sufficient numbers of computers or adequate Internet access to their students to take these tests. What will “test prep” look like for these tests? As a teacher, I understand the value of formative or interim assessments to help direct teachers’ efforts. Although the stated purpose of the first and second rounds of testing is to provide teachers feedback to guide instruction, the track record of OSDE in providing timely and accurate test results leaves me skeptical. Since Oklahoma pulled out of PARCC to develop its own tests, at the moment, teachers all across Oklahoma are desperately trying to prepare students for tests to be given next April, the developers of which have not even been announced yet.

​And still speaking of tests, the number of hours, days, weeks, and months that students in our schools must devote to either testing or test prep is growing exponentially. Every time a student takes a test, that is time out of the school day taken from instruction. In our local middle school last April, it took an entire three weeks just to give the tests; because they had to be taken on the computer, and there are a limited number of computers, it required three weeks to be able to schedule every group in and out of the computer labs. The disruption this caused in real learning is astonishing. Testing is not learning. Recently Rob Miller (October 23, 2013), principal at Jenks, OK, published some projections as to how many tests an eighth-grader at his middle school will have taken by the end of the year. Here’s the list: “…probably a hundred subject-area benchmark tests, unit and chapter tests and quizzes in all…courses…the ACT Explore test, the OCCT Writing assessment, the OCCT Science test, the OCCT US History Test, the online OCCT Reading test, the online OCCT Math test, and (for most students at Jenks Middle School) an additional EOI math test.” On top of these, Miller explained that according to the latest information from OSDE, students may be asked to take another round of tests this spring as “pilot” tests for the new OCCRA assessments. According to Miller, that may add another five to ten days of testing, because Jenks doesn’t have a computer for every student either.

​ I talked recently with a third grade teacher in an Oklahoma City school. She told me that she is required to test some of her students weekly using a computer-based test, and the testing required was often not on the students’ areas of weakness; thus the tests were meaningless for her use. She complained bitterly about the amount of time testing was taking away from teaching.

​I have thought about the amount of money being spent on the development of these tests, which are written by professional test writers in huge conglomerate publishing firms like McGraw-Hill and Pearson, with inconsequential input from Oklahoma educators, including teacher educators. I have thought about the millions of dollars it will take to get rural districts up to speed to allow their students to take these tests on a computer. If we were not committed to spending money on these questionable tests, imagine what we could provide for students and teachers and schools in Oklahoma.

• Fifth, I learned that there is little reason to expect that the Common Core Standards will be any more successful in raising student achievement than PASS was. The argument has been made that high standards will improve learning, and there is some research that supports that argument. Linda Darling-Hammond in her book The Flat World of Education (2010) reviewed a set of studies on the effect of standards on student achievement. What her review revealed was that in areas where standards were connected to investments in effective professional development and where tests were used primarily to inform teachers and support curriculum reform, student gains could be documented on performance assessments. This was not true where the standards were not supported in these ways. In fact, when standards were tied to knowledge-based multiple-choice tests that were not shared with teachers in a way that they could use them to inform instruction or plan curriculum, the results were teaching to the test, which actually leads to less learning and critical thinking, and a narrowing of the curriculum, because as Darling-Hammond says, “Untested subjects are…neglected” (p. 71). In 2012 the Brown Center (Loveless, 2012) released a report which focused in part on the question of whether the Common Core State Standards can be expected to improve student achievement. I quote from its executive summary: “…the study foresees little to no impact on student learning.”

• Sixth, I learned that Common Core is inappropriate for early childhood. This fall I am teaching a course called Foundations of Literacy. This course focuses on the very early beginnings of learning to read and write through age 8. When I began to hear reports that the demands being put on first graders and kindergartners by Common Core were developmentally inappropriate (e.g., Ochshorn, 2013; Ravitch, October 13, 2013; Ravitch, October 19, 2013), I decided to check it out for myself. Our textbook is written by Dr. Leslie Mandel Morrow (Morrow, 2012), one of the most highly respected early childhood experts in the United States today. On pages 52-58 in the text, Dr. Morrow provides a list of the developmental characteristics of young children by age. I took the list for the five-year-old child and compared it to the Common Core Kindergarten Standards. I found many mismatches; for example, cognitive characteristics of the five-to-six-year-old child include that he or she can “recognize that one can get meaning from printed words” and “may begin printing or copying letters.” The Kindergarten Standards state that a Kindergartner should be capitalizing the first word of a sentence, be able to write a letter for most consonants and short vowel sounds, and spell words phonetically. I have included copies of Morrow’s developmental characteristics and the Kindergarten Standards with this presentation, so you can see the discrepancies for yourself. How could this happen, one might ask—and in fact, one should.

​In looking into this, I discovered that the collaborative group of “experts” who were hired by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers were primarily employees of test writing companies such as Pearson, and none of them had any expert knowledge or skill in early childhood (Cody, 2013; Mathis, 2010). In fact, I also learned that, rather than beginning at the youngest schooling age to begin building the standards, the group decided to begin at the top, as confirmed by Conley and Gaston (2013). Supposedly, they began by asking, “What does a high school graduate need to know to enter college, or maybe a career?” Personally, I see a big problem there. The only national tests we currently have that give us any idea as to what graduating seniors may know are the SAT and the ACT (Huffington Post, 2012). One might start there except for one big problem: every college and university in the nation handles those scores differently, giving them different weights in the selection process, a growing number not considering them at all. So how can we say these tests have the potential to tell us what colleges expect students to know? Another factor is that study after study has shown that the best predictor of college success is high school GPA, not scores on the ACT or SAT.

​The developers of the Standards have been less than forthcoming in describing the process that was used in their development, so in fact, I have no idea whether they used the ACT and/or SAT, but if they didn’t, what other basis could they have used? Is it possible that they just created out of whole cloth what they thought freshman should start college with? Whatever they started from, they proceeded to work their way down. I can only assume that by the time they got to about third grade, they had too many standards left over, so they just pushed them further down.

​A report by David Conley and Paul Gaston (2013) released in October attempts to “bridge the gap” between Common Core Standards and the Degree Qualifications Profile or DQP; the DQP is an effort to describe the general “learning outcomes” a person graduating from college should expect to have regardless of major. The report describes a survey conducted by the authors of instructors of almost 2000 college courses, asking them how well they thought the standards applied to their expectations of what an entering student should know and be able to do to be successful in their coursework. The authors concluded that based on the instructors’ assessments, “the standards as a whole are applicable to and important for success in their courses.” However, they also state that confirmation of such applicability can only come from long-term studies. Bear in mind that the creators of the standards did not have even this study to work from. Yet, the writers of the standards were so confident in their work that Secretary Duncan required that any state who participated in Race to the Top, must adopt the Common Core “State” Standards (Fletcher, 2010). Conley and Gaston also point out that the Common Core Standards do not specify to what level any given standard must be acquired or mastered in order to be “college ready.” We won’t know that, I suppose, until the tests are launched.

One of the things I learned in graduate school was that you can’t assume a good idea will work; it has to be tested and tried and the results have to be studied to make adjustments. I was appalled when I learned that the Common Core Standards were implemented with absolutely no field testing (Mathis, 2010; Ravitch, 2013). That means we don’t really know whether or how well they will work. The proper procedure would have been to try them out on a small scale before using virtually the entire population of the nation’s children as guinea pigs! And by the way, the standards are copyrighted by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, and states must be given a license to use them (Schneider, 2013). It’s free, of course, to states who adopt them, but that also means that the states cannot change or adapt them in any way to meet specific needs. If they are truly “state” standards, why would a state need permission to change one? And thereby hangs a tale.

• Seventh, I learned that the Common Core State Standards are not state standards at all. Mathis (2010) calls them de facto national standards, but I think they are more than de facto. The National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, both national organizations themselves, were willing to front for Department of Education, which appears to covet top-down control of education in this country. The NCSG and the CCSSO did not write the standards; they hired an organization called ACHIEVE to compose them. The writers who worked for ACHIEVE were primarily representatives of publishing and testing companies, including the College Board and ACT (Mathis, 2010). Certain education figures, mostly college professors and only one practicing teacher, were invited to “review” the standards, but not write them (Mathis, 2010). I’m not aware of anyone from Oklahoma who participated in that process. How can these be our state standards? Oklahoma was required to adopt the standards, at the demand of the Department of Education, in order to have a chance at competing in the Race to the Top. Much has already been written on the questionable methods used to make this effort appear to be a state effort, when it was really a screen for federal involvement in the development and promotion of the standards (Cody, 2013). Section 103 of Public Law 96-88 which established the Department of Education as a cabinet-level position expressly prohibits the DOE from “…increas[ing] the authority of the Federal Government over education or diminish[ing] the responsibility for education which is reserved to the States and the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States.” There is a clear and reasonable argument to be made that the Common Core Initiative is illegal (Cody, 2013).

• The eighth point I learned concerned SAT and ACT rankings for Oklahoma students. Oklahoma has long ranked near the bottom of states in terms of money the state provides for education. A report issued last month indicated that Oklahoma has actually cut more funding to education since 2008 than any other state (Leachman & Mai, 2013). Yet despite that, a review (Bridges, n.d.) of the scores in recent years shows that Oklahoma students score in the middle of the pack nationally on the ACT. Few students in Oklahoma take the SAT, but those who do score exceptionally well. If you accept the premise that these tests indicate college readiness, it seems to me this is clear evidence that Oklahoma teachers, by and large, are doing a fine job to prepare students for college—without Common Core.

• And ninth, speaking of teachers, several studies relating to the process of evaluating teachers based on their students’ test scores have recently been released (Baker, 2013; Educational Analytics, Inc., 2013; Spears, 2013). This process of teacher evaluation is demanded by the Department of Education as part and parcel of Race to the Top, which was the Trojan Horse by which states were lured into accepting Common Core. The theory is that if a teacher is a good teacher, his or her students will always show gains in achievement on the required tests. All teachers know instinctively that this is wrong. Students are not widgets and teachers are not factory workers. There is no quality control that provides a standard product coming to them on the school assembly line. Students vary from year to year in terms of their abilities, so it is impossible for teachers to show the same consistent progress all the time (Ravitch, 2013). These studies document clearly that teachers cannot be fairly evaluated using students’ test scores; one researcher called the teacher evaluation systems “junk science.” Yet with Common Core, we are married to that flawed concept, which has already led to the highly questionable firing of teachers and administrators in many parts of our country (Ravitch, 2013). And as Diane Ravitch (2013) notes, the other countries whose students, many claim, out-score ours on international tests “did not get there by ‘deselecting’ teachers whose students got low scores. Nations such as Finland, Canada, Japan, and South Korea spend time and resources improving the skills of their teachers, not selectively firing them in relation to student test scores.”

​Given these nine facts I have learned in my research, I am deeply concerned about the impact of the Common Core Initiative on Oklahoma students, teachers, and parents. Of course, as long as Common Core is in place, I will guide my student teachers in learning how to use the standards as guides, but I will also tell them that as professionals they have a right and an obligation to advocate for their students, even if that means they must challenge the status quo. We as teachers and teacher educators can no longer in good conscience accept what we know not to be in the best interests of our students. Based on what I have learned, I am ethically bound to oppose Common Core. It’s not good for students, teachers, parents, or schools. It’s not good for Oklahoma.

References

Ada, A. F., Alexander, A., Ancona, J. Angelou, M., Auxier, J., Baker, K., et. al. (October 22, 2013). Public ​letter on standardized testing from authors and illustrators of books for children and youth.​Retrived October 26, 2013 from http://www.fairtest.org/public-letter-on-standardized-testing-​by-childrens-authors

Baker, B. (October 16, 2013). The value added & growth score train wreck is here. School Finance 101.
Retrieved October 21, 2013 from http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/the-value-added-growth-score-train-wreck-is-here/

Belluck, P. (October 3, 2013). For better social skills, scientists recommend a little Chekhov. Retrieved ​October 26, 2013 from well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/I-know-how-youre-feeling-I-read-​chekhov/

Boyd, F. December2012/January2013). The Common Core State Standards and diversity: Unpacking the ​text exemplars presented in Appendix B. Reading Today, 30(3), 10-11

Bridges, T. (n.d.) Some overlooked truths about Oklahoma student performance: Or a candid look at
how schools are really doing. Retrieved October 22, 2013, from twitdoc.com/upload/bridgestyler/some-overlooked-truths.pdf

Brooks, J. G., & Dietz, M. E. (December 2012/January 2013). The dangers & opportunities of the ​Common Core. Educational Leadership, 70(4), 64-67).

Calamia, M. (October 28, 2013). A social worker reports on what Common Core is doing to students. ​Undernews. Retrieved November 3, 2013 from http://prorevnews.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-​social-worker-reports-on-what-common.html.

Calfee, R. (November 1, 2013). Defining and fulfilling the vision of the Common Core Standards. ​Presented to the Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers 57th Annual Conference, ​Dallas, TX.

Cody, A. (October 16, 2013). Process matters in a democracy: Common Core fails the test. Teacher ​Blogs. Retrieved October 26, 2013 from http://www.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/

Conley, D. T., & Gaston, P. L. (2013). A path to alignment: Connecting K-12 and higher education via the ​Common Core and the Degree Qualifications Profile. Lumina Foundation.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world of education: How America’s commitment to equity will ​determine our future. New York: Teachers College

Education Analytics, Inc. (September 19, 2013). Review and analysis of the New York Growth Model.
Retrieved October 30, 2013 from http:// http://www.lhcss. org/position

Fletcher, G. H. (2010). “Race to the Top: No District Left Behind.” T. H. E Journal 37(10): 17–18. ​Retrieved October 30, 2013 from http://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-​243525629/race-to-the-top-no-district-left-behind-the-reforms

Friedman, T. L. (2006). The world is flat: A brief history of the Twenty-First Century; Updated and ​expanded. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Gewertz, C. (January 29, 2013). Interpretations differ on Common Core’s Nonfiction Rule. Education ​Week. Retrieved January 31, 2013 from ​http:/www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/01/30/19nonfiction_ep.h32.html

Hain, B. (August/September 2011). PARCC Consortium – A five component assessment model. Reading ​Today, 29(1), 24.

Hiebert, E. H. (December2012/January2013). The CCSS text exemplars: Understanding their aims and ​use in text selection. Reading Today, 30(3), 6-7.

Huffington Post. (November 28, 2012). SAT, ACT No Longer Required For Admission to 800 U.S. Colleges ​and Universities. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from ​http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/sat-act-not-required-​colleges_n_2206391.html#es_share_ended

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2012) Standards. Retrieved October 27, 2013 ​from https://www.iste.org/standards.

James, J. (September 13, 2013). Standards: Are they curriculum? Thoughts regarding #OKlaED. Retrieved ​September 13, 2013 from
http://jasonthecurriculumguy.blogspot.com/s013/09/standards-are-they-curriculum.html?spref=tw

Leachman, M., & Mai, C. (September 12, 2013). Most States Funding Schools Less Than Before the
Recession. Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved October 28, 2013 from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=4011

Loveless, T. (2012). The 2012 Brown Center report on American education: How well are American ​students learning? 3(1) Brown Center on Educational Policy. Retrieved July 27, 2013 from ​http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2012/02/16-brown-education

Loveless, T. (2013). The Common Core Initiative: What are the chances of success? Educational ​Leadership, 70(4), 60-63.

Mathis, W. J. (2010). The “Common Core” Standards Initiative: An effective reform tool? Boulder and ​Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved ​October 30, 2013 from http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/PB-NatStans-Mathis.pdf

McLaughlin, M., & Overturf, B. J. (December2012/January2013). The Hunger Games and the Common ​Core: Determining the complexity of contemporary texts. Reading Today, 30(3), 8-9.

Merrow, J. (May 29, 2013). An open letter to the architects of the Common Core. Taking note: Thoughts ​on education from John Merrow. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from ​http://takingnote.learningmatters.tv/?p=6411

Miller, R. (October 23, 2013). I’m seeing double! A View from the Edge. Retrieved October 26, 2013 from ​http://principal.jenksms.com/?p=1032 ​

Morrow, L. (2012). Literacy development in the early years: Helping children read and write, 7th edition. ​New York: Pearson.

Ochshorn, S. (October 14, 2013). Five-year-olds filling in bubbles: A school opts out. Standards and ​Assessment. Retrieved October 22, 2013 from http://www.ecepolicymatters.com/archives/1762

Ohler, J. (2013). The uncommon core. Educational Leadership, 70(5), 42-46).

Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America’s
public schools. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Ravitch, D. (October 13, 2013). Dr. Joseph Ricciotti: How CCSS ruins Kindergarten. Diane Ravitch’s ​blog: A site to discuss better education for all. Retrieved October 13, 2013 from​dianeravitch.net/2013/10/13/dr-joseph-ricciotti-how-ccss-ruins-kindergarten/

Ravitch, D. (October 19, 2013). Why school “Reform” fails. Diane Ravitch’s blog: A site to discuss better
education for all. Retrieved October 19, 2013 from dianeravitch.net/2013/10/19/why-school-reform-fails/

Ravitch, D. (October 25, 2013). NY Principal: These “reforms” destroy love of learning. Diane Ravitch’s ​blog: A site to discuss better education for all. Retrieved October 26, 2013 from​dianeravitch.net/2013/10/25/ny-principal-these-reforms-destroy-love-of-learning/

Schneider, M. (October 13, 2013). The Common Core public license: Guess who wins? Deutsch29: Mercedes Schneider’s Edublog. Retrieved October 20, 2013 from deutsch29.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/the-common-core-public-license-guess-who-wins/

Shanahan, T. (November 2, 2013). The new generation of reading assessments beginning in 2014-15. ​Presented to the Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers 57th Annual Conference, ​Dallas, TX.

Spears, A. (October 7, 2013). 20 years of TVAAS has told us almost nothing. Tennessee education report.
Retrieved October 21, 2013 from http://tnedreport.com/

Stevenson, W. (April-May-June 2013). Huge issues, strange logic and common sense: An editorial. Food ​for Thought, 2-3.

Post Navigation