The authors of the Common Core took care to spell out the functional skills that students were expected to learn in each grade. For instance, the Common Core ELA standards require that third graders be able to "[r]ead grade-level prose and poetry orally with accuracy, appropriate rate, and expression on successive readings. Common Core advocates billed the standards as "internationally benchmarked," "evidence-based," "college- and career-ready," and "rigorous. The claims were not so much false as grossly overstated.
For instance, "internationally benchmarked" actually meant no more than that the committees that wrote the Common Core standards looked at the standards in countries that score well on international tests.
Advocates don't even claim that the Common Core mimicked these standards, just that they consulted them. Marina Ratner of the University of California, Berkeley, has argued, "The Common Core fails any comparison with the standards of high-achieving countries. The "evidence-based" claim implies that decisions about why students must learn this and not that in a given grade are backed by scientific research. In fact, what advocates mean is that the authors of the standards looked at research and surveys asking professors and hiring managers what they thought high-school graduates should know and which courses college-bound students usually take.
But the impact of this research is hard to discern. Vanderbilt education professor Lynn Fuchs has put it well, noting there is no "empirical basis" for the Common Core: "We don't know yet whether it makes sense to have this particular set of standards. When advocates claim the Common Core ensures that students are "college- and career-ready," it is again worth reading the fine print.
Achieve, Inc. And while advocates declare that the Common Core is more rigorous than previous state standards, this is a difficult claim to referee. More often than not, the case rests on the subjective judgment of four evaluators hired by the pro-Common Core Thomas B. Fordham Institute in , who opined that the new standards were better than about three-quarters of existing state standards. Not an unreasonable judgment, but hardly compelling proof of rigor.
The standards appeared perfectly passable, but claims about their remarkable virtue were gross exaggerations. In any event, the standards were not adopted by states after deliberate evaluation or public consideration of their merits. Rather, incentives from the Obama administration encouraged states to hurriedly embrace the Common Core. As legislated by Congress, the funds that fueled Race to the Top were intended to help states "enhance the quality of [their] academic assessments" and "take steps to improve [their] academic content standards.
The Education Department made it clear that the surest way to meet that requirement was to adopt the Common Core and to promise to use one of the federally funded, Common Core-aligned tests.
By the end of , 39 states had adopted the Common Core, and by the end of , 44 states had. Advocates cheered the administration's push for the Common Core, insisting there was no time to worry about the niceties of federalism.
As school-reform firebrand Michelle Rhee put it, "I've heard some recent rumblings from folks who say we don't like it when the federal government is telling us what to do You know what you should not like?
The fact that China is kicking our butts right now. Despite this track record, the administration and its allies dismissed fears of federal encroachment as unfounded. Speaking about the standards, Education Secretary Duncan told the American Society of News Editors in , "The federal government didn't write them, didn't approve them and doesn't mandate them.
And we never will. Anyone who says otherwise is either misinformed or willfully misleading. This complaint would be more convincing if Democrats hadn't already eagerly taken credit for the standards, with the Democratic National Platform applauding Obama for the widespread adoption of the Common Core and the president crediting himself in his and State of the Union remarks for the same thing.
The studied disingenuousness of devotees would fuel backlash among skeptics who saw steady federal encroachment and believed the Common Core was sold under false pretenses. The ambiguities surrounding the Common Core helped the standards gain momentum, and the resulting hurried adoption left little time to sort things out. No one quite understood what Common Core was or what its impact would be, allowing it to be all things to all people. This meant supporters could credit it with diverse and sometimes contradictory virtues.
For instance, proponents of "21st-century skills" were pleased that the Common Core valued having students explain their math work even when they couldn't determine the right answer, while others lauded the standards' heightened focus on arithmetic. Union leaders hailed the Common Core as a welcome opportunity for teachers nationwide to throw off the "stifling" strictures of old state standards and focus on more "authentic" learning, while reformers cheered the promise of more difficult tests that would push teachers to ensure student mastery of tested skills.
Despite the Common Core's rapid, widespread adoption, it received surprisingly little attention in the mainstream media. A LexisNexis search shows that, between and , as more than 40 states with more than 40 million students signed on, all American news outlets combined featured fewer than 4, mentions of the Common Core. That media silence was due in large part to a calculated strategy among Common Core supporters: Advocates took pains to stay under the radar, avoid public debate, tightly coordinate their messaging, ridicule skeptics rather than respond to them, and ride the wave of support provided by the Obama administration in those years.
The ease of the Common Core's early success was at once astonishing and unsurprising. It was astonishing because previous efforts to promote national educational standards had ended terribly, and after those experiences, any talk of national standards was generally dismissed as a pipe dream. But it was also unsurprising because the Common Core standards didn't seem to offer much cause for opposition. The standards were simply a list of recommendations for what K students should learn in reading and math.
Earlier setbacks had taught proponents to stay away from history or social studies, to avoid identifying which books or authors students should read, and to cling to the safe ground of "skill-based" standards.
Amidst a housing crash, a bitter recession, and ferocious fights over health care and the proper size of government, quiet changes to reading and math standards were easy to overlook. But the wins produced by a stealth strategy that bypassed a distracted public turned out to be unsustainable. Once the public started to pay attention, and the advocates' carefully crafted talking points were exposed to the harsh reality of implementation, support for the Common Core began to unravel.
Straight-talking advocates have long conceded that new standards do not necessarily mean that anything will change. In , Chester Finn, Jr. Fordham Institute and ardent champions of the Common Core, conceded that "[s]tandards often end up like wallpaper. They sit there on a state website, available for download, but mostly they're ignored.
That mission statement almost inevitably touts, say, a commitment to providing strategic solutions and being a great place to work. Those pleasing words, however, may bear little resemblance to reality. The real power of standards lies in their ability to change what is tested, and thus to change how curricula and textbooks are written, how teachers teach, and how students learn.
As Finn and Petrilli put it, the standards are ignored, and "[e]ducators instead obsess about what's on the high-stakes test.
When coupled with tests, accountability systems, and teacher evaluation, the Common Core becomes the invisible but omnipresent foundation of American education. In truth, common standards and tests have a lot to recommend them. Should I deny their knowledge?
Or is my money more important than their knowledge, just because I can't understand or, eventually, deny trying even to understand? First of all the standards do NOT say how a teacher should teach!! I am a teacher from Ca and I am truly excited about these standards and what they allow teachers who are willing to do.
They were created by researchers who looked at the development of children and the standards already in place by states. Now the standards are aligned with the mental capabilities of the student at every grade level.
Stages of Cognative development They made everything align better and give teachers the opportunity to bring in depth of a topic not just skim the surface and move on. Take math for example, the standard is written and then in italics is an example of the standard in the classroom.
It's obvious the person writing this article has no idea what common core is about!!! The Common Core weaves together and makes plain what once seemed to be disparate themes: 1. It shows the heavy hand of the federal government, manipulating states into adopting the Common Core, despite the fact that it is prohibited by law from influencing curriculum and instruction in the nation's schools.
It has revealed the extent to which nonprofits, including the teachers's unions, accepted funding from Gates to advance the Common Core. Many of the arguments for Common Core portray our children as products on an assembly line. As a high level Gates Foundation official wrote recently, "I am pleased to see the excitement in the business community for the common core.
Businesses are the primary consumers of the output of our schools, so it's a natural alliance. Common Core reinforces NCLB's insistence that schools be held accountable for constantly rising scores.
Common Core was designed to cause tests scores to plummet. The proposed standards conflict with compelling new research in cognitive science, neuroscience, child development, and early childhood education about how young children learn, what they need to learn, and how best to teach them in kindergarten and the early grades….
Yet they had no role in the creation K-3 Core Standards. There were also no state administrative or legislative staff involved in creating the standards.
They were literally bribed into signing onto the standards before they were even drafted. Common Core State Standards were developed by individuals coming from interests in the testing, textbook, training, and student and teacher tracking industry. All three belong to a company. The Feedback Group have credentials for the job and are from reputable universities. Final decisions regarding the common core standards document were made by the Standards Development Work Group.
The Feedback Group served as an advisory role, not a decision-making role in the process. The Common Core State Standards were created by two trade associations by individuals who worked for interests with a great deal to gain by creating a national standard for education in the United States! Common Core In , two national trade organizations—the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers—started work on a common set of curriculum standards in English language arts and mathematics.
In December of , these two groups produced a document on national education standards that would guide the Obama Administration during its transition into office. Most states were still obligated to meet onerous NCLB requirements. The U. Department of Education promised NCLB waivers to states that adopted a common set of college- and career- ready standards and assessments.
And while the U. CC ignores the imagination. Common Core not only imposes a new curriculum but limits the thinking skills to be taught. Common Core ignores the interactive approach. NYLS are, furthermore, age appropriate; the objective is developing thinking skills not over loading the memory with facts.
For centuries philosophers have debated what schools are for. CC: Believes that the answers are to be found in the text itself so they concentrate on the text instead of starting with the child and what the child knows. Common Core- Problematic on all fronts: philosophically, psychologically, sociologically, methodologically, politically, economically, and morally.
I just watched a number of sample videos of common core math in action at, I believe, a Cupertino high school in CA links provided below. I must confess that it was excruciating painful.
A simple high school geometry concept was turned into this unbelievable brain-storming, creativity exercise that students were left to "persevere" through and manifested in their "convincing" their fellow students about their "conjectures". This evidently spanned over a whole week of math classes.
How could we educate our kids like this? Students in any sensible education systems would probably breeze through the same subject in less than half a session. I think Dr. Stotsky's two grades down comment was a big understatement! What happened to teaching our kids the elegance of mathematics? On the other hand, if parents see concrete examples of teachers using Common Core assessments to assist the development of their own children — "If you see them saying, 'Here are things we can do for your kid,' — then you'll start to see a lot more parental comfort," he says.
Valid criticism should be respected and used to spur continued improvements to the Core, Reville agrees. I do think you will see some reconsideration about both the quantity and quality of testing. These concerns will likely be reflected in the work surrounding the new assessments.
But if the Core is to succeed, there's another challenge, says Mehta. Common Core standards are significantly more demanding, so if we raise standards and don't increase support and capacity building, the schools won't meet the standards, which over time will lead to either lowering of standards or increased resistance on the part of teachers and schools.
Buttimer shares this view. However, "We're setting high standards without helping teachers and students get to those standards" through professional development and other capacity-building support. By tying teacher performance to results without supporting them to make the change, "We've skipped right to the evaluate-and-punish stage. Indeed, Schwartz notes that California, which has made a "massive investment in professional development but also suspended state testing," is a state that "seems most on track for successful implementation of the Core.
It is a sad irony, he believes, that opposition to testing is rising "just at the point when we are finally going to have a set of tests coming from the two testing consortia that promise to be substantially better than the state tests currently in use. Will we be smart enough to slow down implementation, make the necessary investments in teacher learning, and move toward a system with fewer but better tests? That's why, Mehta says, it's critical to "try to create substantive support for teachers to learn how to teach the standards, to help teams of teachers work together and share what works.
And then celebrate small moments of progress, and go back to the public and say, 'We're making progress,' and use that to build support for the policy.
We have to get away from our impatience mentality. Her last piece looked at what happens to learning during conflict. Skip to main content. Illustration by Daniel Vasconcellos. As all these concerns converged, the tide began to turn. But with so much controversy and division, the question today is: Will the Core survive? That message may be getting through to Core proponents: For parents tired of the testing culture, the growing attention to the Core has prompted great pushback to the testing culture.
Still, Reville and others concede, opposition is real and growing. Further Reading:. Artboard 1. Harvard University. Linked In. Symbols Created with Sketch. Digital Accessibility Policy. Why else would states accept the an education program that had never been tested?
Obviously, it is the Common Core curriculum and testing to that curriculum that is receiving the most criticism, and which is of most concern to parents.
The vulnerability of private student data is a close second. The curriculum, especially the math, is causing angst to parents and pupils, rather than praise for the critical thinking it promised to create. The curriculum also has definite signs of political indoctrination. Teachers are told to keep any negative concerns to themselves; parents are disgusted and students are frustrated. The media is largely silent. Sadly, the polls should have included a category indicating the degree of knowledge and information of those polled, because only those who have thoroughly studied the issue know all the questionable activities, problems, and concerns that have arisen.
The MSM has not been proactive on the issue, and thus depend upon those like Sarah Tully to provide information. One needs to turn to the internet for a more complete education on the subject. I believe the standards themselves are the problem, not that they don't have some attributes , and the development process was underhanded. You cannot expect to get a good product from a bad process. The CC cabal operated outside of the normal channels and away from public review by design.
States adopted them before they were written and once they were written the cabal left behind no organizational structure to tune and refine them overtime, especially … Read More.
States adopted them before they were written and once they were written the cabal left behind no organizational structure to tune and refine them overtime, especially as they are trademarked and cannot be changed.
It like buying a custom car no one can service. But this subject has been talked to death. Without getting into the validity of the poll, the clear trend is towards increasing disapproval of CCSS. I'm curious if you can cite a particular standard element that you're unhappy about. Something that leads to confusion is that most people aren't looking at the true CC documents. For example, there's a document going around that is passed off as common core computer literacy standards.
I've read this document and raised many eyebrows at it in many places. But, this document isn't actually Common Core - it's a derivation of things a particular … Read More. Craft and Structure:. Include at least one play by Shakespeare and one play by an American dramatist.
Nothing in itself, however all the ELA standards from 12th on down do exactly the same thing, only easier versions of it. The math one is easy. I have one son that was taught without CC and another with. One spends his time in groups and works out problems collectively. The other son had the traditional individual approach and learned way more. CCSSM puts the emphasis on applied mathematics and fails to adequately deal with functions, the part where kids struggle.
The analyzing done in those modules is not of others' interpretations but of the students'. There is a lot of reader interpretation in the curriculum examples for those modules I've seen. Also realize you chose reading modules. There are also writing modules that would naturally focus more on the creative process. That said, it is true there is an increased focus on more structured writing in cc than in previous standards especially in high school.
This seems to be based on a belief that this is one of the skills most lacking in current students. As to math, functions do get focus but starting more in 8th grade. I expect you may have seen them earlier under the previous standards? This may be a tradeoff with more statistics and geometry in lower grades.
Not sure I agree with you, navigio. It is about what the text says "explicitly," not about the implicit interaction or transaction with the reader. It's about pinning … Read More.
0コメント