If you don't think Common Core math is amazingly stupifying.. watch this video. I can honestly say if I were a kid, I'd be completely confused and very annoyed. Now I know how my nephew feels!
When it comes to Common Core there are two sets of standards, the ELA/Social Studies Standards and the Math Standards. Though the themes I will explore in this blog post apply to both, my commentary will mostly apply to ELA/Social Studies though I did want to briefly comment on the Math. Many complaints about the Math revolve around the difficulty of those of us educated in the "traditional manner" to understand this new approach. Having observed a Common Core math class myself I can personally attest to the validity of this confusion. It was a freshman math class and the students were learning what I immediately recognized as x/y intercepts of an algebraic equation. I immediately understood and recognized the ideas being presented, but then the teacher started teaching it and performing some sort of 'function' exercise that left me completely befuddled and confused, something that has never previously happened to me in a classroom. Therefore, when you read the stories (and there have been several) of engineer Dads not understanding and being confused by the homework of their elementary school children, I believe them to be completely true. Also, my nephew, who I am told likes math, has an affinity for math and scores highly in math, also struggled last year with Common Core because the teacher required him to "explain" something he was simply automatically doing in his head. That said, all of my colleagues that were specializing in Math seemed enthusiastic about this new approach and the broader themes explored in this blog apply equally to both standards.
Most objections to the Common Core are portrayed as coming from the right/conservative side of the political spectrum. These objections seem to revolve around mostly two sets of complaints, at least as far as history is concerned. One complaint is a revolt against the elimination of the "traditional" historical curriculum that promoted the tale of American "exceptionalism" and the glory of capitalism. (most recently in Missouri?) I will not waste any time on such banalities, and I am probably the most centrist/conservative member among history graduate students. For any of you "closet conservatives" out there, I would say one, don't be afraid to come out, and two, ex- Florida governor Jeb Bush is a strong supporter of the Common Core because he deems the standards more 'rigorous'. (this characterization is never disputed). Unlike his older brother W., Jeb is widely acknowledged as deep thinker and a policy wonk so no matter what you may think of his political beliefs, Jeb understands and has thought about the issues, probably more so than most. Another conservative, Bill Bennett also supports the Common Core. The other complaint revolves around "states rights" and the opposition to a federal role in education policy. However, despite perceived widespread support for the Common Core in the educational establishment, criticism is not restricted to the right/conservative side of the political spectrum and I thought it would be useful to examine the critique from certain quarters that would most certainly be deemed liberal/progressive.
In The Trouble with the Common Core, an editorial by the Editors Of Rethinking Schools, the following case is made (I urge you to read the editorial in its entirety since I can only recapitulate the main thrust of its critique). Although the authors aknowledge the positive claims made for the Common Core, the editorial claims that these claims and efforts cannot "trump the more political uses of the Common Core project". They also make their feelings known by using quotes with terms such as "world class" standards, and "next big thing". These progressive editors also support and properly explain the right/conservative federal intervention claims by explaining how these standards are not 'state' standards at all and were in fact designed to circumvent federal restrictions on the adoption of a national curriculum while the states were "coerced" to adopt Common Core by Federal grants attached to the Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind waivers.
The editorial critique focuses on the fact that Common Core was written mostly by academics and asssessment experts with ties to testing companies while the CC has never been fully tested and implemented anywhere. K-12 educators were only brought in after the fact to "tweak and endorse" the standards and give CC "legitimacy" with parents entirely missing from the process. It complains that the standards are tied to assessments that are still in development and that must be given on computers many schools don't have. While casting doubt on CC college preparation claims the editorial also complains that since the new CC tests will be "considerably harder" than current state assessments, a steep drop in scores and proficiency rates will inevitably follow. They claim this "disaster" has been experienced before, in the rollout and implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act which "reflected the long standing inequality around our schools". Instead of addressing and targeting the inequalities of race, class and educational opportunity, Common Core may merely "reproduce the narrative of public school failure that has led to a decade of bad policy in the name of reform". The editors fear that the engine of this disaster will be more standardized tests, and the resulting low scores will be used as an excuse to close down more public schools in favor of charter/voucher alternatives. The concern over the plunging test scores is mirrored by a strong supporter of the CC and a "mainstream" authority on teacher evaluation, Charlotte Danielson and they cite the confusion and general outcry over the recent implementation problems in New York.
Ultimately, the editors believe that Common Core "has become a part of the corporate reform project now stalking our schools". There are two critiques in the editorial piece which in a fascinating way tie in in an almost exact manner with criticism emanating from conservative quarters. The progressives complain about bureaucrat imposed standards while stating that "standards have often codified sanitized versions of history, politics, and culture that reinforce official myths while leaving out the voice, concerns and realities of our students and communities". Sound familiar? I guess Common Core based approaches of critical thinking and the examination of documents while learning how to build and support an argument are fantastic when examining tales of American 'exceptionalism', but maybe not so good when the critical gaze is similarly turned toward Howard Zinn and similar ideological projects? Therefore - your official myths are bad. "Our" official myths aren't myths. They're real. Well.. ok then. (roll eyes emoticon)
The other "joint" complaint is about cost. In Spending on Standards , Lindsay Burke of the Heritage Foundation examines the costs associated with the implementation of the Common Core project in California, Florida, Texas and Virginia. For contextual purposes, it should be noted that the Heritage Foundation is a very conservative think-tank, but this bias doesn't mean they will fudge numbers and data in this instance. Burke simply makes the following observations. 1) Estimates suggest that it will cost California taxpayers $ 1.6 billion to replace existing state standards with CC but the state has agreed to overhaul its existing system with the new standards (despite the state's fiscal problems) 2) Florida has spent more than $ 404 million to maintain and invest in its existing state standards yet has agreed to adopt the "unproven national assessments " (sound familiar?) despite potential cost to taxpayers. 3) Texas estimates that adoption of new standards and tests would cost taxpayers more than $ 3 billion and under Rick Perry is unwilling to take on this financial burden considering "the billions of dollars already invested in developing our strong (state) standards. 4) In Virginia, the Virginia BOE unanimously rejected the adoption of the CC. Their chief argument was fiscal, with the BOE arguing that since 1995 Virginia has already spent more than $ 379 million to develop and implement the state SOL's.
The last article, also related to Common Core implementation is an article titled Fight Is On for Common Core Contracts, written by Caroline Porter of the conservative/business supportive Wall Street Journal. Porter points out the big money involved in the project, including the $2.5 billion a year testing market. What is interesting about this article, isn't necessarily the money up for grabs, (this has always been the case in education, prior to Common Core, for eg.. just the textbook business alone) but accusations thrown agains the likes of Pearson, by other firms (such as AIR Asessment) who want a piece of the pie, even as states pool together their offers, creating megabucks contracts, sush as the $72 billion recently awarded to McGraw-Hill as non legacy, competing firms launch lawsuits and accusations of no bid contracts being awarded abound, (although state investigations have shrugged off the validity of these accusations). Considering the interest, (including Amplify, the educational subsidiary of News Corp, which owns the Wall Street Journal) one would expect the marketplace to become more efficient, and cost-effective, though with any public contract, shenanigans inevitably take place. The WSJ article also offers an interesting poll which shows that 60% of Americans oppose Common Core Guidelines, with 33% in favor. Additionally, 54% of the public feels standardized tests are not helpful to teachers, while 45% deem them helpful (this shows a clear polarity on the issue).
Therefore, to summarize some common themes that our conversation will surely coalesce around.. we have
1) cost (a concern for both conservatives, progressives want money spent elsewhere)
2) heavy top down bureaucratic federal approach being forced down throat ( a concern for both)
3) the influence/role of commercial minded education/publishing firms and consortia (concern for progressives
4) confusion over implementation and tests (progressives and conservatives) - Personally, I don't know how "amazing" and "innovative" these new approaches are, but in the case of math, for e.g. if an engineer Dad cannot understand his 10 year old daughter's homework or what she is doing in school, I think there's some sort of a problem, most certainly if nothing else, a problem of "public confidence" which will inevitably lead to political pressure/pushback. Engineer or nuclear scientist Dad that has wielded and mastered the highest levels of math, but that cannot understand 2nd grade schoolwork won't be supporting this "curriculum" or such "standards".
Since I suspect the "educational philosophy" of most people here will mirror the editors of "Rethinking Schools", I once again encourage you all to read the entire article yourselves, since generally speaking, the push back that has been publicized against the Common Core has seen to stemmed from the conservatives, yet the "progressive" editorial is just as forceful against and shares many of the arguments being thrown against CC from the other side.
Valid points? or does the shrill from the extremes of the political spectrum means it's actually a very good idea (since the fringes are so opposed?) Are these really just standards or is is a curriculum?
Dear Andrew. I always try to make my comments short and succinct just for you. Thank you.
ReplyDeletere math - please do not get me wrong. I have NO issue, none whatsoever, with alternative modes of learning and using arithmetic. What I do have an issue with is in effect "punishing" me, or my nephew. or a young Andrew Ginsburg, or Eli for not learning modes of learning that may not be best for them. Let's call it "reverse discrimination" against certain learners.There are other issues with Math, that perhaps the "Math guys/gals" should address it is worth pointing out that the one PhD academic from Stanford who was on the original committee refused to sanction the final outcome, calling them "a mess" (James Milgram), I am also not particularly impressed by the argument that "playing around with numbers" in this sense enhances math cognitive abilities. Not when adult nuclear scientists and engineers cannot figure out 2nd grade math. I would think their mathematical skills and cognitive skills are of the highest order, no??
Re: top down approach, you make a good point. However, to play devil's advocate.. just what "motive" do the evil Bill and Melinda Gates have in pouring money into this? How does this "help" them? Also, almost every other country in the world has national standards and even curriculi.. what can't the US? Sure, in a state like IL, we can feel somewhat safe and secure in the standards we may set, but what about.. say Oklahoma? Standardized tests aren't going away - so I don't really buy this whine... people were being judged on them before Common Core.. what's the difference if now they're being judged with them with Common Core? As to why teachers are singled out for "remedial reeducation"? well - the simplest reason is probably that it's also why coaches of professional teams are the first to lose their jobs when their teams are bad or under-perform. Personally I don't think it's the teachers, it goes far deeper than that. But if you want to be provoked .. looks up E.D. Hirsch and his beliefs. and look up "Debating Common Core" at St. Francis College. Hirsch and the debating college professors essentially blame Dewey and the Progressives for the precipitous drop in our SAT scores since the 60's. (and refute most arguments to explain it that you are likely to think of) :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBogey & Andrew,
ReplyDeleteNot surprisingly, my views regarding Common Core and many of the issues that to a considerable extent attend its implementation align closely with those of Mr. Ginsberg. For me, as for others who have proven themselves vocal critics of Common Core, the centrality of interrelated--and insidious, if not overtly pernicious--political and economic agendas to the project of imposing CC on educators is, and shall remain, deeply problematic. To acknowledge that the bulk of CC standards may in some ways constitute a useful corrective to previous efforts aimed at creating national standards is not, in my view, tantamount to conceding that these new alternatives, their origins, and the particular political and economic interests with which they are bound up represent a welcome shift in educational policy. Whatever Common Core’s benefits, it is essential that the self-interested politics responsible for animating the pro-CC campaign receive attention. Speaking to those agendas that underlay the push for Common Core, Hofstra University’s Alan Singer has written that, “A lot of money was to be made by the testing industry thanks to Presidents Bush and Obama. As the Wall Street Journal and the Thomas Fordham Institute explained, the national cost for compliance with the Common Core standards would be between $1 billion to $8 billion and the profits would go almost directly to publishers.” My objections to Common Core notwithstanding, I agree with Andrew’s assessment that, were they treated as “wise recommendations [for] good practice,” CC standards could be used to great effect. As long as Common Core exists as part of a larger top-down effort undertaken by representatives of narrow political and economic interests, however, it should be resisted.
Your Pal,
Josh
Howdy Pal.
DeleteYours (and Andrew's) concerns are perfectly legitimate, but playing devil';s advocate , I might argue you guys are behind the ball and fighting a losing battle, Tests are here to stay, their use is here to stay, so what's the difference if it's an "old" test vs a CC test? Also remember that after No Child Left Behind, everyone engaged in a massive "race to the bottom" in lowering their baseline test score levels. CC was designed to address this. As I mentioned, state standards in places like IL or Mass have always been fine, but Oklahoma for e.g. had almost nonexistent standards. Many CC supporters (particularly on the conservative side) will argue that if a state wants to make their own fairly stringent standards, that's perfectly fine by them, they don't have to adopt CC.
Leaving aside the connections of the Common Core Standards with politics and policy makers what do you guys think the CC will do for History classes? I was told a few times at Tilden ( when expressing concerns about content) that there aren't any History teachers anymore, only reading teachers. This guy Craig Thurtell, certainly seems to think that, as they are ,the CCSS will turn History into a very abstract discipline. http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/151479
ReplyDeleteHi Oana, you raise an interesting question and I have seen such concerns bantied about, They were raised in "Debating Common Core" in the St. Francis debate (on YouTube).. and Niall Ferguson also wrote a column about this , http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/mar/29/history-school-crisis-disconnected-events
DeleteHere's a snippet: (and he writing about education in the UK), You will surely appreciate the disconnect between practice and reality :)
Such initiatives from above provided the proponents of a so-called new history with a golden opportunity to reshape historical education. Historical "skills" such as source analysis, they argued, should be elevated above mere factual knowledge. And "discovery" by children should count for more than dusty old pedagogy.
The result was a national curriculum designed to instil in schoolchildren all kinds of "key concepts" like "chronological understanding", "cultural, ethnic and religious diversity", "change and continuity", "cause and consequence", "significance" and "interpretation".
And these were to be taught with reference to an impressively wide range of subject matter.
Who could possibly object to such an enlightened scheme?
The trouble is not so much with the theory as with the practice that has evolved in too many schools.
I can tell you for a FACT, that my history classroom will NOT be devoid of historical facts.In fact, it will be full of them, but they will revolve around and be connected with the Wineburgian approach.