Career Readiness Description A Stumbling Block in Common Core

We reported on the SBAC meeting here in St. Louis where one of the things the State Education Chiefs did was quietly endorse the Career Readiness Partner Council goals. The next day, the other consortia PARCC, also discussed the CRPC performance level descriptions. They were less cohesive in their viewpoints.

Edweek, with guest blogger Liana Heitin, reported on their meeting.

  
At what an attendee described as one of the milder governing board meetings this year, PARCC's K-12 and higher education leaders continued their work to define career readiness and agree on performance-level descriptors for the impending Common Core State Standards assessments.

The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers governing board has been at this for months now, as you may recall from Catherine Gewertz's previous coverage. Yesterday's meeting in Washington was no more conclusive than the ones before it, though it did bring a few career-technical education leaders into the mix—stakeholders who'd been absent from previous discussions. (Interestingly, the only representative of the career-technical field who spoke Wednesday sat behind the large table rather than at it—though it's very possible this was solely situational.)

During the two-hour discussion, the board reviewed the states' feedback on its proposed performance-level descriptors. There was continued back and forth about whether it makes sense to set Level 4—deemed a "college-ready" level—on a five-level test so that 75 percent of students who reach that level would be expected to earn C's in entry-level credit-bearing courses. Some members argued to change the C to a B, some pushed to change the percentage as high as 90, and others wanted to keep the descriptor as is. At some point the PARCC chair, Mitchell Chester, simply implored the presenters to move on.

The feedback also showed that many stakeholders want career readiness—not just college readiness—to be included in descriptors. As the policies are written, there's some thought they might imply that career readiness is a lower standard than college readiness. Some members also expressed concern that career readiness would indicate students are ready to be hired right out of high school. Mike Cohen, the president of Achieve, a Washington-based group that manages PARCC, allayed some of that anxiety. "Career ready means ready for postsecondary career training," he explained. "Without letting the precise words get in the way, does the attempt to define career readiness help resolve the issue about not using this as a job-placement or job-hiring assessment?" Members agreed that being clear with the definition is a must.

Read full article here.

Heitin also noted that in this meeting PARCC readily endorsed working with SBAC to make their efforts comparable.

Fraud: It's Another Avenue to Make Money Via Education "Reform"

Catching fraudsters.  Is the answer to give up your freedom to privacy via international databases?

Fraudsters have jumped in the education reform money making machine on the international level. From InsideHigherEd and Catch Them If You Can:

DUBLIN, Ireland -- Fraud in international higher education is a $1.5 billion to $2.5 billion business, an expert said Thursday here at the European Association for International Education annual conference.

Daniel J. Guhr, managing director for Illuminate Consulting Group, which advises governments, universities and foundations on higher education strategy, stressed that the estimate is necessarily imprecise: “Really good fraud is not visible.” But he said that the consulting group’s research does show that fraud is a pervasive problem.

Guhr provided an overview of the problem of fraud in international education. He defined fraud broadly, situating various forms of it on a spectrum of severity -- from résumé embellishment, on the low end, to full-scale identity fraud on the high end. In between, Guhr listed fake letters of recommendation (“We tell all our clients to forget letters of reference -- they’re completely useless”), plagiarism, purchased test scores (“I’m very, very worried about the validity of English language test scores coming out of certain Asian countries,” Guhr said, later citing China and Vietnam in particular), purchased transcripts, purchased degrees, fake immigration records (such as passports), and bribery of immigration officials.

Guhr said that the key driver of fraud is economic benefit -- not only to the offending student and family, but to other stakeholders as well, colleges included. Increasingly, college leaders view international students as an important source of tuition revenue. The more, the merrier.

The fraudsters have figured out what the venture capitalists and school choicers have known for quite some time: there is a lot of money to be made using taxpayer dollars and governmental mandates and regulations.  If governments are going to comply with providing their students with a "global education", then that information needs to be shared with the globe, right?

This is the mission of common core...the establishment of standards strive to be "internationally benchmarked" so theoretically, when test results come back from other countries, results for students scores are "apples to apples".  Of course, that means data bases will have to be established that will transmit student/family data not only to federal agencies and private researchers here in the US; this information will also be shared internationally.

Sweden has developed a national application system for international students designed to stop education fraud and would welcome other nations to join its efforts:

 

One message of Thursday’s session is that colleges should share information on fraud much more freely than they have to date. Guhr said that one barrier to collaboration is the NIMBY problem. “What we get still a lot of in education institutions is, 'Of course fraud is bad, but it's happening everywhere else, not in my institution.' " (For further developments in this realm, see related article.)

Rick Torres, president and CEO of the National Student Clearinghouse, attended Thursday's session. During the discussion portion, he shared his own experience with fraud detection when he worked at a credit card company. "These credit card companies, they weren't worried about their banks' reputations; they were worried about catching fraudsters," he said. "Even though they compete very heavily with each other, they actually got together every three months to discuss what was going on, where the fraud was emanating, because it impacted all of them."

If you accept the premise that fraudsters can game the system and make money (and more concerning, obtain student visas with no intention of attending school), is the answer for these educational institutions to share student/family information to catch potential fraud?  It reminds me of the TSA issue.  Because of the actions of a few, the majority are required to give up their right to privacy.

 

Freedom to privacy seems to disappearing as we (and corporations) now need protection from the reforms put forth by the reformers, politicians and federal/international agencies.   A representative from Pearson commented on this article from InsideHigherEd on the idea of "freedom":

 

Louis M M Coiffait 

Really interesting - the
Swedish solution of a standard national application process would both tackle
fraud and some of the inequality issues (advantaged learners are better able to
navigate the complex course-by-course and institution-by-institution application
system we have here in the UK).
Of course the counter-argument will be institutional
'freedom'...

What Mr. Coiffait doesn't mention is how and where "national application process information" gathered will be used...and by whom.   If it's used by Pearson to make money for Pearson I guess "freedom" is over rated and an impediment for educational "reform".

    

 

SBAC Chief State Officers Public Meeting Reveals Some Cracks In The Dam?

St. Louis - Yesterday the State Education Chiefs of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortia (SBAC) held a public meeting to approve the next steps in the development process of the Common Assessments. Both MEW co-editors attended this meeting.  The following items were on the agenda.

1. Approving the process to be used for the development of Achievement Level Descriptors (ADLs  identify what students are expected to know and be able to do, at each grade level, to be considered proficient.)
2. Approval of a plan to provide sustainability for CCSS post 2014
3. Approval of the Sampling Plan for the Assessment Pilot Program
4. Endorsement of the Career Readiness Partnership Council Statement

There was fairly minimal open discussion as most of the work on these issues was done before the public meeting. The motions were even pre-written by the executive staff of SBAC so the officers had merely to move to accept and then pass the motion as presented. All motions passed unanimously with only two states abstaining from the vote on #4.

Highlights from the meeting:

1. The ADLs for 11th graders will determine whether they require remedial coursework in college. Sixty people will be working to develop this language for all grades. They will include 30 representatives from K-12, 20 from higher ed and 3 experts each from ELA and math standards. Their draft language will be available for public review from Nov-Jan 2012-13. The language will be finalized and approved at a March 2013 meeting in DC, and will be applied to student performance beginning summer 2014.

2.  Twenty million students are expected to take the SBAC assessments on-line. There needs to be technical and professional support for this system going forward. Both SBAC and PARCC were funded with seed money from TARP. This money will run out September 30, 2014. Any remaining unused funds will revert to the US Treasury. Both consortia must now figure out how to make the assessments sustainable by finding other funding sources.

The first RFP for a consultant to take on this work received zero bids because SBAC had grossly underestimated the effort needed to do the work. They are now looking to identify areas of commonality with the other assessment consortia, PARCC, and see if the two groups can share a consultant on those common points. It is not a stretch to see that these two groups are probably going to have to combine in the future in order to remain sustainable. Then we will truly have national standards.

The plan is to go to private foundations to fund Phase 2.

3.  Pilot test program of the assessments will begin February 2013. It seems like the SBAC itself will be soliciting 22% of the students from each state to participate in the pilot. It is hard to imagine a teacher willing to take away class time to have her students take a computerized test on material she may not have covered, that will not count towards their grades or her performance review unless there is some sort of reward offered. MEW is going to be asking how those students will be identified and incentivized to participate.

There was much emphasis placed on having a good demographic sample in the 22%.

4.  The Career Readiness Partner Council is looking to expand Common Core into the technical schools. You can read more about the CRPC here. The SBAC Executive Director was purposely covert about this agenda item. The states passed the motion for the consortia to approve the CRPC statement (not given out at the meeting).  Interestingly, the two states that abstained on this vote were NH (who was participating by conference call) and IA, whose Senator Tom Harkin is Chairman of HELP (Health Education Labor & Pensions) committee who wrote language for the ESEA calling on states to adopt college and career ready academic content standards that are aligned with relevant state career and technical education standards and appropriate career skills.

The public was not allowed to ask questions during this meeting and the audience's presence did seem to have a stifling effect on the officers' dialogue.

There will be a CCSSO Legislative Policy meeting  March 17-19, 2013 in DC. MEW is also asking who from Missouri would be attending this meeting.  There will be another public session of the State Education Chiefs at this meeting.

***************************************************
Our observation from this meeting is that there is significant concern among the 26 states about the future of the consortia, both for its structure and funding. They have several open positions, like a business manager, that they have not been able to fill. The structure thus far has focused on development of the assessments themselves which is, for the most part, a massive one-time effort. If all goes well, future tweaking of the assessments will be minimal, but that is a big IF. They do not appear to have a clear vision of what the support structure will look like.

What is clear is that it will be very expensive to fund the support needed to run these assessments, but it is unclear where that money is going to come from. The fall back of course is to pass that cost on to the districts to purchase the assessments. That is a very unpalatable option.

It is hoped that the pilot tests will go smoothly, but even there the path is bumpy. North Carolina has statutory language stating that notice of any standardized testing to be conducted during the school year must made by the beginning of the year. Since the pilot tests will be done in February of this school year, NC may have trouble coming up with the 22% sample because participation would absolutely have to be voluntary. Because of its size, Vermont's 22% will be a very small number compared to California's (CA accounts for 36% of the total SBAC student population, VT <1%). Would any problems VT experiences during the pilot be given less weight because of the relatively small sample size?

The biggest problem the consortia seem to be having is one of time. Of the eight RFP's or RFI's put out by SBAC this year, six appear to have received no bids. Could the incredibly tight deadlines given on each be part of the problem? SBAC is down to the wire on implementation and time is something they don't have a lot of anymore.

This is the problem with top down planning. Someone puts a stake in the ground and says, "We will have Common Core Assessments by 2014," and everyone involved in implementation must work backwards from there. When the boss says he needs the product ready in two weeks, by the last four days everyone involved is looking to cut whatever corners they need to in order to meet the deadline. This does not tend to lead to a quality product. Totally new standards, even if they are of good quality, delivered through a slapped together at the last minute delivery system with shaky support are not going to give us great students.  But hey, there's always waivers. Right?

Last Call for Common Core Questions to Smarter Balanced School Chiefs

Have questions on Common Core? 

Anngie and I are getting ready for the SBAC public discussion meeting in St. Louis this afternoon.

If you have questions, please send them straightaway to stlgretchen@gmail.com or anngie1984@gmail.com.

http://www.missourieducationwatchdog.com/2012/09/questions-on-common-core-smarter.html

Is THIS why Arne Duncan wants Everyone to go to College?

Is college debt collection the new "Wild West in Education" scheme for "entrepreneurs" to make money?

It is no secret this Administration's goal is to make the majority of students college/career ready, in fact, it is in its educational blueprint and heard in many of their speeches.  What is the stated goal of the Administration's school reform?  From an Arne Duncan speech:

Today, we have a unique opportunity to rethink the mission of high school for the 21 century and educate our way to a better economy. I'm convinced that what we do in the next several years to complete this transformation will help America's children and the nation's workforce for decades to come.

Students are to be educated so they are globally competitive and help the nation's workforce.  The emphasis is on training human capital to supply the needs of the economy. In Duncan's world, this means there should be opportunities for all students to go to community college, career college or a four year university so as to help private businesses (and government) be successful.

Does a goal of most people achieving the same outcome make you a little nervous and suspicious?  Do you remember the No Child Left Behind Goal of "100% of students will be proficient by 2014"?  That goal was unattainable and ridiculed from the beginning, no matter how noble its intentions.

The goal of the majority of students to go to some sort of post-high school program is unattainable as well.  Some students are not motivated enough and/or are not intellectually able to handle post-high school programs.   Why is there this push for students to become become theoretically smarter and more productive human capital by furthering their education? 

What's occurring with this plan?  While more students are attending post high school programs,  it's establishing student servitude to the Federal Government long after the students have graduated due to student debt.  Since 2010, the Federal Government directly makes student loans, not private companies.  The loans are to be paid directly to the government, not private industry.  It's a pretty nifty program to ensure a money stream for a cash strapped country.  It falls apart when those students can't find a job and don't have enough money to pay their bills, much less the government treasury.

From the NY Times and Debt Collectors Cashing In on Student Loans:

At a protest last year at New York University, students called attention to their mounting debt by wearing T-shirts with the amount they owed scribbled across the front — $90,000, $75,000, $20,000.  

On the sidelines was a business consultant for the debt collection industry with a different take. 

“I couldn’t believe the accumulated wealth they represent — for our industry,” the consultant, Jerry Ashton, wrote in a column for a trade publication, InsideARM.com. “It was lip-smacking.” 

Though Mr. Ashton says his column was meant to be ironic, it nonetheless highlighted undeniable truths: many borrowers are struggling to pay off their student loans, and the debt collection industry is cashing in. 

In an attempt to recover money on the defaulted loans, the Education Department paid more than $1.4 billion last fiscal year to collection agencies and other groups to hunt down defaulters.

The article highlights one private company reaping huge dividends from the government to go after debt:

The New Oil Well?

 

Business is booming at ConServe, a debt collection agency in suburban Rochester. The company recently expanded into a neighboring building. The payroll of 420 is expected to double in three years. 

“There is great opportunity,” said Mark E. Davitt, the company’s president and founder.

Where some debt collection firms have made their fortunes collecting on delinquent credit cards or hospital bills, ConServe is thriving because of overdue student loans, a large majority of its business. 

With an outstanding balance of more than $1 trillion, student loans have become a silver lining for the debt collection industry at a time when its once-thriving business of credit card collection has diminished and the unemployment rate has made collection a challenge. To recoup unpaid loans, the federal government, private lenders and others have turned to collection agencies like ConServe. 

Mark Russell, a mergers and acquisition specialist, writing in the same trade publication as Mr. Ashton, the consultant at the N.Y.U. protest, suggested student loans might be a “new oil well” for the accounts receivable management industry, or ARM, as the industry is known.

 

Mr. Ashton's and Mr. Russell's comments remind me of education venture capitalist Scott Joftus remarking that "education is the Wild, Wild West and there is a lot of money to be made".  Not only will education reformers and venture capitalists make money from laws tweaked by politicians, so will debt collectors.

Does the alliance with private companies (ed reformers, venture capitalists, Solyndra, Mamtek, etc) with the Federal Government cause concern?  Are our tax dollars propping up this economy under the guise of supporting private industry?  Why are tax dollars being used for private industries in the first place? 

While ed reformers espouse "free market" principles in "choice" schools, it's really not "free market" at all.  The money used to fund these schools are from your tax dollars and there is little to no risk to the "entrepreneurs".   Meanwhile, education venture capitalists like Bill Gates and Scott Joftus are making money from the mandates put in place by the politicians and the Department of Education.

Now the debt collectors can step in and reap the benefits of the unattainable goal pitched to  students that they can and should (it's their "right") to go to college.  It's a Utopian goal and we know there is no Utopia.  If there is no Utopia, what is the real reason for this structuring of educational reform?

*****************************************************

Take some time and read the comments at the end of the Times article.  Interesting stories and theories on debt, student responsibility, the structure of the economic system, etc.

UN Trying to Take Away Parental Authority of Parents of Disabled Kids - Maybe Even Denying the Right To Homeschool

The US Senate is being pressured to take action this month on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In addition to making the government (in this case the UN), not the parent, the final decision maker on the rights for persons with disabilities, the UNCRPD removes any final impediments to a government prohibition on homeschooling, as is the case in Germany and Sweden. Senator Roy Blunt has, in the past, been willing to support this Convention. He needs to hear from parents about why he should change his position and oppose ratification of the Convention.

The following information is from Jill Johnson, MO Coordinator of ParentalRights.org.

Parental Rights Supporters,

After meeting with Senator Roy Blunt this past week, we learned that he is likely (or at least more willing) to change his mind if he gets a LOT of phone calls.  So, since the UNCRPD (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) is the biggest threat right now to parental rights, we need to start calling and telling him to oppose it.  Right now he does NOT oppose it.  His number in DC is 202-224-5721.  If you would like to contact the local office closest to you, the numbers are above.  Below are some talking points (pick a different one each time you call) that are based on a piece that Michael Farris wrote.

► I would suggest starting with the point about abortion.  The staff member we spoke to was shocked that this treaty opens the door to federally funded abortions and Planned Parenthood-style education.  She stated that the senator is pro-life and would never support any legislation that would fund abortions.
 ►The Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution ensures that ratified treaties are equal in status to federal law and the U.S. Constitution and supersede state laws and constitutions.
 ►The UNCRPD never defines what is meant by “disability.”  Without defining this, it cannot be known how broadly the treaty will apply.
 ►Article 7, Section 2 of the treaty states:  “In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”  (Emphasis added.)  This language is also found in the UNCRC, which you already oppose, and underscores the necessity of a Parental Rights Amendment, which you already support.  If a government’s assessment of the child’s best interests differs from that of the parents, the government gets to make the decision, not the parents. 
 ►Article 24 specifically tasks states with the responsibility to make sure that disabled children are educated in environments “which maximize academic and social development.”  This, along with Article 7, Section 2, means that nothing could prevent government officials from overriding parental wishes to homeschool their disabled child.
 ►Government-funded abortion:  Article 23 of the treaty states, “The right of all persons with disabilities … to have access to…reproductive and family planning education are recognized, and the means necessary to enable them to exercise these rights are provided.”  (Emphasis added.)
 ►Article 46 states “Reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the present Convention shall not be permitted.”  So this treaty is all or none.  Any Reservations, Understandings, or Declarations (RUDs) attempting to declare that this treaty does not change U.S. Law are simply unenforceable.

To read Michael Farris's comments in their entirety, please visit

HSLD Response to Senator Rockefeller.pdf

Some additional points about US Ratification of this Convention that you should know.

• Under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, the CRPD will become the “supreme law of the land,” overriding anything to the contrary in local, state, or federal law.
• The Reservations, Understandings, and Declarations (RUDs) adopted by the Senate are poorly worded and do not have the legal effect proponents claim they will. The so-called “private action” understanding, for instance, does not uphold “current” U.S. law. Omission of the word “current” means the U.S. will be obligated to make changes in our law in order to fulfill our commitment under the treaty.
• Ratifying the CRPD would be the first time we have obligated our nation to recognize social, economic, and cultural entitlements and privileges as “rights” under domestic law.

Immediate calls are needed to Senator Roy Blunt opposing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

Senator Roy Blunt
Washington, DC Office—(202) 224-5721
Kansas City, MO Office--(816) 471-7141
Springfield, MO Office--(417) 877-7814
St. Louis/Clayton, MO Office--(314) 725-4484
Jefferson City, MO Office--(573) 634-2488
Columbia, MO Office--(573) 442-8151


Read more here.

Questions on Common Core? Smarter Balanced to Convene Member States and Education Experts in St. Louis. The Public is Invited to a Two-Hour Discussion Period.

Do you have questions for the SBAC Consortium?  Here's your chance to ask them.

The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) is meeting in St. Louis and will have a 2  hour public discussion open to the public.  Representatives from MEW are planning to attend and gather  information from the consortium and ask questions.  If you cannot attend (and if you are teacher, it is doubtful you can, as it occurs during school  hours) but have questions and/or comments, please send them to us and we will present them to the state education chiefs in written form.

You can send your questions and/or concerns via the comment section on this blog or send them directly to stlgretchen@gmail.com or anngie1984@gmail.com.  All comments may be anonymous and email information, names, etc will not be revealed.  If you are not in Missouri but in the SBAC consortium, please send your questions and comments because, as we know, these standards and assessments are "common" and will affect your state in the same manner.

From  the SBAC website:

State Education Chiefs Meeting Open to the Public

 

OLYMPIA, Wash. — September 4, 2012 – The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (Smarter Balanced) will host a conference in St. Louis to discuss the design and implementation of the assessment system.

The second Smarter Balanced Collaboration Conference will bring together representatives from the Consortium’s 25 member states—including state education chiefs, K-12 state leads, higher education leads, work group members, and contractors—to facilitate coordination on key projects, such as the test delivery, administration, and reporting systems.

State education chiefs will meet during the conference in a two-hour public session to discuss the test blueprint, process for developing achievement level descriptors, the Pilot Test scheduled for early 2013, and sustainability planning. As a state-led consortium, the 21 Smarter Balanced Governing States each have a vote on major policy decisions. Members of the public and the media are invited to attend this session.

When:
Wednesday, September 12, 2012 from 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. (Central Time).

Where:
Renaissance St. Louis Airport Hotel
9801 Natural Bridge Road
St. Louis, MO 63134

Please RSVP to info@smarterbalanced.org.

Who:
State Education Chiefs of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium

###

About Smarter Balanced
The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium brings together states to create a common, innovative assessment system for mathematics and English language arts/literacy that is aligned with the Common Core State Standards and helps prepare students for college and careers. The Consortium involves educators, researchers, policymakers, and community groups in a transparent and consensus-driven process to help all students thrive in a knowledge-driven global economy. The Consortium’s projects are funded through a four-year, $175 million grant from the U.S. Department of Education, comprising 99 percent of activity resources, with the remaining support provided through generous contributions of charitable foundations. Membership is open to any interested U.S. state. For more information, please visit www.smarterbalanced.org.

You Can Read a Common Core Standard Lesson and Take a Quiz Every School Day!

Is this the type of literature used in CCSS?  You can find out for yourself1

Forget about the wisdom imparted in the "page of the day" on desk calendars.  You can now read a Common Core lesson every day in the Learning Network Blog in the New York Times and see what your children are learning in public school!  You can decide for yourself if these unproven and untested standards will indeed propel our children into the stratosphere of test results and enable them to become globally competitive.

Thanks to Susan Ohanian for her comments on these standards and publishing this information in her blog.  From susanohanian.org:

*********************************************************************

12 Ways to Use The Learning Network Blog This School Year
 
Ohanian Comment: I clicked on English language arts questions and admit I was stunned by what appeared. Well, it emulates what we see on standardized tests.

I don't think the Critical Thinking question is any better.


By Katherine Schulten

. . .1. Find a fresh Common Core-aligned lesson plan every weekday.

Our lessons resume on Monday, Sept. 10, and this year each lesson will be aligned to the Common Core Anchor Standards.

You can receive all five lessons plans each week via our new Thursday e-mail; we’ll post details when the sign-up page goes live.

Here is our schedule (though please note that we occasionally divert from it to respond to breaking news or other needs):

* Monday – Coming soon: a new visual literacy feature
* Tuesday – History and social studies
* Wednesday – Science and health
* Thursday – English language arts and fine arts
* Friday – Quick interdisciplinary tasks to help students practice Common Core skills

Note: Our definition of a “lesson” ranges from traditional lesson plans like this science post to quizzes, lists of ideas or collections of resources.

This year, we'll also publish a monthly collection of lesson ideas for teachers of English language learners — or for students who find The Times difficult for any reason.

We also occasionally feature ideas from our audience in our "lesson plan" slot, including guest posts, reader ideas announcements of student contests — and publication for the winners of those contests.

— Katherine Schulten
The Learning Network: Teaching and Learning with the NY Times
September 04, 2012
http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/twelve-ways-to-use-our-blog-this-school-year/

---

Index of Common Core [sic] Standards

*********************************************************************

Here's the email address you can use to sign up for the NYT's CCSS question of the day.   We would love to hear your thoughts on what students are learning today in schools under CCSS standards and assessments.