Common Core is a Catastrophe and Race to the Top is NCLB in Drag....So Says Bill Ayers.

 

Ayers refers to Race to the Top as "No Child Left Behind in Drag", is underwhelmed by education competitions, and takes Arne Duncan to task

Arne Duncan and the Obama Administration doesn't have Bill Ayers' support on the current educational blueprint.  From a meeting at Elgin Community College on September 25, 2013 are Ayres' comments at a reception:

The background noise makes it difficult to hear some of his remarks clearly but a posting at freepatriot.org has transcribed much of it.  What is clear is that Ayers states:

Race to the Top, in my view, is No Child Left Behind in drag.  It is a rebranding in fact the Secretary of Education said that himself.  He said No Child Left Behind has gotten bad press, so let's rebrand it.  How about Race to the Top?  Same idea.

and

On the standards, common core, (I know a lot of people and their motivations who wrote that).  I think it is a catastrophe.

There is a question on whether he says he actually wrote Race to the Top.  Read more here.

Below is a video of Ayers speaking in 2006 about the testing companies and pedagogy.  It's clear he is not a fan of the testing companies making money.  Is that the reason he doesn't like the current version of Common Core and Race to the Top?  It's clear he finds competition distasteful from the Elgin, IL video and this video (edited) from 2006:

Race To the Top, in my view, is No Child Left Behind in drag. It is a rebranding in fact the Secretary of Education said that himself.  He said No Child Left Behind has gotten bad press, so let’s rebrand it.  How about Race to the Top? Same idea. - See more at: http://freepatriot.org/2013/09/26/bill-ayers-common-core-disaster/#sthash.q4uQvee7.dpuf

He says there is a quest for a national curriculum and the textbook publishers will profit enormously from such a curriculum.  He also believes "teaching and learning is central to Socialism for the 21st Century".  He also says  What's sold to us in the United States is the idea we are free, that we were born free and that proclamation entangles us.  

 In a 2012 video he explains how community organizing at work, in schools, on farms, in shops, etc is where real change evolves.  He states how legislation comes from the people rising up and the president at the time reaches out to those groups for the change.  Does Ayers' criticism of Race to the Top and Common Core emanate from his belief that the president is not listening to his group?  That's the same complaint from the groups normally in opposition to the progressive left.  But really, what does he expect?  When you have a centralized system, there is no room for the people.  It's all about the system.  Maybe he is coming to the realization that he's been played.







A reader responds to the freepatriot.org posting:

I don't want common Core any more than I want Bill Ayers opinion.

Apparently Arne Duncan didn't want Ayers' opinion either.

Local School Boards Not Needed. Will the US Dept of Education be Running Your School District?

He's BAACCCKKK. Tell your school district Arne Duncan should stay out of our states, districts and schools.  If your district takes Federal money, go ahead and abolish your school board.  A centralized system doesn't need/want local input. 

IMPORTANT! Some info about the new round of race to the top - district grants that are due on October 3rd. 

School districts who want to take federal money directly from the Federal Government and bypassing state agencies are listed below.  What taxpayers, parents and legislators must understand is with money comes enormous strings.  Why not just abolish state educational agencies and school boards if the Federal Government gives money directly to school districts?  Forget about the constitutional authority of state agencies and local school boards.  The US Department of Education is now directing local and state educational directives.  

Here is a list of school districts by state that have indicated that they intend to apply for RTTT-D funding: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-district/2013-list-intent-apply.pdf THERE ARE DISTRICTS FROM EVERY STATE on this list!

There is a state and local comment period -- start working on the mayors or town administrators to influence their comments!

"Each LEA included in an application must provide its State at least 10 business days to comment on the LEA’s application and submit as part of its application package: (a) the State’s comments or, if the State declined to comment, evidence that the LEA offered the State 10 business days to comment; and (b) the LEA’s response to the State’s comments (optional). Similarly, each LEA included in an application must provide its mayor or comparable official at least 10 business days to comment on the LEA’s application and submit as part of its application package: (a) the mayor’s or city or town administrator’s comments or, if that individual declines to comment, evidence that the LEA offered such official 10 business days to comment; and (b) the LEA’s response to the mayor’s or city or town administrator’s comments (optional)."

This grant application also requires the signature of the head of the teachers union in the district-- they are sealing this one airtight. "Required signatures for the LEA or lead LEA in a consortium are those of the superintendent or CEO, local school board president, and (where applicable) local teacher union or association president."

Transcript of Arne Duncan's Common Core Speech to the American Society of News Editors

Will the American Society of News Editors do a "reality check" on Arne Duncan's speech?

 

 Duncan Pushes Back on Attacks on Common Core Standards

Arne Duncan Remarks at the American Society of News Editors Annual Convention, Capital Hilton, Washington, D.C.

June 25, 2013

Contact:  

Press Office, (202) 401-1576, press@ed.gov

Thank you, Clark. The work you are doing to help the next generation become more sophisticated in understanding the news is absolutely vital. To have full power over their lives, young people must understand the world they live in. They have to read, they have to follow the news, and they have to vote. All that is such an important part of what it means to be educated. So, thank you.

Traditionally, this event has been an opportunity for federal leaders to talk about touchy subjects. For example, you asked President Kennedy to talk about the Bay of Pigs. So, thanks for having me here to talk about the Common Core State Standards. 

Academic standards used to be just a subject for after-school department meetings and late-night state board sessions. But now, they're a topic for dueling newspaper editorials. Why? That's because a new set of standards—rigorous, high-quality learning standards, developed and led by a group of governors and state education chiefs—are under attack as a federal takeover of the schools. And your role in sorting out truth from nonsense is really important.

So I'd like to explain how we arrived at this place. I'll talk about information and misinformation, and ask you to help Americans draw a bright line between the two. 

I'd like to make the case that these standards have the capacity to change education in the best of ways—setting loose the creativity and innovation of educators at the local level, raising the bar for students, strengthening our economy and building a clearer path to the middle class. But for these new standards to succeed, Americans will need to be clear on what's true and what's false. 

News Literacy and our Common Worry: Ensuring a Generation Critical Thinkers

You and I wake up every day to similar worries and similar hopes. We just attach different labels to them. 

You wonder whether there's a market for serious news. You wonder whether a generation that grew up on text messages and Twitter will read about interest rates and Iran. 

I worry about the one in four young Americans who don't graduate from high school—and the three out of four young people who are ineligible to serve in the military. I worry about the 90 million American adults with below-basic or basic reading skills.

If you don't worry about these things yet—you will. Because they put your future at risk—and ours.
For America to prosper—and for journalism to survive—we need a generation that reads, writes and thinks. 

Where the Common Core Came From: A Crisis of Low Standards
You may have heard President Obama say that America used to be number one in the world in college completion just one generation ago. Sadly, today, we have dropped to number 12 among young adults. That's reality and that's unacceptable. 

We're not going to pave a path to the middle class with the cheapest labor. We're not going to reverse the polarization of wealth in this country through unskilled jobs. The only way that we can promise all of our young people a genuine opportunity is through a world-class education. 

What our young people need, and deserve, is an education that leaves them not just college-ready but innovation-ready. As Tom Friedman has written, they need an education that prepares them for the reality of today's flat world—a world where you invent your own job, change careers, and constantly acquire new skills. The real world demands readers, writers, and critical thinkers—people who can work with others and communicate skillfully. It's the same thing you demand.

The problem is a lot of children, in a lot of places in America, have not been getting a world-class education. But rather than recognize that, for far too long, our school systems lied to kids, to families, and to communities. They said the kids were all right—that they were on track to being successful—when in reality they were not even close.

What made those soothing lies possible were low standards for learning. Low standards are the equivalent of setting up for a track-and-field event with hurdles only one foot tall. That's what happened in education in a lot of places, and everyone came out looking good—educators, administrators and especially politicians.

The truth—the brutal truth—was that we had thousands of schools where as few as 10 percent of students were reading or doing math at grade level, and where less than half were graduating.
The truth was that in a school with 100 low-income kindergartners, only 29 could expect to enroll in college, and nine—only nine—could expect to graduate.

For those few who made it to college, remediation rates were high. Our competitiveness was in danger.

The Power of the Common Core
Fortunately, in 2007, a group of governors and state education chiefs decided they were unwilling to perpetuate this cycle of deception, dysfunction, and low expectations. They set out to develop a new set of learning standards aligned to the demands of the real world—to the kind of deep learning that your children and my children will need to thrive in a globally competitive economy.

What happened was far beyond anyone's expectations: 45 states and D.C. voluntarily adopted these new standards. Nobody foresaw that development in 2009. It's a testament to the courage of these state leaders and the power of a good idea whose time had come.

It was powerful for two reasons: because these standards were rigorous enough to prepare students for the real world, and because they would be shared among a number of states. Here's what that means:

Today, I believe, literally for the first time in American history, a child in Mississippi will face the same expectations as a child in Massachusetts. 

Today a fourth grade teacher in New Mexico can develop a lesson plan at night and, the very next day, a fourth grade teacher in New York can use it and share it with others if she wants to.

Today, the child of a Marine officer, who is transferred from Camp Pendleton in California to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, will be able to make that academic transition without a hitch, instead of having to start over in a widely different place academically. 

When these standards are fully implemented, a student who graduates from a high school in any one of these states—who is performing at standard—will be ready to attend and succeed in his or her state university without remedial education. Historically, in far too many communities, more than half of those who actually graduated from high school needed remedial help in college. 

We are no longer lying to kids about whether they are ready. Finally, we are telling them the truth, telling their parents the truth, and telling their future employers the truth. Finally, we are holding ourselves accountable to giving our children a true college and career-ready education.

The New York Times has called the Common Core "a once-in-a-generation opportunity" to bring our public schools up to levels of our high-performing international competitors.

I believe the Common Core State Standards may prove to be the single greatest thing to happen to public education in America since Brown versus Board of Education—and the federal government had nothing to do with creating them.

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. 

Let me say that one more time—the federal government didn't write them, didn't approve them, and doesn't mandate them. Anyone who says otherwise is either misinformed or willfully misleading.

Now, I will tell you what we did do, and then you can do your job by confirming it and by questioning anyone who says otherwise—because all kinds of people are saying all kinds of things that are simply not true.

The Common Core: Not a Federal Project
When the Obama administration came into office in 2009, the Common Core standards were in development, and gaining momentum. We set out to support states and districts in changing the conditions that were limiting educational opportunity, and raising standards was a vital part of that.

With governors and state leaders making major progress on standards, we gave them all the support we could, within the bounds of what's appropriate for the limited federal role in education.

Our big competitive reform fund, Race to the Top, awarded points—40 points out of 500—to states that were collaborating to create common college- and career-ready standards. 

It was voluntary—we didn't mandate it—but we absolutely encouraged this state-led work because it is good for kids and good for the country.

And at the time, no one knew how many groups of states would come together to create their own set of common standards. It turned out to be one big group of 46—but it could have been several, or even many, groups of states uniting around different sets of standards. So this notion of our pushing for one set of standards was never correct. In fact, we were totally agnostic on the number of state consortia. We just didn't want 50 states to continue to work in complete isolation from each other.

Moreover, there's a huge difference between creating an incentive—which was absolutely the right thing to do—and mandating particular standards—which is never the right thing to do, and we never will do. The states choose their standards; they have been free, and always will be free, to opt for different ones.

Did the points, and the dollars, matter to the states? Absolutely. But it's not the only reason or even the most important reason why states adopted the Common Core. To be clear, total Race to the Top dollars were less than one percent of what we spent on K-12 education every single year.

States signed on to the Common Core because it was the right thing to do. They knew that their children were being cheated and they refused to continue to be a part of it—and for that they deserve our deepest praise and gratitude. In fact, dozens of states that didn't get a nickel of Race to the Top money are committed to those higher standards—and American education will be better because of it.
These standards are under attack now.

Why Strong Standards Change Everything

Where Standards Used to Be
It's important to remember where this all started. Before 2009, No Child Left Behind created pressure for schools and districts to meet standards and hit cut scores—and in response, 19 states actually dummied down their standards to make more of their students appear more proficient.

Here's how low the bar was. You've heard about the NAEP test—the one we refer to as the nation's report card. Fourth-grade reading standards in 35 states—75 percent of the country—were set below what NAEP considers the bare minimum or "basic."

In 2007, Tennessee was one of only two states to receive an "F" for its academic standards, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Ninety percent of students there scored "proficient" on state reading and math tests, yet only 26 percent were proficient according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—90 percent versus 26 percent. Same students, different tests, and wildly different results—all because Tennessee had pathetically low standards.

Like we saw in too many states, the proficiency cut scores on Tennessee's assessments were intellectually dishonest. They actually corresponded to a student GPA of a D-minus, and concealed huge achievement gaps, especially for disadvantaged students.

Then, two Tennessee governors—one Democrat and one Republican—Phil Bredesen and Bill Haslam—decided to challenge the status quo and change everything. They started telling the truth about student learning by raising standards. Measured against these higher standards, test scores looked much lower and achievement gaps looked much wider. Proficiency rates dropped by more than half. Achievement gaps that were already large, more than doubled. 

Yet Tennessee showed real courage and stuck by the higher standards—and, last year, Tennessee's students made the biggest single-year jump in achievement ever recorded in the state. High standards and high expectations are the first step toward higher performance. 

What These Standards Do
In that effort, the Common Core standards mark a sea-change in education. Not only do they set the bar high, they give teachers the space and opportunity to go deep, emphasizing problem-solving, analysis, and critical thinking, as well as creativity and teamwork. They give teachers room to innovate.

And, all across the country, teachers have responded. Three out of four say the Common Core standards will help them teach better. 

A few weeks ago, I had a group of local teachers to dinner, and I asked them about the Common Core:

• One fourth-grade teacher from Maryland said: "I think most teachers love and embrace the idea ... that we're not just teaching them to spit back formulas to us ..."
• A middle-school teacher said: "It's giving us a lot more time to get kids into really engaged discussions and deeper thought. ... These standards open up all kinds of new directions."

One teacher—a county teacher of the year—even brought in a quote from one of her fifth-graders. Here's what the student said:

"Sometimes in the past, we knew what the steps were to solve a problem but we could not process it in a way to make sense of the big mathematical idea. Now we start with the big idea and we discover the math within it."

That's what an 11-year-old fifth-grader said!

The Controversy over the Core
The Common Core is Under Attack through Misinformation

Unfortunately, not everyone shares that 11-year-old's enthusiasm. The Common Core has become a rallying cry for fringe groups that claim it is a scheme for the federal government to usurp state and local control of what students learn. An op-ed in the New York Times called the Common Core "a radical curriculum." It is neither radical nor a curriculum.

We need to be very clear about definitions here.

• Standards—learning standards, academic standards—are the goals, typically set by states, for what students should know by a certain age.
• Curriculum—on the other hand—is what teachers teach to help students meet those standards. Curriculum is generally chosen at the district or even the school level—and in many cases individual teachers actually decide on the curriculum and classroom content.

When the critics can't persuade you that the Common Core is a curriculum, they make even more outlandish claims. They say that the Common Core calls for federal collection of student data. For the record, we are not allowed to, and we won't. And let's not even get into the really wacky stuff: mind control, robots, and biometric brain mapping. This work is interesting, but frankly, not that interesting.

The Washington Post laid out the facts in an editorial I will quote:
"Lost in the hysteria being whipped up about Common Core standards is that the movement to infuse new rigor in schools started at the state level... This sensible and badly needed reform should not be derailed by misguided and misinformed opposition."

Now, I don't think the Common Core is going to get derailed. But this misguided, misinformed opposition is making life more difficult in several states, where various forms of anti-Common Core legislation have been introduced. A lot of that legislation is based on false information.

Some of the hostility to Common Core also comes from critics who conflate standards with curriculum, assessments and accountability. They oppose mandated testing and they oppose using student achievement growth and gain as one of multiple measures to evaluate principals and teachers. They also oppose intervention in chronically low-performing schools. Some seem to feel that poverty is destiny.

It's convenient for opponents to simply write it all off as federal over-reach—but these are separate and distinct issues—and they should be publicly debated openly and honestly with a common understanding about the facts.

That's where you come in. 

The Role of Journalists: Telling Truth from Fiction

As you know, good journalism is more than just claim and counter-claim. It's investigating what's true and false, what's a responsible statement and what's not. Many of you have done fine work on that front.

You understand the truth about the role of the federal government with respect to common core standards: We didn't write them, we don't mandate them and we don't regulate them.

That's why leaders on the left and the right—Randi Weingarten and Mitch Daniels; Dennis van Roekel; and Jeb Bush—and so many others—support the Common Core standards, even if they disagree on many other issues.

You also understand that the federal government has nothing to do with curriculum. In fact, we're prohibited by law from creating or mandating curricula. 

So do the reporting. Ask the Common Core critics: Please identify a single lesson plan that the federal government created, or requires of any school, teacher, or district.

Ask if they can identify any textbook that the federal government created, endorsed, or required for any school, teacher, or district in their state.

Ask them to identify any element, phrase, or a single word of the Common Core standards that was developed or required by the federal government. 

If they tell you that any of these things are happening—challenge them to name names. Challenge them to produce evidence—because they won't find it. It simply doesn't exist.

Responsible Conservative Voices

Many thoughtful, strong conservatives are already speaking the truth and showing real courage. Governor Mike Huckabee recently wrote: "I've heard the argument these standards 'threaten local control' of what's being taught in Oklahoma classrooms. Speaking from one conservative to another, let me assure you this simply is not true... They're not something to be afraid of; indeed they are something to embrace."

Columnist Michael Gerson—President Bush's former speechwriter—wrote recently that if the Common Core "is a conspiracy against limited government, it has somehow managed to recruit governors Mitch Daniels and Jeb Bush, current governors Bobby Jindal and Chris Christie, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce." Gerson concluded, "A plot this vast is either diabolical or imaginary."
Imaginary is the right word.

In this change, the state chiefs are in the driver's seat. I have talked with virtually every governor in America—and visited almost every state. I've spent time with every state chief—because I know that when it comes to improving public education—the buck does not stop here in Washington. It stops in Albany, in Lansing, in Tallahassee and in Sacramento. In public education, the buck stops with the states.

Waivers/ESEA

That's why you have seen this administration devote so much energy to helping our states succeed—at the same time that we continue to try to work with a dysfunctional Congress. I have great, great respect for the men and women serving in Congress today, but the institution is fundamentally broken.

Congress has let six years go by without fixing No Child Left Behind—and the unintended consequences have been devastating for children and for public education.

Fortunately, through the waiver process, we found a way to minimize the damage, while supporting bold and courageous work in states all across America.

We've set a high bar for states on issues like closing achievement gaps, evaluating principals and teachers, and turning around low-performing schools—but we've given them lots of flexibility in how they get there.

Tight on goals, but loose on means—that's our theory of change. It's the exact opposite of how No Child Left Behind was structured. 

But I look forward to a day when we don't have to rely on our waivers to support states in their efforts to improve education. I'm pleased to see that Congress has finally begun the reauthorization process—though I worry that the current effort is plagued by the traditional partisan politics that stymies both innovation and creative solutions.

I would urge and beg members of Congress who care about this issue to spend more time talking with governors and state chiefs on both sides of the aisle about the kind of support they want from Washington—and then work together to develop a bipartisan bill to fix NCLB. That's how we will get to the reality of better educational opportunities at every stage of the education journey—from cradle to career.

We're seeing terrific ideas originating from the states as we work with them on flexibility. To name just a couple of examples:

• Kentucky is making moves to focus accountability for high schools on a basket of indicators of college and career readiness, ranging from the ACT to preparedness for military service to industry certificates. No longer are they forced to focus on a single test score.
• Similarly, Nevada is looking to multiple measures in a rating system that includes not just achievement and graduation rates, but measures like college remediation rates, advanced diploma rates, and participation and performance in college entrance exams.

Let's not pretend that we have all the answers here in Washington when the blueprint for improving schools is already being implemented all across America by hard-working, committed educators and leaders from across the political spectrum.

Conclusion

That's why I am still hopeful. Because as I travel outside of Washington, I see every day what happens when educators get to do their best work—when they are free to create and innovate.

There's still so much more work to do. Raising standards is only one part of the job. We need to support great teaching. We need to make college affordable. And we need to make high-quality preschool available to every child. 

And as this works moves forward, we need guardians of the truth to separate fact from fiction.

Whatever your views about public education, it is indefensible to lower learning standards. It hurts everyone, and children from disadvantaged communities most of all. There is simply too much at stake—for the country—for our future—and for your industry.

If your state lowers standards, you lose a high bar for reading, for critical thinking, for writing, and for taking ideas seriously. You lose one of the cornerstones of democracy. Because the power of democracy depends upon an informed electorate—and a free press.

America's children will live in a very different world from their parents. Our obligation is to prepare them for it. We all share that responsibility.

Thank you.

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

Dear readers, we'd love to have your comments on Secretary Duncan's speech.  I will get it started with the highlighted sentence above:

Because the power of democracy depends upon an informed electorate—and a free press.

The electorate was TOTALLY left out of this CCSS adoption/implementation (it was never brought up for a vote), as well as state legislatures.  Yes, the power of a democracy (or republic but we don't talk about being a republic anymore) does depend on an informed electorate.  Secretary Duncan (and governors, CCSSI and special interests) were hoping you would NOT become informed on CCSS.

Why has CCSSO, NGA, Duncan and special interest groups only began to address Common Core when they finally started getting pushback from parents, teachers and taxpayers?  If Common Core was so great, transformational, and the educational plan we've been waiting for, why were our legislators and the electorate largely kept in the dark for the last 3-4 years?

Instead of the news editors accepting Duncan's talking points as truth and factual, maybe they should investigate why the electorate and legislators who have to pay for Duncan's blueprint have just discovered what it entails and who planned their kids' lives for their school districts and states.  Let's see just how free the press is (or motivated) to report the FACTS (not theories) about Common Core.  Will the newspaper editors do enough research to determine that much of what Duncan said is theory based, not research based?

Have fun dissecting Duncan's claims and try to find the research on which he bases his comments.  If the newspaper editors won't do the fact finding about Duncan's statements, it's up to the electorate to inform the editors and citizens. 

Would Arne Duncan Call this PBS Blog Contributor "Fringe" Because of an Anti-Common Core Stance?

Economist Robert Lerman questions Common Core.  Arne Duncan would consider him "fringe".

Oh, we've had a lot of fun on Facebook threads about our posting yesterday of Arne Duncan calling those who question Common Core "fringe".  We commiserated with others who find themselves on the outside of the elitists who have designed a program for the "rest of us".  Does that "fringe group" include those who post on the PBS blog?

From Diane Ravitch and PBS Blog: Common Core Has Fatal Flaw: 

On the PBS blog, economist Robert Lerman of the Urban Institute and American University expresses skepticism about the one-size-fits-all academic nature of the Common Core.

Lerman strongly supports youth apprenticeship programs.

Lerman is skeptical of Common Core for two reasons: One is that it lacks any evidence. In other words, as I have written repeatedly, Common Core has never been field-tested and we have no idea how it works in real classrooms, and how it will affect the students who are currently struggling.

The other is the dubious assumption that college and career skills are the same.

As he writes:

“…Two issues concern me about the debate. One is the lack of solid evidence about the effects of the curriculum on students. Education research, long a backwater of social science, has become more rigorous in recent years, backed in part by the federal government’sInstitute of Educational Sciences and its funding for rigorous experimental methods to test educational interventions. Yet, here is the same federal government encouraging a massive educational initiative without solid evidence documenting gains for student academic or career outcomes.

The second concern is justifying the Common Core on the highly dubious notion that college and career skills are the same. On its face, the idea is absurd. After all, do chefs, policemen, welders, hotel managers, professional baseball players and health technicians all require college skills for their careers? Do college students all require learning occupational skills in a wide array of careers? In making the “same skills” claim, proponents are really saying that college skills are necessary for all careers and not that large numbers of career skills are necessary for college.”

Lerman smartly traces back the origins of this astounding claim.

It is true, he says, that most employers identify certain skills they seek: “Nearly every study of employer needs over the past 20 years comes up with the same answers. Successful workers communicate effectively orally and in writing and have social and behavioral skills that make them responsible and good at teamwork. They are creative and techno-savvy, have a good command of fractions and basic statistics, and can apply relatively simple math to real-world problems like financial or health literacy.

But, he says, the Common Core misinterprets this consensus to mean that all students need the same level of academic preparation. He writes: “Employers never mention polynomial factoring. But what about the higher level math required by the Common Core? Consider algebra II, the study of logarithms, polynomial functions and quadratic equations. Many states want to make algebra II a requirement for graduating high school. Yet, a stunning finding produced by Northeastern University sociologist Michael Handel(cited in a recent Atlantic blog) indicates that only 9 percent of the work force ever use this knowledge, and less than 20 percent of managerial, professional, or technical workers report using any algebra II material.”

Trying to squeeze all students, regardless of their interest or wishes, into a common mold, he concludes, is a bad idea.

Question: does Lerman's questioning of Common Core sound like "fringe" to you?  

If you Question Common Core, you are Now Officially Considered "Fringe" by Arne Duncan

 

you are considered "fringe" for saying no to his ideas

Do we have a free press?  Do we have a press that asks questions?  Do we have media that researches claims made by the government or does the media accept talking points and report it as fact?

Arne Duncan certainly hopes the media prints the Common Core State School Initiative's talking points.  He told The American Society of Newspaper Editors for these new standards to succeed, Americans will need to be clear on what’s true and what’s false.  Duncan proceeded to tell these editors why Common Core is essential to American education success and why dissenters' claims are nonsense.  Duncan told the organization and asked for its help to disseminate HIS vision of education reform.  He will inform them what is true and what is false:

I’ll talk about information and misinformation, and ask you to help Americans draw a bright line between the two. I’d like to make the case that these standards have the capacity to change education in the best ways – setting loose the creativity and innovation of educators, raising the bar for students, strengthening our economy and building a clearer path to the middle class. But for these new standards to succeed, Americans will need to be clear on what’s true and what’s false.

He calls American citizens (taxpayers/parents who don't represent special interests) questioning such issues as the legislative runaround of CCSS, the amount of stimulus money funding CCSS, the privatization of education....as being part of fringe groups.  Come to think of it, he might be right.  The fringe groups are composed primarily of the taxpayers, parents, teachers, legislators, etc...those folks who were never asked their opinion on how their schools should be structured, how/what their children should learn or how their taxes should be spent in the development/delivery of public education.  We ARE on the fringe of the elites and private businesses who love the public/private partnership of public education and have imposed Common Core on citizens without a legislative or taxpayer vote.



From The Washington Post and  Arne Duncan tells newspaper editors how to report on Common Core:

It seems that a big part of Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s job now is giving impassioned defenses of the Common Core State Standards, which he did Tuesday to a convention of American news editors (some of whom may not have even known it needed defending).

A few months ago, Duncan told Chamber of Commerce leaders that they had to be more supportive of the Common Core because it was coming under withering attack from the left and right, and some states were reconsidering implementing the standards. On Tuesday, he gave another defense to the editors as well as some tips on how to report the story:

So do the reporting. Ask the Common Core critics: Please identify a single lesson plan that the federal government created, or requires of any school, teacher or district.
Ask if they can identify any textbook that the federal government created, endorsed, or required for any school, teacher, or district in their state.

Ask them to identify any element, phrase, or a single word of the Common Core standards that was developed or required by the federal government.

If they tell you that any of these things are happening –– challenge them to name names. Challenge them to produce evidence – because they won’t find it. It doesn’t exist.

And he went after Core critics, saying that they were at best misinformed and at worst laboring under paranoid delusions.

The Common Core has become a rallying cry for fringe groups that claim it is a scheme for the federal government to usurp state and local control of what students learn. An op-ed in the New York Times called the Common Core “a radical curriculum.” It is neither radical nor a curriculum. … When the critics can’t persuade you that the Common Core is a curriculum, they make even more outlandish claims. They say that the Common Core calls for federal collection of student data. For the record, it doesn’t, we’re not allowed to, and we won’t. And let’s not even get into the really wacky stuff: mind control, robots, and biometric brain mapping.

If the news editors take Duncan up on his call for them to look deeply into the Common Core, they will find that Duncan didn’t tell the full story.

There is some irony in the fact that Arne Duncan keeps saying that the Core is not the work of the federal government while he, the federal secretary of education, goes around attacking its critics. In fact, he just bowed to those critics, agreeing to give states an extra year to comply with federal mandates on using Core-aligned standardized tests to evaluate teachers.

He is certainly right to say that there are outlandish claims being made about the Common Core, which is a set of common standards adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia designed to raise student achievement. Glen Beck, shouting that the Core is essentially an effort by the federal government to rip children out of the control of their parents, said recently:

You as a parent are going to be completely pushed out of the loop. The state is completely pushed out of the loop. They now have control of your children.

That’s ridiculous stuff, for sure, but not all of the criticism is.

The Core initiative was started in 2007 by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, a bipartisan effort to come up with a common set of K-12 standards in English language arts and math across states that would better prepare students for colleges and careers than in the past.

The standards were written by school reformer and entrepreneur David Coleman, who now heads the College Board, and Susan Pimental of Achieve Inc., an organization created to advance “standards-based” education.  Starting in 2009, the Obama administration, in its main education initiative, required states that wanted to compete for Race to the Top reform dollars to adopt the standards. It also gave some $360 million to two consortia of states developing standardized tests aligned to the Core, exams whose results would be used to evaluate teachers, another controversial part of the Obama reform agenda.

For some time there has been concern about the Core. Educators and researchers questioned the way the standards were written (whether, for example, there was any or enough input from working teachers) and some criticized the content of the standards (while others praised it). Some critics don’t believe in standards-based education, and others felt it usurped local authority. More recently, tea party members and even the Republican National Committee jumped onto the anti-Core bandwagon, accusing the administration of a federal takeover of public education, extreme right-wing rhetoric that clouded a real discussion about the Core.

This year some states led by Republican governors began to pull away from the standards. Protests by educators, parents, students and others began to grow as it became clear that the Core implementation was being rushed, and some students were being given tests said to be Core-aligned even though teachers hadn’t had enough time to create material around the standards. Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said in a speech that a survey of the members of the country’s second-largest teachers union found that 75 percent supported the Core but “a similarly overwhelming majority said they haven’t had enough time to understand the standards, put them into practice or share strategies with colleagues.” And she called for a moratorium on the high-stakes use of the test scores to evaluate teachers.

Last week, Duncan bowed to that reality, announcing that he was giving the 37 states plus the District of Columbia, which had won federal waivers from the most egregious mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act, an extra year to implement teacher evaluations linked to new assessments that are supposed to be aligned to the new Common Core State Standards. This means the states have until 2016.

Duncan, in his speech to the newspaper editors, said the federal government didn’t start or write the standards, and that is true. He said that it wasn’t mandated either, though critics argue that it was coerced. He was also right when he said the Core is not a curriculum (even though the Core authors released a book of criteria to education publishers about what should be in Core curriculum).

But he didn’t mention the rushed implementation, nor the hundreds of millions of dollars the federal government has plowed into the testing creation effort. He has said for years that the Core-aligned tests would be “game changers” and be able to assess students much more broadly,  but he didn’t say Tuesday that that isn’t true. It turns out there wasn’t enough time or money to create those kinds of tests.

On Tuesday, Duncan said he doesn’t think the Common Core State Standards initiative is “going to be derailed.” But the thrust of his speech shows that he is plenty worried.

© The Washington Post Company

The American Society of Newspaper Editors needs to go beyond Arne Duncan's proclamation on how it should report Common Core and read the readers' comments.  They are more truthful than Secretary Duncan's talking points.  

A Search Engine that Doesn't Capture Your Personal Data

Reclaim your power to keep your personal information.  That's our mantra for parents and taxpayers.  If you reclaim your power from Google and Facebook by not using those sites,  we should have the right to send our kids to public schools that don't individually track them and send their data to various federal agencies and private companies.  

Can we put DuckDuckGo CEO Gabriel Weinberg in charge of the Department of Education instead of Arne Duncan?  Weinberg understands aggregate data can be helpful but has no interest in personal data retrieval.  We need a Secretary of Education who agrees with that belief.

From cnbc.com and DuckDuckGo Search Engine Gets Boost After PRISM Scandal:

The 'anonymous' search engine DuckDuckGo is getting a boost off the PRISM scandal that is putting big tech companies like Google and Apple to shame.

(Read More: How Prism Might Work, and Why That Matters to Congress and You )

DuckDuckGo, a search engine that claims it gives its users complete anonymity, has seen a 33 percent increase in users since the NSA news broke over a week ago, said founder and CEO Gabriel Weinberg on CNBC's Closing Bell Tuesday.

"We always knew people didn't want to be tracked, but what hadn't happened was reporting on the private alternatives and so it's no surprise that people are making a choice to switch to things that that will give them great results and also have real privacy," Weinberg said.

Basically, most tech companies store user information—like searches, email account data, searches on social platforms—in data warehouses, so that it can be accessed again. But DuckDuckGo opts to throw any of that information away and not to save it, Weinberg said.

While the default settings on the search engine are set to not track users' searches or any personal information, if a user changes these settings, information about the user could still leak out, according to the company's privacy policy.


(Read More: Leaker's Employer Became Wealthy Through Government Secrets )

The policy states:
"We also save searches, but again, not in a personally identifiable way, as we do not store IP addresses or unique User agent strings. We use aggregate, non-personal search data to improve things like misspellings...If you turn redirects off in the settings and you don't either turn POST on or use our encrypted site, then your search could leak to sites you click on. Yet as explained above, this does not happen by default."
 
Big tech companies—like Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo and Apple—all were subject to thousands of government inquiries about user information. DuckDuckGo, though, didn't have the government knocking on their door. 

"We had zero inquiries and the reason for that is because we don't store any data," Weinberg said. "So if they come to us—which they know because it's in our privacy policy—we have nothing to hand over, it's all anonymous data."


But that doesn't mean the government can't come after any information that the user has chosen to share by changing their default settings.

The privacy policy clearly states that "... like anyone else, we will comply with court ordered legal requests. However, in our case, we don't expect any because there is nothing useful to give them since we don't collect any personal information.
 
_ By CNBC's Cadie Thompson. Follow her on Twitter

@CadieThompson

Watch an interview with Weinberg here.  Now if only people would be as proactive in demanding no personal information being shared on their children.....

.

Student Data Privacy Lawsuit Against DOEd. FERPA = Tracking from Cradle to Grave

From Washington Post and Lawsuit charges Ed Department with violating student privacy rights:

The U.S. Education Department is being sued by a nonprofit organization for promoting regulations that are alleged to undercut student privacy and parental consent. The rules allow third parties, including private companies and foundations promoting school reform, to get access to private student information.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center has been fighting for the department over 2011 regulations involving the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, also known as FERPA,  a law that is supposed to protect the privacy of student education records at all schools that receive federal education funds. FERPA was passed to give parents specific rights in regard to their children’s education records, rights which transfer to the student he/she becomes 18 or goes to a school beyond the high school level.

But in 2011, regulations issued by the department changed FERPA to allow the release to third parties of student information for non-academic purposes. The rules also broaden the exceptions under which  schools can release student records to non-governmental organizations without first obtaining written consent from parents. And they promote the public use of student IDs that enable access to private educational records, according to EPIC, a nonprofit public-interest center based in Washington D.C.

Government officials have defended the regulations. A government notice in the Federal Register says the rules are necessary  

to ensure that the Department’s implementation of FERPA continues to protect the privacy of education records, as intended by Congress, while allowing for the effective use of data in statewide longitudinal data systems (SLDS) as envisioned in the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act (COMPETES Act) and furthermore supported under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).   Improved access to data contained within an SLDS will facilitate States’ ability to evaluate education programs, to build upon what works and discard what does not, to increase accountability and transparency, and to contribute to a culture of innovation and continuous improvement in education.  (MEW bolded)

The Common Core Initiative was funded by ARRA.  If the CCSS were not implemented, the need for intrusive data and the argument, Improved access to data contained within an SLDS will facilitate States’ ability to evaluate education programs, to build upon what works and discard what does not, to increase accountability and transparency, and to contribute to a culture of innovation and continuous improvement in education, would not be a compelling reason to gather and disseminate student data. 

What type of student data is gathered under the FERPA regulations as redesigned by the Department of Education?

...privacy advocates oppose the rule change because student data can be shared by local officials with private companies and foundations. Some say FERPA was loosened to make it easier for third parties to get access to student data by funding initiatives such as student data bases. Stephanie Simon of Reuters wrote in this story about a new $100 million database built in large part with Gates Foundation money that:

…already holds files on millions of children identified by name, address and sometimes social security number. Learning disabilities are documented, test scores recorded, attendance noted. In some cases, the database tracks student hobbies, career goals, attitudes toward school – even homework completion.

From an earlier post on MEW:

The question then must be asked, what does the government consider "high-value data sets on students, open data and more"?  The government does not provide a detailed idea on this site of what the datasets will contain but we have an idea on what to expect from the datasets from the National Education Model and the Illinois Data Warehouse report.  As the Illinois set is aligned with other state data models, you can reasonably expect this will be present in your Common Core state data set.

Read more here from the Washington Post on why Senator Buckley sponsored FERPA to protect student data.  Ironically, the rewriting of FERPA does not protect student data, it releases it to various federal agencies and private companies.  Arne Duncan might as well have renamed it "the tracking of students from cradle to career act" and abolished FERPA outright.  He orchestrated Race to the Top without legislative oversight.  He tweaked FERPA (without legislative oversight) to ensure it doesn't protect student/family privacy but rather opens the floodgate to gather student data for tracking purposes.  As one reader commented:

How did Arne and ED issue regulations that countermanded FERPA? I thought he was in the Executive branch. It appears that he is also in the legislative branch. If this is over-reach, when can we expected the hand to be slapped?

Please sign the petition from Missouri Coalition Against Common Core to rid Missouri of Common Core and the intrusive data gathering that will be done on your student/family.  

 

NSBA Pushes Back Against Arne Duncan but Supports Common Core Standards?

National School Board Association issues press release:

Alexandria, Va. (Jan. 29, 2013) – More than 700 school board members and state school boards association leaders will be meeting with their members of Congress and urging them to co-sponsor legislation, developed by the National School Boards Association (NSBA), to protect local school district governance from unnecessary and counter-productive federal intrusion from the U.S. Department of Education.

...“We must ensure that the decisions made at the federal level will best support the needs and goals of local school systems and the communities they serve,” said Gentzel. “Local school boards must have the ability to make on-the-ground decisions that serve the best interests of our school districts.”

The NSBA is pushing back against Arne Duncan's policies mandating school district policies.   It has prepared draft legislation stopping the increasing Federal encroachment into local districts and states:

The proposed legislation would ensure that the Department of Education’s actions are consistent with the specific intent of federal law and are educationally, operationally, and financially supportable at the local level. This would also establish several procedural steps that the Department of Education would need to take prior to initiating regulations, rules, grant requirements, guidance documents, and other regulatory materials.

“In recent years, the U.S. Department of Education has engaged in a variety of activities to reshape the educational delivery system,” said Thomas J. Gentzel, NSBA’s Executive Director. “All too often these activities have impacted local school district policy and programs in ways that have been beyond the specific legislative intent. School board leaders are simply asking that local flexibility and decision-making not be eroded through regulatory actions.”

This press release sounds encouraging for those against CCSS.  I particularly like this on page 3:

Ensure that national policy in education is established by Congress
through specific legislation.

Congress wrote a blank check to the Obama administration for education reform but legislation for this reform was circumvented. This proposed legislation would ensure such massive federal programs like RTTT would not occur again without legislative approval and sounds promising.  But take a look at this NSBA powerpoint presentation, Getting Ready for the Common Core.  It is not a presentation on how to resist CCSS.  It doesn't urge districts to not implement the standards/assessments.  It is a presentation for districts on how to use CCSS and promote them in your school district and business community.  

I'm curious.  How can NSBA want less federal intrusion into local school district policy and programming and then support CCSS which mandate standards, assessments and ultimately the curricula necessary to use with these standards and assessments?  The two consortia are supported by Federal funding and contain federal mandates.  Should states/districts be able to choose what Federal intrusion is "good" and which should be resisted?  Or should the Federal Government be involved in a state's educational direction/delivery for any reason?

Diane Ravitch's readers had quite a lively discussion on her blog about the role of the Federal government in education and federalism.  Perhaps it's time for NSBA to rethink its support of these national standards that aren't really "state led".  Private corporations own the copyright to the standards and assessments that the "states" were allegedly crafting.  The school districts/states can't change them even if they prove destructive to student learning and achievement.

Shouldn't the NSBA be supporting the revocation of the CCSS since they have been proven to be the blueprint of private organizations using taxpayer money to create a managed workforce?  How can the NSBA support CCSS when it strips local districts of autonomous decision making abilities and governance?   We applaud NSBA for the proposed legislation but urge them to call for the rescinding of CCSS as well.
********************************


Susan Ohanian Tweets - "It's been 3 1/2 years since NSBA got $755,603 from Gates. Maybe they're angling for more."

Education Views - Two Ends of the Spectrum

Before anyone can answer the question, "What do we do to fix education," they first must answer, "What is the purpose of education?" There is not as much consensus on the answer as you would think. The next question that should be asked is, "What is the best delivery mechanism for education?" Secretary of Education Arne Duncan believes it is the public school system. But then again, if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Is school the best way to deliver education?

This young man from the UK gives his answer to both these questions in a very thought provoking way in his video "Why I Hate School But Love Education."



Contrast his viewpoint with that of Sec. Duncan who was interviewed by Reuters.

Duncan states, "We have invested massively in school-improvement grants ... and we have, partly as a result today, 700,000 less children in what we call "drop-out factories." (But) we have about a million young people who drop out of school each year in this country, and that is obviously economically unsustainable and it is morally unacceptable."

Children drop out of school for any number of reasons; to start working, pregnancy, apathy, because the family moves, mental challenges that make traditional learning very difficult to impossible. The tracking for drop outs is very poor so we don't always know the reason. We also don't know if they remain in the drop out category or simply move to another education opportunity. Some of the kids who drop out simply aren't ready to make it in the mass production system that is public education. When they are ready, they often get their GED. The point is, society has provided the school to the best of its economic ability, but the student decides not to avail him/herself of it. How exactly is that a moral failure on the part of society? It is very annoying when government bureaucrats throw around highly emotionally charged words like morality to make their issue (and themselves) seem vitally important.

When asked about equal access to higher education, Duncan's response included, "(For) the jobs of the future you've got to have some form higher education…. If you drop out, there is nothing out there for you. And if you just graduate from high school, very few of the high-wage jobs are there."

This young man's video challenges that common perception. IF you plan to simply participate in the school process (note he's not saying education), where you memorize facts or processes in order to spit them back out on an exam and then promptly forget them, and IF you then plan to wait for someone else to come up with an idea and then wait for them to hire you to help them bring that idea to market hoping that your college degree will be assurance enough for them that you can be taught to jump through the right hoops, then YES a college degree is necessary to have a job.

There is plenty of evidence that a college degree is not necessary for economic success.  The young man in the video happens to point out the extreme examples that everyone is familiar with, but there are plenty of examples out there are people who have had reasonable economic success without the degree. What separates them from those who are unsuccessful without a degree is their personal drive and interest in education which can be obtained from many sources besides college.  Reuters at least had the journalistic integrity to ask the follow-up question: "Research suggests, and conservatives argue, that just creating a highly educated workforce doesn't spark economic growth. For example, North Carolina has had better growth than Massachusetts. Do you agree?"

Unfortunately Sec. Duncan just can't help pounding the nail. "I think this is a huge piece of the answer and not the exclusive answer.… I think a skills crisis is a significant part of the challenge. So, again, it is just so critically important that we again lead the world in college-graduation rates. I think that would be a huge step forward in strengthening our economy, keeping good jobs in this country rather than going overseas… and reducing unemployment rates."

Just guaranteeing that kids graduate from college is the key to future success? Having graduates with massive student loan debt and a corresponding high expectation for high salaries to pay that back as a result is somehow going to keep jobs in this country? Flooding the market with educated labor (because skilled labor comes from other places than traditional college) is going to reduce unemployment? Perhaps Mr. Duncan should have stayed for Econ 102.

The critical mistake that Duncan and so many others make with a college education is the assumption that college is a transformative process. Underlying the focus on a college education is the belief that colleges and universitieis can take any raw material (student) that comes to them and transform them into people who will be successful in the business world.

The real push to get kids into college comes from historic statistics which show that people with a college education tend to make more in a lifetime than people without. This is true, but placing the credit for their success on the old sheepskin is a false correlation. Traditionally colleges and universities only accepted students with a proven track record for acedemic excellence and a personal drive to learn and succeed. If this were not the case, then Harvard would just take the first 2,000 students who apply. Instead, they only accept the cream of the crop. Is it any wonder that their graduates go on to be leaders in industry and very successful financially? They were driven to do so on their way in. The same is true of lesser esteemed institutions of high learning just on a lower scale. Yet even state schools have certain minimum scores and academic standards.

The push to put everyone through institutions of higher education believing them to be transformative is like taking a random group of kids to Neiman Marcus, dressing all of them in high end clothes and expecting them to suddenly start acting like cultured individuals. It is not the outer dressing, it is the person inside who matters.

Reuters also addressed the issue of inequality by citing Massachusetts which has seen "one of the biggest increases in inequality in the past 20 years." Forgetting that the state's nick name is Taxachusetts, they ignore certain economic realities that have little to do with education and a lot to do with human nature. There are fewer middle class living in MA because the cost of living is so high. Having parents who still live there I can attest to this problem. Their home is now worth more than 10x what they bought it for. That's great for them if they decide to move, but it is a killer for retired folks to pay the property taxes on that value. With high state income and sales tax, it is an expensive place to live. Neighboring states like New Hampshire have no state income tax so many middle income Massachusans have moved there. It is in our nature to make the most of our limited personal resources. The only people who can afford to stay in MA are the very wealthy and the very poor who live off government entitlements and subsidies. To lay this split at the foot of education is more than a bit disingenuous.

Sec Duncan, however, seeing another nail, is happy to pound away. He sees the split as a reason to step on the gas with changes to education. "... this movement towards quality, toward access and toward early-childhood education has to reach every child and every community who needs it. And that is simply not the case yet in Massachusetts and around the country. So it's not a reason to back off. It's a reason frankly to double down and to accelerate the pace of change."

The USDoEd would like everyone to run out and plop down a whole bunch of cash to buy a nail gun, and ignore the fact that many times some glue, or tongue in groove, or nuts and bolts would work much better. In the end it looks like we are going to get screwed.