The Joke's On Us: 20 U.S.C. § 3403 : US Code - Section 3403: Relationship with States

Neal McCluskey writes how the Federal Government seems to be directing testing in the Common Core consortia.  From Saying Common Core Not Federal a Joke, but Joke’s on Us:

Last week I posted video from an American Enterprise Institute conference featuring supporters of national curriculum standards—the Common Core—dismissing concerns that implementing the standards might cost lots of taxpayer arms and legs, and laughingly brushing aside concerns that the Common Core might lead to federal control of school curricula. The latter emanated largely from Chester “Checker” Finn, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, whose organization is a leading national standards supporter.

Yesterday news came out that made clear just how serious—and unfunny—concerns about a federal takeover are. According to Education Week, the U.S. Department of Education will start a “technical review process” for the Department-selected consortia creating the national tests to go with the standards. And what will that review look at? Not compliance with accounting standards or something administrative, but test “item design and validation.” That means, most likely (in-depth information from the Department was off-line as of this writing) reviewing the specific questions that will go on the tests. And what is tested, of course, ultimately dictates what is taught, at least if the test results are to have any concrete impact, ranging from whether students advance to the next grade, to whether schools gain or lose funding. Since the ultimate point of uniform standards is to have essentially uniform accountability from state to state, they will have to have some concrete impact, rendering this a clear next step in a major Federal incursion into curricula. (MEW bolded)

Now, maybe Finn wasn’t aware of any of this last week when he blew me off with knee-slapping zingers about the U.N. taking over the Common Core, but I doubt it: according to Education Week, one of Fordham’s employees, Kathleen Porter-Magee, will be on the federal review team, as will frequent Fordham collaborator William Schmidt of Michigan State University. So either Finn is an extremely hands-off manager, or as he summoned his inner Don Rickles last week he knew very well that federal tentacles were inching even deeper into America’s schools.

Ha, ha, America. Joke’s on you.

 
 What does the law state about the Federal Government's involvement in education?  From findlaw.com:

20 U.S.C. § 3403 : US Code - Section 3403: Relationship with States

(a) Rights of local governments and educational institutions
It is the intention of the Congress in the establishment of the
Department to protect the rights of State and local governments and
public and private educational institutions in the areas of
educational policies and administration of programs and to
strengthen and improve the control of such governments and
institutions over their own educational programs and policies. The
establishment of the Department of Education shall not increase the
authority of the Federal Government over education or diminish the
responsibility for education which is reserved to the States and
the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States.
(b) Curriculum, administration, and personnel; library resources
No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any
other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the
Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction,
supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of
instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational
institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency
or association, or over the selection or content of library
resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any
educational institution or school system, except to the extent
authorized by law.
(c) Funding under pre-existing programs
The Secretary shall not, during the period within eight months
after May 4, 1980, take any action to withhold, suspend, or
terminate funds under any program transferred by this chapter by
reason of the failure of any State to comply with any applicable
law requiring the administration of such a program through a single
organizational unit.

Do you remember of know of any law passed granting the Federal Government powers pertaining to those programs highlighted in yellow?  No? Then why is this "technical review process" allowed to go forward and exist?

Common Core Consortia Written Testimony Supporting MO SB 210 and HB 616

A businessman explains how consortia work and why they are not suitable in written testimony for MO SB 210 and HB 616:

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

 

I am Thomas A Byrne, a resident of Greene County. My background in not in education but in Business Management and it from that background that I come here today to raise my concerns about Common Core.
A business is not staffed with people with Management, Accounting or Engineering Degrees. Most are people who can run a lathe, drive a forklift, assemble an engine, and drive the delivery truck. In my day this area of “education” in high school was called Industrial Arts. Is there room for this type of education in the Common Core Program? There are students who want to learn how to be a good carpenter. Where do they fit in this new scheme?

The cost of this program is another concern. I have not been able to find a budget line for this cost nor have I been able to see a good estimate of what the cost will be. Furthermore, when one joins a Consortia you take on part of the front end costs. As States drop out, and they will and have, more of that cost falls on the States remaining. Whiteboard Advisors did a recent study where 83% of the people in education felt that more States would leave the Consortia. Are we going to be left with an unknown cost in this time of tight educational budgets? There has got to be high cost to implement this program; where is that money coming from?
I am always concerned when something as important as Education is turned over to national organizations. Do they really know what the children of Missouri educational needs are? Do you, as legislators, want to give up your say in what is taught to the children of Missouri? Do you want to take away from local school boards a say in what is taught in their schools? It seems to me that if the assessment document is copy righted; then we on the local level have little say is what is taught.
Common Core sounds like the time a salesman came to sell me a new system. It had all the bells and whistles, but the research had not been done and the project ran way over cost. What research is there that backs up Common Core? Has the research been done that this will be worth the cost? What comments I have seen, wonder if we will get much “bang for the buck.”

Before you allow Missouri to continue to be wedded to Common Core, you have many things to consider. I have tried to mention a few; others will offer more points for you to consider. Please give them you careful consideration.

If you or your staff would want reference and documents that I have drawn on, I will be happy to provide them.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

 

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

For MEW readers, here is a Whiteboard Advisors article with predictions of the failure of Common Core:

 

Not going to happen on time and it's a disaster if you believe in accountability.

 

The opting out of Alabama just the start of a trend.  You heard it here first: the astonishing success of Duncan's first term unravel in the second as implementation of teacher evals, common core, and common assessment fail.  Sound and fury ultimately signifying nothing. 

 

While everyone is worrying about Smarter Balanced but PARCC is starting to have internal troubles of its own.  More states will go, and that's OK.  But if more states go and they can't deliver a coherent product, that's a big problem.

This Missouri resident's common sense and practical experience is borne out by the educational insiders raising concern about both SBAC and PARCC.

 

Is this Teacher's Response the Main Reason Parents Home School?

...Or do they?

From Diane Ravitch's blog, Do Parents Always Know What is Best?.

The State Commissioner of Education John White memorably said in defense of school vouchers: “To me, it’s a moral outrage that the government would say, ‘We know what’s best for your child,’” White said. “Who are we to tell parents we know better?” 

Ravitch printed a teacher's response to the superintendent's statement:

I am  tired of this attitude about parents knowing what is best for their children. Parents are easily swayed by politicians, talk show hosts and preachers.  They rarely understand how schools work unless they are teachers themselves or have relatives who are teachers.  If their child broke his leg they would not try to fix it themselves even if they did not have health insurance. They would take the child to a health care professional.  So what in God’s name is wrong with taking your child to an Education Professional?  This debasement of teachers and deprofessionalization of of K-12 education has got to go before we get a whole generation of uneducated, dysfunctional adults.

Certainly they should  have a say and be part of the decision making about the child’s education  but parents also starve, beat, tie up, and rape their children.  They also spoil them rotten and don’t expect them to do anything and teach them that they are “entitled”.You have to have a license to drive a car, for your dog, and to practice most professions.  No license is required to be a parent.  I have also seen parents demand inappropriate programs for their child and not accept the truth that a child with a 30 IQ should not be mainstreamed into a college prep program.  I had a parent swear that her multihandicapped son could rollerskate when he could not even turn over on his own.  But I had to clean dried feces off the little boy’s butt.

I agree that some school programs are bad.  They have no vision for the children’s success. They think poor kids are in a pipeline to prison. I have known some bad teachers, some lazy, some incompetent, some functionally illiterate, two drunks and some just not bright enough to teach.  But at least 95% of teachers do their best and are competent and do better as they get experience.  Some of the best teachers I have known started as paraprofessionals.

Programs may be inadequate or inappropriate for some students but that is not the fault of the teachers but of the politicians and upper administrators.  That is part of why I stayed in Severe/Profound.  I could pretty much do what I wanted because most people thought my children could not learn anything.  I could keep away from the politics pretty well until I came to Louisiana.  But this place is a mess from hell.

So who DOES know best for children?  Is it parents, state employees, or educational consortia controlled by private corporations unaccountable to taxpayers?  There are thoughtful readers' comments and it should be noted Mr. White, the superintendent, has connections with Joel Klein, who promotes school "choice".  However, Mr. Klein is silent on common core standards and other federal mandates ensuring that this "choice" is not really a "choice" at all.  

Conversely, are teachers never swayed or directed by their union policies?  Are teachers considered professionals any longer?  TFAers can enter the classroom with a 5 week training period.  Would you send your child for medical treatment to a doctor with a 5 week training period? 

Several readers understand this "class warfare" between parents and teachers does little for education and children and only creates division.  Below is Warren's comment (a teacher) on who knows best.  This might be the teacher to avoid and may embody the main reason some parents choose not to utilize public education for their children:

Warren

 

August 12, 2012 at 10:16 am

 

Parents don’t know jack about education or schooling. If they did, there would be no need for schools and schooling.

Teaching and education is best left to us, the professionals. We spent many years working and learning, and yes, mr. white, we DO know what is best for kids, in terms of education.

 There you go, parents.  In Warren's eyes, you exist to pay his salary and provide him the children.  That's your function.  You don't know "jack" about education and schooling and what's best for your child.   Someone needs to tap the home schoolers on the shoulders and tell them how uninformed they are in terms of directing their childrens' education.

 Does anyone else find Warren's attitude rather chilling?

Common Core, Lattice Math Problems and a Parent's Frustration

Just wait until you see the Math lattice problem.

I got a chuckle when I read this from e cards.  How many of you remember word problems in Math that didn't seem to make sense?

A blog on educational matters, Learning in Maine, had an article extolling Common Core math standards.  The readers took exception to some of the writer's praises about Common Core's strengths (according to the writer) in an extraordinary and thoughtful manner.  This comment on how math works, or doesn't, is worth pondering:

As a parent with a minor in Biology and dad who works remotely as an IT Security Consultant (and who sees many Asians blow our kids out of the water when it comes to mastering computer programming which uses not only math but "logic"). Both of us cannot comprehend Everyday Math.

I can't help my son with his 6th grade homework because I do not understand half of it and neither does my husband.

We learned math the old school way and are very proficient ~ I have even passed college level Calculus 2 and Statistics.

My son is in 6th grade and I fear that he has never learned the basics. We are going to talk to the Principal of my son's school and beg for him to learn "Singapore Math". We pay enough in our property taxes and they should help us out here.

Everyday math is fine if you want a nation of liberal arts degrees rather than science, computers and engineers.

Pulling up internet resources about "Everyday Math", it looks as if lattices are taught in solving multiplication problems.  If this is the way students are assessed on the Common Core assessments, the reader's plea to her principal is useless. If the student doesn't understand the process of a problem, the student will fail.  If the student fails, the teacher's accountability rating goes down.  What teacher wants to teach math problems in a manner that will affect his/her job?  

If "Singapore Math" is not the consortia's assessment decision for your state, it's a safe bet your local school district won't teach it, even if the taxpayers demand it.  Is this really the best way to teach math to children?  This is the lattice method for the multiplication problem 567 x 432.  And you thought word problems were bad?

It's clear as mud to me.

 

Common Core Has Teachers Scrambling

The Core Standards are coming! The Core Standards are coming! Get out your lesson plans!

Wait. You're not ready with lesson plans? No resource materials? Ed Week reported today that many teachers and principals are desperately searching for hard to find resource materials to teach the new common standards. Given that Common Core standards were supposed to be about "doing less reinventing the wheel, and more sharing of good stuff," it was surprising to read how difficult it was for people to find the necessary resources. Catherine Gewertz admitted,

I'd been hearing that some of the lead writers of the common standards had videotaped sample lessons, but even some of those who had worked on them couldn't tell me where I could find any more than a couple lessons. Eventually, I found a bunch on the website of the Council of Chief State School Officers' group that focuses on common-standards implementation. The link on its page takes you to a YouTube video collection of lessons in math and English/language arts, put together by the James B. Hunt Institute, which has worked to promote the common standards. And judging by the number of times these videos have been viewed, I'm not the only one who had a hard time finding them.

The New York state department of education has assembled a clearinghouse of resources for the common core, as well. One page on that site is devoted to curriculum exemplars, which include sample units in math and English/language arts. It also has a series of videos explaining key aspects of the common standards, including a sample lesson by David Coleman, one of the two lead writers of the English/language arts standards, on Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address." Presumably, more of these clearinghouses will crop up as states and districts develop them.

Ed Weeks' writer rightly questioned how much of this type of material will be available for free once the standards are fully adopted, and how much will be produced for a price by for-profit entities, adding additional cost to the education system.

The consortia have articulated plans to make a boatload of resources available for free, in centralized locations (although not without controversy, since some see the federal funding of that work as blurring the line drawn to protect local decision making). How much states and districts will have to invent [or buy] for themselves, and whether that is actually a good thing, will bear watching.

Assuming the laws of supply and demand will apply to these hard to find materials, their price is likely to rise steeply as the deadline to begin teaching the standards draws closer.

There is still time for teachers to develop these plans on their own which they will no doubt be scrambling to do. I can't help wondering, if all these promises about free lesson plans and video resources do come to fruition, why would we need to send our kids to a brick and mortar school? We could just use these resources and teach this stuff at home. And if teachers are just going to use preset plans and video instruction, will we even need people with special teaching degrees to lead the classroom? Choose to have, yes. But NEED? Maybe not so much.

For those who are interested, the SMARTER Balanced consortium appendices contain draft content specifications with examples of the kinds of questions students are likely to see on the assessments the group is designing. (See Appendix D for the English/language arts, and Appendix C for math.)