Another Pro-Common Core Myth Exposed

The supposition: Common Core implementation is worthwhile.   

 


If you've been following Common Core for a while, you have probably noticed the pro-Common Core side is increasing its talking points as more and more taxpayers and legislators are asking questions about CCSS adoption and implementation.  One of the most repeated claims is:

...the standards only define what students should know. They do not mandate how teachers should teach or what courses school districts must offer. Those decisions remain with local districts, as they always have. 

This above excerpt was reported in The Beacon and is a talking point on the DESE site at CCSS FAQ, page 3/9:

Do the Common Core State Standards instruct teachers to teach using certain methods?

No. The Common Core State Standards documents do not provide instructional strategies or limit instructional strategies. The CCSS do provide illustrations and examples of the content described by a standard but do not establish a preference for a particular strategy. In fact, the opposite is true. Teachers continue to be encouraged to use the many methods, strategies and algorithms available to them as they instruct students.

DESE is waging an educational propaganda campaign and is not being entirely  truthful.  
This explanation of teaching practices is from a pro-Common Core site, mindsetworks.com (Bill Gates Foundation approved) and Cultivating Common Core Experts: Grow Your Own:

3.3 million teachers will be asked to change their practices,  routines, and lessons this year to align with the Common Core State Standards.  That is a staggering number when you think about that many Americans essentially experiencing a major job change at the same time!

What is the extensive teacher training/development necessary for Common Core if not to provide strategies?  Isn't "changing practices, routines and lessons to align to the CCSS" mean teacher decisions on "what kind of practice, routines and lessons they must use" are centered around the CCSS and in reality, dictate how/what teachers must teach?

This next statement from the article should cause you to become quite concerned and spur you to action by attending your school board meetings, state school board meetings and  meeting with your legislators:

It is inevitable that with all this change, some of us will fail.  We will mess it up.  We will get it wrong and forget some essential component (of a standard, a lesson, a concept).  Our central offices will mess up too.  Trainings will go awry, resources arrive late, and support will be well-intentioned, but spotty.  Are we prepared to tolerate this process and allow ourselves to take the necessary responsible risks to LEARN and grow?
I hope so.

The writer is referring to the new educational practices the teachers must use.  The apparent educational chaos  may impact students' educational future.  Are you willing to have your children be the guinea pigs while the teachers learn a new way to teach?  Do you envision a "world class education" as based on no data?  Educational reform should be based on data/research/best educational practice, not on "hope" and waiting for teachers to "LEARN and grow".  Our children are not experiments for teachers to "get it right" for an educational theory based on guaranteed outcomes.  It's not fair to the teachers or the students.

More reading on the disconnect between what DESE says and what is really happening in the classroom can be found from James Shuls and Constructive Criticism for Common Core Constructivism Deniers:

Over the past couple of years, I have had the opportunity to discuss these concerns with many Common Core supporters. Although I typically disagree with their conclusions or their logic, I believe Common Core supporters are for the most part sincere in their belief that these standards are rigorous and will improve outcomes for students. However, I find claims that the Common Core State Standards will not influence instructional practices downright disingenuous and obviously false.

In a recent Twitter exchange, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education informed me that the CCSS don’t “tell teachers how to teach.” This is a phrase that has been echoing across the country as the Common Core has come under attack from the left and the right.

The fact is that curriculum standards don’t tell teachers how to teach in the same way that a high jump bar doesn’t tell a jumper how to jump. You could theoretically jump over a high jump bar in whatever way you would like; but because of how the jump is structured there is a clear advantage to doing the old Fosbury Flop.

It is clear from documents on the Common Core website and from the discourse throughout the country that these new standards encourage constructivist teaching practices. Take for example these two quotes from a Key Points in Common Core Math document.

• The standards stress not only procedural skill but also conceptual understanding, to make sure students are learning and absorbing the critical information they need to succeed at higher levels ‐ rather than the current practices by which many students learn enough to get by on the next test, but forget it shortly thereafter, only to review again the following year.
• Having built a strong foundation K‐5, students can do hands on learning in geometry, algebra and probability and statistics. Students who have completed 7th grade and mastered the content and skills through the 7th grade will be well‐ prepared for algebra in grade 8.

Read more here.

DESE Stifling More Debate About Common Core?

DESE doesn't like answering questions.

That was evident in the May 2 statewide meetings that were designed to be "informational" only.  DESE representatives were clear to the attendees that answers were not to be forthcoming but could be found within a week on its website.

The answers still aren't there and the clock keeps ticking.

Has DESE  blocked James Shuls of Show-Me Institute for wanting to have an "old-fashioned" debate on the merits of Common Core? 

From More Evidence of DESE Stifling Debate About Common Core?:

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

On May 3, I sent a tweet to the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) and Commissioner of Education, Chris Nicastro. In the tweet I wrote, “I’m willing to have a good ‘ol fashion debate on the merits of #CommonCore. Missourians deserve that.” Apparently, state education officials aren’t interested in a true debate about Common Core, because I am now blocked from accessing the DESE Twitter page.

The tweet was sent the day after DESE officials hosted eight meetings throughout the state regarding the Common Core. Each meeting was conducted in the same way. The moderators read from scripts and refused to allow open dialogue. At the meeting in Springfield, the moderator can be heard telling the audience that they are “welcome to go ahead and leave” if they didn’t like how the meeting was being conducted.

I attended the meeting at Lindbergh, which was halted when citizens demanded to be heard.

Many people’s take-a-way from these meetings was that DESE was not interested in a true debate of the issue; they were more interested in controlling the message.

I have sent an email request to the commissioner and the head of the DESE communications department asking to be unblocked and to be told why my account had been blocked in the first place.

We shall see what they say. For now, it seems like just another example of the department trying to stifle debate about the Common Core.

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

Send this article to your state senator and representative.  Since SB210 did not pass due to a filibuster threat, DESE is not being held accountable to any taxpayer or legislator on Common Core questions on cost or data retrieval.  

Why would a state agency funded by taxpayer dollars be allowed to block a taxpayer and educational writer/researcher from DESE's twitter account?  Is this because he asked for a debate on Common Core?  Ask your legislators this question.  If indeed this blocking has to do with Shuls' request for a debate, this is the height of bureaucratic arrogance.

If Common Core is so wonderful, why does DESE want to quash any serious discussion/questions about it?  Why didn't most Missourians learn about CCSS when the Governor and the Commissioner signed on to the adoption of them in 2009?  I guess you could tweet DESE and ask those questions but you may be blocked as well.

You gotta love government transparency.  It instills such trust in those bureaucrats in charge of educating your children.    

James Shuls Offers His Thoughts on the Disastrous Lindbergh DESE Common Core Meeting

From Lindbergh Crowd Halts Scripted Common Core Meeting:

Officials from the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) are finding out that it might not be easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission, at least not when it comes to the Common Core State Standards. DESE adopted the standards without public knowledge and last night, officials from DESE attempted to justify their decision with a one-sided presentation. Many concerned citizens and parents, however, were not interested in listening to DESE’s Common Core gospel.

At the meeting I attended at the Lindbergh School District, citizens showed up with questions; DESE officials showed up with scripts and videos. The plan was to divide the crowd into small groups so we could discuss the standards. They even provided a form for us to write down what we like about the standards and what we dislike. That plan may have worked at other meetings, but the folks at Lindbergh demanded to be heard.

The DESE officials seemed shocked when patrons who wanted to be heard continually interrupted the presentation.

One lady sitting near me said, “Can’t you deviate from your script?”

Another shouted, “This goes against teaching.” She was implying that the officials should have been willing to take questions, like a good teacher would during a lesson.

After the crowd’s continual pestering, and the crowd’s refusal to separate into small groups, the DESE officials began fielding questions. Of course, they were not answering the questions, just listening to them.

Read more here.

Is DESE telling the truth on Common Core Standards?

James Shuls, education policy analyst at Show-Me Institute, finds claims that the Common Core State Standards will not influence instructional practices downright disingenuous and obviously false.

He writes in Jay P. Greene's blog an article challenging Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education's claims that CCSS will not affect curriculum.  From Constructive Criticism for Common Core Constructivism Deniers:

In a recent Twitter exchange, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education informed me that the CCSS don’t “tell teachers how to teach.” This is a phrase that has been echoing across the country as the Common Core has come under attack from the left and the right.

The fact is that curriculum standards don’t tell teachers how to teach in the same way that a high jump bar doesn’t tell a jumper how to jump. You could theoretically jump over a high jump bar in whatever way you would like; but because of how the jump is structured there is a clear advantage to doing the old Fosbury Flop.

It is clear from documents on the Common Core website and from the discourse throughout the country that these new standards encourage constructivist teaching practices. Take for example these two quotes from a Key Points in Common Core Math document.

• The standards stress not only procedural skill but also conceptual understanding, to make sure students are learning and absorbing the critical information they need to succeed at higher levels ‐ rather than the current practices by which many students learn enough to get by on the next test, but forget it shortly thereafter, only to review again the following year.
• Having built a strong foundation K‐5, students can do hands on learning in geometry, algebra and probability and statistics. Students who have completed 7th grade and mastered the content and skills through the 7th grade will be well‐ prepared for algebra in grade 8.

Common Core developers themselves are saying that traditional methods of math instruction aren’t working and students should be learning through “hands on learning.” It is reasonable to assume the tests will likely favor constructivist teaching practices.

Read more here.

Check out Shuls' twitter feed and particularly this tweet:

James V. Shuls ‏@shulsie 21h

@ericalayne @MOEducation Me: "Where does the curriculum come from?" Principal: "Common Core State Standards" Direct quote

Wonder how DESE will spin that tweet?
 

Packed Hearing for MO Senate Bill 210 (Anti-Common Core)

A packed room heard testimony from both sides on the Common Core issue in Jefferson City today.  One witness not heard from because of time restraint was James Shuls.  His written testimony may be found here, Missouri Should Avoid Implementation of the Common Core:

First, I will discuss the arguments that supposedly support adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and demonstrate why these arguments are vacuous. Moreover, I will demonstrate that if the real objective of CCSS is the centralized planning of education standards, then the CCSS do not go far enough. Next, I will offer what I suggest will be the real impact of implementing the CCSS.

Full Testimony (PDF)

The Accreditation Game

If you live in or around St. Louis you are very familiar with the crisis created when St. Louis Public Schools lost their accreditation from the Missouri State Board of Education. Loss of accreditation is meant to send a message to the school district, "You really need to do better."

For the individual student the consequences are less dramatic. They still receive a diploma. They are still eligible for all scholarships they would otherwise be eligible for. While they might, in theory, have a harder time qualifying for college admissions, MO DESE says it "has not identified any instance where a student who graduated from an unaccredited school district has been disqualified from consideration for admission." So where might they feel a pinch?

If they play a sport the Missouri State High School Activities Association (MSHSAA) provides that students who transfer schools or do not meet the requirements for residency upon enrollment at the school are ineligible for 365 days unless they meet one or more exceptions.  There is an exception for students transferring from an unaccredited public school:

 A student may be eligible upon his or her first transfer from an unaccredited public school to an accredited public school where the student’s tuition is required by state law to be paid by the home district provided the transfer does not involve undue influence and is not for athletic reasons.  Likewise, a student may be eligible upon his/her first transfer back to his/her home school if the school regains accreditation provided: 1. the student transfers within 365 days of accreditation being regained and 2. the transfer does not involve undue influence and is not for athletic reasons.

As the Turner Decision showed, the other consequence for students is that they become eligible to transfer to an adjacent accredited district, provided the moon and the stars line up just right to allow that to happen.

James V. Shuls, the new education policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute wrote in a piece for The Missouri Record, "the state’s board of education has set the bar for accreditation and provisional accreditation very low; so low, in fact, that the distinctions are essentially meaningless. The distinctions are also inconsequential because they change very little for the district besides the label. And as Shakespeare noted, 'a low-performing school district by any other name would smell like a low-performing school district.'”

Susan Turk at St. Louis Schools Watch has another point of view. The distinction is not inconsequential for everyone. In a recent post she explored the State Board of Education's recent surprising turn around on its position regarding St Louis Public School District accreditation. Just one year ago they earned the required six points to regain their accreditation and it seemed the SBE was poised to give it to them. Then they made an abrupt change and said they wanted to see a two year upward trend in scores before they granted accreditation.  Yet just ten months later they have reversed themselves again and granted provisional accreditation, which DESE describes as being considered accredited. Mr. Shuls was right. It's just a label and one with very little meaning.

SLSW has a more pessimistic view. The SBE's decision comes at a time when St. Loius Mayor Slay has a challenger in the upcoming election, Lewis Reed who had reclaiming St. Louis public school accreditation as one of his main platform goals.

SLSW explained it this way,  

... Lewis Reed supports returning SLPS to the governance of the elected board of education.  He does not support the mayor controlling the SLPS.  

When the state board voted to find the SLPS unaccredited in 2007, they did so for political reasons.  They took the unprecedented step of removing accreditation not after a regularly scheduled once in 5 year accreditation review, but 2 years early. They did so because as has been documented by Wilbur C. Rich in the Winter 2008 issue of the Hoover Institute’s Education Next journal, “Mayor Slay” formed “an alliance with the governor (Blunt) to take over the schools.”

  

Mayor Slay’s sudden support for the approval of provisional accreditation for the SLPS, Dr. Adams’ and the SAB’s request for consideration of it and the state board’s approval at this time, after academic progress has slipped somewhat, only makes sense in the light of political expediency, the upcoming mayoral primary in March of 2013. Mayor Slay fearing the anger of SLPS parents, needed to take an issue away from Lewis Reed. 

So while accreditation has little impact on the students, it has huge impact, and political capital, for many others: the mayor, adjacent district superintendents, and parents.  Right now it is just a game.

It is important to remember what accreditation is supposed to accomplish.  It is supposed to assure parents that the services and operations of educational institutions are of an acceptable quality. Hence the provision that if a district loses its accreditation parents may apply to have their child attend another accredited district. This is parent choice based on information supplied by some outside agency that is supposed to be trustworthy. In the case of SLPS that can be debated. 

The Show Me Institute report made a useful suggestion based on this understanding of the purpose of accreditation. Such a rating system should allow parents to know how the actual school they send their child to is performing. The current system only tells them how the schools in their district, as an aggregate, perform. The magnet schools in St. Louis have helped pull up the districts scores, while the scores at individual schools remain dismally low. If parents are to be able to make an informed decision about where they send their child, the individual school should receive the accreditation or rating. Mr. Shuls recommends a report card type system. 

"The current system pre-supposes that the state can hold schools accountable by accrediting the school district, when in reality, school accountability is best achieved when families are allowed to hold their child’s school accountable," he writes. This would give parents useful information and remove the political capital inherent in the current district accreditation process. Not bad. It also means, at least in theory, that fewer students would be eligible for transfer at any one time since only individual schools would fit into that scenario. Parents with more ability to hold their individual school accountable might have better success at changing it and keeping their kids there which would be preferable to moving their kids out of their local district.

Too bad we're headed in the other direction with less and less local control and more control coming from Washington DC. But we can always dream.