Common Core Passion Now Spills into the Bedroom?

New talking point of Common Core proponents: Don't canoodle with right wingers.  Now that's some research/data to prop up CCSS claims.

Arne Duncan asked the business community to defend Common Core standards.  Education insiders are doubting the long term success of the implementation of the standards and the proponents must be getting nervous.  Education reform organizations are attacking taxpayers/organizations who want local control/autonomy in their schools and question a centralized form of education.  One of these organizations, Democrats for Education Reform, heeded Secretary Duncan's call.  Check out its Board of Directors.  The venture capital background of its directors is perfect for the public/private partnership envisioned by the federal government so this group would want to support the USDOEd's call to action.  Its collective future is tied up in Common Core being successful.

Democrats for Education Reform in Indiana used an extraordinarily unprofessional tactic designed to stop the growing support in Indiana to stop the implementation of the standards. DFER compared agreeing with "far right opponents" to "canoodling" and wondered if you did so, would you hate yourself in the morning?  (They must be talking about Diane Ravitch and Susan Ohanian.....)



From Are you going to hate yourself in the morning?

Dear Fellow Democrats:

It’s growing late and some of us have spent the night canoodling with far-right opponents of the Common Core State Standards. If that sounds like you, it’s time you ask yourself this question: “Am I going to hate myself for this in the morning?"

We can almost guarantee the answer will be yes.

Before you decide to get into bed with extremist right-wing critics of the Common Core, we highly recommend that you get to know them better.

Here’s the first in a series of would-be, right-wing bedfellows you’d be smart to stay away from. Let's start with State Sen. Scott Schneider of Indiana and Phyllis Schlafly, Founder and President of the Eagle Forum. Click their names to find out more.

- Larry, DFER IN State Director

Larry is Larry Grau.  Grau doesn't offer any facts/research on why Schneider or Schlafly might be wrong on their beliefs and agenda, he just uses "will you still love me tomorrow" argument to shame citizens who might agree with the CCSS opponents.  How could any "right wing whacko" ever have any ideas worth supporting?  This is akin to the "mean girls" tactics of freezing out people and not allowing any serious discussion of what/how people believe.  If Grau dismisses people outright without hearing/studying what they have to say, then he doesn't have to defend his organization's position on CCSS and answer increasing concerns about its adoption and implementation from the taxpayers who have to pay for it.



Jay P. Greene had a brilliant response to Grau's article.  He furthers Grau's canoodling reference in If I Woke Up With Larry Grau, I'd Really Hate Myself: 

Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) supports Common Core.  I don’t for reasons I’ve explained on numerous occasions in the past, but most recently here.  Reasonable people can disagree, so I am not particularly perturbed by DFER’s position.  It’s fine.

What’s not fine is how DFER Indiana director, Larry Grau, tries to support Common Core in a blog post that was mass e-mailed today. It’s provocatively titled, “Are you going to hate yourself in the morning?”  He answers saying that if you “have spent the night canoodling with far-right opponents of the Common Core State Standards… we can almost guarantee the answer will be yes.”

His argument, such as it is, in support of Common Core standards is that a number of Common Core opponents are the kinds of people you wouldn’t want to wake up next to: “Before you decide to get into bed with extremist right-wing critics of the Common Core, we highly recommend that you get to know them better.”  He then goes on to profile State Senator Scott Schneider and Eagle Forum founder, Phyllis Schlafly, to show that they oppose abortion and other policies that DFER folks might like.  In sum, Larry Grau’s case for Common Core is that its opponents are people with whom you may strongly disagree on other matters.

By Grau’s brilliant reasoning, of course, you should also oppose charter schools, which DFER strongly supports.  As it turns out, Sen Scott Schneider was given the Charter School Warrior of the Year Award in 2012 by School Choice Indiana.  So if you should recoil at the thought of agreeing with Sen. Schneider, you should also oppose DFER on charters.

Unfortunately, this type of non-substantive, ad hominem argument is becoming the norm in education policy discourse.  Even people with whom I generally agree, like DFER, think this is how you are supposed to make arguments in education policy.  It’s disgusting.

Well, if Grau wants to go down this path of ad hominem in defense of Common Core, he might consider how it could be used against Common Core.  After all, I’m hard pressed to think of a single pro-Common Core organization that has not received money from the Gates Foundation.  And at least if folks get in bed with Sen. Schneider to oppose Common Core they are doing it for love, not money.  So when Grau or other Common Core supporters wake up in the morning to find Gates money on the nightstand, they can at least take comfort in the thought that they are carrying on the traditions of a venerable profession — some say the oldest profession.




 

Jay P. Greene on Common Core and Why it will Fail

Jay P. Greene's article Why Common Core Doesn’t Matter (and Why It Does) encapsulates the Common Core debate perfectly:

The success of Common Core depends on building a centralized machine of assessment and consequences linked to the national standards.

Read more here.

If you like centralization and data tracking, you are a Common Core proponent. 

If you like localized control and states setting educational direction and delivery, then sign the petition at Missouri Coalition Against Common Core to stop the implementation of Common Core standards.

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?
 

Head Start and Hurricane Sandy: Expensive Disasters?

Disasters:  Some are man-made and some are natural. 

Who would have thought federal funding for Hurricane Sandy victims would include money for Head Start? Why was more money for Head Start included in this package when it has been admitted by Health and Human Services (HHS) the programs has been a failure in creating long term educational results for children?

According to Jay P. Greene in Head Start Revealed:

Despite the obvious effort to delay and conceal the disappointing results from the official and high quality evaluation of Head Start, the Wall Street Journal shines the light on the issue in today’s editorial.  DC’s manipulating scumbags might want to take note that efforts to hide negative research might just draw more attention.  It’s comforting to see that the world may sometimes look more like Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment than Woody Allen’s Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The Journal reveals that Head Start supporters have not only ignored the latest study, but they are trying to sneak an extra $100 million for Head Start into the relief package for victims of Hurricane Sandy.  They also note that the most recent disappointing Head Start result is just the latest in a string of studies failing to find benefits from the program despite a cumulative expenditure of more than $180 billion.

Heritage Foundation reports on the study:

The timing of the release raises questions about whether HHS was trying to bury the findings in the report, which shows, among other outcomes, that by third grade, the $8 billion Head Start program had little to no impact on cognitive, social-emotional, health, or parenting practices of participants. On a few measures, access to Head Start had harmful effects on children.

Now that the report has finally been published, the findings of the scientifically rigorous evaluation that tracked 5,000 three- and four-year-old children through third grade should inform federal policymakers who allocate billions of dollars annually to Head Start. Moreover, Congress will soon vote on a supplemental aid package to Hurricane Sandy victims that includes $100 million in additional Head Start funding. The Senate Appropriations Committee notes that 265 Head Start centers will receive the funding, which equates to more than $377,000 per center.

...President Obama has pledged to use only one test when determining which education programs to fund: “It’s not whether an idea is liberal or conservative,” Obama stated, “but whether it works.”   HHS’s third-grade follow-up evaluation makes it unequivocally clear that Head Start fails that test.

HHS has released definitive evidence that the federal government’s 48-year experiment with Head Start has failed children and left taxpayers a tab of more than $180 billion. In the interest of children and taxpayers, it’s time for this nearly half-century experiment to come to an end. If the federal government continues to fund Head Start, policymakers should allow states to make their Head Start dollars portable, following children to a private preschool provider of choice.

So why is the Federal Government funding a program (slipping it into a hurricane relief package) that does not deliver the desired results?  In Texas, the clamor in the legislature for more federal funding for education gives you an idea of this type of government thinking and doling out money.  From texastribune.com:

The 83^rd Legislature started with good news from the state comptroller: Susan Combs told lawmakers they’d have more than $101 billion to spend in the next session. Education advocates are already asking for more dough to head to Texas classrooms, including preschools.

Kara Johnson, with Texans Care for Children, a child advocacy group, quotes a 2006 study from the Bush school at Texas A&M University that shows it’s smart budgeting to support early childhood education.

“What the study found was that when you invest in high-quality care — the key is high quality — you get a 350 percent return on your investment," Johnson said. "Every dollar invested $3.50 back for local communities. And that’s at a minimum.”

Education is a good return on investment....to whom and for whom?  Local communities receive a 350% in what manner?  More bureaucratic jobs?  What does the child receive?  A "head start" in schooling that disappears by third grade?

The study Ms. Johnson references is not linked so it is difficult to determine exactly how many children were tested, if they had learning disabilities, were ESL students, low income, etc...and how these results were reached.  It is also impossible to determine if these children were followed after preschool and if so, how long the children were tracked.  There is also no definition of what is "high quality" and who/what agency determines the measurements.

Is an additional $100 Million Head Start investment and the increased call for universal  preschool for all children a good investment in education for the students or is it a good investment for the providers of mandated/federally funded initiatives?  As the WSJ article states in Greene's article:

Like so many programs directed at the poor, Head Start is well-intentioned, and that’s enough for self-congratulatory progressives to keep throwing money at it despite the outcomes. But misleading low-income parents about the efficacy of a program is cruel and wastes taxpayer dollars at a time when the country is running trillion-dollar deficits.

A government that cared about results would change or end Head Start, but instead Congress will use the political cover of disaster relief to throw more good money after proven bad policy.

That  proven "bad policy" of enrolling children in preschool seems to be overlooked by Kirkwood (MO) School District as well.  From The Kirkwood Webster Times:

Kirkwood Early Childhood Center Principal Melissa Sandbothe presented the board with an update on the center.

Sandbothe has her sights set on the future with the goal of developing a pilot design for universal preschool in Kirkwood. The purpose of the initiative is to give parents meaningful choice and assistance in choosing the child care and education arrangements that are right for their family when preparing their child for kindergarten. (MEW note on bolded sentence: Is Sandbothe stating preschool is ultimately a child care arrangement since the educational gains do not last much past 3rd grade?) The primary goal is to provide a community-wide system of quality early childhood options that allow every age-eligible Kirkwood resident student to access one year of high quality pre-kindergarten education. The estimated budget for implementing such a pilot program is $825,000.

Sandbothe, who stressed that the initiative is still just a vision, said she wants to implement the program so all children have an opportunity to attend preschool.

"The goal is to provide access to children who wouldn't otherwise have it - that's my long-term goal and vision for the community," she said. "I know there are a lot of questions and I don't have all of the answers, but I want to start the conversation."

Greene's article had one comment that may answer "why" Congress, school districts and states are throwing more good money after proven bad policy.  They might want to ponder the reason "why" before more time and money are spent on programs that have been proven not to attain their goals:

I find that the history of Head Start made far more sense once I knew Professor Mastery Learner that became Outcomes Based Education, Benjamin Bloom, was also the father of Head Start.

I also found it interesting that Head Start officially added a social and emotional learning component last year just like the real Common Core implementation where it is coming in as PBIS under RTI and the federal disabilities law, a Positive School Climate executive order, and many of those NCLB waivers to the states.

That SEL provision to Head Start also dovetails to the timing of AdvancED, the accreditation holding company, beginning to accredit early learning programs. Since the K-12 Quality Standards are all about the physical, emotional, and social needs of students with no mention of intellectual, we can expect something comparable for the little tykes. That’s a lot of years of affective manipulation as part of the student Growth and achievement being measured.

Am I the only one who tracks back to the definitions of the terms being used? It puts the Common Core in a completely different but accurate light than the hype.

The reader may have a valid point.  Reformers are trying to corral 3 year old children under Common Core like standards to gather student data for a managed workforce and/or to supply "free" daycare.  Outcome based education and state run daycare may finally be realized.  Maybe this is what Texans Care for Children, school districts and legislators have in mind for the ROI on money spent on preschoolers. 

Let's Make a Common Core Video featuring Herrings and Doves! The Sunday Education Weekly Reader 04.01.12

Welcome to the Sunday Education Weekly Reader for April Fool's Day 2012!  We're really not doing a video for Common Core standards as so many teachers have, but if we did do a video, we'd probably sing about how they are:

• unproven
• untested
• underfunded
• unconstitutional

Today is April Fool's Day and two explanations of this minor holiday are appropriate when thinking about the "reforms" trotted out by Arne Duncan.  Think of the DOEd as the agency playing sinister April fool jokes on the American public.  We have been the fools kicked hard by expensive and overreaching mandates and regulations, resulting in a centralized agency controlling all educational decisions and programs:

• When someone has been fooled in Sweden, to disclose that it was a joke, the fooler says the rhyme "April April din dumma sill, jag kan lura dig vart jag vill" (April, April, you stupid herring, I can fool you to wherever I want") for April 1st jokes
•  In Spain and Ibero-America, an equivalent date is December 28.  After somebody plays a joke or a prank on somebody else, the joker usually cries out, in some regions of Ibero-America: "Inocente palomita que te dejaste engañar" ("You innocent little dove that let yourself be fooled")

In the spirit of April Fool's Day, and as the American taxpayers, parents, students, teachers and administrators have been reduced to herrings and doves, here is a tongue in cheek blog about the common core and the general state of education reform.

Just put this video to song and it would put to shame any video singing the praises of the ed reform mantra.  Be sure to watch the youtube video at the end.  The dialogue is PERFECT.  Do these soundbites sound like the ed reformer scripts you hear when you talk to legislators and read about in various articles on DOEd sites?

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

From Jay P. Greene's blog "Why I Now Support Common Core":

I don’t know how I could have been so foolish for so long.  It just struck me today that I really should support Common Core national standards.  Here are the reasons I’ve changed my mind:

1) I learned from Diane Ravitch and Sol Stern that dramatic reversals in views generate a lot of attention.  For some reason my new support for Common Core will have credibility and influence no matter how weak my reasoning for switching is.

2) If I play my cards right, there may be big money to be made with my new support for Common Core.  In addition to book royalties and lecture fees, I see a big grant from the Gates Foundation in my future.  Evil pays better than good.

3) I won’t get blacklisted by the U.S. Department of Education for opposing their favored policy positions.  Yippee! I’ll get a piece of a big evaluation whose findings they can delay or distort.

4) Standards probably don’t matter anyway, so little harm can come from supporting mediocre standards being imposed on all states.

5) Did I say imposed?  Darn, I have to get used to saying it’s voluntary.

6) Being bothered by the empty and manipulative language used to support Common Core has driven me to drink.  Switching my view on Common Core will give my liver a much needed break.

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

Education Reformer UNMASKED as he Veers from the School Choice Talking Points. It's Quite Revealing.

Jay P. Greene's blog had an article about the WSJ bucking the teachers' unions and siding with school choicers entitled WSJ: Council on Foreign Relations Endorses School Choice:

But the real story is how much progress the reform movement has made when pillars of the establishment are willing to endorse a choice movement that would have been too controversial even a few years ago.

A few readers concerned about the school choice reforms presently being pursued made comments and were quickly discounted and dismissed by two readers.  Apparently not being astute enough to understand how uninformed I am, Allen (a supporter of charter schools and the school choice movement) and I engaged in a few exchanges.

If you read this blog, you know our concern about much of the school choice presented as choice is not authentic choice.  It's public school in a different building with different players, but it's still the same blueprint for education....common core standards and RTTT (or RTTT like mandates).  It's publicly funded but privately managed.  Think Solyndra.  I wrote:

I believe I’m actually talking about how PUBLIC schools should operate, and how they have no PUBLIC input, save for taxpayer money and the children the taxpayers provide to prop up a failed system.


I must have hit a nerve with Allen because in his last meaningful exchange about why I was so opposed to this quasi public-private partnership and that taxpayers/parents still had no significant or meaningful say in PUBLIC education for which they pay for, Allen responded:


“What charters should or shouldn’t be doing is none of your concern.  (emphasis added by MEW).  It’s the business of the people who open/run them and that’s where the responsibility ought to be. Parents can decide whether they like how a particular charter is run or not, as they choose, but third parties who have no immediate stake in the operation of the school have no good, educationally-relevant reason to mix in. They may have the power, and thus feel entitled to engage in a bit of dictatorial activity, but they’re unlikely to create a better result then the people who started/run the school. Certainly they won’t have as urgent an interest in making the school a success.”

Dear Readers, in my opinion, there you have the underlying belief of the education reformers in one paragraph.  Stunning, isn't it?  Here's part of my response:

You ARE an elitist, aren’t you? Unless you have forgotten, charters are PUBLICLY funded. They certainly ARE a concern of the taxpayers. Just who do you think you are? Are you allowed to give taxpayer money to private operators to let them operate in any way they think is appropriate and it’s none of the public’s business? Sounds like Solyndra! The government uses our money for private investing, the money is wasted on a failed project and the public shouldn’t be concerned and has no immediate stake in how that money was used?

Total arrogance. I believe you are the dictator in this argument. PRIVATE schools have no public scrutiny and they should not as they are PRIVATELY funded by PRIVATE money. Charters are not privately funded, just privately managed. Big difference.

The lesson I learned, when talking to education reformers, ask these questions before debating school choice options:

• Should the government be funding private companies to deliver programs assumed to be a purview of the government to provide? 
•  If the government insists on using public money for private companies to deliver services, do taxpayers have an inherent right to know how this money is being spent, or do you believe third parties who have no immediate stake in the operation of the school have no good, educationally-relevant reason to mix in?

Maybe you'll get lucky and run into Allen (so you can ask him himself) who I suspect just put in writing what the elite education reformers really think about taxpayers, parents and students....while using public money for their private gain.