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.    

Brian Bollman in Cape Girardeau Provides Report of the DESE Delphi Technique in Practice.

Announcement:  DESE has indicated it will take questions electronically if you could not make one of the meetings DESE held around the state. Email your question(s) to:

Susan Potter  Communication Coordinator

communications@dese.mo.gov

 

 We will be publishing reports on the various DESE meetings on this blog the next several days.

Thanks to Brian Bollman for his post on the meeting in Cape Girardeau.  From rockinconservative.com and DESE Common Core Meeting / A lesson in controlling the message:

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

I attended the DESE Common Core Meeting at 6:30pm on 05/02/13 in Cape Girardeau, MO at the Career and Technology Center, and what I witnessed was mastery of controlling the message.  Of course, there was no prayer or Pledge of Allegiance; this is the school!  Prayers are forbidden by the Constitution and the Pledge is offensive. (/sarc)

The sound quality was ridiculous, and I have no idea the name of the gentleman that led the event.  He worked through a PowerPoint presentation including videos by educators that could not be understood due to the poor sound.

The leader of the event stated clearly at one point:  “There will be no data collection.”  However, a quick review of CCSSO.org website leads you to these two pages self-refuting the leader’s claims:

Sadly, a leader in the Education industry would absolutely LIE about whether or not there will be data collection involved with Common Core Standards

Divide and Conquer
We had heard that there would be 15 leaders or members of DESE at the event.  We couldn’t imagine why they would put so many on the dais.  As it turned out there was no dais, and there were 30 DESE organized leaders at the event.  Why?

As you entered the event, you were assigned to 1 of 15 tables.  Each table had a Table Leader and a Table Recorder.  The attendees (proponent or opponent) were divided into 15 tables, so the interaction was between approximately 6 attendees and two studied proponents of Common Core.
Each table was provided with a form to complete.  The form contained two questions:

• What do you like about Common Core?
• What questions do you have about Common Core?

The facilitators at table #12 were Jeff Lindsey and Wade Bartels.  Both were very nice and listened as we tried to fill out the form.  Jeff gave anecdotal information about the process of aligning to Common Core in St. Genevieve, MO and how great it was going.
When we asked him our questions about CCSS, the typical answer was “I don’t know”.

• How much will this cost the state? I don’t know
• How much will this cost your school? I don’t know
• What is the cost going to be for the technology to allow completion of the standardized tests? I don’t know
• According to the CCSSO web site, there will be data collection.  What data will be collected?  I don’t know
• We read that the standards are copyrighted.  Will the schools be able to make changes? I don’t know

What Jeff Lindsey did know was that he really wanted his table to come up with an answer to the question… What do you like about Common Core?
Unfortunately, the time allotted for table discussions, and table #12 never listed a positive feeling about Common Core.

Following the kitchen table discussion, the messaging control continued.  Table Recorders, not attendees, were summoned to the front one-by-one to read the list of things that attendees liked about Common Core.  All of the ‘likes’ were read.  For the questions about Common Core, duplicate questions were skipped.  One CCTP member noted that 5 items were read from their lies of ‘likes’ that weren’t discussed at the table.  They ‘magically’ appeared.

I provided Jeff and Wade a long paragraph with questions about data collection, CCSSO, and EIMAC.  When Wade asked the question on microphone he simply said, “What is EIMAC?”

Strategy Worked

As I said, the DESE folks employed a brilliant Divide and Conquer strategy, and it worked to perfection.

• Prevented general attendees from hearing tough questions asked at one table that was not asked at another table
• Prevented mini-speeches given by attendees
• Separated less knowledgeable attendees from stronger more studied attendees
• No negative press to be reported by the media
• DESE walked away with positive talking points and a long list of things that Cape Girardeau liked about Common Core

For me, there was a positive outcome.  At a Table #12 side discussion, a teacher stated that she liked common core because every school would teach the same topics at the same grade levels.  She continued that children moving state-to-state would be able to pick right up where they left off in their new school.

Her statement helped me finally crystallize my foremost reason for opposing Common Core.  CCSS removes any desire for one school to work to excel.  Children will be tested for certain skills at certain ages, and there will actually be negative reinforcement should a school decide to teach subjects at different grade levels to help them excel.  Should the school choose to teach some subject in a different order or different grade, their assessment ratings will suffer.  They will see lower ratings and less funding.

This is the absolute antithesis of freedom and self-governance.
Questions and likes reported back to the attendees:

• If state led, why were funders from Federal Tax $$$?
• Liked Crosswalk on DESE web site
• Will International books be implemented?
• Federal Control?
• Why no question about what we don’t like?
• What comprehensive studies have been developed?
• How often reviewed / revised?
• How can standards be enacted that haven’t been evaluated in classrooms?
• How will they handle gifted students?
• How will they help students not currently meeting standards?
• How will local districts have a say?
• What pilot studies have been conducted?
• Too one size fits all
• Not enough options for teacher flexibility
• Govt grab for control of education
• Not enough parental involvement
• Ideologically different from local values
• Is common core copyrighted?
• What is EIMAC?
• Has state legislature voted to adopt CCSS?
• Liked fewer standards / flexible teacher instructions
• Liked incorporation of non-fiction / promotion of critical thinking
• Further investigation of who initiated development?
• Who will profit?
• Can state of MO step back and wait for other states to prove CCSS works?

Below are Miscellaneous Notes taken that may or may not make sense:

• Crosswalk

• Shows where a concept is located in CCSS vs. Show-Me
• Fewer topics but more in dept
• Teachers saw that common core was more rigorous

• Why need for common state standards?

• 2007 NGA / CCSSO decided to define Common Core Standards
• Facilitated State-Led development
• Rigorous
• Research and Evidence Based
• Define what all students are expected to know
• Teachers develop lesson plans
• Adoption was voluntary
• Aligned to Show-Me standards / College Standards
• All students will graduate college and career ready
• Currently
  • 36% must take remedial
  • $90M cost for remedial
  • $32M lost wages

• Video – Chris Nicastro / Mr. Russell
  • State-Led involving parents / teachers

• Missouri Involvement

• College and Career readiness standards
• Based on career readiness, k-12 learning progressions developed
• MO Represented on Development Team
• Standards released on 6/2/10
• Teachers
• Principles
• Parents
• Education Experts

• ELA

• Non-fiction
  • More
• Complex Text Academic Vocabulary
  • Regular practice with complex text and its vocab words
  • Spelling?

• Math

• Focus
  • 2-4 concepts focused deeply in each grade
• Coherence
  • Connect learning from one grade to next linked topics
• Rigor
  • Real world situations

• Preparing for Transition

• Crosswalk document
• Statewide public sessions on standards
• Model curriculum

• Wrap-up
  • Federal Government Played no Role

• Discussion

• Anything said here tonight means absolutely nothing next year because criteria will keep changing
• Jeff L – I look at common core as a plan
• Jeff L – Doesn’t know anything about it being copyrighted

Update:  Don’t take this as an indictment of Mr. Lindsey and Mr. Bartels.  They was very engaging and I enjoyed meeting them.

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

Sign the petition against Common Core 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?
 

Common Core is a Financial Disaster

‘Trickle-down mandate’ hurts ed standards

 

Regardless of how proponents defined it, Common Core is in anything but voluntary.  In actuality, it’s a $16 billion trickle-down mandate, the vast majority of which is unfunded.

 

MetroWest Daily News reports:

 

To shine a light on the decision-making process, Pioneer Institute, under Massachusetts Public Records Law, requested documents pertaining to any cost-analysis prepared prior to the adoption of Common Core.  Sadly, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education admitted that none existed.

 

You wouldn’t build a house without costing out the labor and materials.  But, unfortunately, that is exactly what Massachusetts did when education officials and Governor Patrick adopted Common Core without estimating the cost of implementing the standards. That means the expense of assessments, textbooks, instructional materials and technology weren’t projected, or, more likely, even considered in the decision.

 

 

 

Not unlike Massachusetts, Missouri's DESE stated the CCSS wouldn't cost anything.

Kirkwood School District to Discuss "Free" All Day Kindergarten. Be Careful what you Wish for.

Kirkwood School District will be debating if it should provide "free" all day kindergarten. Astute folks realize this won't be "free", it will be coming out of the budget. While parents will not have to pay the $3,600 cost out of their own pockets, the taxpayers now will have that privilege.

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) published what it envisions for an optimum Pre-K program that aligns itself with Pre-K RTTT mandates. Examining the Pre-K Race to the Top mandates Missouri recently signed onto, kindergarten parents might want to re-think their delight about not having to pay for Pre-K programs for their human capital. Constitutionally minded taxpayers might question why the State School Board and the Governor agreed to sign onto mandates that once again, take away local/state control and will cost the taxpayers even more money.

Here is the Executive Summary on the Pre-K RTTT program. Most (if any) of the $60,000,000 Missouri just received for funding will not come to Kirkwood, that funding is reserved for "low performing schools". Why be concerned, then, about these mandates when Kirkwood won't receive any of this funding to offset the additional cost necessary in the KSD district?

KSD is under the same mandates for the schools that received the money even though KSD will receive no financial assistance. Grades 1-12 are also under RTTT like mandates (we are under Common Core mandates even though we received no RTTT money for grades 1-12) and we have very little local/state control over students' education. When those Common Core standards take effect in 2014, your state/school will not be able to set their own standards or assessments. Welcome to the world of nationalized education.

Why be concerned about these mandates? They come with many strings in terms of teacher/administrator staffing, unfunded mandates and what your student learns. However, the idea of your child attending all day kindergarten with someone else paying for it sound pretty enticing, right? Kindergarten is a great concept for many parents, but what will your human capital be learning?

Do you know kindergartners in Charlotte-Mecklenberg School District took 52 tests...and why?

This is just one of the districts in states across the country -- with the support of the Obama administration-- that are implementing new evaluation systems that link teachers’ pay to test scores.

Linking teachers' pay to test scores is one hallmark of Pre-K RTTT. This will occur in KSD as well...even though we won't receive any funding from Pre-K RTTT! If you think your child's kindergarten will consist of creative playtime, learning ABC's, and learning social skills...it might. But it very well most likely also consist of enormous testing to determine if the school is in compliance of federal mandates.

Is that why you send your kindergartner to school, to test them so the school can determine the worthiness of a teacher's teaching skill? Do you believe a kindergartner can be tested effectively at 5 years old? Your child is also being tracked in a P-20 pipeline, preschool to age 20 and into the workforce to determine if his/her skills are sufficient for the workforce.

To establish a solid baseline, your kindergartner better get off to a fast start. No pressure there, right? Should we be targeting kindergartners for the workforce? For more information on how education really works today and why it is not about your child, but rather the system, read this article from democraticunderground.com. This is a truly a bipartisan issue: both Democrats and Republicans are selling you and your children for the future workforce and a nationalized system of education.

Forgive me if I am not delighted Kirkwood District is considering having the taxpayers foot the bill for kindergartners and this vision. Taken from a tweet on Twitter:

"School is not about creativity. School is about compliance" - So sad but true. Ending NCLB & RTTT would help a lot.

(For more information on this vision and its connections that have less to do with education, but more for the system, read utahrepublic.org where the above chart was obtained.)

"Constitution Week and Citizenship Day" vs "International Education Week" as presented by Missouri DESE

I was poking around the Missouri DESE website and saw this article celebrating "International Education Week 2010".

International Education Week is an opportunity to celebrate the benefits of international education and exchange worldwide. This joint initiative of the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of Education is part of our efforts to promote programs that prepare Americans for a global environment and attract future leaders from abroad to study, learn, and exchange experiences in the United States.

What do these programs entail that the US Department of State and US Department of Education are supporting? This is from a link on Hilary Clinton's remarks explaining the purpose of this week (archived from 2009). I want to focus your attention on one particular paragraph:

International educational exchanges help students and educators around the world to understand one another better. Together, we must respond to the challenges of poverty and hunger, climate change, public health, and economic revitalization.

There was no statement from Secretary Clinton for this year's celebration. As this 2009 letter was linked on the website, I assume these are still the stated challenges for 2010. Let's examine and look for the details one year later on exactly how she envisions American students responding to poverty and hunger, climate change, public health, and economic revitalization in her comments. After looking through the site, I couldn't find any written specifics from her on how these goals are to be accomplished. The theories and goals espoused by this administration are long on rhetoric but lacking in details.

We still come back to the question, though, how are we to respond to these pressing problems? Whose and/or what theory do we teach? Let's access information available to us one year later after Clinton wrote this 2009 letter to determine this administration's intentions on how to present educational content to schoolchildren.

• I am making an educated guess on Clinton's theory on how children should respond to the problem of poverty and hunger. Obama has been clear on his intent to align the United States with the United Nations and its goals in this endeavor. We know how he will integrate this stated goal to school children...

Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability

• Target 7A: Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs; reverse loss of environmental resources

...Arne Duncan will make them into "good environmental citizens".

• In the climate change debate, Al Gore's movie "Inconvenient Truth" has been shown to not be factual in certain areas. Could it be that the scientific data he was using was tainted by special interest groups? Could it be that global climate cycles are controlled by solar flare activity and while man certainly contributes to environmental problems, man is not the main reason for fluctuations?

• Regarding public health, do we use abortion as a means of birth control and do we subscribe to Ezekiel Emanuel's "complete life cycle"? This theory places the most financial allocations for medical care of those aged 15-40 years. This is from the opening paragraph of Emanuel's document:

We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system—which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.

• I would like to know Secretary Clinton's ideas on economic revitalization and what economic theories American students will learn. Do you believe common core standards in economics will mean students are solely taught the current administration theory of income redistribution?

What we are highlighting here is the danger of not knowing the specifics of how these goals are being presented/taught in the schools. We are not adverse to learning about other cultures and understanding the connections between countries. We are concerned about how this information is presented and what mandates are being handed down by the Federal government. Missouri and 30 other states signed onto common core standards even before they had been presented for review. Perhaps it would be a good idea to call your district and ask your superintendent how these goals are being presented in the classroom during the "International Education Week".

I was curious if DESE had such a wealth of information on its website for "Constitution Week and Citizenship Day" observed every year (by law) in September. I accessed DESE's site for special day and week celebrations and while it is listed, there is no accompanying information what the Constitution is, what is represents, and how it outlines our important liberties. Perhaps this is because this administration believes the Constitution is a "living document" and as it is currently in flux, students shouldn't be concerned about it much. That's just a guess on my part.

I am going to ask a question for which I already know the answer: Does the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education in Missouri believe in American exceptionalism or is it acquiescing to the Department of Education's and the US State Department's agenda? However, there are two questions I don't know the answer to...when did the US State Department become involved in education? And why?