Google "Smarter Balanced Assessment" and See What you Get.

Is this a crystal ball moment?  Looking into the crystal ball today about noon and googling the above search term, this is what I got:

NOTICE: This domain name expired on 04/19/2013 and is pending renewal or deletion.

http://smarterbalanced.org/?nr=0

Why is the smarterbalanced.org domain expired?  Is it:

• disappearing like a bad relationship
• being absorbed into a public/private partnership that will henceforth be known as a different name (akin to CCSS being renamed Missouri Learning Standards?)
• taking itself off the internet now that folks know about the standards and their unresearched/non-documented claims
• not paying attention to details such as renewing a website...which makes one wonder what will happen to student personal data sent to SBAC per MOUs signed by the states

UPDATE!

http://www.smarterbalanced.org/smarter-balanced-assessments/

It's back on line.  It must be the 4th bullet point.  This could be worrisome.

How to Sustain a Nationalized Educational System. Turn it Over to 501(c)(3) Groups for Outsourcing.

Outsourcing: Outsourcing is any task, operation, job or process that could be performed by employees within an organization, but is instead contracted to a third party for a significant period of time. In addition, the functions that are performed by the third party can be performed on-site or off-site.

The two private trade organizations The National Governors Association (NGA) and Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) sure had a nifty plan to nationalize education.  Get states to "voluntarily" sign  up to relinquish their constitutional authority to develop and deliver education for their citizens in exchange for two consortia controlling state educational programs.  "Voluntarily" refers to the dangling of money to states competing for Race to the Top, but when some states still didn't compete for or win grants, the ESEA waivers included states having to commit to CCSS. 

The two consortia (PARCC and Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortia) have been funded by stimulus money which runs out in 2014.   The Tampa Bay Times writes that the Common Core deadlines won't be met regarding assessment completion, computers and infrastructure requirements, and how to pay for the mandates. 

We attended a SBAC meeting open to the public last year and it was evident the consortia was concerned about the issue of how the consortia would survive after the federal tap of stimulus money was finished.    From what we heard in the September 2012 meeting, a move to privately fund a consortia should not be surprise, but rather a move for sustainability:

Twenty million students are expected to take the SBAC assessments on-line. There needs to be technical and professional support for this system going forward. Both SBAC and PARCC were funded with seed money from TARP. This money will run out September 30, 2014. Any remaining unused funds will revert to the US Treasury. Both consortia must now figure out how to make the assessments sustainable by finding other funding sources.

The first RFP for a consultant to take on this work received zero bids because SBAC had grossly underestimated the effort needed to do the work. They are now looking to identify areas of commonality with the other assessment consortia, PARCC, and see if the two groups can share a consultant on those common points. It is not a stretch to see that these two groups are probably going to have to combine in the future in order to remain sustainable. Then we will truly have national standards.

The plan is to go to private foundations to fund Phase 2. 

The plan for private funding has now been put into place for one consortia.   PARCC announced it is reorganizing itself as a 501(c)(3).  From edweek.com and Testing Consortium Reorganizes for Long-Term Survival:

The two big groups of states that are designing tests for the common standards have a lot more on their minds than the thorny work of test design. They're trying to figure out how they can survive once their federal funding runs out in the fall of 2014, before the tests are even administered.

One sign of this focus cropped up when PARCC announced that it had reorganized itself as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. This move facilitates the receipt of foundation funding, among other things, something that has been under consideration as a mode of survival once the group runs out of federal money.

As we've reported to you, PARCC and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium have teamed up to do some thinking about sustainability. They've got a heavy-hitting consulting firm working on sustainability plans, and the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers—the folks who spearheaded the common-standards drive four years ago—are playing roles as well.

Read more here.

What's the problem with turning over the nation's education development and delivery to a 501(c)(3)?  Questions not having any easy answers include:

Who will be in control of the standards?  Who will be designing the assessments?  Will voters have any say in who is educating their children?  Could billionaires with an agenda (pick your side, left or right) organize a nonprofit to deliver the type of education they believe students should learn?

Edweek writes:

The sustainability question is key to the long-term work and goals of the consortia. Right now, no one really knows who will update the tests, for instance, as secure item pools dwindle. The research agenda is in question, too, and that's pretty huge. Without a multiyear inquiry into how students at various cut scores actually perform in college, it's tough to validate the test as being a sound proxy of college readiness. These—and many more—questions ride on the question of sustainability.

There is a near-term question of sustainability, as well. The groups are mindful that in order to protect the $360 million in federal funding they won, they each need to have at least 15 member states. With 24 in SBAC and 22 in PARCC right now, that doesn't seem to be a looming issue. But if enough states get skittish and drop out, federal officials could—according to their own regulations—cut off the funding that is meant to carry the consortia's work through the fall of 2014.

Count many folks in Missouri becoming more and more skittish of CCSS standards that were never field tested or even written before they were adopted by the governor, education commissioner and State Board of Education members.  

Now that taxpayers know of the plans of these two private trade organizations to nationalize education, do you think they will still want their tax money used for copyrighted standards by non-profit organizations?  Isn't education development and delivery the role of the states and local school districts?  Why is education now outsourced to private consortia and in the future, 501(c)(3) groups?

Listed here are some downsides to outsourcing which include:

• loss of managerial control
• hidden cost
• threat to security and confidentiality
• quality problems
• tied to the financial well-being of another company
• bad publicity and ill-will

The End of Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium?

Color me shocked.  A consortia pushing unproven, untested, unfunded, unconstitutional standards doomed to fail?

The elite speak.  From The Huffington Post and "50 to 75 education insiders" interviewed by Education Whiteboard:

About 44 percent of respondents believe there is a high likelihood of states exiting the consortia (SBAC) and designing their own custom Common Core-aligned tests with the help of third-party vendors, as Utah did in early August. A majority are of the opinion that SBAC’s membership may drop by as much as half by 2014, though they are less pessimistic about PARCC.

We can only hope.  You might want to share this with your school district before it spends any more money on the mandated assessments from SBAC.

By the way, who are these "insiders"?


Influential leaders who are shaping federal education reform, including
individuals who have or are currently serving as key policy and political
“insiders,” such as:
• Current and former White House and U.S. Department of Education
leaders
• Current and former Congressional staff
• State education leaders including state school chiefs and former
governors
• Leaders of major education organizations, think tanks and other key
influentials

It's too bad Whiteboard Advisors didn't bother asking the taxpayers/parents who pay for these "reforms" and provide their children for the educational experiment.  I guess "influentials" don't include these stakeholders.

One more point.  What is one reason these insiders see the consortia failing and states designing their own tests?

“Cost, cost, cost, cost, cost.” (pg. 29/48)

And just think.  Missouri's Commissioner of Education said Common Core wouldn't cost money in Missouri even as the Pioneer Institute estimated it would cost the state at least $350 Million.

Just what is wrong with Common Core in Vermont?

What's wrong in Vermont CCSS is also what's wrong in any of the CCSS states connected to Smarter Balanced Constortia.  These are standards/assessments produced by private trade organizations and financially supported by the DOEd.

What happens with common core standards in Vermont happens in Missouri since we are states in the Smarter Balanced Consortia.

Susan Ohanian writes about the future of Vermont public education.  As you read it, just insert Missouri in place of Vermont and you will have a good picture of what Missouri's future education will look like.  If your state is one of the remaining states in Smarter Balanced, this is your educational future as well.  From vtdigger.org and Putting a test on computer doesn't make it up-to-date:

The press release published in VTDigger (Oct. 23) by the Vermont Department of Education makes me weep. I shed tears for what the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium has in store for Vermont children. Education Commissioner Armando Vilaseca says, “These sample items will provide Vermont teachers with an early look into the rigor and complexity students will see on the Smarter Balanced assessments.”

Looking at the sample items for English Language Arts/Literacy, I’m reminded of that old Wendy’s ad, “Where’s the beef?”

Rigor and complexity? No. Mind-numbing drill on material that research shows is useless? Yes.

Read more here.

The ironic point is you, as a taxpayer into your local district, have little control about whether your district uses these mind-numbing drills.  It's consortia driven so your state educational agency can't direct the assessments to a meaningful degree either.  Short of taking your child out of the public school and either private schooling/home schooling options, what can a parent do to make sure their child receives the education he/she needs?  Ohanian has a suggestion:

If you want your young child to develop savvy about how words work, buy her lots of “genre” riddle books — books such as those written by Katy Hall and Lisa Eisenberg: Creepy Riddles, Spooky Riddles, Turkey Riddles, Fishy Riddles, Piggy Riddles, and so on.

Parents, it's time to become the educational advocates your child needs to become an independent thinker and responsible for his/her own life decisions.  The "free market" privatization of education with taxpayer dollars with no taxpayer input isn't going to provide the education your child needs.  The "free market" and governmental agencies will provide an education to supply a managed workforce, but as for learning academics in a meaningful way (and learning  how to use them for life skills) and applying them to a self-directed life, that's just not the goal.  It's not going to happen.  It's up to parents to either supplement or pull their kids out of this system. It's not for the kids in the least. 

Ohanian has extensive links on what's wrong with the common core here.

In Common Core Math, the Answer isn't that Important. The Collaboration and Communication and Argument is Paramount.

It's all about process.  The student must explain the method in solving the problem.   Now the student will talk about the problem with the other students.  It's the standards requirement.

SBAC (Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortia) weekly update #65 includes information on Illustrative Mathematics Project, which is developing resources to support implementation:

Chaired by Bill McCallum, professor of mathematics and another contributing author of the CCSSM, Illustrative Mathematics provides guidance and develops resources to support the implementation of the standards. Through the website (http://illustrativemathematics.org/), the project has developed hundreds of tasks that illustrate the meaning of each standard and provide instructional best practices for teachers. This project aligns well with the Smarter Balanced vision of formative assessment practices that continually inform teaching and learning.

Here's a sample lesson in Common Core from Illustrative Mathematics:

1.OA Find the Missing Number

Alignment 1: 1.OA.D.8

This task is rated +1 (1 rating)  •  Log in if you'd like to rate this task

---

Find the missing number in each of the following equations: 

9−3=□8+□=1516−□=5

□=7−213=□+76=14−□

Commentary: This task asks students to solve addition and subtraction equations with different structures so that they are able to see the connections between addition and subtraction more easily. Examples should be presented with the the sum or difference on either side of the equal sign in order to dispel the notion that = means "compute."

Solution: Solution

We know that if we subtract 3 from nine, the result is 6 so the missing number in the first equation is 6. The first equation should look like:

9−3=6

We can either count up from 8 to 15 or subtract 8 from 15. In either case, the result is 7. The second equation should look like:

8+7=15

We can ask, “What number do we need to subtract from 16 to get 5?” or “5 plus what number is 16?” In either case, the answer is 11. The third equation should look like:

16−11=5

We know that if we subtract 2 from seven, the result is 5 so the missing number in the first equation is 5. The first equation should look like:

5=7−2

We can either count up from 7 to 13 or subtract 7 from 13. In either case, the result is 6. The second equation should look like:

13=6+7

We can ask, “What number do we need to subtract from 14 to get 6?” or “6 plus what number is 14?” In either case, the answer is 9. The third equation should look like:

6=14−9

We have found the missing numbers in each of the given equations.

 

Comments log in if you'd like to leave a comment

• mboudwin wrote this comment 5 months ago
  Would it be beneficial to state in the commentary that the sum could appear on the left side of the equation with the addends on the right to reinforce Standard 1.OA.7?
  • BanjoBen wrote this reply 5 months ago
    I think that's a good idea. I'll try to see about getting some examples like that added.
    
    
    

************************************************************************
Look at the last equation and answer.


Here are my questions if I chose to log in and comment to "Banjo Ben".  

• How much money are taxpayers on the hook for these new math standards?  There's a wrong answer in that last equation that's cost a lot of money to prepare at taxpayer expense and no one has caught it in 5 months.   
• How could an assessment company, the commenter and the website master miss such an easy answer?
• If the computer reads the pre-loaded computerized answer to the question, even though it is incorrect, will the student be graded incorrectly...for the correct answer? 

Read the reasoning behind these standards.  Students are not just learning math facts and then solving problems.  In math, a student must:

•  Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.  
• Reason abstractly and quantitatively.  
• Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others. 
• Model with mathematics.
• Use appropriate tools strategically. 
• Attend to precision. 
• Look for and make use of structure. 
• Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.       

The PROCESSES of dissecting a mathematical equation to death, trying to make patterns and critiquing other students' mathematical problems takes a student's (and apparently the assessment company's) attention off the answer to the basic math problem of 6 = 14 - __.

What is particularly troubling to me is this: why should students be sharing their answers with other students and critiquing other students' work?  Students are to justify their conclusions, communicate them to others, and respond to the arguments of others. 

• I pity the shy child who doesn't care to share his/her answers, prefers to work independently and shuns group projects in favor of individual effort. 
• I pity the child who does not have the language ability to convey his/her thoughts to others and panics at the thought of expressing his/her work verbally.  
• I pity the child who struggles with math taught in this manner and his/her work is shared with other students for their responses.  

Will these children be held up to ridicule by his/her classmates?


What is the reasoning for these process lessons and collaboration in math?  Maybe this creates the framework in which to integrate the issue of bullying into the math standards when the slower child doesn't participate or gets the wrong answer.  Bingo!  The teacher can cover her bullying lesson in the language standards for the day with the Math lesson and the teacher can mark it off her list of mandated lessons.   The teacher can craft the following problem to address the math facts AND the language arts standard about bullying.  Then the class can dissect the reasons children bully other children and integrate language arts in math class.  It's a standard writer's dream: 

Little Johnny has 14 apples.  The bully takes away 6 apples.  How many does Little Johnny have left?

Meanwhile, the students and teacher may or may not catch the answer to 6 = 14 - __ is NOT 9.

Last Call for Common Core Questions to Smarter Balanced School Chiefs

Have questions on Common Core? 

Anngie and I are getting ready for the SBAC public discussion meeting in St. Louis this afternoon.

If you have questions, please send them straightaway to stlgretchen@gmail.com or anngie1984@gmail.com.

http://www.missourieducationwatchdog.com/2012/09/questions-on-common-core-smarter.html