Common Core Silence. NSPRA's "Local Communication" is One-Directional and Undocumented.

Is NSPRA's "informational writing" actually fiction?

We recently wrote about a Pearson funded school public relations association (National School Public Relations Association, NSPRA) promoting a counter-point sheet to discredit anti-common core research.  The counter-point document, Common Core Needs More Local Communication Now!  was written by Mr. Jim Dunn in Missouri, a former education bureaucrat and NSPRA president.  This document was supported by Rich Bagin, NSPRA Executive Director, and distributed for school districts' use for Common Core talking points.

We provided an enormous amount of research and data disputing Mr. Dunn's claims in our post on each of his counter-talking points.  We invited him to provide his research and data he had if our research and data were incorrect.   The name of this document suggested he wanted more local communication, but it apparently only pertains on the scripted message on what the reformers want you to hear, not for true discussion.

To date, we have not been contacted by Mr. Dunn.

In fact, neither Mr. Dunn or anyone at NSPRA has responded to our two emails on a specific counterpoint about the research on which Common Core standards were crafted.  NSPRA is insisting Common Core is based on 20 years of research (a new claim from the CCSS proponents) and we were interested in determining where this 20 years of research was done and by whom:

From: To: Dunn830;Dunn830@gmail.com;
Cc: editorial; editorial@nspra.org;
Sent: Sun, Aug 18, 2013 9:14 pm
Subject: Question on research documentation

Dear Mr. Dunn,

In your recent counterpoint to Common Core critics (http://www.nspra.org/files/newsletter/counselor/counselor2013-08.html), you write:

Critic’s Point: The Common Core State Standards are an experiment we are subjecting our children to without parents being able to give informed consent.

A Counter-Point: Educational standards vary drastically from community to community as it stands now, and they all change based on new information and new practices. This reform is another example of that, based on 20 years of good research, field testing, efficacy testing and best practices for education. To improve, we need to change.

Could you please provide the sources (research, field testing, efficacy testing and best practices) you used to come to this conclusion?  I would like to read the data of the 20 years of good research, field testing, etc on which Common Core is based.

If the reformers desire accountability for students and teachers, then I am certain these same reformers would be delighted to provide their research data and be held accountable to their counterpoints.

Thanks very much.

 

As this email was not answered, I followed up with another email:

To: dunn830
Cc: editorial
Sent: Wed, Aug 21, 2013 5:33 pm
Subject: Fwd: Question on research documentation

Dear Mr. Dunn and Editor at NSPRA:

Below find an email I sent you all a couple of days ago.  I don't know if you have had time to gather the documentation requested to support your counterpoint, but I have many people interested in reading the research you used in your counterpoint.

Could you please send me the research documentation at your earliest convenience?

Thank you.

I still haven't heard from Mr. Dunn or NSPRA.  I doubt I will.  The silence from this Pearson funded public relations firm must mean one of two scenarios:

• There is no 20 years of  "research, field testing, efficacy testing and best practices" on which Common Core is based, which means this school public relations association is spreading myth vs fact, or
•  The 20 years of research, etc, is from a source (internationally benchmarked country and/or agency) the firm does not want to disclose

If you believe the first explanation, you believe the CCSS are talking points that are "data-less".  There is no research, no facts, no best educational practices.

But what would you think if the 20 years of research might actually exist?  What would you say if the standards had been pilot tested in an international setting and the CCSS were just the stepping stones to be folded into an international curriculum?   What would you say if there was a possibility American standards are fashioned after a Mid-Eastern country's common standards?  

What is your best guess on why Mr. Dunn won't provide his research? 

If your school district uses NSPRA to provide public relations advice, you might insist they withdraw its membership.  It provides no research or data to back up its claims. If your local school district officials are allowed to join this association with taxpayer dollars, it is time to make a request this practice cease:

NSPRA had approximately 1,800 members in 2001, comprising both individual and organizational memberships. Members are eligible for discounted prices on association publications and seminars. In addition, the association has approximately thirty-five state chapters throughout the United States, which enable national members and chapter members to create local networks and programs for professional development.

Read more: National School Public Relations Association - Programs and Activities, Organizational Structure, History - Nspra, Communication, Education, and Efforts - StateUniversity.com http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2288/National-School-Public-Relations-Association.html#ixzz2d2OiKz24

  

  

 

King Arthur Won't be Taught in this Private School Classroom Because of Common Core

King Arthur's Knights
Was Arthur a true, historical figure or only a hero of legend? This is truly up to each and every one of us to decide for ourselves. Arthur represents a man who was the epitome of good against evil, light against darkness, and that eternal, never-ending struggle between what is right and that which is wrong.

Students at Cathedral High School in Indianapolis, Indiana could have answered the question above in years past as this was part of their reading curriculum, but this year's class won't be studying King Arthur.  From Why One English Teacher Is Dropping The Legends Of King Arthur For The Life Of JFK at stateimpact.npr.org (note that this teacher teaches in a private school):

Melinda Bundy has taught at Cathedral High School in Indianapolis for 39 years. Students in her ninth grade English class usually spend February immersed in King Arthur, studying legend and learning to write research papers.

Last week her ninth graders learned to take research notes and cite bibliographical information. But this year they aren’t studying Arthurian legend — they’re learning about John F. Kennedy’s America.  Bundy sent this note home to parents explaining why she made the switch:

We are beginning the research paper for English 9H. I have changed the scope of the project because when I looked at the Core Standards, I saw that one of the standards was to analyze a historical document. I have chose President John F. Kennedy’s inauguration speech as the basis of the paper. The students have watched the video of the inauguration, read the speech, analyzed the content, and discussed it in class. Now they are going to research the ’60s and find out what was actually going on in the U.S. as well as the world during Kennedy’s administration. Then they will chose one event/issue/problem and relate it to President Kennedy.

How does Ms. Bundy feel about this move to informational text vs reading King Arthur?

Bundy loved teaching Arthurian legend. But she says with Indiana’s transition to the Common Core, a set of new academic standards adopted by 46 states and the District of Columbia, she’s had to incorporate more nonfiction into her curriculum to prepare students for state tests.

The new standards require 70 percent of everything high school students read be nonfiction. Common Core architects say teachers in all subjects should incorporate more informational texts.  But in practice, Bundy says that burden falls on English teachers preparing students for end-of-course assessments.

“The ECA is all nonfiction. They’re given an essay to read. If we don’t cover it in English, and it’s on the English part of the ECA, our kids are going to fail,” says Bundy. “We can’t totally disavow that we’re responsible. We are.”

Bundy likes teaching Kennedy’s inauguration speech. There’s an endless number of topics students can explore in 1960s America — the civil rights movement, the Cuban missile crisis, the space race, the Cold War, among others — and the library keeps sending down more resources for students to use. Yet Bundy still feels a pang for some of the subjects she used to teach.

“I don’t teach short stories anymore. I love short stories. But we read biographies and autobiographies now,” she says.

If your student attends a private Indiana school that accepts public school vouchers, then your private school student (even if you are paying tuition for your student), will see a shift to common core standards as well.  Private schools don't have as much autonomy as before.  Why are parents privately paying for the same standards, assessments and curriculum mapping present in the public school?  What now differentiates private school educational delivery/content from public schools? 

As a department, the English teachers at Cathedral have been working to develop common assessment tools like final exams. All students are on a college prep track and take the same finals. Teachers with honors or AP sections can add additional questions.

Bundy and Keyes (sophomore English teacher) both say people are surprised to hear Cathedral, a private school, has to align with the Common Core. The school participates in Indiana’s voucher program — a little less than 4 percent of the school’s 1,252 students receive state money — and students take the same standardized tests they would at public school.

Ah well.  Let parents explain to their children as they watch Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade what the Holy Grail is and represents.  They really need to know why a monk would stand guard over it for a few hundred years and why it garnered intense interest from the Nazis.   They might have learned about The Holy Grail from Ms. Bundy, but not now thanks to Common Core.

 

Wading Into The Standards Weeds

This week Diane Ravitch took on David Coleman (drafter of the CCSS English Language Arts [ELA] standards and President of the College Board) over his explanation of the Common Core ELA standards. Advice to David Coleman: Revise the Common Core Standards At issue is some confusion and angst over the 70/30 requirement in the ELA standards which states that teachers use 70% literary text and 30% informational text when teaching. Does it mean out with The Great Gatsby and in with GM's manual on do-it-yourself oil changes?  There is great wailing and gnashing of teeth from some that this is "anti-intellectual, anti-literary, anti-the things of the mind that can’t be quantified." There are equally vociferous claims from the other side, e.g. Coleman, that informational texts would instead include things like the speeches of Lincoln and MLK and that a significant portion of them would be used in other classes like science and social studies. Many experts and pundits have weighed in with different conclusions. Welcome to the morass that is the Common Core Standards themselves.

Ravitch notes that state and district officials have no way of monitoring whether teachers are complying with any type of category split. Are we going to assign yet another administrative staffer to count the number of books in each category being used by each teacher to make sure there is compliance? Let's hope not. If we did, would that counting to be done by teacher or across an entire school, or district wide? Should teachers, principals, school boards be spending time deciding whether or not a written piece falls into one category or another? The literary category has been under debate for years. What constitutes quality literature? Do we really need to add, what is good informational text?

A few examples of the latter have been bandied about and debated about whether they would fit into this category. One is EPA guidelines which Coleman quickly, almost too quickly, dismissed. Stanley Kurtz of the National Review looked at what is actually given as examples in the Common Core documentation. One of the suggested texts is Executive Order 13423: Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management.You must read Kurtz's piece to understand why this is not nearly as propagandistic as it appears on first blush. The important thing is that CC actually cited environmental regulation as an appropriate informational text.

Stepping further into the weeds, we uncovered a presentation given by EPA Region 3 (mid-Atlantic states) that says EPA's goal is an increased understanding of how their Environmental Education
"integrates with common core standards," (p. 2) and how EE can "support common core." (p. 3)  Does this not show an assumption on EPA's part that they will be producing materials for schools to use in Common Core?  They also see a role for themselves in providing Formal and Non Formal Educator Professional Development (p. 6). [Sidebar: EPA will also be concerning themselves about the greenness of our schools p. 7]

Of greater concern is the assertion  that EE will "integrate with emerging new science framework/ standards." If it will be so easy to integrate EPA's view of the environment into science standards, is there any doubt what those standards will look like? Put another way, which is more likely to change for the other - EPA to conform to peer reviewed scientific standards or classroom science standards to change to align with EPA's ideology?

The likes of Coleman, Duncan and Bennett can say that the specifics of what is actually used in the classroom are up to the individual teachers or districts. Technically this is true. But as Kurtz points out, in the real world many schools will simply adopt the recommended Common Core exemplars as the path of least resistance. The mere existence of a national set of standards, prepackaged and ready to go, is all that is needed for many schools to adopt them. Pushing them through RTTT just gave them a nudge under everyone's nose.

It is easy to get lost in the argument of whether the standards themselves are good or not.  Are they too easy, too rigorous, to heavily weighted this way or that, better or worse than what schools use now? Once set in place, with everyone used to where their marching orders come from they will be hard to dislodge. The crafters knew this. Whether we like or dislike them now is not the point. If they change in the future because, say, more federal departments are having a say in how they are written, we will have lost the right to change them locally. The focus must remain on where the locus of control for our schools resides.