Why is Diane Ravitch Ambivalent on Common Core Standards? Am I Missing Something?

Questioning if federal mandates are wise educational reforms? Why the ambivalence?

I don't understand Diane Ravitch's ambivalence on whether to support untested and underfunded common core state standards that will plunge states into millions of dollars of debt.  Am I missing the elephant in the room?

A National curriculum is illegal. The Pioneer white paper Road to a National Curriculum makes this very clear (pg 3).  Common Core standards and Race to the Top bypassed state legislators...and voters.  The standards and assessments are being crafted by private companies, not state educational departments.  The standards and assessment process is partially funded by the federal government.  

The federal government is promoting a national standards and curriculum agenda.  We should not be focusing on whether the standards are "good" or "bad" or need to be "tweaked".  We need to ask why the federal government has been given the power to drive standards and assessments through a process in which it threatened to withhold federal money from states if states did not adopt these standards.

Why should there be any discussion on the standards on their validity as standards?  The conversation should be on their constitutional validity and the stripping of state power to set educational directive and direction for citizens. 

From Ravitch's' My View of the Common Core Standards:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have neither endorsed nor rejected the Common Core national standards, for one simple reason: They are being rolled out in 45 states without a field trial anywhere. How can I say that I love them or like them or hate them when I don’t know how they will work when they reach the nation’s classrooms?

In 2009, I went to an event sponsored by the Aspen Institute where Dane Linn, one of the project directors for developing the standards, described the process. I asked if they intended to pilot test them, and I did not get a “yes” answer. The standards were released early in 2010. By happenstance, I was invited to the White House to meet with the head of the President’s Domestic Policy Council, the President’s education advisor, and Rahm Emanuel. When asked what I thought of the standards, I suggested that they should be tried out in three or four or five states first, to work out the bugs. They were not interested.

I have worked on state standards in various states. When the standards are written, no one knows how they will work until teachers take them and teach them. When you get feedback from teachers, you find out what works and what doesn’t work. You find out that some content or expectations are in the wrong grade level; some are too hard for that grade, and some are too easy. And some stuff just doesn’t work at all, and you take it out.

The Common Core will be implemented in 45 states without that kind of trial. No one knows if they will raise expectations and achievement, whether they will have no effect, whether they will depress achievement, or whether they will be so rigorous that they increase the achievement gaps.

Tom Loveless of the Brookings Institution thinks they won’t matter.

The conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute, which received large grants from the Gates Foundation to evaluate the standards and has supported them vigorously, estimates that the cost of implementing them will be between $1 billion and $8.3 billion. The conservative Pioneer Institute estimates that the cost of implementation would be about $16 billion, and suggests this figure is a “mid-range” estimate.

The Gates Foundation, lest we forget, paid to develop the standards, paid to evaluate the standards, and is underwriting Pearson’s program to create online courses and resources for the standards, which will be sold by Pearson, for a profit, to schools across the nation.

Of course, every textbook publisher now says that its products are aligned with the Common Core standards, and a bevy of consultants have come out of the woodwork to teach everyone how to teach them.

In these times of austerity, I wonder how much money districts and states have available to implement the standards faithfully. I wonder how much money they will put into professional development. I wonder about the quality of the two new assessments that the U.S. Department of Education laid out $350 million for.

These are things I wonder. But how can I possibly pass judgment until I find out how the standards work in real classrooms with real children and real teachers?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This reminds me of the "we have to pass it to find out what's in it" argument.  It's rather astounding that public education is now regaled to taxpayers paying for standards, assessments and curriculum dictated by private companies, propped up by Federal mandates, and there is even a question of whether to support such a system.

I shouldn't be so surprised.  Since it appears we have become a nation based on the end justifies the means vs a nation based on principle and law, common core standards, longitudinal data systems and the private takeover of public education can be implemented with hardly a whimper from the politicians supposedly charged with upholding the Constitution. 

The readers' comments to the article illustrate this tension.  This comment illustrates one result of this multi-billion dollar unproven, untested and unconstitutional Nancy Pelosi style of "reform":

 in response to dianerav: 

I have neither endorsed nor rejected the Common Core national standards, for one simple reason: They are being rolled out in 45 states without a field trial anywhere. How can I say that I love them or like them or hate them when I don’t know how they will work when they reach the nation’s [...]

I retired two weeks ago, after 31 years as a public school teacher. I watched my school being infected with the ccss madness this year. It broke my heart.

Having a National Educational Curriculum Makes Certain Aussies and Kiwis "As Cross as a Frog in A Sock"

Some of the current educational buzzwords in the United States have been:

• globally competitive
• career ready
• common core standards
• cradle to grave education
• education equity
• social justice
• STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) ready
• international standards

We read educational articles and learn how American students are:

• falling behind the rest of the world
  
• not competitive on the global stage
• needing standards (that are untested and not supported by real data and real research) that are internationally benchmarked
• needing a nationalized curriculum because all students should learn the same material at the same age regardless of geographical location
  

ONLY WHEN we achieve a national curriculum, standards and assessments will this alleged downward trend in education be reversed and we will once again be a nation consisting of smart students who can compete on the global level. According to Arne Duncan:

In an event yesterday sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) State and Local Officials Initiative, U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan emphasized the importance of a global approach to education. Noting that the United States is experiencing both increased competition from and collaboration with other countries, Duncan described education as the great equalizer and connector, not just for students in American schools, but also around the world.

The push for this "global education" is starting to become a little less "global" in the world. Not all the countries in the world have rose colored glasses on when it comes to global curriculum; they don't even approve of a nationalized curriculum.

Kudos to educators and parents in Australia and New Zealand for questioning the wisdom of a "one size fits all" approach to education and grading students on the same standardized measure for all students.

From Australia:

National curriculum threatens Australia’s innovation

Leading British educator Stephen Hepplen is cautioning Australia against its federal education reforms, which include a national curriculum, arguing they’ll stifle creativity at the state level.

“One of the huge advantages in Australia is the states have taken it in turns to lead,” He told The Age. “With standardization you lose the ability for one state to innovate and pass the baton on to another.”

Australia’s first national curriculum was endorsed by all the country’s education ministers last December, covering English, Math, Science and History through tenth grade. The ultimate goal, according to the government, is a curriculum that goes through twelfth grade and also includes Languages, Geography, Art, Health, Physical education, Information and Communications Technology, Design and Technology, Economics, Business and Civics and Citizenship.

From New Zealand:

Parents speak out against New Zealand’s national standards

Over 150 families in Wellington, New Zealand are asking the federal government to not hold their children accountable to the recently adopted - and heavily debated - national standards, according to Television New Zealand.

The standards cover what children should be doing from the moment they walk in school doors in “year one” through eighth grade. So far, more than 50 schools across New Zealand still don’t include the national standards as targets in their charters - something they are now required by law to do.

The parents of children at Raphael House Rudolf Steiner School in Lower Hutt are upset their school has to implement national standards when the holistic philosophy of Steiner education means children do not start learning to read until they are seven.

The focus in New Zealands eight Steiner schools is on growing the child’s mind, soul and body. Judged against state education standards, pupils would fail until they are about 11, when their reading and writing levels will typically match and average child’s.

“It’s completely against the philosophy of our curriculum,” [mother Monica] Brice said. “We would have to tell our children that they’re not doing well, which would be terrible for their self esteem.”

The Department of Education and Arne Duncan should follow the discontent of Australian and New Zealand citizens. Perhaps being "global" isn't such a bad idea after all if those "global" ideas are akin to our constitution and protect individual rights. These citizens recognize the centralization of curriculum negates states' rights for educational directives and the death of innovation.

As they would say in New Zealand, this plan for nationalized curriculum is down the gurgler.

(And here's the definition of "as cross as a frog in a sock" in Australia: Frog in a sock, as cross as a : sounding angry - a person or your hard drive!)

Autonomy vs Acquiescing: A Tale of Two Superintendents. One Requests Map Test Waivers, One Requests Common Curriculum

This is an article about the Springfield District requesting to opt out its students from the MAP testing, and instead, replace it with Performance Series Examinations. The superintendent (Dr. Norman Ridder) believes this alternate set of tests gives quicker response which allows more immediate feedback for classroom teachers.

We wrote yesterday about Federal Government control over states and districts in educational mandates and spending. Springfield's superintendent must go to the state who then must file a waiver and wait for a decision from the Department of Education. If the DOE turns down the waiver, then the district must administer the MAP. Even if Ridder and DESE believe an alternate test would work better for a district, they basically have no power over the decision of the Federal level. (Just asking: Where in the Constitution is the Federal Government given authority over the states in educational decisions?) How much more obvious does it need to be to taxpayers and legislators that local control does not exist in education?

What does DESE think about the waiver idea? According to the Commissioner:

Springfield’s system gets a favorable opinion from one of the state’s top education officials. Chris Nicastro, commissioner of education for DESE, called the MAP a “snapshot” test that doesn’t provide results in a timely manner. “If you find out something isn’t working, you want to know that right away so that you can make the change immediately,” Nicastro said during a Springfield appearance Tuesday. “You don’t wait until your end of year report to say that something didn’t work 10, 11 or 12 months ago. If you did, your business would be in trouble and your board of directors would probably be on your back. “In education, that’s kind of what we’ve got. So I think we need to talk more about an assessment system that really informs instruction and gives us the kind of real-time information we need to make adjustments.”

The Joplin School District does not want to follow Springfield's lead; Joplin Superintendent Huff believes the MAP is sufficient:

C.J. Huff, superintendent of the Joplin School District, said the district will likely keep using the MAP because it helps the district gauge how its students perform when compared to other districts.

Testing decisions should be under a superintendent's purview. One aspect of education traditionally left to districts under state law is curriculum decisions. What is surprising are Huff's following statements regarding curriculum based on Arne Duncan's statements about education:

“This law has created dozens of ways for schools to fail and very few ways to help them succeed,” Duncan told Congress this week. “We should get out of the business of labeling schools as failures and create a new law that is fair and flexible, and focused on the schools and students most at risk.”

Huff said that preliminary buzz over what such a new law would look like would be to develop a nationwide set of curriculum standards upon which tests could be based. Currently, every state has its own set of standards. But Huff said a consortium of different states is forming to come up with a common core curriculum.

“We’re not getting an apples to apples comparison,” Huff said. “We all need to get on the same page and grow and learn from another.” (emphasis added)

Apparently Superintendent Huff wants to share a common core curriculum...not just common core standards or assessments, but a common core curriculum. Last time I researched this issue, a common curriculum was illegal and individual school districts were given the freedom to set their own curricula. How can a superintendent support a common curriculum when it is illegal?

One superintendent wants to practice district autonomy in MAP testing and another superintendent wants to jump on the bandwagon of a nationalized common curriculum. When did the control of the Federal government become so invasive that districts have to ask for permission to ask if it can use a particular test? Conversely, when did some superintendents believe (and accept) that the Federal Government has the legal authority to set curriculum frameworks which lead to a nationalized curriculum?

Tomorrow: do parents have the legal authority to opt their child out of MAP testing? Or do they need a waiver from the Federal Government as well?

When Up is Down, Down is Up, and Laws Don't Mean a Thing...

I chuckled when I read Neal McCluskey's latest piece "Not in This Dimension". He questions The Fordham Institute's logic on how national curriculum really doesn't encroach on state and local authority:

Contrary to popular belief (especially in some Tea Party circles), a national curriculum, done properly, does not threaten local control. As we learn in this story, plenty of folks, including Randi Weingarten and our own Checker Finn, have signed on to a “common curriculum,” which its proponents say will constitute only about half of a school’s “academic time.”

McCluskey rightly notes that by definition forcing local districts to use national standards must threaten local control. Indeed, it must not only threaten it, it must actually defeat it. And this is in no way changed by the curriculum having to account for "only about half" of a school's time: Hours formerly controlled locally are now controlled nationally, which is inescapably a major incursion on local control.

I chuckled when McCluskey describes the twisted logic put forth by Fordham as:

Maybe in some dimension white is black, black is white, and ants are really walruses. But in this dimension, as far as I know, the laws of reality and logic must still apply -- even to national curriculum standards.

His description of the definition of when national control "really" isn't national control shows the absurdity of Fordham's statement. Not only do the laws of reality and logic NOT apply in the world of Fordham thought, it doesn't apply when Federal law specifically states the Federal Government cannot set national curriculum. This 1979 document, Department of Education Organization Act, Public Law 96-98, Section 103(b) states:

No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law.

Has the law been overturned regarding curriculum control? Did we miss that overturning of that particular law? When Race to the Top and common core standards were touted by the administration, the National Governor's Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, states were assured the standards were state led initiatives and assessments and would not lead to a national curriculum. Curriculum was never to be a Federal responsibility. From the myths and facts subset on the CCSSI website:

Myth: These Standards amount to a national curriculum for our schools.

Fact: The Standards are not a curriculum. They are a clear set of shared goals and expectations for what knowledge and skills will help our students succeed. Local teachers, principals, superintendents and others will decide how the standards are to be met. Teachers will continue to devise lesson plans and tailor instruction to the individual needs of the students in their classrooms. (pg 4)

Based on the comments from Fordham advocating national curriculum and the blatant disregard of existing federal law, the laws of reality and logic no longer apply. Perhaps the CCSSI website needs to be amended. Or then again, maybe not. We have truly entered an alternate universe: white is black, black is white, and ants are really walruses.