Transcript Document 7155304

Common Core State Standards
Are They Right For The State of Oklahoma?
Oklahoma Origins of Common Core
State Standards (CCSS)
Oklahoma SB 2033, passed in 2010, contained a
number of public education ‘reform’ measures to
“support Oklahoma’s application for the second
round of federal Race to the Top (RTT) funding”.
SB 2033 Section 15B states,
“By August 1, 2010, the State Board of Education shall adopt
revisions to the subject matter curriculum adopted by the
State Board for English Language Arts and Mathematics as is
necessary to align the curriculum with the K-12 Common Core
State Standards developed by the Common Core State
Standards Initiative, an effort coordinated by the National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council
of Chief State School Officers. The revised curriculum shall
reflect the K-12 Common Core State Standards
in their entirety
and may include additional standards as long as the amount of
additional standards is not more than fifteen percent (15%) of
the K-12 Common Core State Standards.”
Like all state legislatures that adopted CCSS early on in
the process, Oklahoma passed the bill adopting them
before they had been made available for full review
National Origins of Common Core
State Standards
Mark Tucker, President of the National Center for Education
and the Economy (NCEE) wrote his friend Hillary Clinton a
letter in 1990
urging the Clintons to pass “sweeping education reform”
including National Standards and National Testing using the
slogan “high standards”
“Dear Hillary” letter became 1994’s School-to-Work
Opportunities Act, Goals 2000 Act and Improving America’s
Schools Act of 1994 (Clinton’s ESEA reauthorization)
1996 - Achieve, Inc. was formed by the “nation’s
governors and corporate leaders” and NCEE at the ‘96
Education Summit in Palisades, NY
Main goal of Achieve was to benchmark education
standards and assessments in order to make the 1994
reforms “lasting”.
2008 - Achieve, Inc., The National Governor’s Association
(NGO) and the Council of Chief State School Officers
(CCSSSO) produced Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring
Students Receive a World-Class Education
Called for Washington to implement “tiered incentives” to push
states to adopt “common core” standards
2009 – Sec. of Education Arne Duncan creates RTT backed by
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (stimulus) funds for
four categories that include:
Adopting Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
No public hearings – Congressional or otherwise - were ever
held on RTT or any of the separate initiatives.
Conflicts of Interest and Monopolies
Achieve, Inc., NGO and the CCSSO produced
Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring Students Receive
a World-Class Education
Achieve, “is serving as the project management
partner for PARCC, a consortium of 25 states that was
awarded a Race to the Top assessment competition
grant.”
Achieve creates America’s Choice through Marc
Tucker’s NCEE to
“…serv[e] every aspect of that required by RTT”.
Pearson purchases America’s Choice
Pearson provides “Complete and cohesive
support to implement the new Common
Core State Standards” which includes
English and math curricula, consultation
services, professional development, and
tests, as well as being the largest textbook
supplier in the world.
The Bill Gates Foundation has played a
PROMINENT role in Achieve, America’s
Choice, The Common Core State Standards
Initiative and PARCC.
“PARCC is committed to developing a
computer-based assessment system aligned
to the math and English CCSS”
What Will the Common Core State
Standards Initiative Cost Oklahoma?
Missouri, Washington, California and Oklahoma signed
on to CCSS without winning an RTT grant
The unfunded cost to Californians is projected to
exceed $1.6 Billion dollars
$70 million allocated for textbooks
$800 million for new curriculum
$765 million for teacher training
$20 million for principal training
Other assorted costs
Washington State’s Superintendent has asked
their legislature for $2,156,000 dollars to
implement the CCSS in Washington
Texas will not sign on to CCSS partly because the
costs to implement are estimated to be as high as
3 billion dollars
Oklahoma would be responsible for the same type
CCSS outlays as California
Of interest: the state of Ohio, who won an RTT grant, has a
number of districts returning RTT money saying they can't
afford to spend more than they'd get from the grant.
Are the Common Core State
Standards Effective?
Andrew Porter, dean of the University of
Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education [a
previous and early supporter of CCSS], states,
“Our research shows that the common-core
standards do not represent a meaningful
improvement over existing state standards.”
He also goes on to say, “The common core is not a
new gold standard—it’s firmly in the middle of the
pack of current curricula.”
Ze’ev Wurman and Sandra Stotsky (both early CCSS
contributors and reviewers) determined, in their
paper, Common Core’s Standards Still Don’t Make
the Grade,
“Common Core’s “college readiness” standards do not
point to a level of intellectual achievement that
signifies readiness for authentic college-level work. At
best, they point to no more than readiness for a high
school diploma.”
John Jensen, licensed clinical psychologist and
education consultant says:
They are a labored way to solve a simple
problem
 Proficiency is what educators want for students
 Practice of basics makes proficiency - NOT adding
more to learn
 The point is not to “cover” everything, but
progressively to expand and deepen one’s internal
field of knowledge.
 Get one idea at a time clear and correct, practice it
till its mastered, and connect it to its field.
“Reaching the Goal” by the Educational Policy Improvement
Center (whose clients include Achieve and the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation) suggests strong support for the validity of
common core standards, but had great concern about the areas
they do not cover.
CCSS not a complete recipe for college preparation
“Defining a set of standards as ‘college and career ready’ that
overlook ... dimensions beyond content knowledge will result in
assuming that students who have achieved a particular score
on the common assessments [of the standards] are fully ready
for college and career studies when, in fact, they may possess
only a subset of the knowledge and skills, strategies and
techniques necessary to be fully ready for postsecondary
success,”
Dr. David Conley, CEO, EPIC
Closing the Door on Innovation, a manifesto signed by a
wide collection of interested parties including the Heritage
Foundation, Friedman Foundation, CATO Institute,
Goldwater Institute, and ROPE’s Board of Directors
Contains five reasons states should not adopt CCSS, including:
“…lack of consistent evidence indicating that a
national curriculum leads to high academic
achievement”.
“The effects of curricula on student achievement are larger,
more certain and less expensive than popular reforms such
as common standards…” Brookings Institute
CCS English Standards
Standards too narrow in scope, drafted as individual,
testable actions rather than as authentic performances
in college classrooms or workplaces.
Document claims to be evidence-based, but we note
that none of the evidence has been drawn from peerreviewed research journals or similar sources, but
mainly consists of surveys done by testing companies
(ie; Pearson).
National Council of Teachers of English
o NO research base supporting the 10 College-and-CareerReadiness Standards for reading on K-12 grade-level
standards
o NO international benchmarking as advertised (CCSS
website now says, “Informed by international
benchmarks”)
o Few content-rich Literature and reading standards in
grades 6-12
o Pedagogically useless Vocabulary standards in grades 612
Sandra Stotsky, Ph.D. in reading research and reading
education, former CCSS draft committee member
The new Common Core standards will
require students to read considerably less
fiction.
Julia Steiny, former member of the Providence
School Board, education consultant
Cursive writing is not among the standards.
Research proves that handwriting teaches letter
formation, a fundamental base of literacy; advances
neurological development with perceptual and
motor skills practice; supports reading and language
acquisition; and augments writing fluency.
Zaner-Bloser English book and ancillary supplier
CCS Math Standards
o US standards the least informative of those from South
Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan and Taiwan
o A study in bureaucratic ambiguity.
Jonathan Goodman, Professor of Mathematics, Courant
Institute of Mathematical Sciences, NYU
o The Core mathematics standards are written to reflect
very low expectations
o An extremely unusual approach to geometry from grade 7
on, the most likely outcome of which will be the complete
suppression of the key topics in Euclidean geometry
including proofs and deductive reasoning.
James Milgram, Professor emeritus, Stanford University –
member of the Common Core Validation committee
o “This omission of significant portions of essential
Algebra II and Geometry content renders the Common
Core Standards inadequate for students who will
enter undergraduate programs in STEM or even nonSTEM disciplines in much of the country.”
o “States should not adopt the "College-Readiness"
Standards unless they adequately identify the content
required for success in…mathematics courses in their
state universities. The current Common Core
Standards draft falls significantly short of this
requirement for many states.”
United States Coalition for World Class Math
o Place emphasis on Standards for Mathematical Practice which
supports a constructivist (progressive) approach.
o This approach is typical of “reform” (fuzzy) math programs to
which many parents across the country object.
Where’s The Math?
“Students learn perseverance by struggling through—and
ultimately succeeding on—very difficult problems. And you just
simply cannot do that unless you have mastered the content you
need to succeed. Empty problem solving skills simply cannot
make up for missing content.”
Kathleen Porter-Magee, Fordham Institute
“Relevant” isn’t supposed to be a synonym for dumbed-down, it
just always seems to work out that way. And my hunch is that
students might struggle less with algebra, geometry and calculus
if they showed up in high school with a strong foundation in basic
math skills.”
Robert Pondiscio, Core Knowledge Institute
o A bitter disappointment.
o In terms of their limited vision of math education, the
pedestrian framework chosen to organize the
standards
o Incoherent nature of the standards for mathematical
practice in particular
o They unwittingly reinforce the very errors in math
curriculum, instruction, and assessment that produced
the current crisis.
Grant Wiggins, president, Authentic Education
Common Core Math writers/reviewers have been unwilling
to defend the standards,
“Over the past three months, we've now asked six
individuals involved in the Common Core math standards
to pen a piece making the case for their rigor and quality,
and each has declined in turn.”
Rick Hess, editor, EdWeek.
CCS Science Standards
“This framework does not expect our students to be
able to do any science, or to be able to solve any
science problem.”
“This framework simply teaches our students science
appreciation, rather than science. It expects our students
to become good consumers of science and technology,
rather than prepare them to be the discoverers of science
and creators of technology.”
Ze’ev Wurman, Chief Software Architect of MonolithIC 3D
Inc., former senior policy adviser at the U.S. Department of
Education
“There’s a section [of the proposed standards] called
“modeling.”
“… The only discernible standard I could find was:
“The student will be able to use graphs, for example,
graphs of Co2 emissions and global temperatures
over time.” The joke was “What do we call this
class? Do we call it ‘Global Warming Math’?”
Robert Scott, Texas Commissioner of Education
Computer science largely excluded.
Computing in the Core Advocacy Group (members include
Google, Microsoft and the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics)
Testing (Assessments)
According to Education Week “Experts See
Hurdles Ahead for Common Core Tests”
o High expectations for tests may outpace ability of
states to pay for and administer them
o Tight timelines won’t allow for well-done piloting of
the assessments
o National assessments were originally intended to
save states money, but federal grants contain no
money for administration
o Many brick and mortar schools do not have the
technology necessary to administer the tests
The current focus on testing has tended to make test
results the goal of the system rather than a measure.
Violates Goodhart's Law: when measure becomes
the goal, it ceases to be an effective measure.
One-third of a billion dollars has now gone into mere
development (not roll-out, printing, training or
scoring) of Common Core assessments alone, which
will in turn render useless the billions already spent,
state to state, to develop, print, administer and score
standardized tests tied to state standards and
curricula.
Oklahoma’s last contract with Pearson cost the state
$16.7 million dollars
“Testing [was to] shine a spotlight on low-performing
schools, and choice would create opportunities for poor
kids to leave for better schools. All of this seemed to
make sense, but there was little empirical evidence,
just promise and hope.”
Diane Ravitch, former Asst. Secretary of Education for
George. H.W. Bush.
Oklahoma has had significant problems with testing
companies (5 have been used in the last decade)
This is a national problem described by one think tank
(FairTest) as a “perverted game of musical chairs”
where companies move from state to state as they are
hired and then fired for poor performance.
Student test results formulate AYP (sometimes
incorrectly!) and now will be used to evaluate teachers
and principals?
Conflict of interest
Pearson has the worst testing track record of any
test company in the nation, but due to corporate
mergers, is one of just a handful of testing companies left
in the market
The interests of testing advocates and
testing companies like Pearson are often the
same
o High-paid lobbyists compete for testing contracts in
Texas where bills that would have reduced the state’s
reliance on tests didn’t pass
o This kind of influence can make it hard for legislators
to assess testing efficacy
o Can create testing programs that perpetuate
themselves
o Can create industries that perpetuate
‘marketable’ tests as companies feel the need to
create products that might sell
What Are Other Organizations
Saying About CCSS?
Association of American Educators Poll
69% of surveyed membership believes that the federal
government should NOT mandate curriculum standards
64% supported the states making the final
determination about the standards.
Teachers in the field recognize that students, in addition to
being held to a high academic standard, ought to be given
the opportunity to learn from state-based curriculums
designed with the goals of their state in mind.
Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup
Poll 2010
65% of respondents believed
the federal government should
NOT set the standards for what
students should know
44% of respondents believed the
most important national program
was improving the quality of our
teachers
24% said, “developing
demanding education standards”
Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll 2011
74% of respondents thought
teachers should NOT be required to
follow a prescribed curriculum so
all students could learn the same
content
ROPE, 2011
81% of respondents believed
Oklahoma public schools that
take federal money are made to
follow federal regulations
95% of respondents
believed that when local
Oklahoma schools are
made to follow federal
regulations educational
opportunities for
Oklahoma students
decline
How Do Federal Mandates
and Programs Effect States
A 1994 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on
education finance found
o Fed funding for state education amounts to only 7%
o But provides 41% of state paperwork burden
o 13,400 workers needed just to oversee compliance with all the
red tape.
2006 GAO reported
o ‘red tape’ increased annual paperwork burden by 6.7 million
hours - at a cost of $141 million
o Since 1950s, teachers as a percentage of school staff declined
from 70% to about 51%.
o administrative support staff increased from 23.8 percent to 30
percent.
o Estimated: 65-70 cents of every education dollar leaving
Washington makes it into the classroom
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy
Research, Federal Compliance Works against
Education Policy Goals
o The current federal education compliance structure is
a significant barrier to fulfilling federal policy goals
o Fiscal and administrative requirements often lead to
expensive and time-consuming compliance
processes that are not related to improving student
achievement or school success.
Mercatus Center, George Mason University, Do
Governmental Grants Create Tax Ratchets in State
and Local Taxes?
o Increase in federal grants to state and local
governments as a result of ARRA will cause state and
local taxes to increase.
o Estimate: $80 billion in future state and local tax
and own source revenue increases.
Are There Other Mechanisms by
Which To Nationally Benchmark
Oklahoma Students?
Karl Springer, Superintendent of Oklahoma City Public Schools
says, “ACT is attractive due to the use of EXPLORE (8th
Grade) and PLAN (10th Grade) benchmarking assessments
that the state pays for students to take across the state. EPAS
allows for districts to benchmark student progress toward
meeting college readiness standards.”
Kentucky compared NAEP and ACT’s EXPLORE in 8th grade
reading and mathematics and used as a benchmark for
assessing college and career readiness.
Through these comparisons, Kentucky was also able to determine
that Kentucky’s own Core Content Test scores in the area of
reading and math were seriously inflated.
Conclusion
Often cited as the model country for school improvement,
Finland does exactly the opposite of the NCLB and
RTT/Common Core based reform of the US (drills basics, no
national/state tests until high school graduation).
Centralized education policy hasn’t worked because it
doesn’t address the fundamental problem in public
education – proficiency
Home school students have higher ACT scores, GPA’s and
graduation rates when compared with public school
students – model more like Finland.
National standards present the risk of states accepting a
one size fits all, lowest common denominator education
standard (Fordham - Do High Flyers Maintain Their
Altitude?)
National standards cede more control to Washington and
weaken the decision-making power of parents and teachers
– those closest to students
CCSS are national in scope, but have been neither debated
nor adopted by Congress
National Council of Teachers of English believe CCSS
publishers criteria to be a “signal of usurpation of teacher
judgment in ways that are alarming”
Now that the CCSS have been in public purview for some
time and more is being learned about them, five different
states are considering various stages of their repeal Minnesota, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Utah and
Massachusetts
 Oklahoma should too.