Things That Make You Go, Hmmm
When Common Core supporters call Common Core opponents "enemies", I think, hmmm.
This appeared in a NY Times op-ed (that I thought was fairly pedantic) and Ready Washington, a mystery public/private WA state cheerleading group for Common Core, retweeted the link as though it's a good thing to divide people who want a transparent discussion about Common Core. And really, the op-ed isn't even really about Common Core.
Speaking of Ready Washington, they say at their Facebook page that the discussion has to be "fact-based." Okay, but who decides what is factual? Because at their webpage, they have a big whopper in their FAQs on Common Core:
Who developed the Common Core ?
The Common Core was created by states, for states.
Uh, no, that's not true. Here's what true (and this comes from numerous sources including U.S News&World Report and Wikipedia).
Common Core standards were created by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers and a non-profit education reform group called Achieve. The NGO is - by their own words - "a public policy organization" and they are a non-profit. They do not have public meetings. CCSSO is also a non-profit with corporate partners like ETS, InBloom, Microsoft and Pearson.
If "states" had created them, then how are the standards copyrighted by NGA and CCSSO? State departments of education have to have a license to use the standards.
Was there input from many people in many states? Sure, but state-created? No.
I'm fine if OSPI is working with groups like Stand and LEV and PTA to push Common Core (not to mention Microsoft and the Alliance and Washington Roundtable) but yes, once you involve public (read: taxpayer-funded entities), the cheerleading has to be truthful AND factual.
Let Stand and LEV tell their tales but OSPI needs to be on the straight and narrow.
When Director Blanford seems to have to ask an awful lot of questions at a Board committee meeting, causing it to come to a standstill, I think, "Does no one give new directors an informational book before they get on committees?" I say this out of frustration because when directors are supposed to oversee massive capital spending and yet do not know the basics of building (and don't know the right questions to ask), it's hard to fathom how anyone can say there is oversight. At least he's honest about what he doesn't know (and it's a lot).
When the Alliance says, several times at this morning's annual breakfast, that they are involved in education "causes" (rather than education). Hmmm.
Indiana has pulled out of Common Core. Will their own standards be Common Core-lite?
This follows the "rebranding" of Common Core by several states like Arizona (Arizona’s College and Career Ready Standards), Iowa (the Iowa Core), and Florida (Next Generation Sunshine State Standards - very cheery). Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas said, "rebrand it, refocus it, but don't retreat."
Or redirect. Hmmm.
This appeared in a NY Times op-ed (that I thought was fairly pedantic) and Ready Washington, a mystery public/private WA state cheerleading group for Common Core, retweeted the link as though it's a good thing to divide people who want a transparent discussion about Common Core. And really, the op-ed isn't even really about Common Core.
Speaking of Ready Washington, they say at their Facebook page that the discussion has to be "fact-based." Okay, but who decides what is factual? Because at their webpage, they have a big whopper in their FAQs on Common Core:
Who developed the Common Core ?
The Common Core was created by states, for states.
Uh, no, that's not true. Here's what true (and this comes from numerous sources including U.S News&World Report and Wikipedia).
Common Core standards were created by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers and a non-profit education reform group called Achieve. The NGO is - by their own words - "a public policy organization" and they are a non-profit. They do not have public meetings. CCSSO is also a non-profit with corporate partners like ETS, InBloom, Microsoft and Pearson.
If "states" had created them, then how are the standards copyrighted by NGA and CCSSO? State departments of education have to have a license to use the standards.
Was there input from many people in many states? Sure, but state-created? No.
I'm fine if OSPI is working with groups like Stand and LEV and PTA to push Common Core (not to mention Microsoft and the Alliance and Washington Roundtable) but yes, once you involve public (read: taxpayer-funded entities), the cheerleading has to be truthful AND factual.
Let Stand and LEV tell their tales but OSPI needs to be on the straight and narrow.
When Director Blanford seems to have to ask an awful lot of questions at a Board committee meeting, causing it to come to a standstill, I think, "Does no one give new directors an informational book before they get on committees?" I say this out of frustration because when directors are supposed to oversee massive capital spending and yet do not know the basics of building (and don't know the right questions to ask), it's hard to fathom how anyone can say there is oversight. At least he's honest about what he doesn't know (and it's a lot).
When the Alliance says, several times at this morning's annual breakfast, that they are involved in education "causes" (rather than education). Hmmm.
Indiana has pulled out of Common Core. Will their own standards be Common Core-lite?
This follows the "rebranding" of Common Core by several states like Arizona (Arizona’s College and Career Ready Standards), Iowa (the Iowa Core), and Florida (Next Generation Sunshine State Standards - very cheery). Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas said, "rebrand it, refocus it, but don't retreat."
Or redirect. Hmmm.
Comments
Did you misunderstand what the author was referring to when she said when she said enemies. You should re-read the article.
NGA is directed by the governors --- they have staff but the leadership is comprised entirely of governors. CCSSO is the same --- they have staff but the leadership is comprised entirely of the chiefs. Their organizations were thus used in the collective interest of the governors and chiefs to create the CCSS. Achieve operated under contract with NGA and CCSSO to facilitate the writing of the standards.
Finally, neither NGA nor CCSSO is obligated to hold open meetings. No decisions made by these organizations bind the states to anything. In other words, they do not adopt laws, rules, or policies that states are obligated to adopt.
Finally, the CCSS are copyrighted by NGA and CCSSO to prevent commercial enterprises like Pearson and McGraw Hill from using them as their own products without attribution. The state departments of education do not have to license the CCSS. If states adopt the CCSS, they are free to do with them as they please.
--- swk
No SWK, it's not splitting hairs. They are not-profit groups that represent some elected officials. Those governors didn't vote on something in an elected capacity. And our state legislatures - you know the ones that make the laws and pay the bills - they certainly didn't vote.
And Achieve? Who are they then, because they, too, created the standards.
And right, no decisions are legally binding so I see nothing legal in all of it.
And yes, the states ARE doing as the please, starting with Indiana.
A Brief Audit of Bill Gates’ Common Core Spending
blueglass
BlueGlass
Oh yeah, big news. The Dem Senate leader in NY State just said that he and Governor Cuomo "plan to institute a moratorium on implementation of the Common Core standards "for at least 3 years."
It's things like:
“The teacher evaluation system we have in place already, and it's actually negotiated according to each school district,” Klein said, “but, again, I think it's difficult for them to be judged by the standards of Common Core when Common Core wasn't implemented properly.”
No, kidding. You shouldn't hold teachers and students accountable for a under-resourced, under-the-radar rollout of new standards for nearly every state in this country.
"Klein also said leaders want to cut ties with inBloom, Inc., a non-profit company under agreement with the state to build a database of student information."
Mr. Gates, all that money and all that time and your own little House of Cards is starting to crumble. Get out of your echo chamber and actually listen to real people.
And the other 40+ states who have adopted the CCSS did so under their own state legal authority.
--- swk
It's interesting that there's a push poll that shows that the majority of Americans "like" CC - the wording of the question is hilariously vague.
Getting a bit desperate out there.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/25/this-common-core-math-problem-asks-kids-to-write-the-friendly-answer-instead-of-the-correct-one/#!
A second grader’s answers to a Common Core-aligned math worksheet were marked as incorrect because they weren’t “friendly” enough… even though they were the right answers. (more)
-districtWatcher
Why?
More on this to come but yes, good question.
States don't have to adopt the CC. States don't have to have longitudinal databases. States don't have to administer the CC assessments. States don't have to link student scores on the CC assessments to teacher evaluation. States can choose to do all of these things, some of these things, or none of these things.
Many people combine the whole of the standards, curriculum, instruction, assessments, and accountability system and call the whole thing the Common Core. But, the Common Core itself is simply a set of grade level expectations.
--- swk
I stand by my contention to get money, states have to have a longitudinal data base.
What follows from Common Core, we can dither on a phrase for that but many people understand the difference between what Common Core it is but that there are actions that flow from it.
And, yes, RTTT did require states adopt a state longitudinal data system and OSPI does have one --- it's called CEDARS (Comprehensive Education Data and Research System) but it was in place before Common Core and RTTT. The legislature required they have it as early as 2005.
--- swk
Not because of CCSS however. Because the Feds made it a requirement of RTTT funds. The US Dept. of ED has made it clear that they'd like more student data.
It's confusing, but these are essentially apples and oranges. Because, and it hasn't been clear in many many places, that the CCSS is in fact a STATE-based initiative and not a Federal one.
The phrase "common core" has become a misused shorthand for what many see as detrimental choices - "teaching to the test", teacher evaluations that depend on test scores etc etc etc.
I'm not a fan of much of the rhetoric that goes on around those choices, but this is important information needs to be accurately reported.
There’s also the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) that says that states must be moving towards “college/career-ready standards and high quality assessments” but it also says “The state must assure that it will take actions to … establish and use pre-K-through-college and career data systems to track progress and foster continuous improvement.”
Okay, so I'm just going to assume that "college/career-ready standards" are CC and "high quality assessments" are Smarter Balanced and PARCC.
Also to note: the agreement between PARCC and SBAC and DOE says this:
"The grantee must provide timely and complete access to any and all data collected at the State level to ED (US Education Department)..."
In most instances, "college and career-ready standards" do refer to the CC and "high quality assessments" do refer to Smarter Balanced and PARCC. However, this is not necessarily so. States can adopt their own set of college and career-ready standards and CCR assessments. Alaska, for instance, received SFSF funds and have an NCLB waiver but they have never adopted the CCSS and are not a member of either consortia. They have adopted their own set of CCR standards and will be building their own CCR assessments.
But the point that I'm trying to make and BlueGrass reiterated is that CC and state longitudinal data systems are independent. Here is where we currently stand: The feds have not required CC, they do not now require longitudinal data systems, and they do not require teacher evaluation. They have provided a carrot for states in the past, but they have no mechanism aside from NCLB waivers to require these things.
Let's try to agree on this: Common Core, longitudinal data systems, and teacher evaluation tied to state test scores ARE NOT required, BUT there are definite and strong (and insidious) links between these things and many states and districts have implemented all of them.
--- swk
You think that the DOE isn't using the stick rather than the carrot on the NCLB waiver? Wait for it. Randy Dorn told me today he thought they would bear down on our state.
I appreciate your last paragraph but it only makes it clear that there are real pressures being brought to bear on states (whether within the law or not).
What is truly sad is when our "elected representatives", and bureaucrats (on our payroll) shill for those in control with their wishlists.
Connecting the dots can, and has, been done by many reputable sources.
They are all cousins of each other in the family tree, and sometimes they are kissing cousins.
Trying to disaggregate individual cause and effect is rather futile because then you are missing the forest for the trees, which is this:
Arne Duncan and President Obama have chosen the path of Gates and other oligarchs in determining federal education policy. Many states and individual voters don't like being sold out to the highest donor, which is why we are on the cusp of a widespread rebellion.
Whether Pearson is doing this one, RTT or NCLB is funding that one, this grant funded that one really doesn't matter because states are in the process of taking back their rights and progressives are supporting them.
Washington state is usually at the end of the education train, so it's not surprising that swk, BlueGlass and others are putting more energy into "educating" us about Common Core, etc. rather than being aware of the fact that that ship has sailed. It just might take Washington state to feel the wind of its demise later than other regions.
--enough already
I always like this blog. But there are times when I REALLY like it -- this is one of those times.
Jan
We are going into the realm of Stockholm Syndrome compliance at that point.
--enough already