Peter Greene of the blog Curmudgucation explains why teachers no longer love the Common Core. Here are some of the main points made by teachers who have had a chance to really study the CCSS up close and personal.
Why Did the Core Have a Bad Year?
Today's big headline from the new Education Next poll is "Teachers No Longer Love CCSS."
Support for the Core among teachers dropped like a stone, from 76% in 2013 to 46% in 2014. That's a lot of love lost. Now, as we move from the "Holy schneikies!" phase into the "Got some splainin' to do" phase, we'll start to ask the big question. Why? Here is what one teacher wrote: Let's think back to May of 2013. Personally, I'm a fine example of what teachers were like at that point. I didn't know a lot about the Core, and what I did know didn't sound all that bad. As far as I'd heard, a bunch of important people had called together a bunch of teachers to write some standards that could be used across the country to bring a little coherence to the higgledy-piggledy crazy-quilt that is US education. I'm not really a fan of national standards, but as long as they came from educational experts and were largely voluntary, it couldn't hurt to look at them. Heck, if you had asked me in May of 2013 if I supported the Common Core standards, I might very well have said yes. And though there were teachers out there who had already caught on, there were plenty of teachers like me who were perfectly willing to give the whole business a shot. So how did the reformsters lose all those hearts and minds? I think it's a measure of how detailed and painstaking and inch-by-inch this massive debate has been that it's easy to lose track of the big picture, the many massively boneheaded things that CCSS supporters did along the way. Let's reminisce about how so many teachers were turned off. The lying. Remember how supporters of the Core used to tell us all the time that these standards were written by teachers? All. The. Time. Do you know why they've stopped saying that? Because it's a lie, and at this point, most everybody knows it's a lie. The "significant" teacher input, the basis in solid research-- all lies. When someone is trying to sell you medicine and they tell you that it was developed by top doctors and researchers and you find out it wasn't and they have to switch to, "Well, it was developed by some guys who are really interested in mediciney stuff who once were in a doctor's office"-- it just reduces your faith in the product. The Involuntariness In many places, it took a while for it to sink in-- "You mean we're not actually allowed to change ANY of it, and we can only add 15%??!!" It quickly became clear-- this was not a reform where we would all sit around a table at our own schools and decide how to best to adapt and implement to suit our own students. Session by session, we were sent off to trainings where some combination of state bureaucrats and hired consultants would tell us how it was going to be. We were not being sent off to discuss or contribute our own professional expertise; we were being sent to get our marching orders, which very often even our own administrators were not "important" enough to give us (or understand). Shut up. Particularly in the latter half of 2013, we all heard this a lot. Phrased in diplomatic language, of course, but on the state and federal level we were told repeatedly that this was not a discussion, that our input was neither needed nor wanted, and that if we were going to raise any sorts of questions, we should just forget about it. This was particularly true for public schools. After all, the narrative went, public schools were failing and covering it up by lying to students and their parents about how well they were doing. It became increasingly clear that the Common Core were not meant to help us, but to rescue America's children from us. "Just shut up and sit down," said CCSS boosters with a sneer. "You've done enough damage already." The slander. Arne Duncan told newspaper editors to paint core opponents as misguided and misinformed. Then he portrayed objectors as whiny white suburban moms. Opposition to CCSS was repeatedly portrayed as coming strictly from the tin hat wing of the Tea Party. If you opened your mouth to say something bad about the Core, you were immediately tagged a right-wing crank. There was no recognition that any complaint about any portion of the Core could possibly be legitimate. It had to be politically motivated or the result of ignorance. The Money. The longer the year went on, the more it seemed that every single advocate for the Core was being paid for it. I've been wading into this for a while, and I'll be damned if I can name a single solitary actual grass-roots group advocating for the Core. Instead, we find a sea of groups all swimming in the same money from the same sources. And at the school level, we also see lots of money-- all of it outbound. Suddenly, with Common Core, there's a long list of things that have to be bought. Can't get new books-- we have to buy computers to take the PARCC. And let's watch a parade of consultants, all making more money than we are, come in and tell us how to do our jobs. The child abuse. Many of us just finished our first year of Core-aligned curriculum, and in many cases it was awful. We were required to force students to operate at or beyond frustration level day after day. We watched school stamp out the spirit of the smallest students, whose defining characteristic is that they love everything, including school. While CCSS boosters were off sipping lattes in nice offices, we were there at ground zero watching 180 days of exactly how this reform affected real, live students. The testing. You keep saying that the tests are separate from the CCSS. We keep telling you that there is no daylight visible between them here on the ground. The plan for failure. There was a moment, even a day for the strong-hearted, where it looked like the Obama administration was going to release us from the educational malpractice that is NCLB. But no-- it soon became clear that we were still trapped in the same terrible movie. Our fates would still be linked to high stakes tests, just in more complicated and stupid ways. You did not have to be terribly cynical to conclude that the goal was for public schools to fail, so that reformsters could "rescue" the students "trapped" in "failing schools." The backpedaling As support has crumbled, Core boosters have retracted some of their pronouncements. "We have to build the airplane as we fly it" becomes "we have to take our time and fix these implementation problems." This has the effect of confirming what we suspected-- that they didn't really know what they were doing in the first place. The implementation dodge was particularly telling. Teachers have heard "That resource/program/widget will work great. You're just using it wrong" a gazillion times. It translates roughly as "This won't help you complete that task, but if you do some other task, it might be useful." But the thing about CCSS implementation is that Core boosters got to everything that they said they wanted to. So if the implementation messed things up that either means 1) they don't know what they're talking about or 2) the Core really are that bad. Location location location. Politicians have understood for at least several decades that you can convince people if you lie deliberately and sincerely, but sometimes (like this one) they forget an important detail. It is easy to lie to people about what is happening in a faraway place like Iran or Siberia. It is much harder to pull off lies about what is going on right in front of their faces. Core boosters can tell stories all day about what's happening on the business end of their pride and joy, but teachers are actually at ground zero, and they have eyes and ears and brains and professional judgment. This was a big field test year for CCSS as it spread into more schools than ever before. The drop in teacher support is one more clear indicator that, in the latest phase of rollout, the Core is failing. And as more and more teachers become entangled in this mess of botched national standards, things are only going to get worse. The Core lost support for the same reason that liver seems like a great thing to eat until you actually take a bite of it. In short, I believe the Core lost teacher support because so many teachers spent the year face to face with it, looking it right in its beady little eyes. They don't love it because they know it so well. I'm willing to bet that by next May, when it's survey time again, the Core is not going to be awash in a new wave of teacher love. |
Dedicated public education advocate - Outspoken critic of the failed reforms and policy efforts being enacted in the state and nationally
Who Loves Ya Common Core?
A Louisiana Parent's Letter To Protect Student Privacy
A model letter to your child's principal from a Louisiana parent. Links to the new Louisiana laws are included.
To all,
Please feel free to use this letter as a template for your own children. For those of you with children in private schools using computers and I-PADS, please note that these laws do not protect them. You can go to the boards of your own schools and request a list of approved instructional, curriculum, web based materials as we have requested from the St. Tammany Parish School Board and take up any concerns that you may have with them.
From: Sachs [mailto:saxheim@charter.net]
Dear PRINCIPAL OF YOUR SCHOOL,
Please know that I wish to see every survey (CDC, Federal government, State, Regional, etc. and all survey portions of any and all assessments) prior to being administered. Also - (YOUR CHILD'S NAME) does not have my permission to work on assignments that require his/her to blog or post personally identifiable information on websites.
I am very grateful for the new laws (Acts 436 and 837) put forth by LA Representative Schroder that attempt to protect our children from those that seek to exploit/profile them using personal and private information.
None of this is meant to be a reflection on (NAME OF SCHOOL). This is more a reflection on those that imposed education reform on teachers, students, principals, etc. where new laws are now required to protect them from these unsound educational policies.
Thank you for being an advocate and role model for children. (YOUR CHILD'S NAME) is looking forward to returning to (NAME OF SCHOOL) this year!
Sincerely,
(YOUR NAME AS PARENT/LEGAL GUARDIAN)
Act 436: http://www.legis.la.g...
Act 837: http://www.legis.la.g...
Act 837: http://www.legis.la.g...
John White Uses His Bully Pulpit
I found SuperintendentWhite's "Welcome Back a To School" post offensive so I told him this:
John -
You need to stop using LDE as your bully pulpit. In your desperation to justify your failed attempts to promote national standards as one of Jeb Bush's Chiefs for Change and to barker your PARCC test for Pearson, you are abandoning professionalism. If you insist on having your day in court you will succeed only in further squandering taxpayer money that should be used in the classroom. You disparage at being "personally attacked" but you persist in what appears to be your own extraordinarily determined effort to implement an initiative that has huge national opposition.
Originally published in educational Horizons Spring 1997. 109-111.
edited 3/20/12
Test yourself on the following multiple-choice question:Nationally recognized educational standards are:
Answer? All of the above.
Idealistic Expressions of Hope
Is there an American public educator who in her or his heart does not maintain serious sympathy for the following statement?
Politically Naive Will-o'-the-Wisps
Proposals of common standards are no more than rhetoric until a substantial number of people have accepted them as common down to the level of practical implementation. With more than 15,000 school boards liberally interpreting -- seldom with a liberal interpretation -- the school codes of fifty states, it is difficult to see how nationally recognized, governmentally enforced standards will ever come about. But need such standards be governmentally enforced?
Need a governmental body be involved? Consider the Netherlands, which has nationally recognized standards in mathematics, but no formal national curriculum(3). Because a consensus has been hammered out among various private constituencies -- the Dutch call this process overleg -- standardization has been achieved without governmental involvement. But the Dutch do not require schools to prepare students for examinations on any subject matter that their communities find repugnant. Catholics and Protestants read different history books. There are no requirements for Christian fundamentalists to meet concerning evolutionary theory in biology. Nor need Muslims pay any attention to curriculum that promotes "gender fairness," that is, men and women in roles different from what Muslims consider traditional(4). Consensus on a few issues is bought by conceding diversity in the curriculum to a point beyond
which many organized groups in the United States would be comfortable with. The Dutch have instituted, in effect, a national system of school vouchers, with few strings attached.
A Distraction from Difficult, Unglamorous Consensus Building
Our history shows that it is not difficult to seduce Americans into a crusade, even a difficult and bitter one, so long as the majority can hope to live to see the conquest of the Promised Land. But to be merely a bit player in a struggle that may last for generations? That is surely asking too much. We cannot see where we, as a nation, will be next year. Our model for planning is the whimsicality of the stock market. Take a paper and pencil, and, if you have been a teacher for ten years, you will be able to list a number of initiatives, reforms, and innovations that have gone the way of all flesh.
I started teaching when the New Math was about to save America from Sputnik and other devilish Communist contrivances. Ancient that I am, I saw teaching machines rise and fall, language labs degenerate into expensive toys. SRA reading materials brought their own micro-millennium. Whole Language hangs on, but OBE has lost its vigor. 4-MAT has become 4-gotten. Special Education has become inclusion, which is practically what it was before it became Special Education.
Do you remember Needs Assessment? Has Site-Based Management or Quality Circles transformed the world? Who wanted these innovations? Apparently, not the public who supports the schools. Who bothered to convince people other than educators that the millennium was at hand? No one. (Who made off with the vast sums of money spent on such programs? That is an interesting story for another occasion.)
A Means of Enhancing the Recognition of Teachers as Professionals
Standards and professional training can, in theory, at least, be directly linked. Any set of standards -- rather than none -- makes it easier to develop teacher-training programs. Standards set goals; training programs attempt to devise the means for helping future teachers bring their students up to those standards. In practice, this is harder than it sounds, but at least the theoretical connection is clear. Special training defines professional expertise.
Let's consider mathematics. Suppose we -- hocus pocus -- establish National Mathematics Standards; and, consequently, the methods that reasonably ensure their achievement -- usually tested in a setting with minimal disturbance. Then, we introduce them into real life, i.e., the schools where student achievement in mathematics is most problematic. Barring the effects of disparities in school funding, domestic upheaval, poverty, disease, social disorder, crime, school violence, drug usage, student lack of interest, and parental complacency, these national standards in mathematics will bring students to almost genius levels of math competence. They might transform our entire culture.
We might end up listening to rap music about analytic and algebraic topologies of locally Euclidean metricizations of infinitely differentiable Riemannian manifolds(5)". TV shows -- "Geraldo," "Richard Bey," "Oprah" -- will feature panel discussions on Gödels's Proof, or at least, onFermat's Last Theorem. Surely then, parents, school boards, and the general public will accord teachers (of mathematics, at least) the right
to make those decisions about curriculum and methodology that mark the prerogatives of true professionals.
A lovely dream. Will anyone work now to make it any more substantial in, say, seventy years? Is that too long to wait? Can we be patient enough to forgo our personal hopes of victory and prepare such a bequest for our great-grandchildren's teachers? These are perhaps the most important questions.
ENDNOTES
1. Report of the Committee of Philadelphia Workingmen, 1830, cited in Henry J. Perkinson, The Imperfect Panacea: American Faith in Education, 4th Edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995), 21.
2. Private correspondence of Gary K. Clabaugh and Edward G. Rozycki with Margaret Petrella of the Gallup Organization for the Times Mirror Corporation; field dates of study: 5/13/88-5/22/88.
3. Lauren B. Resnick, Katherine J. Nolan, and Daniel P. Resnick, "Benchmarking Educational Standards," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 17 (1995): 438-461.
4. Karen Seashore Lewis and Bert Versloot, High Standards and Cultural Diversity: Cautionary Tales of Comparative Research?A Comment on "Benchmarking Educational Standards," 253-261 and Lauren B. Resnick, Katherine J. Nolan, and Daniel P. Resnick, "Caution Heeded? A Response to 'High Standards and Cultural Diversity,'" Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 18 (1996): 262-264.
5. Tom Lehrer, "Lobachevsky," Too Many Songs by Tom Lehrer (New York: Pantheon, 1981), 28.
Diane Ravitch clearly points out:
As you know, since the last school year ended, there have been a number of attempts to slow progress in Louisiana, and to stop the implementation of higher expectations and the assessments that measure our progress when compared with states around the country. These issues are now in the courts, and in the weeks to come, there will surely be more discussion of these issues in the media.You do not deserve this, and your kids do not deserve this.
Our 2004 revised Louisiana State Standards and GLEs were focused on "higher standards" and "rigor" and preparing students for the workplace....... Read Cecil Picard's letter here. http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/2909.pdf
Our standards were NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED by, for example, The Fordham Institute and Edweek's Quality Counts. The distorted use of that terminology to mean Common Core exclusively is dishonest.
What does "Nationally Recognized Standards" mean? Well here is one of hundreds of perspectives - of course yours means Common Core.
*******
Establishing Nationally Recognized Educational Standards
©1999 Edward G. Rozycki
An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will make a better soup.--H.L. Mencken (1920)
Test yourself on the following multiple-choice question:Nationally recognized educational standards are:
a. idealistic expressions of hope for a more just society
b. politically naive will-o'-the-wisps
c. a distraction from difficult, unglamorous tasks of consensus building
d. a means of enhancing the recognition of teachers as professionals
Answer? All of the above.
Idealistic Expressions of Hope
Is there an American public educator who in her or his heart does not maintain serious sympathy for the following statement?
The original element of despotism is a monopoly of talent which consigns the multitude to comparative ignorance, and secures the balance of knowledge on the side of the rich and the rulers. If then the healthy existence of a free government be, as the committee believe, rooted in the will of the American people, it follows as a necessary consequence of government based upon that will, that this monopoly should be broken up, and that the means of equal knowledge (the only security for equality) should be rendered, by legal provision, the common property of all classes. (1)For educators, this 1830 statement of the Committee of Philadelphia Workingmen still resonates today in a society substantially different from what it was 166 years ago. But how much of the public in today's pluralistic United States would agree with it? A 1988 study showed that about 93 percent of Gallup respondents agreed that the quality
of public education should be improved. But only 73 percent agreed that this improvement should come from government action. And only 41 percent thought that
new taxes should be raised to support government action in the improvement of public schools. (2) Is it unlikely these figures have gone up. Focusing on common standards draws our attention away from this harsh political reality.
Politically Naive Will-o'-the-Wisps
Proposals of common standards are no more than rhetoric until a substantial number of people have accepted them as common down to the level of practical implementation. With more than 15,000 school boards liberally interpreting -- seldom with a liberal interpretation -- the school codes of fifty states, it is difficult to see how nationally recognized, governmentally enforced standards will ever come about. But need such standards be governmentally enforced?
Need a governmental body be involved? Consider the Netherlands, which has nationally recognized standards in mathematics, but no formal national curriculum(3). Because a consensus has been hammered out among various private constituencies -- the Dutch call this process overleg -- standardization has been achieved without governmental involvement. But the Dutch do not require schools to prepare students for examinations on any subject matter that their communities find repugnant. Catholics and Protestants read different history books. There are no requirements for Christian fundamentalists to meet concerning evolutionary theory in biology. Nor need Muslims pay any attention to curriculum that promotes "gender fairness," that is, men and women in roles different from what Muslims consider traditional(4). Consensus on a few issues is bought by conceding diversity in the curriculum to a point beyond
which many organized groups in the United States would be comfortable with. The Dutch have instituted, in effect, a national system of school vouchers, with few strings attached.
A Distraction from Difficult, Unglamorous Consensus Building
Our history shows that it is not difficult to seduce Americans into a crusade, even a difficult and bitter one, so long as the majority can hope to live to see the conquest of the Promised Land. But to be merely a bit player in a struggle that may last for generations? That is surely asking too much. We cannot see where we, as a nation, will be next year. Our model for planning is the whimsicality of the stock market. Take a paper and pencil, and, if you have been a teacher for ten years, you will be able to list a number of initiatives, reforms, and innovations that have gone the way of all flesh.
I started teaching when the New Math was about to save America from Sputnik and other devilish Communist contrivances. Ancient that I am, I saw teaching machines rise and fall, language labs degenerate into expensive toys. SRA reading materials brought their own micro-millennium. Whole Language hangs on, but OBE has lost its vigor. 4-MAT has become 4-gotten. Special Education has become inclusion, which is practically what it was before it became Special Education.
Do you remember Needs Assessment? Has Site-Based Management or Quality Circles transformed the world? Who wanted these innovations? Apparently, not the public who supports the schools. Who bothered to convince people other than educators that the millennium was at hand? No one. (Who made off with the vast sums of money spent on such programs? That is an interesting story for another occasion.)
A Means of Enhancing the Recognition of Teachers as Professionals
Standards and professional training can, in theory, at least, be directly linked. Any set of standards -- rather than none -- makes it easier to develop teacher-training programs. Standards set goals; training programs attempt to devise the means for helping future teachers bring their students up to those standards. In practice, this is harder than it sounds, but at least the theoretical connection is clear. Special training defines professional expertise.
Let's consider mathematics. Suppose we -- hocus pocus -- establish National Mathematics Standards; and, consequently, the methods that reasonably ensure their achievement -- usually tested in a setting with minimal disturbance. Then, we introduce them into real life, i.e., the schools where student achievement in mathematics is most problematic. Barring the effects of disparities in school funding, domestic upheaval, poverty, disease, social disorder, crime, school violence, drug usage, student lack of interest, and parental complacency, these national standards in mathematics will bring students to almost genius levels of math competence. They might transform our entire culture.
We might end up listening to rap music about analytic and algebraic topologies of locally Euclidean metricizations of infinitely differentiable Riemannian manifolds(5)". TV shows -- "Geraldo," "Richard Bey," "Oprah" -- will feature panel discussions on Gödels's Proof, or at least, onFermat's Last Theorem. Surely then, parents, school boards, and the general public will accord teachers (of mathematics, at least) the right
to make those decisions about curriculum and methodology that mark the prerogatives of true professionals.
A lovely dream. Will anyone work now to make it any more substantial in, say, seventy years? Is that too long to wait? Can we be patient enough to forgo our personal hopes of victory and prepare such a bequest for our great-grandchildren's teachers? These are perhaps the most important questions.
ENDNOTES
1. Report of the Committee of Philadelphia Workingmen, 1830, cited in Henry J. Perkinson, The Imperfect Panacea: American Faith in Education, 4th Edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995), 21.
2. Private correspondence of Gary K. Clabaugh and Edward G. Rozycki with Margaret Petrella of the Gallup Organization for the Times Mirror Corporation; field dates of study: 5/13/88-5/22/88.
3. Lauren B. Resnick, Katherine J. Nolan, and Daniel P. Resnick, "Benchmarking Educational Standards," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 17 (1995): 438-461.
4. Karen Seashore Lewis and Bert Versloot, High Standards and Cultural Diversity: Cautionary Tales of Comparative Research?A Comment on "Benchmarking Educational Standards," 253-261 and Lauren B. Resnick, Katherine J. Nolan, and Daniel P. Resnick, "Caution Heeded? A Response to 'High Standards and Cultural Diversity,'" Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 18 (1996): 262-264.
5. Tom Lehrer, "Lobachevsky," Too Many Songs by Tom Lehrer (New York: Pantheon, 1981), 28.
Diane Ravitch clearly points out:
The reason that there is so much controversy and pushback now is that the Gates Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education were in a hurry and decided to ignore the nationally and internationally recognized rules for setting standards, and in doing so, sowed suspicion and distrust. Process matters.
According to ANSI, here are the core principles for setting standards:
The U.S. standardization system is based on the following set of globally accepted principles for standards development:
*Transparency Essential information regarding standardization activities is accessible to all interested parties.
* Openness
Participation is open to all affected interests.
Participation is open to all affected interests.
* Impartiality
No one interest
dominates the process or is favored over another.
dominates the process or is favored over another.
* Effectiveness and Relevance
Standards are relevant and effectively respond to regulatory and
market needs, as well as scientific and technological
developments.
market needs, as well as scientific and technological
developments.
* Consensus
Decisions are reached through consensus among those
affected.
Decisions are reached through consensus among those
affected.
* PerformanceBased
Standards are performance based (specifying essential
characteristics rather than detailed designs) where
possible.
Standards are performance based (specifying essential
characteristics rather than detailed designs) where
possible.
* Coherence
The process encourages coherence to avoid overlapping and
conflicting standards.
conflicting standards.
* Due Process
Standards development accords with due process so that
all views are considered and appeals are possible.
* TechnicalAssistance
Standards development accords with due process so that
all views are considered and appeals are possible.
* TechnicalAssistance
Assistance is offered to developing countries in the formulation and application
of standards. In addition, U.S. interests strongly agree that the process should be:
of standards. In addition, U.S. interests strongly agree that the process should be:
* Flexible, allowing the use of different methodologies to meet the needs of different technology and product sectors;
*Timely, so that purely administrative
matters do not result in a failure to meet market expectations;
and
matters do not result in a failure to meet market expectations;
and
* Balanced among
all affected interests.
all affected interests.
Lacking most of these qualities, especially due process, consensus among interested groups, and the right of appeal, the Common Core cannot be considered authoritative, nor should they be considered standards. The process of creating national academic standards should be revised to accord with the essential and necessary procedural requirements of standard-setting as described by the American National Standards Institute. National standards cannot be created ex nihilo without a transparent, open, participatory consensus process that allows for appeal and revision.
United States Standards Strategy
http://www.us-standards-strategy.org
http://www.us-standards-strategy.org
On Aug 6, 2014, at 6:28 PM, John White <louisianabelieves@la.gov> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,One simple truth makes me more optimistic about this school year than any other I can remember: Louisiana's students are just as smart and capable as any in America. When we raise the ceiling of our expectations high, and when we open the door of opportunity, they show us their ambitions and they achieve beyond even what we may have expected.As simple evidence of this, know that in the time since school ended, we have announced that our state's students showed steady progress on Common Core-aligned LEAP, iLEAP, and End of Course tests. Know that 5,200 more seniors scored a college-going ACT scorethan did just two years ago. Know that our state's high school graduation rate increased for a third straight year, to an all-time high. And know that Louisiana has sustained its place as the state making the greatest gains in the nation on Advanced Placement tests (check out the new High School Student Planning Guidebook for a comprehensive view of these and other programs and policies).At every level of our state's school system, we are raising expectations to the highest levels in our nation. Early childhood centers and elementary schools statewide have unified the state's fragmented system of early care and education by adopting common standards for child development and learning. High schools are providing opportunities for students to attain national and statewide career credentials and college credit that qualify students for prosperous jobs and continued education. In all cases, higher expectations for students means opportunity for them to enhance their skills, to compete, and to have the life they want as adults.The Common Core State Standards is no different. Over four years teachers at all levels have transformed public education in our state, taking it new heights. You are setting ambitious goals for student learning based on the standards. You are using curricula and curriculum guidance that prioritize independent thinking. You are measuring learning based on responses to reading, in all subjects, rooted in reasoning and logic.Four thousand Teacher Leaders are showing us the way. Louisiana is a national leader in identifying strong curricula. Nearly 50,000 students took new test questions for a test drive, and nearly 80 percent preferred them over old questions. Our colleges and universities arepreparing teachers to teach to these new expectations. And employers are demanding we continue on.This is good for young people. It is good for our state.It is also the law in our state. Two and a half years ago the Governor signed into law this clear and unambiguous sentence: "Beginning with the 2014-2015 school year, standards-based assessments implemented by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education in English language arts and mathematics shall be based on nationally recognized content standards that represent the knowledge and skills needed for students to successfully transition to postsecondary education and the workplace."As you know, since the last school year ended, there have been a number of attempts to slow progress in Louisiana, and to stop the implementation of higher expectations and the assessments that measure our progress when compared with states around the country. These issues are now in the courts, and in the weeks to come, there will surely be more discussion of these issues in the media.You do not deserve this, and your kids do not deserve this. You deserve clarity. You deserve consistency. You deserve a long-term plan, uninterrupted. You deserve better.But given the situation in which we find ourselves, please know this: raising expectations is the right thing to do. Nationally-recognized standards is the law of our state. And four years of hard work will not be cast aside.The law gives us the direction we need. Whatever testing contract and policy procedure the courts may determine, we are going to teach our students this school year in the way you had planned for them to be taught when you left. And the test questions will be as you assumed they would be: measuring nationally recognized standards, calling for writing, and demanding independent thinking. While the politics may be chaotic, our long-term academic plan, in short, does not change.I will keep you informed as these issues proceed. In the meantime, my gratitude to you for your efforts and for your persistence. Have a great year.As always, thank you for all you do for our children,JohnJohn WhiteLouisiana Department of EducationTwitter @LouisianaSupe
Louisiana Department of Education
Forward this email This email was sent to lpbharley@aol.com by louisianabelieves@la.gov |Update Profile/Email Address | Rapid removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.
Louisiana Department of Education | 1201 N. Third Street | Baton Rouge | LA | 70802
Should a Gubernatorial Candidate Be FOR or AGAINST Common Core?
Louisiana folks know that John Bel Edwards is a Democrat running for Governor against a group of Republican candidates vying for "The Most Conservative" title.
Arguably one of the most important issues currently being debated in this campaign is the adoption, or not, of Common Core Standards.
While the adoption of Common Core Standards did not begin as a political issue (it is and always has been all about the $$money$$), it has been "elevated" to that level by those who would use the issue in hopes it will improve their otherwise same ole same ole "lies and misdemeanors" campaign strategy. Well, in a manner of speaking anyway, because in Louisiana we often have convicted felons, sexual perverts and thieves in elected office or running for elected office. Just read the newspaper any given day.
As for CCSS, candidates are ill advised to "pick a side" on this issue for any number of reasons.
Besides being a very hot topic that sports top level supporters and opponents on BOTH ends of the political spectrum, it is a subject that NONE of the candidates hold expertise in. So rising to the top of the cesspool created by CCSS will only improve your status in that venue!
Candidates will find, and have found, it very difficult to keep their hooves out of their mouths when confronted by the exponentially growing number of parents and teacher opponents who are either trained education professionals or have made it a point to educate themselves to protect their most previous possessions - their children.
And it doesn't matter whether their wallpaper consists of copies of The Constitution or Bob Dylan posters, they are determined that THEIR CHILDREN are not human capital that should be standardized or mesmerized in front of computers where "personalized learning" means the old computer is the new person. These education "experts" in and out of the classroom do not have a vision of education as a global COMPETITION with their children, teachers and schools being labelled as winners or losers! They SIMPLY, yes simply, want for their children what we should all want for EVERY child - a safe, encouraging, supportive environment where they can be introduced to all the world and life have to offer so that when they are ready to make the determination FOR THEMSELVES , they have a foundation to build their futures using their own blueprints.
I compare the last few years of so-called education reform in our state to our history of invasive species brought here usually by do-gooders and sometimes profiteers.
Arguably one of the most important issues currently being debated in this campaign is the adoption, or not, of Common Core Standards.
While the adoption of Common Core Standards did not begin as a political issue (it is and always has been all about the $$money$$), it has been "elevated" to that level by those who would use the issue in hopes it will improve their otherwise same ole same ole "lies and misdemeanors" campaign strategy. Well, in a manner of speaking anyway, because in Louisiana we often have convicted felons, sexual perverts and thieves in elected office or running for elected office. Just read the newspaper any given day.
As for CCSS, candidates are ill advised to "pick a side" on this issue for any number of reasons.
Besides being a very hot topic that sports top level supporters and opponents on BOTH ends of the political spectrum, it is a subject that NONE of the candidates hold expertise in. So rising to the top of the cesspool created by CCSS will only improve your status in that venue!
Candidates will find, and have found, it very difficult to keep their hooves out of their mouths when confronted by the exponentially growing number of parents and teacher opponents who are either trained education professionals or have made it a point to educate themselves to protect their most previous possessions - their children.
And it doesn't matter whether their wallpaper consists of copies of The Constitution or Bob Dylan posters, they are determined that THEIR CHILDREN are not human capital that should be standardized or mesmerized in front of computers where "personalized learning" means the old computer is the new person. These education "experts" in and out of the classroom do not have a vision of education as a global COMPETITION with their children, teachers and schools being labelled as winners or losers! They SIMPLY, yes simply, want for their children what we should all want for EVERY child - a safe, encouraging, supportive environment where they can be introduced to all the world and life have to offer so that when they are ready to make the determination FOR THEMSELVES , they have a foundation to build their futures using their own blueprints.
I compare the last few years of so-called education reform in our state to our history of invasive species brought here usually by do-gooders and sometimes profiteers.
Louisiana has had a long relationship with exotic plants and animals that come from afar and arrive here to thrive in the state's sub-tropical environment.
The poster child for invasive species in the state has long been the nutria, a South American rodent whose taste for wetland vegetation has helped destroy delicate coastal marshes.
Louisiana hosts a long list of other invasives, from feral hogs, Formosan termites, water hyacinth and fire ants to more recent arrivals such as giant apple snails, Asian tiger prawns, tawny crazy ants, giant salvinia and Asian carp.
Here, they don't face predators or environmental conditions that kept them in check, opening the door for sometimes unbridled growth. - See more at: http://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/articles/3033-invasive-animals-plants-threaten-louisiana-habitat#sthash.s9hxLEfF.dpuf
Then of course there is the ever present quest for oil and the debate as to whether mankind can best survive without it or without clean water and a flourishing environment.
Common Core and much of current reform REPRESENTS yet another invasive species brought from afar and it is no surprise that the lead importer, John White, is himself not a native.
Now I consider myself a pretty sophisticated person with a lot of experience and exposure under my belt having lived and attended schools in numerous states and in Europe. I can't be written off as just another supporter of status quo, whatever that represents to you. I can, however, appreciate the uniqueness of the history, culture and people of Louisiana without letting the importance of respecting and preserving those stand in the way of a consistently forward moving and improving system of public education. They should both be able to co-exist in our natural habitat.
I believe John Bel Edwards is the gubernatorial candidate who best represents Louisiana values aligned with progress for our state relative to his views on public education. I know there are other important issues of concern for voters, but I wanted to make clear his position in the education
debate. You will not hear him say he is FOR or AGAINST Common Core because he understands that the success of education in this state or any other is not predicated solely on that set of standards.
Here are John Bel Edwards' own words in that regard:
"In short, I would not adopt new standards that have not been vetted and approved in Louisiana by a group of parents and educators, and I would not choose an assessment until I have the standards in place. We should take 2 or 3 years and get it right. Each and every standard should be reviewed and adopted, modified or rejected based on whether it makes sense, will improve
education and critical thinking, is consistent with Louisiana values, and does not inject inappropriate material by age and grade into the classroom."
Here, they don't face predators or environmental conditions that kept them in check, opening the door for sometimes unbridled growth. - See more at: http://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/articles/3033-invasive-animals-plants-threaten-louisiana-habitat#sthash.s9hxLEfF.dpuf
Then of course there is the ever present quest for oil and the debate as to whether mankind can best survive without it or without clean water and a flourishing environment.
Common Core and much of current reform REPRESENTS yet another invasive species brought from afar and it is no surprise that the lead importer, John White, is himself not a native.
Now I consider myself a pretty sophisticated person with a lot of experience and exposure under my belt having lived and attended schools in numerous states and in Europe. I can't be written off as just another supporter of status quo, whatever that represents to you. I can, however, appreciate the uniqueness of the history, culture and people of Louisiana without letting the importance of respecting and preserving those stand in the way of a consistently forward moving and improving system of public education. They should both be able to co-exist in our natural habitat.
I believe John Bel Edwards is the gubernatorial candidate who best represents Louisiana values aligned with progress for our state relative to his views on public education. I know there are other important issues of concern for voters, but I wanted to make clear his position in the education
debate. You will not hear him say he is FOR or AGAINST Common Core because he understands that the success of education in this state or any other is not predicated solely on that set of standards.
Here are John Bel Edwards' own words in that regard:
"In short, I would not adopt new standards that have not been vetted and approved in Louisiana by a group of parents and educators, and I would not choose an assessment until I have the standards in place. We should take 2 or 3 years and get it right. Each and every standard should be reviewed and adopted, modified or rejected based on whether it makes sense, will improve
education and critical thinking, is consistent with Louisiana values, and does not inject inappropriate material by age and grade into the classroom."
A Peek into Dr. Mercedes Schneider's book, A Chronicle of Echoes
What National Group Is Funding the Pro-Common Core Lawsuit in Louisiana?
A Re-post from Dr. Mercedes Schneider's blog wherein she offers up a peek at a chapter in her new book, A Chronicle of Echoes. Anyone who honestly wants to know about the exploitation of public education needs to read this book, soon to be followed by Dr. Schneider's newest book on Common Core State Standards.I would add here a few notes - Choice Foundation is sparring with KIPP Schools for placement at an RSD school in New Orleans. Both were evidently promised that site over the last several years of juggling and under three Recovery School District Superintendents, Paul Vallas, John White and now Patrick Dobard. They both appeared at the RSD BESE meeting Wednesday night in a show of "friendly" competition but asking for yet another "final" decision to be made. I noted in my testimony that night that it will be interesting to see if this decision will be influenced by the fact that Choice Foundation is a plaintiff in the lawsuit against Gov. Bobby Jindal to which BESE has enjoined! If, in fact, Choice Foundation is "rewarded" with the school, will we see yet another lawsuit by KIPP?
July 31, 2014
On July 29, 2014, the Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) voted 6 to 4 to become plaintiffs in the pro-Common Core (CCSS) lawsuit whose plaintiffs include nine individuals and the charter management company, Choice Foundation. (Click here for Choice Foundation’s home page. However, the information on their schools has not been updated since 2011.)
The group footing the bill for this lawsuit is a well-funded, national “choice” group known as the Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO).
In my July 22, 2014, post on the issue, I mention that I wrote about BAEO in my book, A Chronicle of Echoes, an encyclopedic whistle blower on the exploitation of public education. In Chronicle of Echoes, BAEO shares a chapter with another “pro-choice” group, Parent Revolution.
For those who are considering buying my book– and for those who just would like to know more about the not-so-grass-roots organization that loves charters and vouchers and is ponying up the cash in order to keep CCSS in Louisiana– I would like to offer this opportunity for you to read my chapter on BAEO/Parent Revolution.
BAEO is the group fronting the money for the pro-CCSS Louisiana lawsuit, but go ahead and read also about Parent Revolution.
The experience will be an eye-opener.
Then, once your eyes are opened by way of this single chapter, you might wish to purchase the book (kindle version available here) and read the remaining 23 chapters.
Your “choice.” (Cheesy pun. I know.)
And now, I give you Chapter 20 of A Chronicle of Echoes:
Ch 20 BAEO ParentRev
The group footing the bill for this lawsuit is a well-funded, national “choice” group known as the Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO).
In my July 22, 2014, post on the issue, I mention that I wrote about BAEO in my book, A Chronicle of Echoes, an encyclopedic whistle blower on the exploitation of public education. In Chronicle of Echoes, BAEO shares a chapter with another “pro-choice” group, Parent Revolution.
For those who are considering buying my book– and for those who just would like to know more about the not-so-grass-roots organization that loves charters and vouchers and is ponying up the cash in order to keep CCSS in Louisiana– I would like to offer this opportunity for you to read my chapter on BAEO/Parent Revolution.
BAEO is the group fronting the money for the pro-CCSS Louisiana lawsuit, but go ahead and read also about Parent Revolution.
The experience will be an eye-opener.
Then, once your eyes are opened by way of this single chapter, you might wish to purchase the book (kindle version available here) and read the remaining 23 chapters.
Your “choice.” (Cheesy pun. I know.)
And now, I give you Chapter 20 of A Chronicle of Echoes:
Ch 20 BAEO ParentRev
Where's our Minimum Foundation Program funds, Bobby?
Dr. Marie deYoung:
My columns appear each Sunday in the Eunice News. As a retired Unitarian Universalist minister, I I teach music in rural, high poverty schools because I believe that high quality education is a human right for all Americans. Years ago, I was the first woman UU chaplain to serve in the Army, and the first woman to serve in many units as a combat chaplain. I wrote two books about military life. Over the past fourteen years, I've been interviewed by CNN, NBC, CBS, NPR, C-SPAN and regional programs to discuss government reform, gender issues, affordable housing, public education and other issues that impact our society. . This commentary re-posted: http://inherentworth.blogspot.com/2014/07/skimming-mfp-my-commentary-published-in.html |
Skimming MFP - My commentary published in Eunice News on July 6, 2014 Copyright Jul 2, 2014
Louisiana was in the fast lane of the national super highway called “Education Reform” long before other states discovered their public education systems needed to be modernized. Granted, we were further behind when we started, but, Louisiana was modernizing long before President George W. Bush passed the “No Child Left Behind Act” with strong bi-partisan support in Congress.
But, in the past few years, our progress has been stalled. One major reason for this stall: the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and Governor Bobby Jindal refuse to give the fair share of school tax dollars to local school districts.
By refusing to send the legally required fair share of Minimum Foundation Program school funds to each district, Bobby and BESE are in direct violation of our state constitution.
Our state constitution requires the Louisiana Board of Education to provide resources and funding to every district in the state, using what is called the Minimum Foundation Program to make sure that every classroom teacher can do their job right.
Specifically, Article VIII, Section 13 explains the Minimum Foundation Program funding requirements. You can look it up online and read for yourself.
The most conservative estimates suggest that in 2012-13 alone, Bobby and BESE cheated our schools of $323 PER STUDENT! In that one school year, $200 million was skimmed from funds owed to public schools.
Since 2009, we've had major teacher lay-offs every year when Bobby and BESE starved us of our funds.
I can assure you, every teacher lay-off in our schools is directly correlated with a decline in our school performance scores. But, these days, Bobby and BESE would have you believe that certified teachers don't matter. According to their theories, our kids can learn just as easily by surfing on the internet, supervised by high school graduates without college degrees.
That idea is working so badly that the NCAA listed several of Louisiana's online schools as ineligible for placement in college athletics. Bobby Jindal's highly touted K-12, Inc. is high on the list of ineligible online schools, but that's a story for another day.
Research has shown time and again that staffing our classrooms with certified teachers is a very strong predictor of student success.
But, just when school performance scoring rules got tougher, Bobby and BESE skimmed our Minimum Foundation Program funds. Our class sizes ballooned making it difficult to give our poorly performing students the support they need. Our school scores went down.
At $323 per kid, Bobby and BESE owe ¾ of a million dollars to Eunice schools for just ONE YEAR.
We could have 15 more licensed teachers in Eunice public school classrooms to coach our kids in math, reading, science, and social studies if Bobby and BESE did their constitutional jobs.
They took our children's classroom money and spent it elsewhere.
Where did the money go? To fund profit-making Charter School Management Companies, vouchers to private schools that have been rated as below standard, to set up “on-line” schools that take exorbitant fees from the state with failure rates that would put our neighborhood schools out of business.
Why are we not fussing to high heavens about this?
Probably, because most of us did not know that the Louisiana Board of Education and Governor Bobby Jindal were siphoning off our school district Minimum Foundation Program funds to pay for programs that are NOT constitutionally valid.
Bobby and BESE's spending choices ARE NOT constitutionally valid. Our state courts are saying so every time another lawsuit challenging the legality of Bobby and BESE's financial shenanigans hit their court dockets.
Our school boards did not know how to fight these constitutional violations at first. But finally, school districts across the state filed a lawsuit to get our fair share of our tax dollars returned to our schools.
Local school boards are finally leaning on Louisiana's Constitution to force Bobby and BESE to get their act together to properly fund our schools.
We will win this fight. We need your help, though. We need you to contact your BESE board member and Governor Bobby Jindal. We need you to tell these politicians that they owe us at least $323 more per student per year if they want to claim they are true Louisiana patriots.
Whenever you hear Bobby claim his adherence to constitutional principles, it is very important for all of us to respond with one voice: Where's our Minimum Foundation Program funds, Bobby?
You believe in upholding our Louisiana Constitution? Show us the
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)