Common Core: The More You Know, The Less You Like

An interesting thing is happening.  The more Americans learn about Common Core, the less they like it (see here, here and here).  At this rate, it won't be that long before Common Core is in the dustbin of history (you can read my prediction for the Common Core here).  Unfortunately, in the meantime, it will do untold damage to our children's futures.

Two States Leave the Common Core

Recently, the legislature of Oklahoma voted by overwhelming majorities to end Common Core in Oklahoma (see here), and Governor Mary Fallin signed the bill into law (see here), thus removing Oklahoma from the Common Core.  Governor Fallin, by the way, is the current head of the National Governors Association (the purported force behind the Common Core).

Also, Governor Nikki Haley recently signed a bill to remove South Carolina from the Common Core (see here).

States Looking to Delay or Withdraw from PARCC Assessments

Recently, policy makers in a number of states (Colorado, Louisiana, and Tennessee) have given some indications that they are looking to delay or withdraw from the PARCC assessments, one of the standardized tests that was developed for the Common Core State Standards. 

Teacher Quits Over Common Core

A Colorado high school English teacher named Pauline Hawkins recently resigned due to the Common Core.  You can read about it here and here.  Read the full resignation letter here.  She is probably not the first and certainly won't be the last.

The First State to Withdraw from the Common Core: Indiana!!!

With the stroke of his pen, Governor Mike Pence recently signed a law withdrawing Indiana from the Common Core (see news coverage here, here, and here).  Will this open the floodgates for more states to withdraw from the Common Core and lead to an end to this attempt at national educational standards?  Those of us who oppose a top-down, command-and-control model of education can only hope.  It can also be said that this and other possible future withdrawals from the Common Core do not go far enough.  Ultimately, responsibility for education should be in the hands of a child's parents, not a government bureaucrat (whether at the state or federal level).

Opposition to Common Core Goes Way Back . . . to 1926!!!

I stumbled upon this gem.  It is the Congressional testimony of Dr. J. Gresham Machen of the Princeton Theological Seminary with regard to the proposed creation of a federal Department of Education.  This testimony was given way back in 1926, but some of his statements could very easily apply to today's Common Core State Standards.  (Interestingly, a cabinet-level Department of Education was not created until 1979.)

If you don't have the patience to read the entire testimony (which you should), I have extracted some highlights below:

"The department of education, according to that bill, is to promote uniformity in education. That uniformity in education under central control it seems to me is the worst fate into which any country can fall. That purpose I think is implicit also in the other form of the bill, and it is because that is the very purpose of the bill that I am opposed to it." (emphasis added)

"It is perfectly clear of course, that if any such principle of Federal aid in education is established, the individual liberty of the States is gone, because I think we can lay it down as a general rule, with which everyone who has examined the course of education recently will agree, that money given for education, no matter what people say, always has a string tied to it. That appears in gifts of money by private foundations, and it appears far more, of course, when the gift comes from the Federal Government, which has already been encroaching to such an extent upon the powers of the States. But this bill establishing a Federal department of education, which has in it the principle of Federal aid, is a step and a very decisive step in exactly the same direction, and it is for that reason that we think it is to be opposed." (emphasis added)

"It is to be opposed, we think, because it represents a tendency which is no new thing, but has been in the world for at least 2,300 years, which seems to be opposed to the whole principle of liberty for which our country stands. It is the notion that education is an affair essentially of the State; that the children of the State must be educated for the benefit of the State; that idiosyncrasies should be avoided, and the State should devise that method of education which will best promote the welfare of the State." (emphasis added)

"The principle of this bill, and the principle of all the advocates of it, is that standardization in education is a good thing. I do not think a person can read the literature of advocates of measures of this sort without seeing that that is taken almost without argument as a matter of course, that standardization in education is a good thing. Now, I am perfectly ready to admit that standardization in some spheres is a good thing. It is a good thing in the making of Ford cars; but just because it is a good thing in the making of Ford cars it is a bad thing in the making of human beings, for the reason that a Ford car is a machine and a human being is a person. But a great many educators today deny the distinction between the two, and that is the gist of the whole matter." (emphasis added)

"I do not believe that the personal, free, individual character of education can be preserved when you have a Federal department laying down standards of education which become more or less mandatory to the whole country." (emphasis added)

"I believe that in the sphere of the mind we should have absolutely unlimited competition."

Is Common Core the Best Homeschool Sales Pitch Ever?

Here is a link to an article from the Stop Common Core Illinois website.

Catholic Scholars Come Out In Opposition to Common Core

Whether or not you are Catholic, if you are concerned about your child's education and the changes mandated by Illinois' adoption of the Common Core, you should read this letter.  These scholars are, of course, writing in order to persuade Catholic bishops not to adopt Common Core for Catholic schools in their dioceses, but many of the points they make about Common Core are equally valid arguments for why parents, educators and politicians in Illinois (and elsewhere) should reject the Common Core.

The debate over Common Core is not over.  In fact, it is just beginning.

Perhaps John Kass Should Write an Article About the Common Core

So, I saw this article written by John Kass of the Chicago Tribune in the paper this weekend.  This article is, of course, about ObamaCare, but a similar article could easily be written about the Common Core State Standards.  Perhaps not yet, since ObamaCare is blowing up in Americans' faces in a very quick and obvious manner, and it may take years for the damage done by the Common Core to be recognized for what it is.  In the not too distant future, however, I fully expect to see similar articles about the Common Core when that grand design crumbles.

My Prediction for Common Core

Anyone that has read my blog recently knows that I am not a proponent of the Common Core State Standards (the "Common Core").  My reason for opposing the Common Core is that I do not believe that they will be positive for education.  In fact, I believe that they will be a dismal failure, a straight-jacket that will drag most children down.

I predict that in the coming years, more and more people will realize that the Common Core represents the latest in a long line of failures of the education establishment (remember when No Child Left Behind was touted as the "end all/be all" of education).  Unfortunately, the failure of the Common Core may perhaps be counted as the worst due to it being implemented on such a wide scale (at least No Child Left Behind did not dictate one national set of standards).  We have essentially created a nation of educational guinea pigs and shackled them to an untested and unchangeable set of standards.

We have abandoned the model of judging and implementing educational change on a local level in favor of judging and implementing on a national level.  One huge problem with that is that when we make mistakes (and we are bound to make mistakes since we are still human after all), the mistakes are made on a national level and the harm will be felt on a national level.  Another huge problem with that is that we (or at least some of us) have decided to stop judging whether something is good or bad for our children's education ("It doesn't matter whether I think it's good for the children or not, we have to implement it.").

We have also abandoned the notion that all children are unique.  We have adopted a one size fits all solution for a one size fits very few issue.  Common Core is the "Model T" solution to education (Henry Ford, when producing the Model T in the early 1900s, is reputed to have said "You can have a Model T in any color you want as long as it's black.").  In a world where almost everything is customized to the particular needs of the end user, we are telling children they can have any type of education they and their parents want as long as it's Common Core.  We no longer see each child as a unique human being whose education should uniquely fit their needs.  Rather, we see children as a collective entity whose education must follow the Common Core (while we all mutter the mantra "Common Core, Common Core, we must serve the Common Core"), their needs be damned.

We have adopted a model of education that is based on unmitigated hubris: the notions that (1) a few educational elites could possibly determine the one right set of standards for the education of millions of children that they have never met and will never meet; (2) this new and untested set of standards is superior to any and all standards that came before it or (since there is no provision for changing the standards) after it; (3) that no one who wasn't involved in the promulgation of the Common Core has a superior idea about the education of even one of the children in the states that adopted it; and (4) (perhaps the worst) that regardless of whether it works for a particular child or children, it must be implemented and followed (besides, who are you to judge, see (1) above).

I hope for the sake of the millions of children who are being and will be subjected to the Common Core that I am wrong.  But, the limits of human intelligence being what they are and the dismal track record of the education establishment being what it is, I fear that I am correct in my assessment of the Common Core.

How Not to Roll Out a Change in Curriculum

The manner in which Minooka CCSD 201 rolled out the new Go Math "pilot" program could be easily labeled "how not to roll out a change in curriculum."  First, the pilot program was first mentioned to the school board in May of last year (the end of the last school year).  The rush to implement the Go Math pilot was due to the anticipated arrival of the new PARCC test in 2014 (see here for more information).  This, of course, meant that parents were given no warning that the math curriculum in many of the classrooms would be different from what they were expecting it to be.  It also meant that teachers were given no advance training prior to the start of the new school year.  Okay, maybe they had one or two days of teacher institute days to get up to speed.  As a result, teachers were learning how to teach the new curriculum at the same time that they were expected to be teaching students.  Second, only after it became clear that there were issues with the new curriculum did the district send out a letter to parents notifying them of "Parent Curriculum Information Meetings" to inform them about the new curriculum.  The schedule of meetings, by the way, is as follows:

October 2nd - Aux Sable Elementary School 5:30-7:00PM (already held)

November 13th - Minooka Intermediate School 9:00-10:30AM

December 4th - Walnut Trails Elementary School 9:00-10:30AM

January 15th - Minooka Junior High School 5:30-7:00PM

February 6th - Jones Elementary School 5:30-7:00PM

March 19th - Minooka Elementary School 9:00-10:30AM

You are free to go to any of these curriculum meetings.  You do not have to wait until a meeting is held at your child's school.

Now if you are a parent and decide to go to one of these meetings be prepared to hear the following (or something like it):

1.  "There were similar outcries from parents and teachers when Saxon Math was adopted a decade ago."  This may be true.  I don't know, since I wasn't there.  But that doesn't mean that the current complaints are any less valid.  Each curriculum should be judged on its own merits.

2.   "Go Math is research-based."  This one I love.  You hear the term "research-based" thrown around quite often when you talk to school administrators.  Very rarely, if ever, do they back up that statement by citing any research.  The statement insinuates, of course, that Saxon Math (or the alternative to whatever it is that they are promoting at the time) is not "research-based."  So, what should be the relevant decision criteria when choosing a math curriculum?  Whether it is supposedly "research-based" or whether it has a proven track record of inculcating a thorough understanding of mathematics and teaching children efficient methods of solving mathematical problems?

3. The high ISAT scores that Minooka CCSD 201 students achieved during the years of being taught with Saxon Math were "phantom scores" or "inflated scores."  It is funny that this was never mentioned before.  So, either this is true and the administration has been touting "phony" scores all these years, or this is false and is a less than honest shot at Saxon Math.  Either way, it is problematic.  So, in the future when the administration touts the scores that students achieve on standardized tests (or any test for that matter), we will have to wonder if the scores mean anything or will we be told at some future date that they were "phantom" scores all along.

Now, I am not at all under the misconception that Saxon Math is perfect (no curriculum is).  What I have an issue with is choosing a mathematics curriculum because of a new standardized test (rather than the quality of the math education that it provides) and rolling it out without proper preparation.

The First Casualty of the Common Core: Math

Perhaps you have heard that Minooka 201 is piloting a new math curriculum in elementary school.  The name of the new curriculum is Go Math.  The curriculum that Minooka 201 had been using exclusively in the elementary grades up to this year was Saxon Math.  Now, some classes are using Go Math and the other classes are using Saxon Math.

Why the change?  Was Saxon Math not a good curriculum?  Were the children not doing well in math?  Actually, the children were doing very well in math.  I am not one to base my decisions on standardized test scores, but math is one subject where test scores are useful since mathematics deals with objectively right or wrong answers.  Based on the test scores, Minooka elementary students were performing very well.  Our scores in math were consistently in the high 80s and 90s.

No, the reason for the change was the new Common Core State Standards.  Go Math, the administration was told, was aligned with the Common Core.  Saxon Math was "not quite aligned."  Therefore, Saxon Math would have to go.  Never mind that students were seemingly doing very well in math.  Never mind that Saxon Math actually utilizes a "spiraling" methodology where skills are built up step by step and previously introduced skills are constantly reviewed.

So how is the pilot of Go Math going?  Well, from purely anecdotal evidence, it is a slow motion car wreck.  And, perhaps, that is no accident, since the only mathmetician on the validating committee for the Common Core State Standards, Professor James Milgram of Stanford University, refused to sign-off on the math standards of the Common Core and has since publicly opposed implementation of the standards (see here, and here).  In addition, the District administration rushed into their decision to pilot Go Math at the end of the last school year without adequate preparation or training for the teachers, thus compounding the problems.

If your children were doing well in math, perhaps even enjoying math, and are now doing poorly in math, perhaps even hating math, it may be due to the Go Math pilot and the new Common Core State Standards.  And, if you are of a mind to complain about the Go Math pilot and/or the way in which it was implemented, approaching your child's teacher is of limited value since the teachers have no authority to change curriculum.  Any complaints should be directed to the Assistant Superintendent (for curriculum), the Superintendent and/or the school board.

Common Core Standards: Fact vs. Myth (vs. Propaganda) . . . Part III

I thought I would share a recent article by another critic of the Common Core State Standards.  The article is entitled "The Biggest Fallacy of the Common Core Standards."

Common Core Standards: Fact vs. Myth (vs. Propaganda) . . . Part II

In a previous post (see here), I talked about the Common Core State Standards and the propaganda machine at the Illinois State Board of Education.  Well, it seems that the propaganda machine has shifted into high gear as schools throughout Illinois begin to implement the new curriculum.  They have come up with approved information releases and even suggested "tweets" for administrators and teachers to send out to parents and others in order to influence them into accepting the new curriculum (see here, here, here, here, and here).

Let's examine just one of the elements of propaganda in this post.  One oft repeated element of propaganda regarding the Common Core is that it is not a national curriculum and is not being imposed upon the states by the federal government.  There are two parts to this.  First, there is the issue of a national curriculum.  It is very difficult to argue that the Common Core does not represent a national curriculum.  Now it is true that not all of the states have signed on to implement the Common Core (forty-four states and the District of Columbia have signed on to implement the Common Core), but it might as well be the entire nation.  Second, there is the issue of Common Core being imposed by the federal government.  No, there is no federal law requiring the states to implement the Common Core.  The federal government has, however, tied the grant of certain education dollars to the implementation of the Common Core (including the testing and data gathering that goes with it).  So, rather than using a stick, the federal government is using a carrot, in much the same way that the federal government in the 1980s used the carrot of withholding highway funding unless the states increased their drinking ages to 21.  And, guess what . . . all the states raised their drinking ages to 21 since they could not maintain the highways without federal money.  Likewise, it is easy to see why the vast majority of states signed on to implement the Common Core.

Why is this an issue?  Why does the Illinois State Board of Education (and others) so often stress that this is not a national curriculum imposed by the federal government?  Well, perhaps it is because a national curriculum would violate current federal law (see this report).  Or, perhaps it is because parents and others are justifiably wary of a national curriculum imposed by the federal government.

Our children are much more likely to need to be continuous learners than previous generations.  The pace of technological change and innovation has increased throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty-first century.  A rigid, top-down model (whether imposed by a consortium of states or the federal government) is exactly what is NOT needed in the face of this type of world (if indeed it was ever needed).  A flexible, bottom-up model (where freedom and innovation are valued and each child is treated as an individual rather than a widget) is what is needed.  The Common Core State Standards will shackle the vast majority of primary and secondary students in the United States to a rigid set of standards which are bound to fail to provide a quality education.  And, when it begins to become clear to a great many people that the Common Core State Standards are failing our children, it will take a great deal of time and political will to remove them due to their being imposed on a statewide and almost national basis.

Common Core Standards: Fact vs. Myth (vs. Propaganda)

As you may or may not be aware, Minooka CCSD 201 (along with every other public elementary or secondary school in Illinois and forty-four other states) will be changing its curriculum to align with something called the "Common Core standards."  You can read about the Common Core State Standards Initiative at their website.

I could go on for pages about the problems with the Common Core standards: how they mark the end of local control over what children are taught in public schools, how it is a remarkable display of hubris to think that somehow a handful of people can dictate educational standards to a multitude as if no one in the multitude might have any good ideas about educational standards, how they are a misguided top-down effort at management that won't work any better than the top-down management of "command and control" economies such as the old Soviet Union, or how they will become a straight-jacket to experimentation and ingenuity much like the once-vaunted No Child Left Behind.  (Others have also pointed out problems with the Common Core, which may or may not be the ones I have pointed out.  See here and here.)

Well, it appears that there are more than a few people (other than myself) who are not too excited about Illinois signing on to implement the Common Core standards.  So much so that the Illinois State Superintendent Christopher Koch included the following in his weekly message:  "I know some of you are receiving pushback (sic) on the Common Core standards that we are implementing in Illinois. The criticism is based on a misguided perception that the Common Core is an attempt by the federal government to take over education. We've put together a couple of documents you may access at [link].  Among the documents are responses to several questions that seem to be at the root of a coordinated campaign as well as a general overview of the Common Core based on facts."  If you click the link above (which I recommend), you are treated to something that purports to be the "Facts vs Myth" of the Common Core standards.  Now, it becomes clear to me early on that what purports to be the "Facts vs Myth" is really nothing more than a "coordinated campaign" of propaganda.  You can usually spot propaganda by the use of very general language that no one in their right mind would disagree with.  For example, we are told in "Facts vs Myth" that "Common Core Standards are benchmarks developed by teachers, administrators and other education experts through a national consortium."  Well, who could argue with that?  Everyone agrees that we need "benchmarks" in education.  But, wait.  I thought that one of the hallmarks of the American public education system was local control.  The Illinois School Code even states that one of the primary duties of the local school board is to approve the curriculum.  I guess voters at the local level don't get to decide that anymore.  In another sentence, we are told that the Common Core standards "aim to bring more consistency and uniformity . . . from one state to another . . . ."  Again, who could argue with "consistency and uniformity?"  Where is the problem there?  I sure hope they don't get the Common Core standards wrong, otherwise the educational system of virtually the entire nation will have standards that are consistently and uniformly wrong.

I have merely scratched the surface in terms of picking apart "Facts vs Myth" for the monumental exercise in propaganda that it represents.  Be sure to read through it, but don't take it at face value.  Someone is trying to sell you a "bill of goods."

Another question that this raises is, whether the local voters get any input into these Common Core standards?  According to "Facts vs Myth," "Illinoisans had the opportunity to provide feedback on the Common Core State Standards during two public comment periods."  So, now that those two comment periods are over, we no longer get a say in the matter.  Oh, and don't give us any "push back," or we'll come out with another "Facts vs Myths" website to convince you that we are right and you, the voter, don't get to speak to us about this anymore.

Common Core Standards: The Debate

As you may or may not be aware, Minooka CCSD 201 (along with every other public elementary or secondary school in Illinois and forty-four other states) will be changing its curriculum to align with something called the "Common Core standards."  You can read about the Common Core State Standards Initiative at their website.

 Along with the Common Core standards, there will be a new standardized test to replace the ISAT.  The new test is called the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) test.  You can read about the PARCC test at their website.

Well, not everyone seems to be excited about the new standards or the new test.  You can read about opposition to the Common Core standards and the PARCC test at the following websites:  Stop Common Core Illinois, Hoosiers Against Common Core, Ohioans Against Common Core, and Empowered Georgia Action (and many more).

Regardless of what you think about the Common Core standards and the PARCC test, you can be sure that the Common Core standards and the PARCC test mark the end of local control over curriculum.