My friends at Grumpy Opinions are some of the best, if not the best, education bloggers on the web. Grumpy has been warning about Obama’s “signature education initiative” known as Common Core State Standards. I have two Â important articles I am posting today. Find the second one here. As an introduction to both articles, I’m using a brief explanation of Common Core Standards by Doug Lasken, a 25 year veteran of teaching in Los Angeles (note toward the end of the article is a request that you send specific research cited herein to your local school boards, superintendents, state educational agencies, educational reform groups governors and state legislators.
[What are Common Core Standards?]Â The Common Core standards are national academic standards that will replace the often shoddy and substandard standards (if thatâ€™s not an oxymoron) of the 45 states and District of Columbia that have approved adoption. As someone who consulted for the Fordham and Pioneer Institutes on assessing the statesâ€™ English Language Arts standards in the run-up to Common Core, I can attest that many states have abominable ELA standards in which, often, a functionally illiterate student can be certified proficient in reading. Ironically, one of the causes of such shoddy state standards is the federal governmentâ€™s last major attempt at reform, the Bush-era No Child Left Behind initiative, which enacted harsh penalties for states whose students do not test proficient in reading and math. The bar was set impossibly high, culminating in the Lake Wobegon-esque requirement thatÂ allÂ children test proficient in reading and math by 2014. It should be no surprise that many states reacted to this unrealistic demand by degrading their standards to the point that the definition of â€œproficiencyâ€ would be low enough to escape the Department of Educationâ€™s ideological fervor. Read the entire article here.
Debunking the Common Core “The Emperor’s New Clothes” Narrative
The Bell News by Gretchen Logue, January 7, 2012
(Posted in full with permission)
Should Common Core State Standards be considered an educational version of the story â€œThe Emperorâ€™s New Clothesâ€?Â The standards are the promise ofÂ new clothes for education but is there basis for believing there are any clothes at all?Â FromÂ Wikipedia:
â€œThe Emperorâ€™s New Clothesâ€ (Danish:Â Kejserens nye KlÃ¦der) is a short tale byHans Christian AndersenÂ about two weavers who promise anÂ EmperorÂ a new suit of clothes that is invisible to those unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent. When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new clothes, a child cries out, â€œBut he isnâ€™t wearing anything at all!â€ The tale has been translated into over a hundred languages.
Christopher H. Tienken, Editor of AAASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice provided commentary in the Winter 2011 publication entitledÂ Common Core State Standards: An Example of Data-less Decision Making.
His research may just expose the standards to be unfit and fallacy to those who are critical thinkers asking for data determining their stated validity.Â This article should be studied by educators, politicians, taxpayers, to understand the colossal farce Common Core standards are in terms of providing promises of educational improvement for American students as they areÂ unproven and untested.
Tienken writesÂ the standards have not been validated empirically and no metric has been set to monitor the intended and unintended consequences they will have on the education system and children (Mathis, 2010).Â Â So why would governors and private trade organizations spend millions of taxpayer dollars on theories instead of verifiable researched data?Â The CCSS proponents have bought into these two arguments:
- Americaâ€™s children are â€œlaggingâ€ behind international peers in terms of academic achievement, and
- the economic vibrancy and future of the United States relies upon American students outranking their global peers on international tests of academic achievement because of the mythical relationship between ranks on those tests and a countryâ€™s economic competitiveness.
Whereâ€™s the data supporting the CCSS proponentsâ€™Â arguments?Â There isnâ€™t much put forth by the education reformers.Â So why are states and school districts implementing unproven and untested theories?Â He defines the acceptance/lack of data for the unproven and untested CCSS assessments and implementation allegedly designed to enable students to become â€œglobally competitiveâ€ with such sentences/phrases as:
â— An unbelievable suspension of logic and evidence
â— To believe that economic strength of the United States relies on how students rank on the Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) or the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), rather than reliance on policy (tax, trade, health, labor, finance, monetary, housing, natural resources policy)â€¦â€is like believing in the tooth fairyâ€
â— The â€œcritical skills necessary to compete in the 21stÂ centuryâ€ are repackaged 19thÂ century ideas and skillsâ€¦they areÂ â€œinert, sterile, socially staticâ€â€¦the CCSS are stuck in a curricular time machine set in 185
â— Connecting an individualâ€™s education achievement on a standardized test to a nationâ€™s economic future is not empirically or logically acceptable and using that mythical connection for large-scale policymaking isÂ civically recklessâ€¦when school administrators implement programs and policies built on those faulty arguments, they commitÂ education malpractic
â— More countries with national standards underperformed the USÂ than did countries without national standards
â— To think that every student in this country should be made to learn the same thing is illogicalâ€”it lacks face validityâ€¦we should have learned from the Soviet Union that central planning does not work in the long-run
â— Standardization and testing are so entrenched in Singapore that every attempt to diversity the system has failed,Â leaving Singapore a country that has high test scores but no creativity
â— (CCSS) creates a standardizing apparatusâ€¦we should respect differences among children, not try to extinguish themâ€¦there is a lot more going on here on the societal level than meets the eyeâ€¦itâ€™s more complex than the creators and vendors of the standards either understand or wish to present
â— Children have a right to a quality education.Â School leaders, those who prepare them, and the people who lead our professional organizations have a duty to help provide the qualityâ€¦if some education leaders choose to drink the snake oil then they should expect to get sick.Â If some help sell it, they should resign.
He backs up his findings with 48 independent referenced sources.Â It is worth your time to read his commentary that destroys the CCSS proponentsâ€™ arguments with methodical precision based on actual data.Â Compare/contrast his research/reference with the data CCSSO and the NGA use:
Many school districts or schools have â€œdata committeesâ€ that make school-widedecisions based on some type of data. Surely there must be quality data available publically to support the use of the CCSS to transform, standardize, centralize and essentially delocalize Americaâ€™s public education system.Â The official website for the CCSS claims to provide such evidence. The site alleges that the standards are â€œevidence basedâ€ and lists two homegrown documents to â€œproveâ€ it:Â Myths vs FactsÂ (NGA, 2010) and theÂ Joint InternationalÂ Benchmarking ReportÂ (NGA, 2008).
Â TheÂ MythsÂ document presents claims that the standards have â€œmade use of a large and growing body of knowledgeâ€ (p. 3).Â Knowledge derives in part from carefully controlled scientific experiments and observations so one would expect to find references to high quality empirical research to support the standards.
When I reviewed that â€œlarge and growing body of knowledgeâ€ offered by the NGA, I found that it was not large, and in fact built mostly on one report,Â Benchmarking for Success, created by the NGA and the CCSSO, the same groups that created these standards; Hardly independent research.
TheÂ BenchmarkingÂ report has over 135 end notes, some of which are repetitive references. Only four of the cited pieces of evidence could be considered empirical studies related directly to the topic of national standards and student achievement.
The remaining citations were newspaper stories, armchair magazine articles, op-ed pieces, book chapters, notes from telephone interviews, and several tangential studies.
Many of the citations were linked to a small group of standardization advocates and did not represent the larger body of empirical thought on the topicâ€.
Tienkenâ€™s report needs to be sent to school boards, superintendents, state educational agencies, educational reform groups, governors and state legislators for their response to his research and conclusions. Â These private and/or public entities need to asked why they support common core standards and provide the data to back up their beliefs and use of the standards. Â If you get shocked faces and declarations from these groups/politicians such as â€œI do whatever _________ tells me toâ€ (fill in the blank: state agency, federal government, governor, etc), you know the right to direct your schoolâ€™s educational direction is in dire jeopardy.
Tienken writesÂ those who perpetuate bad ideas based on flawed data are practicing poor leadership. Â If some school leaders and their organizations do not want to stand up for children then they should stand down and let those who are will assume the leadership reins.
How do you believe these organizations/politicians will respond (if they do) to Tienkenâ€™s research?Â Tienken welcomed rebuttal on his 2011 commentary:
â€œI welcome your rebuttals but please remember: Leave the opinions and ideology behind and bring the evidenceâ€.Â
Do the CCSS proponents have anything other than opinions and ideology? Â This commentary was published in Winter 2011.Â I havenâ€™t seen any data backing up CCSS proponentsâ€™ assertions, have you? Â Thatâ€™s odd as they state CCSS is data driven.Â Â If they insist CCSS should be data driven, shouldnâ€™t the foundational theory of their reforms consist of verifiable data to determine the veracity of their argument?
***************************************************************************************************Â Dr. Tienkenâ€™sÂ academic profile:
Christopher Tienken, Ed.D. is an assistant professor of Education Administration at Seton Hall University. He has public school administration experience as a PK-12 assistant superintendent, middle school principal, and elementary school assistant principal. He began his career in education as an elementary school teacher. Dr Tienkenâ€™s research interests include the effect and influence of professional development on teacher practice and student achievement, the construct validity of high-stakes standardized tests as decision-making tools about student achievement and school effectiveness, and curricular interventions used in schools to improve achievement. His research about the effects of professional development on student achievement has been recognized by the Institute of Education Sciences and the National Staff Development Council awarded him the Best Research Award in 2008.
For more articles on CCSS and Dr. Tienkenâ€™s reports visit: