Common Core Part 6

Intrusive Monitoring Devices and Common Core

          I have decided to take a short tangent from my traversal of the old Arizona standards versus the new Common Core standards for English Language Arts to address a particularly troubling concept that I have seen addressed in every speech against Common Core that I have heard.  This has to do with the a large assortment of intrusive monitoring devices that are supposedly related to Common Core.  Claims I have heard range from iris scans on buses to brain wave readers on students to assess engagement to a pressure-sensitive computer mouse to gauge a student's pulse.  So I have decided to address these concerns at this time.
          Before I even get to the facts and my own opinions, I would like to lay some groundwork for this particular post.  I have heard vitriolic accusations from both sides of the aisle on this topic.  I have heard (and more often seen posted) name calling, aspersions about individuals' intelligence (or lack thereof) and a wide variety of other unproductive word vomit.  This post will contain none of those things.  This is about finding the facts and coming to personal conclusions based on those facts.  People who are passionate about educating the children of this country need to stop beating each other up, start listening to one another, and work together to improve public education.  Okay, enough with the soap box.  On to the facts ...

The Facts:

• Common Core is a set of academic standards for English Language Arts and Math.  This means it is a list of things students should know and be able to do at the end of each grade.  It is NOT a list of text books that should be used, instructions on how teachers should teach, or even a list of data that should be collected.
• Race to the Top and NCLB/ESEA Waivers (see posts 1 and 2) both included longitudinal data systems in their requirements.  However, this is a separate requirement from Common Core.
• Wikipedia defines a longitudinal data system as a "data system capable of tracking student information over multiple years in multiple schools." 
• Arizona received two grants from the federal government to develop a longitudinal data system.  These grants were received in 2007 and 2012.  The first grant was received long before the adoption of Common Core.
• According to ADE's (Arizona Department of Education) website the system is designed to provide "longitudinal student achievement, absences, enrollment, and withdrawal data at both the district and school levels compared to the state results. Teacher dashboards help teachers know more about their students to support classroom decisions and provides student-level details on AIMS, AZELLA, and ACT results." 
• In a draft form of a report written by the US Department of Education's Office of Educational Technology, entitled Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success in the 21st Century, the authors discuss a method that has been used in an online tutoring system entitled Wayang Outpost.  This system uses a facial expression camera, a posture analysis seat, a pressure mouse, and a wireless skin conductance sensor to measure physiological responses during learning session.
• The methods used by Wayang Outpost are referred to in the report as being both impractical for classroom use and overly intrusive.  Other methods listed in the report, such as programs that monitor (based on time on task, use of hints and helps, and other such methods that help computer programs personalize instructions) are recommended for additional research and potential use.
• Common Core is listed twice in the document.  In both cases, it mentions the math standards which state that students must "Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them."  The authors purport that the inclusion of perseverance in the mathematics standards are an indication that professionals in the education sector recognize the need for one of the title attributes (perseverance) if students are to be successful. 
• The document lists high standards as a necessity for teaching grit, tenacity and perseverance, but also includes excess content standards as a barrier to teachers having time to teach these qualities.  It is unclear whether the report is more complementary or negative toward high standards (and by inference Common Core).
• A school district in Florida recently installed iris scanners on buses in an effort to enhance security.  Parents were not properly notified or given the opportunity to opt out before the pilot program began.  The local school board has since admitted and apologized for their mistake and put the program on hold.  This program was locally instituted by a local school board in an effort to enhance security.  The program had no relation to Common Core.

My Opinion:

          Data collection is a very touchy topic, especially with the recent federal abuses of some of that data.  Parents want to know their children's data is secure and not being used with nefarious intentions.  When children make mistakes (either academically or behaviorally), we want a system that can forgive and allow our children to move forward without those mistakes being an eternal weight to their progress.  But at the same time, we want individualized education.  We want our children challenged enough to reach their potential without overburdening them with problems that are beyond their present abilities.  We want problems (academic and behavior) detected early and appropriate interventions applied when necessary.  We certainly don't want them slipping through the cracks.  But all of these things require the use of data.
          Teachers cannot, through their own observations, provide all of these things for all of the students they teach.  And with all of the additional responsibilities that have been foisted onto them in recent years, they need systems that can analyze student data and help them respond in a timely manner.  I watched with amazement a few years ago as I observed a teacher utilizing a Smart Board.  The teacher had just finished teaching a concept and put a question on the board.  Students had "clickers" in their hands.  They selected the answers they thought were correct.  The teacher looked at the results as they came in and modified her teaching speed based on those answers.  She knew immediately which students were struggling and was able to give them extra help later in the class when students were working on assignments.  This kind of data use is incredibly powerful.
          Likewise, tracking students from school to school is vital to student success.  If a student is struggling with reading and transfers schools, the receiving school needs to begin supports or interventions immediately.  If they wait for a quarter to pass so that grades are available at the new school, they have lost valuable time to help that student.  Or if a student has had behavior problems, a receiving school may be able to put a behavior plan in place or establish clear boundaries, expectations, and supports to prevent similar problems.  If a student is changing schools because he has been bullied, the receiving school can use that information to alert teachers and playground aides or hall monitors to be on the lookout if they need to step in and prevent problems.  This information can also be provided by parents, but sometimes that doesn't happen.
          Aggregate data is also important to improving teaching and learning.  Aggregate data is data that lists information for groups of students but lacks individually identifying data.  What percent of students in a district or a school receive free or reduced lunch?  What percent of fourth grades meet or exceed the state's math standards?  What percent of English Language Learners (non-native English speakers) gain English proficiency in a given time span.  This kind of data can help educators determine which policies and procedures are working and which need to be reconsidered.  Aggregate data should not be the only determining factor in such decisions, but it is one valuable piece to the puzzle.
          Aggregate data is the only kind of data transferred to the federal government.  I know of no proposals to change this policy.  The federal government asks for averages and percentages.  They do not ask for individual student data.  (FERPA laws have recently been altered and I plan to research the changes for my next post.)
          The intrusive data monitoring devices referred to in the report Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success in the 21st Century have nothing to do with Common Core, are not endorsed nor recommended by the US Department of Education, and would have to be selected by local school boards in order to be used in classrooms.  Maybe there is some wayward district out there considering the use of such devices.  The iris scan fiasco in Florida certainly proves that some school boards make unfortunate decisions without thoroughly considering the consequences of their actions.  If this is the case with your school board, stand up, complain, get involved, and get the instigators voted out of office.  This is a local decision (as it should be).
          In conclusion, I am not sure how data collection became such an integral part of the anti-Common Core movement.  The strings that tie their mention to Common Core are tenuous at best (or worst).  Appropriate data collection is, and has always been, an integral part of educating children.  In the past, data has been collected in students' files, teachers' grade books, and colleges' admissions offices.  Computerization of this data makes is both more accessible and more powerful (for good and bad).  Safety and privacy concerns must be addressed.  Data systems must be designed with the sensitivity of the data in mind.  Concerned individuals need to make sure their schools, districts, and states are meeting their expectations for the collection, use, security, and propagation of data.  However, liking or disliking data collection is no reason to pass judgment on Common Core.  Common Core is a statement of what a student should know and be able to do by the end of each grade, not a dictate on how or what data should be collected.

Common Core Part 5

Old Versus New - Reading Comprehension

          So far, I have looked at whether or not states were coerced into adopting Common Core and whether or not they had other feasible options both in regard to Race to the Top (Post 2) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) / Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waivers (Post 1).  Then I began a comparison between Arizona's previous standards and our new Common Core standards.  Starting with 11th and 12th grade English Language Arts, I have compared and contrasted the old and new standards for Vocabulary and Reading Fluency.  The next standard on the list is Reading Comprehension.  It ties closely to Vocabulary and there is quite a bit of crossover between the two.  As always, anyone who is interested can view the old Arizona standards here and the new Common Core standards here.

The Facts:

• In the old Arizona standards, Reading Comprehension is covered in three different areas: Comprehension Strategies is its own concept in the Reading Strategies Strand (Vocabulary and Reading Fluency were also concepts in this strand); Comprehending Literary Text is Strand 2; and Comprehending Informational Text is Strand 3.  Despite these titles, most of the concepts within these strands have little to do with comprehension and I will focus this post on those that deal directly with reading comprehension.  Remaining topics within these strands will be considered in subsequent posts.
• The new Common Core standards also cover Reading Comprehension in multiple sections (for 11th and 12th graders): in the section on Informational Texts and the section on Literary Texts, and in the section on Reading Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies.
• According to the new standards, students should be able to "Read and comprehend informational and functional text, including history/social studies, science, and technical texts, at the high end of the grades 11-CCR text complexity band independently and proficiently."  The Literature strand contains almost an identical standard with the exception of the type of text being changed to "literature, including stories, dramas, and poems."
• The text complexity band if the new standards will be discussed in a subsequent post.  In brief, it is an exemplary list of texts which should be used to compare works of fiction and nonfiction in order to determine the correct  "Complexity, Quality, and Range" for students of various grade levels.  CCR (meaning College and Career Ready) is the expected 12th grade range.
• The old standards have no direct statement about reading and comprehending texts of any specific level.  It is implied throughout the strands mentioned above, but not explicitly stated.  However, in order to accomplish the tasks required in the strands, a student must certainly first comprehend what he has read.  For example, a student who does not understand the text will find it impossible to "Compare (and contrast) literary texts that express a universal theme ..."
• The old standards' requirements directly related to comprehension include: predicting text topics by looking at things like illustrations, titles, and key words; asking questions; using graphic organizers; connecting text with personal experience and other texts; and using an understanding of various organizational structures (e.g., chronological) to aid in comprehension.
• Most of the new standards' requirements directly related to comprehension were discussed in the earlier post on vocabulary.  One additional requirement is understanding how language functions in different contexts, how syntax is varied for effect and how that changes the meaning.

My Opinion:

          Where the old Arizona Standards mix many concepts into reading comprehension, the new standards are simple and concise: students must be able to read and understand texts at the appropriate level.  Some of the concepts pointed out in the old standards and missing from the new are helpful.  For example, as I research this and other topics, I certainly look at things like headings, key words, and related graphs to determine whether or not a source is going to be helpful.  Likewise, I know many people find graphic organizers to be very useful.  I am not sure, however, that these things really equate to reading comprehension.  Nor am I certain that they deserve to be their own headings.  In my view, the standards that build on textual comprehension are much more important than indicating precisely how a student is to gain such comprehension.  That is not to say that various strategies should not be taught in the classroom.  But which strategies are taught and learned may be better left to the teacher and student once the specific texts and students' strengths and weaknesses are considered.  In other words, if students can read and understand texts at the appropriate level, I don't care how they gain that comprehension - so long as they can do it independently and consistently.
          So, in the continuing conundrum between the old and new standards, I think the new standards win this one.  They clearly and concisely state that students must be able to read and comprehend at the appropriate level.  They give examples of what that level is and do not micromanage the teaching process.  There is both greater flexibility and greater responsibility.

Common Core Part 4

Old Versus New - Reading Fluency

          This section will focus on comparisons and contrasts between the old Arizona standards for Reading Fluency and the requirements in the new Common Core standards.  In the previous post, I analyzed the similarities and differences only for the 11th and 12th grade.  I plan to continue in that vein in future posts.  However, reading fluency is sufficiently narrow that it lends itself well to considering all grades at once.  As always, I encourage readers to follow the above links to the actual standards and, if you live outside of Arizona, feel free to compare my comments to your own state's standards (old and new).

The Facts:

• The old standards have no fluency standard for kindergarten.  The Common Core requires kindergartners to "read emergent texts with purpose and understanding."
• The old standards required 1st through 3rd graders to "consistently read grade-level text with at least 90 percent accuracy."  The new standard requires 1st through 3rd graders to read with "sufficient accuracy to support comprehension."
• In the old standards, 1st grade students should "read aloud with fluency in a manner that sounds like natural speech."  In 2nd grade, the same standard includes "demonstrating automaticity."  The correlating new standards for both 1st and 2nd grades are that students "read on-level texts orally with accuracy, appropriate rate, and expression on successive readings."
• The old standards add that 2nd graders should use punctuation to guide fluency.  This is not explicitly stated in the new standard.
• The new standards add that 1st through 5th graders read on-level texts with "purpose and understanding."
• In 1st through 3rd grade, students are expected under the new standard to "use context to confirm or self-correct word recognition and understanding..."
• The old standards required 3rd through 5th grade students to read "familiar" prose and poetry fluently while the new standard substitutes "on-level" prose and poetry.
• The old standards required 6th through 12th graders to "read from a variety of genres with accuracy, automaticity (immediate recognition), and prosody (expression)."  The new standards have no correlating standard in grades 6 through 12.  This is covered in earlier grades only.
• Neither set of standards include a required or even a recommended reading list.
• The new standards include a list of reading materials to help curriculum providers and selectors determine what texts are "on-level" for each grade.

My Opinion:

          There are quite a few similarities in the expectations stated in both sets of standards.  Not being a specialist on early reading, I cannot definitively state which option is better, but I will share my thoughts anyway.  On face value, the requirement that kindergartners be able to read emergent text seems like a step up.  We will require children to read earlier and this should present a domino effect of higher reading levels at higher grades.  However, I am not certain the expected outcome will occur.  I know there are some countries (Norway for example) that begin teaching reading much later (at about the age of 7 or 8) and have very high literacy rates.  Granted, Norway's education system is very different from our own; but the point is that reading earlier may not be any guarantee of reading better in subsequent grades. 
          Another example that comes to mind is music.  There are some children who are savants at the piano or other instruments.  Mozart was composing by the time he was 4.  But most music teachers still recommend waiting until a child is 7 or 8 to begin lessons.  And, in general, those who start much younger (and are not savants) gain little, if any, ground over their counterparts who start later.  Furthermore, the extra years of lessons and practice with little progress due to immaturity or lack of readiness, often mean that the child has lost the excitement and interest in playing the instrument by the time they are 7 or 8.  Whether this is true of early reading or not, I do not know.  Certainly, a child who is ready to read by the age of 4 or 5 and wants to should be taught.  I am just not certain it is in the best interest of every child to insist they read by the end of kindergarten.
          The next difference is the change from reading with ninety percent accuracy to reading with sufficient accuracy to aid comprehension.  Again, I am not sure which is preferable.  The first sentence in this paragraph has 20 words.  If a reader understood all but two of them, that would be 90 percent.  Perhaps that would be sufficient to understand the sentence.  Surely, if they misread two small words like is, the, or with, they would understand the meaning.  But the simple words are the least likely to be misunderstood.  Try reading the first sentence without two of the more complex words.  Does it still make sense?  Probably not without the word "comprehension" or "accuracy."  Having looked at this ad hoc example, I lean tentatively toward the new standard on this aspect.
          The new requirement that students use context to confirm or self-correct when reading aloud seems like a beneficial improvement.  Likewise, the change from reading "familiar" prose and poetry to "on-level" prose and poetry seems like a small step up.  Explicitly stating that punctuation should guide fluency seems like an unnecessary addition.  If a student reads fluently, accurately, with expression, and at an appropriate pace as stated in the new standards, proper use of punctuation is implied.  A student who ignored periods or commas, for example, would not be reading accurately or at an appropriate pace.
          I find it interesting that the new standards cease to address reading fluency beyond 5th grade.  They address many other aspects of reading and especially reading comprehension as will be covered in subsequent posts, but, as far as I could tell, reading aloud is no longer emphasized in grades 6 through 12.  However, the old fluency standard is incredibly unspecific.  It says that students should read increasingly difficult texts fluently, but it never states that this reading should be at grade level or any other such requirement.  As such, it is a fairly meaningless repetition of a standard that is to be mastered by the 6th grade and then just repeated with "increasingly complex" text.  Standards as unspecific as these are what allows the watering down of reading requirements.  It makes it impossible to judge whether or not the requirement has been met when there is no reading complexity guide by which to judge reading selections.  In the new standards, students must master reading aloud with fluency by the end of the 5th grade and then reading complexity is increased in subsequent years according to a reading complexity rubric (which will be further discussed in a later post).
          In light of all the above considerations, I find that the standards for reading fluency are very comparable.  While there are minute differences, there does not seem to be a major shift aside from requiring students to read emergent texts earlier and I am entirely ambivalent on this alteration.  I find that the new standard is slightly more specific because of the expectation that students read at a certain well-defined level.  As with the previous sub-topic (vocabulary), I find no indication of political bias or hidden agenda.  I think that the new Common Core standards for reading fluency are very slightly better than the previous Arizona standards.

Common Core 3

Comparing Old to New - Vocabulary

 

          Now I will begin to look at the Common Core Standard themselves and compare them to the standards we have used in previous years.  Because I am in Arizona, I will be comparing them to Arizona standards.  My goal in doing so is to take a good look at whether or not these standards are a step forward for Arizona students.  Each state needs to do the same with their own state standards.  What is true in Arizona is not going to be consistent with each other state.  Some pieces of Common Core that are a step forward for Arizona may be a step backward for other states and vice versa.  In the end, my concern is whether or not these standards are the right standards for Arizona.  Whether other states choose to adopt them is, and should be, up to each individual state.  That does not mean that people from other states will not benefit from this discussion.  Those who continue to read these posts, and especially those who join in the conversation, will gain a level of familiarity with the standards that few who consider themselves "experts" on Common Core can boast.  I am not saying that I am an expert on Common Core, simply that by delving into each topic they address and comparing them to past standards, we will know of what we speak and no longer need to rely on others' opinions.

          In deciding how to begin, I chose to start with 12th grade.  Because the standards aim to prepare students for college and career readiness, I felt it was preferable to start at the top.  If the standards for 12th graders are not the standards necessary for students to be prepared for college and careers, then they are not as they profess and of little value.  If they do not represent a significant raising of the bar for Arizona students, then they are not worth the time, effort, and money they will require.  Since some standards are for 11th and 12th grade combined, my comparison will actually be between both grades.

          My choice of Vocabulary was not nearly as strategic as my choice of 12th grade.  I chose English Language Arts over Math because my own background is in math and I have a better grasp of those standards already.  I chose Vocabulary because it was the first topic in the old Arizona English Language Arts standards.  I am including links to both the old Arizona English Language Arts standards and the new Arizona Common Core English Language Arts standards.  If you are not in Arizona, I would encourage you to find your own state's English Language Arts standards and see how they compare.  Feel free to include links to your own state's standards and similarities/differences in the comment section.

The Facts:

• In the old standards, students were expected to draw inferences about meaning based on linguistic roots and affixes (i.e., Latin, Greek, Anglo-Saxon).  I find no reference to this skill in the new 11-12th grade standards.
• In the new standards, students are expected to choose between various methods to determine word meaning: 1) context, 2) patterns of word changes (i.e., conceive, conception, conceivable), 3) appropriate reference materials (i.e., dictionary, thesaurus, glossary), and they should 4) verify their preliminary determination of meaning with another of the above options.
• In the old standards, students had to identify the meaning of metaphors, use literal and figurative language "intentionally" when appropriate, and use clichés only when appropriate to their purpose.
• In the new standards, students must demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships, and nuances in word meaning.  They must also exhibit proper use of techniques such as metaphor, simile, and analogy.
• The old standards required students to use vocabulary that is original, varied, and natural; use accurate, specific, powerful words and phrases that effectively convey the intended message; and use words that evoke clear images.
• The new standards require students to vary syntax for effect; use precise language, domain-specific vocabulary and techniques to manage the complexity of the topic; and use accurately general academic and domain-specific words and phrases, sufficient for reading, writing, speaking and listening at the college and career readiness level.
• Parts of the new standards that have no direct correlation to the old standards (as related to vocabulary) include: demonstrating independence in gathering vocabulary knowledge when considering a word or phrase important to comprehension or expression; analyzing how an author uses and refines the meaning of a key term over the course of a text; and using precise language and domain-specific vocabulary to manage the complexity of the topic.
• There is also this note in the new standards (pg 24):

NOTE ON RANGE AND CONTENT OF STUDENT LANGUAGE USE
To build a foundation for college and career readiness in language, students must gain control over many conventions of Standard English grammar, usage, and mechanics as well as learn other ways to use language to convey meaning effectively. They must also be able to determine or clarify the meaning of grade-appropriate words encountered through listening, reading, and media use; come to appreciate that words have nonliteral meanings, shadings of meaning, and relationships to other words; and expand their vocabulary in the course of studying content. The inclusion of Language standards in their own strand should not be taken as an indication that skills related to conventions, effective language use, and vocabulary are unimportant to reading, writing, speaking, and listening; indeed, they are inseparable from such contexts.

My Opinion:

           In general, the Common Core standards are much more thorough in their requirements for aspects of both obtaining and using vocabulary.  I really like the requirement that students show independence in determining the meaning of unfamiliar words.  I don't think that is something that can be tested, but I think it is a vital skill for students in both college and careers.  In either case, students are going to come across many words with which they are unfamiliar.  They can either choose to ignore the unfamiliar words and miss out on understanding of entire concepts, discussions, or responsibilities associated with the use of those words, or they can take the initiative to learn what those unfamiliar words mean.  Those who take the effort to learn new words when they come across them will unquestionably benefit whether in the workforce, a college setting, or simply participating in an informal debate on public policy.
          I find it interesting that the prior standards required that students understand the use of metaphors but disregarded understanding of all other figures of speech in reading comprehension.  These are probably presented in earlier grades, but I think that the final years of English training before college should contain (at least) a review of various figures of speech.  Both standards do, however, require students to use various figures of speech effectively in their own writing.
          The one requirement from the old standard that I feel is missing from the new is the use of linguistic roots and affixes in determining word meaning.  I think this is an essential skill that aides students no only in vocabulary, but also in spelling and in learning foreign languages.  It is something I would advocate for adding to the Arizona implementation of the Common Core.  States are permitted to add up to 15% and I think this would be a great place to use part of that allowance.
          (I don't think the old standard about using clichés only when appropriate is significant enough to be its own standard.  I think it is included in the new standards about using correct word choice and syntax and is only important enough to deserve this parenthetical mention.)
         The new standards for determining unfamiliar word meaning seem much more powerful and comprehensive than the old.   While they lack the use of linguistic roots, I think the use of multiple methods for determining meaning is essential.  Linguistic roots are often helpful, but students need many more tools in their toolbox for determining meanings.  They also need tools for determining which meaning is appropriate to a given context and I think that is also covered in the new standards by requiring students to verify their preliminary definition with additional methods.  This accumulation of multiple skills for determining unfamiliar word meaning is certainly a better preparation for college and careers.  (But, in case it's not clear above, I think we need to add the use of linguistic roots to the list of tools.)
          My final evaluation of the vocabulary aspects of the Common Core is that they are in fact a significant step forward when compared to Arizona's previous standards.  I think they do indeed fulfill their promise of requiring better preparation for college and careers.  They are not perfect, but I think that with the simple addition suggested above they will be in all cases better than or equal to the Arizona standards.  I find nothing in this section of the standards that shows any political agenda and certainly no "dumbing down" of the standards.

 

Common Core Part 2 - Race to the Top

          I had intended to follow up my first post much more quickly than this, but the busyness of summer vacation with four kids at home, family in town, and an unfortunate bout of stomach flu has prevented me.  Also, my research took me on several tangents wherein I learned more about the creation and evolution of the Department of Education, early efforts of founding fathers to create national schools and/or curriculum, and the history of competitive grants.  Since each of these tangents ending up taking me quite a distance from the topic at hand, I will, in general, constrict my comments here to the Race to the Top competitive grant and its relation to Common Core.

The Facts:

• Race to the Top was announced July 24, 2009.  Awarded funding for Race to the Top was to be $4.35 billion.  This money came from stimulus funds set aside by the American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009.
• There were four main criteria on which grant applications were judged.  These areas dealt with standards, effective teachers & principals, data systems, and turning around low-performing schools.  There was also competitive preference priority given to states who emphasized STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) throughout their applications.
• According to Appendix B of the Race to the Top application, to get points in the standards section, all LEAs (Local Education Agencies - meaning school districts) and charters had to "Review and adopt CCSSO standards by August 2010" and "Participate in review of new standards and preparation of grade-level expectations (All LEAs/charters)".  There are other requirements listed in this section, but these are the most relevant to the current discussion.
• 40 out of a possible 500 points was directly related to Common Core - 20 points for "Participating in consortium developing high-quality standards" and 20 points for adopting a set of common standards.  This is a relatively small number of points, but there are two other areas that could potentially be affected by the decision whether or not to adopt Common Core.  Additional points that seemed relevant to me are 1) "Developing and implementing common, high-quality assessments" (10 pts), 2) "Supporting the transition to enhanced standards and high-quality assessments" (20 pts).  It seems obvious that common assessments are linked to common standards, but transitioning to enhanced standards could apply to state-developed enhanced standards.
• In all, standards (comprised of the four areas in the previous bullet) combined represents 70 points or 14% of the total points available.
• There was one "absolute requirement" in order for states to be awarded a grant: that they submit a comprehensive approach to education reform and that they address all four of the main criteria (one of which was standards).
• I have not confirmed the following and am not sure how I would go about confirming the veracity of the article from which I got it.  This "fact" therefore, must be taken with a grain of salt.  According to an article posted here, one state specifically asked if they could develop their own standards and still get points for Race to the Top as is allowed in the ESEA waivers discussed in my previous post.  Here is the reported answer from Race to the Top Chief Joanne Weiss:

"The answer is no," she wrote in an e-mail. "The RTT requirements, because it's a discretionary program, are actually tighter than ESEA and are not changing."

To get full points in Race to the Top, she explained, a state has to adopt the common standards by August 2, 2010. To get partial points, it has to do so by December 31.

"The higher-ed certification option," she said, "Does not apply to RTT."

 My Opinion:
          Traditionally, grant programs provided by the Department of Education have been much smaller than Race to the Top.  They have allowed states, districts, schools, and individuals who are interested in implementing a specific improvement to apply for funding to do so.  A search of grant opportunities on the Department of Educations website yielded hundreds of results, from "Teaching American History" to "School-based Student Drug Testing Programs" to "Investing in Innovation Funds".  And the list continues almost indefinitely.  Many of these programs are allocated money as a result of legislation passed by congress to fund specific pieces of education policy or research.  Funding is increased or decreased over time as legislative priorities and interests change.  However, Race to the Top is by far the most comprehensive and highly funded competitive grant I could find. 
          In my opinion, Race to the Top represents a gross overreaching of designated authority by the Department of Education.  While I agree with most of the reforms RTT sparked, I do not agree with the intense involvement of the federal government in pushing that education reform.  There was no legislation passed by Congress that designated the priorities listed in RTT as had previously been done to designate the Department of Education's goals for America's schools.  It was one department, comprised of appointed (not elected) officials, deciding what the goals should be for a vast number of America's schools.  This is one of the main reasons I have been advocating for a bill that would prevent the Department of Education from such gross overreaching in the future.  It is HR1386, The Local School Board Governance and Flexibility Act and can be found here.
          Despite my objections to the Department of Education's overreaching, meaningful school reforms (many of which were included in Race to the Top) need to be addressed.  Replacing years of experience with quality/successfulness of teaching in pay raise decisions, promotions, bonuses, and firings is imperative.  Replacing social promotion with meaningful promotion requirements (meaning not letting students advance to the next grade if they're not ready) has been proven to improve student outcomes.  Creative strategies for turning around or closing low-performing schools is certainly important as well.  These are all things that were encouraged and received points in the Race to the Top application.  It is clear, then, that inclusion of an education reform in Race to the Top does not automatically mean that that education reform should not be undertaken at the state or local level.  We must, therefore, judge Common Core on its own merits rather than disregarding it because of its inclusion in either Race to the Top or ESEA waivers.
          My next few posts on Common Core will deal with the standards themselves and with a comparison to previous standards and previous methods of creating standards.  I will see what I can find on their comparison to standards used to create international tests and what research was used in their development.

 
 
 

Common Core - Part 1

 



          In my community, and apparently in many communities around the country, a battle is waging over the adoption of the Common Core State Standards.  In my position on the school board, I have been in the center of this oft-times heated discussion.  I have heard a wide variety of concerns, fears, and sometimes downright lies about what Common Core is, where it comes from, and what it means for the future of education in this country.  I have listened, asked questions, researched, and pondered each point I have heard both for and against this new set of education standards.  I should mention here that the adoption of standards for our schools does not now, nor has it for some time been a school board decision.  This decision has been made at the state level for many years.  However, as one who is passionately interested in K-12 education, the debate has weighed heavily on my mind and in my heart.
         In response to the things I have seen, heard, and considered, I have decided to resurrect the blog I had heretofore used very rarely and not for some time and use it as a place to organize and articulate  both the facts and my opinions concerning Common Core and the debate around it.  One of the things I hope to do in these posts is to clearly differentiate between documented facts, opinions of others, and my own opinions.  Wherever possible I will even indicate who's opinions they are (or at least who has expressed these opinions publicly).  In each post, I plan to address one issue related to Common Core; to articulate both the pro and con viewpoints, to post any relevant documented facts with links to primary sources whenever possible, and then to conclude with my own opinion on the topic.
         Whether anyone reads my posts or not, my goal is to do the research, uncover the facts, and solidify my own opinion on each subtopic.  If people choose to comment, please be aware of the following:

• I will delete any comments with profanity, all-caps, or completely off topic.
• I will not delete comments with which I disagree.  I believe conflicting viewpoints are a healthy ingredient to any productive discussion.
• I may use comments to spark ideas for future subtopics (especially once I run out of the ones I currently have in mind).
• I would greatly appreciate it if statements made in comments include supporting documentation for any relevant facts.

         And so, with no further ado, I will begin my first subtopic.  I have chosen to start with information about the NCLB (No Child Left Behind) Waivers and its relation to Common Core.

No Child Left Behind Waivers

 The Facts: 

• The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 required all states to adopt "challenging academic content standards."  They were then required to test students on their proficiency in these standards.  By the end of the 2013-2014 school year all children would be required to "meet or exceed the State's proficient level of academic achievement on the State assessments."  This included English Language Learners (students who were not yet proficient in the English language) and those with special needs (including students with severe mental handicaps).  If this goal was not met, Title I funding would be withheld (federal money intended to help disadvantaged students) and schools where those students attended would be required to make various changes based on how many consecutive years they failed to meet this mandate.  Quotations are from the actual legislation which can be viewed here: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
•  Congress failed to reauthorize ESEA (the Elementary and Secondary Education Act).  NCLB is the 2001/2002 reauthorization of ESEA and another authorization and review was scheduled for 2007.  It was expected that the original 100% proficiency requirements would be changed long before they were to take affect.  I am writing this in June of 2013 and ESEA has not been reauthorized since 2002.
• In 2011, with no reauthorization in site, Secretary Arne Duncan, the head of the US Department of Education was instructed to develop a process through which states could apply for waivers that would release them from the stringent requirements of NCLB.  As a result of meeting the requirements, states would be granted more flexibility in choosing the type of interventions to use and when to use them.  A list of documents was released detailing the requirements and procedure for obtaining NCLB/ESEA waivers.
• One of the requirements for a state to receive a waiver is the development and implementation of "college- and career-ready standards."  As defined in the ESEA Flexibility Policy Document, "'College- and career-ready standards' are content standards for kindergarten through 12^th grade that build towards college and career readiness by the time of high school graduation.  A State’s college- and career-ready standards must be either (1) standards that are common to a significant number of States [Common Core]; or (2) standards that are approved by a State network of institutions of higher education, which must certify that students who meet the standards will not need remedial course work at the postsecondary level."  (Note that the addition of [Common Core] in the quote is my own addition.)
• 45 States and the District of Columbia chose to adopt the Common Core State Standards.  47 States have submitted waiver applications and 37 of those states have received waivers.  Two of the states who have been granted waivers (Alaska and Virginia), chose not to adopt Common Core but instead developed their own college- and career-ready standards.
• NCLB/ESEA Waivers are a separate issue from Race to the Top grants.  I will probably discuss Race to the Top and its correlation to Common Core in another post.
• Both NCLB and NCLB Waiver requests required states to adopt standards.  In both cases, states were given the option to choose which standards they adopted.  The more stringent requirement in the NCLB Waiver is that the standards be either Common Core OR standards approved by a state network of colleges/universities.

My Opinion:

          I do not believe that the US Department of Education had the proper authority to create NCLB Waiver conditions.  Unelected officials should not be writing our nation's education policy.  In fact, I believe our nation's education policy should consist mainly of the requirement that each state provide for the free education of all children ages 5 through 18 (if their parents choose to take advantage of said education).  Our founders did not envision education as a role of the federal government and I believe all education decisions should reside at the state and local level. 

          However, I do not see the standards requirement included in the NCLB Waiver as any sort of coercion forcing states to adopt Common Core.  It seems clear to me that states were given a choice between Common Core and developing their own standards.  The fact that two states chose to develop their own standards and were still granted waivers makes it clear that there was in fact a legitimate choice and there was no punishment for choosing not to adopt Common Core.  States who chose Common Core, then, either really liked it and felt it was the best option for their students, or lacked the funds or initiative to create their own standards that would ensure students were prepared for freshman level college courses.  Either way, the sentiment that has been commonly expressed that states were "forced" or "coerced" to adopt Common Core seems blatantly false as applied to NCLB/ESEA Waivers.