Misinformed?

          Are the vast majority of those opposed to Common Core misinformed?  I was recently quoted as saying as much in a local newspaper.  Today I will depart from my standard format and delineate my reason for believing that, at least locally, most of the people who stand ardently against Common Core do so at least in part because of the exhaustive propagation of misinformation.  I have not done a scientifically valid and reliable study on the topic and offer this solely as my opinion.  However, I will include specific examples and evidence that have led me to form my belief on the matter.
          First, I would like to make something utterly clear: there are people with legitimate, fact-based concerns about Common Core.  There are those who have read and studied the standards and come to the conclusion that they are bad for our students and our education system for various reasons.  They may believe the math standards are too low or that there should be more emphasis on character building through in-depth studies of the classics (as opposed to increasing emphasis on non-fiction).  They may disagree with teaching the why in math alongside the how.  Perhaps they continue to advocate for more "readable" texts in subjects other than literature rather than concentrating on improving reading comprehension.  There are those that feel these standards will not mean students are adequately prepared for college and careers.  These are not the people I am talking about.  Such issues are absolutely valid concerns and need to be addressed and discussed and researched.  But very few of the discussions I have had with Common Core detractors are about these types of issues.  In fact, I have not spoken to a single individual who was fighting against Common Core that focused solely or even primarily on any of these types of issues.
          I have attended at least three anti-Common Core presentations, spoken to various parents and groups of parents with concerns, watched several Glen Beck segments, and read countless websites against Common Core.  I am emailed back and forth with concerned citizens and have done countless hours of reading both the standards themselves and arguments for and against them.  One thing I have noticed is that those who are against the standards would have you read numerous "expert" analyses about the evils of Common Core.  Those who speak for the standards, would have you read the research that led to them and the standards themselves.  Those who are against the standards rarely quote from the standards themselves.  They quote people's negative opinions of the standards.  Those who speak for the standards, often quote directly from those standards as evidence of their virtues.  They know them well enough to realize that the standards themselves are the key to dispelling the rumors and myths surrounding them.
          Recently I attended an event where Diane Douglas, a candidate for Arizona State Superintendent of Public Education railed on the "evils" of Common Core.  I could not write fast enough to jot down all of the fallacies and misinformation she presented.  She began the presentation by saying that she had studied education for the past twenty years and had vigorously studied the Common Core standards.  She presents herself as an "expert" on the subject.  I responded by email to many of the fallacies she shared and invited her to respond, giving her a fair chance to clarify anything I may have misquoted or misunderstood about her presentation.  Perhaps she has responded to the leader of the group she spoke to that night, but she has not responded to me.  As such, I will include much of the letter I sent as an example of the types of misinformation that is being spread by Common Core "experts."

           There are a lot of important considerations that need to be examined rationally and truthfully.  Adding untruths to the complex conversations that need to take place does not help, but instead muddies the water and sends concerned parents, citizens, and politicians chasing wild geese.  So I would like to clear up some of the misconceptions propagated at Monday’s meeting.  I am also copying Diane on this email so that she has a chance to respond to both of us.  If I misunderstood what she was saying then I would like to know that too.

1)      “Restaurant menus are required reading under Common Core.” – Diane Douglas

Although I knew this statement was blatantly false, I read through all of the English Language Arts standards again as well as doing word searches for “restaurant”,  “menu”,  and even “food.”  The word “menu” occurs twice in the standards as such:

For 1st grade: Know and use various text features (e.g., headings, tables of contents, glossaries, electronic menus, icons) to locate key facts or information in a text. (1.RI.5)

For 2nd grade: Know and use various text features (e.g., captions, bold print, subheadings, glossaries, indexes, electronic menus, icons) to locate key facts or information in a text efficiently. (2.RI.5)

It is pretty clear this is not talking about restaurant menus.  It is possible that some districts or teachers may use restaurant menus in some of their lessons, but that decision would be made at the local level and is certainly not mandated by Common Core.

2)  The Common Core seeks to move science away from biology, chemistry, etc.  

This is not a direct quote, but the general gist of what Diane said.  However, the Common Core should not have any impact on what subject matter is taught in science.  They are English and Math standards.  The only inclusion of science is that students must be able to read, comprehend, and write about scientific topics.  Nowhere does it specify which topics.  It certainly doesn't encourage them not to teach biology or chemistry or physics.  Here is a sample of what it does say.

For Kindergarten: Actively engage in group reading of informational and functional texts, including history/social studies, science, and technical texts, with purpose and understanding. (AZ.K.RI.10)

For 2^nd Grade:  Participate in shared research and writing projects (e.g., read a number of books on a single topic to produce a report; record science observations). (2.W.7)

For 6^th Grade: By the end of the year, read and comprehend informational and functional text, including history/social studies, science, and technical texts, in the grades 6–8 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range. (AZ.6.RI.10)

For 11^th – 12^th Grade:   Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of science and technical texts, attending to important distinctions the author makes and to any gaps or inconsistencies in the account. (11-12.RST.1)

This is only a sample of the types of references to science that exist in the standards.  Feel free to look through the entire document to see that the statement about these moving students away from biology and chemistry is patently false.  Here is a link to the EnglishLanguage Arts Standards.

3)      Common Core mandates data collection.  
There is no mention whatsoever of data collection in the Common Core.  Actually, there is mention of students recording science observations and thus recording data, but that is clearly not what Diane was talking about.  The state longitudinal database is a project that began long before Common Core.  I have written two different blog posts on the topic and rather than rewriting what I have learned, I will include links to the two relevant posts below.

Instrusive Monitoring
Is My Student's Data Safe

4)      PARRC tests are federally mandated.  

States were given two choices regarding assessments if they wished to apply for NCLB (No Child Left Behind) Waivers and to compete in Race to the Top.  They could a) join or create a testing consortium with other states, or b) create their assessment that would test students on whichever college and career ready standards they adopted.  (States were also given the option of either adopting Common Core or creating their own College and Career Readiness Standards.  Two states (Vermont and Alaska) chose to develop their own standards.  The two testing consortiums that emerged were PARRC and Smarter Balance.  Clearly PARRC was not federally mandated.  There were multiple choices available.  (By the way, I don’t believe the Dept of Ed has any right to insist on this or any other requirement even if there were multiple choices, but I am simply letting you know that Diane’s statement was fallacious.)  I think what she must have meant was that assessing students was federally mandated, but this has been true long before Common Core.

5)      PARRC is becoming Smarter Balance?  

I have no idea what Diane meant by this.  PARRC and Smarter Balance are two separate testing consortiums.  There has been no discussion of them merging or one taking over the other.  This statement really confused me.  The only thing I can think of is that she meant that the AZ Dept of Ed is looking at other potential assessments and assessment providers to make sure we get the best assessments for the least money.  There are several options being weighed currently.  One of those options is to use the tests developed by Smarter Balance rather than PARRC.  Perhaps this is what she meant?

6)      I see evidence of whole language in the Common Core.  

I have no idea where this is coming from.  The standards are very clear that phonograms must be taught.  Reading by sight is mentioned one time in the ELA standards.  This standard is in the middle of three that talk about single letter and double letter phonograms, distinguishing between similar words based on letter sounds, and associating long and short sounds for the five main vowels.

For Kindergarten: Read common high-frequency words by sight (e.g., the, of, to, you, she, my, is, are, do, does).

7)   Diane mentioned she felt we should be using the GED, ACT, or SAT as our graduation readiness test rather than PARRC in order to save money.  Perhaps this is any idea she simply has not researched very thoroughly.

Cost for PARRC: $30 per student

Cost for GED: $70 to $95 per student

Cost for ACT: $52.50

Cost for SAT: $51

Clearly this is not a feasible solution.

          This was the bulk of the content of my letter.  But I would like to point out one more fallacy that particularly bothers me.  This is something I have heard twice from Diane.  It is that when we speak of lifelong learners we mean students who know just enough to get a job and be trained on the job.  I find this statement both completely false and insulting to everyone's intelligence.  I know many educators who advocate for helping students become lifelong learners.  They speak of engaging students in enjoyable reading so that it will become a lifelong hobby.  They speak (particularly in the new standards) of developing ample reading comprehension so that students can extract information from newspapers, voter pamphlets, instruction manuals, and other non-fiction texts.  They speak of a thirst for learning that leads students to take voluntary on-line courses or enroll in community classes or study something on the Internet just because they are interested in the topic.  They speak of not quenching the insatiable curiosity with which our children are born.  This is what is meant by lifelong learners.  Students who grow up to be adults with a thirst for knowledge and an ability to satisfy that thirst through continuous learning.
          It seems that if this Common Core "expert" were actually an expert on the topic, she would be able to respond to my evaluation of her talking points with proof of at least some of her allegations against the standards.  To date, this has not happened.  And I do not consider this presentation any kind of an exception to the rule.  I have yet to attend a presentation against Common Core that does not emphasize these or similar fallacies as their main arguments against the standards.  Perhaps I am wrong in saying that most Common Core detractors are misinformed.  Perhaps it is just the most vocal of them and the self-proclaimed "experts" who speak with religious fervor about the evil conspiracy to ruin our children.  
          In the end, if people are confused, they should do as the Common Core standards teach.  They should go to the primary source - the standards themselves.  They should read the standards looking for both good and bad.  If someone says or writes something bad about the standards, discerning individuals should open up the standards and verify for themselves the veracity of such statements.  We should ask for and expect proof from both supporters and detractors.  Only when we get the facts straight can we have a meaningful discussion of the pros and cons of the Common Core State Standards and what they mean for our students.