[9.9.13 — Remember that
Common Core Standards and CSCOPE are twin sisters; both of them follow the same
Type #2 philosophy of education. Donna Garner]
9.8.13 CommonCore:
Education Without Representation
Top Ten Professors
Calling Out Common Cores So-called College Readiness
By Christel Swasey
Ten brilliant American
professors have spoken out eloquently to say that the Common Core is far from
its claim of representing academic excellence; that its a sheer academic
tragedy.
Before I share the
professors words, let me tell you what sparked this writing.
I saw for the first time
this 2013 document put out by the NCEE (National
Center on Education and the Economy) that says OUT LOUD that its not
important under Common Core to have high educational standards in high school;
that its silly to waste time educating all high school graduates as high as the
level of Algebra II.
No joke.
Theyre pushing for an emphasis on the lowest common denominator, while
marketing Common Core as a push for rigorous academics.
Outragous, yes. But
absolutely factual: this is what they are telling America:
Read these Common Core proponents lips:
Mastery of Algebra
II is widely thought to be a prerequisite for success in college and careers.
Our research shows that that is not so
Based on our data, one cannot make the
case that high school graduates must be proficient in Algebra II to be ready for
college and careers. The high school mathematics curriculum is now centered on
the teaching of a sequence of courses leading to calculus that includes
Geometry, Algebra II, Pre-Calculus and Calculus. However, fewer than five
percent of American workers and an even smaller percentage of community college
students will ever need to master the courses in this sequence in their college
or in the workplace
they should not be required courses in our high schools. To
require these courses in high school is to deny to many students the opportunity
to graduate high school because they have not mastered a sequence of mathematics
courses they will never need. In the face of these findings, the policy of
requiring a passing score on an Algebra II exam for high school graduation
simply cannot be justified.
(Maybe
Common Core proponents better quit using the word rigorous.)
So,
the NCEE report goes on to say that traditional high
school English classes, with their emphasis on classic literature and personal,
narrative writing, is useless. The report says that Common Core will save
students from the worthless classics with its emphasis on technical subjects and
social studies via the dominance of informational text in the Common Core
classroom:
The Common Core
State Standards in English Language Arts (CCSSE) address reading in
history/social studies as well as science and technical subjects, and in so
doing may increase the relevance of high school instruction.
They just
trashed English lit. And, in calling classic literature and personal writing
irrelevant, these Common Core proponents only underscore the socialist
mentality: that only job prep matters, only the collective economy, not the mind
and soul of the individual.
A TOP TEN LIST OF
AMERICAN PROFESSORS WHO SPEAK OUT AGAINST COMMON CORE
First,
Dr. Anthony Esolen of Providence College
in Rhode Island:
What appalls me most
about the standards
is the cavalier contempt for
great works of human art and thought, in literary form. It is a sheer ignorance
of the life of the imagination. We are not programming machines. We are teaching
children. We are not producing functionaries, factory-like. We are to be
forming the minds and hearts of men and women
to be human beings, honoring what
is good and right and cherishing what is beautiful.
Second,
Dr. Thomas Newkirk of University of New Hampshire:
The standards are
portrayed as so consensual, so universally endorsed, so thoroughly researched
and vetted, so self-evidently necessary to economic progress, so broadly
representative of beliefs in the educational communitythat they cease to be
even debatable
The principle of opportunity costs prompts us to ask: What
conversations wont we be having? Since the CCSS
virtually ignore poetry, will we cease to speak about it? What about character
education, service learning? What about fiction writing in the upper high school
grades? What about the arts that are not amenable to standardized testing?
We
lose opportunities when we cease to discuss these issues and allow the CCSS to
completely set the agenda, when the only map is the one it creates.
Third,
Dr. Daniel Coupland of Hillsdale
College:
Yes, man is
made for work, but hes also made for so much more
Education should be about
the highest things. We should study these things of the stars, plant cells,
Mozarts requium
not simply because theyll get us into the right college or
into the right line of work. Rather, we should study these noble things because
they can tell us who we are, why were here
If education has become as Common
Core openly declares preparation for work in a global economy, then this
situation is far worse than Common Core critics ever anticipated. And the
concerns about cost, and quality, and yes, even the constitutionality of Common
Core, pale in comparison to the concerns for the hearts, minds, and souls of
American children.
Fourth,
Dr. Christopher Tienken of Seton Hall
University:
Education reform in the
United States is being driven largely by ideology, rhetoric, and dogma instead
of evidence
. Where is the evidence of the efficacy of the standards?
Let us
be very frank: The CCSS are no improvement over the current set of state
standards. The CCSS are simply another set of lists of performance objectives.
Fifth and Sixth,
Dr. James Milgram (Stanford University)
and
Dr. Sandra Stotsky (University of
Arkansas):
We
hear no proponents or endorsers of Common Cores standards warning this country
about the effects of the college-readiness level in Common Cores mathematics
standards on postsecondary and post-baccalaureate academic and professional
programs. We hear no proponents or endorsers of Common Cores standards
advising district superintendents and state education policy makers on the kind
of mathematics curriculum and courses they need to make available in our
secondary schools if our undergraduate engineering colleges are to enroll
American students.
At this time we can only conclude that a gigantic fraud has been perpetrated on
this country, in particular on parents in this country, by those developing,
promoting, or endorsing Common Cores standards. We
have no illusion that the college-readiness level in ELA will be any more
demanding than Common Cores college-readiness level in mathematics.
Sept. 2013 paper: Can This Country Survive Common Cores College Readiness
Level? by R. James Milgram and Sandra Stotsky
Seventh,
Dr. Alan Manning of Brigham Young
University:
The Core
standards just set in concrete approaches to reading/writing that we already
know dont work very well. Having the Core standards set in concrete means that
any attempts to innovate and improve reading/writing instruction will certainly
be crushed. Actual learning outcomes will stagnate at best.
An argument can be made that any improvement in reading/writing instruction
should include more rather than less attention the reading/analysis of stories
known to effective in terms of structure (i.e. classic time-tested stories).
An argument can be made that any improvement in reading/writing instruction
should include more rather than fewer exercises where students write stories
themselves that are modeled on the classics. This creates a more stable
foundation on which students can build skills for other kinds of writing. The
Core standards would prevent public schools from testing these kinds of
approaches.
Eighth,
Dr. Bill Evers of Hoover Institute at
Stanford University:
The Common
Core effectively national math and English curriculum standards coming soon to
a school near you is supposed to be a new, higher bar that will take the
United States from the academic doldrums to international dominance.
So why is
there so much unhappiness about it? There
didnt seem to be much just three years ago. Back then, state school boards and
governors were sprinting to adopt the Core. In practically the blink of an eye,
45 states had signed on.
But states
werent leaping because they couldnt resist the Cores academic magnetism. They
were leaping because it was the Great Recession and the Obama administration
was dangling a $4.35 billion Race to the Top carrot in front of them.
Big points in that federal program were awarded
for adopting the Core, so, with little public debate, most did.
Ninth:
Dr. Terrence Moore of Hillsdale College:
Literature
is the study of human nature. If we dissect it in this meaningless way, kids not
only do not become college and career ready, they dont even have a love of
learning; they dont even have an understanding of their fellow men
The thing
that bothers me more than anything else is found on page number one of the
introduction. That says that Common Core is a living work. That means that the
thing that you vote on today could be something different tomorrow, and five
years from now it is completely unrecognizable.
Tenth:
Dr. William Mathis, of the University of
Colorado
The
adoption of a set of standards and assessments, by themselves, is unlikely to
improve learning, increase test scores, or close the achievement gap.
For schools and districts with weak or non-existent curriculum articulation,
the CCSS may adequately serve as a basic curriculum.
The assessment consortia are currently focused on mathematics and
English/language arts.
Schools,
districts, and states must take proactive steps to protect other vital purposes
of education such as citizenship, the arts, and maximizing individual talents
as well as the sciences and social sciences.
As test based penalties have increased, the
instructional attention given to non-tested areas has decreased.
Educators and policymakers need to be aware of the
significant costs in instructional materials, training and computerized testing
platforms the CCSS requires. It is unlikely the federal or state governments
will adequately cover these costs.
The nations international economic competitiveness is unlikely to be
affected by the presence or absence of national standards.
===========
TO FIND OUT HOW MUCH IT
WILL COST YOUR STATES TAXPAYERS TO IMPLEMENT COMMON CORE STANDARDS:
9.5.13 State Specific
Common Core Standards Implementation Costs by Henry W. Burke -http://nocompromisepac.ning.com/profiles/blogs/state-specific-common-core-implementation-costs-by-henry-w-burke?xg_source=activity
===========
MORE INFORMATION ON
MARC TUCKER, NCEE, COMMON CORE STANDARDS
4.19.13 Marc Tuckers
Bologna by Donna Garner —
http://www.educationnews.org/commentaries/89899.html
=========
11.29.10 Time To
Resurrect My Article on Marc Tucker by Donna Garner —
http://www.educationnews.org/index.php?news=103613
========
6.7.10 Bad Ideas
Never Seem To Die: Pennsylvania, Marc Tucker, NCEE
http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_684788.html#axzz2eP7ifxaD
======
9.5.13 Updated List
of Anti-Common Core Resources List From 12.11.09 Through 9.5.13 by Donna
Garner —
http://educationviews.org/updated-anti-common-core-standards-resource-list-2-parts-12-11-09-7-19-13/
Donna Garner