Ready for Evaluation on CCSS When Supervisors' Groups Cite Declining Support?

*Supervisors question the rush into CCSS *Update: Congressional discussion of attack on Syria, but not CCSS?
The Common Core tests are coming. But the mantra from the federal government and many state leaders is have faith and trust in them. But it is highly significant when superintendents and principles associations express strong reservations. If they express some reservations, particularly over the proper preparation for the tests, should not teachers and parents ask serious questions? (But recall that the Common Core is not a matter for public discussion. It was produced by private associations and there is no venue for public revision of the standards.)

From a letter and its report, as reported by Diane Ravitch: She cited a public statement, "School Leadership Groups Urge “Adequate Time” to Implement Common Core Standards" by major associations of school leaders, expressing trepidation about the implementation of the Bill Gates and David Coleman's Common Core State Standards. The statement is to be admired for its honesty.
The superintendents, principals and school boards associations, AASA, NAESP, NASSP, and NSBA wrote a public statement that expressed support for the Common Core, but argued for more careful implementation, particularly regarding the associated tests: AASA, The School Superintendents Association, the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP), The National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) and The National School Boards Association (NSBA). (Interestingly they do not appear as beneficiaries of Gates Foundation largesse in deutsch29's audit of Gates' Common Core spending.) In contrast, as you hear union leaders, from the American Federation of Teachers' (AFT) Randi Weingarten and the National Education Association's (NEA) Dennis Van Roekel, on down to local leaders, talking about "getting on-board" with the Common Core, repeating the same talking points, keep this in mind: the two federations were paid off quite handsomely for the cooperation with the Common Core, over $9 million collectively.

It is interesting that the authors of the statement express concern that the confusion ensuing in the course of Common Core and its tests will weaken public support for public education. This mirrors the suspicion that many leftist critics have had with the Common Core: that it is a cynical attempt to destroy public faith in public education and pave the way for broader scale privatization.

Getting this transition right can mean the difference between getting and keeping public and educator support for the Common Core or a loss in confidence in the standards and even the public schools, especially if as expected the first-year scores will disappoint.

The letter reported news that is devastating to the Common Core boosters and the associated test boosters:

These philosophical considerations are compounded by real-world obstacles to implementing both the Common Core Standards and the related online assessment. AASA’s latest economic impact survey included items related to the standards and assessments, and the respondents delivered a clear message: State support for the Common Core Standards is holding steady at best, if not declining, and states and districts are woefully lacking as it relates to infrastructure and connectivity capacity to support the online assessments:

• 74% of respondents indicate that the level of funding/fiscal support provided by the state for implementing the Common Core Learning standards is “inadequate.”
• 57% of respondents indicate that the level of professional development provided by the state for implementing the Common Core Learning standards is ”inadequate.”
• With many states more than a year in to the work of implementing Common Core, school-based practitioners reported a very clear trend in DECLINING state support for Common Core implementation:


o 33% indicated State funding support has decreased.
o 23% indicated State professional development support has decreased.
o 31% indicated State leadership support has decreased.
o 23% indicated My state has considered legislative proposals that would decrease state policy/funding support for Common Core learning standards.

• In detailing their state, district and school capacity to implement the online assessments, respondents indicated:
Schools in my state are, on average, not ready to implement the online assessment.
58.4%
Schools in my state, on average, lack the infrastructure to support the online assessments.
50.5%
My school requires additional infrastructure to fully support the online assessments.
46.5%
Schools in my state, on average, lack the bandwidth/connectivity to support the online assessments.
44.3%
My school requires additional bandwidth/connectivity to fully support the online assessments.
35.0%
My school is fully prepared, in terms of funding and bandwidth capacity, to implement the online assessments.
17.7%
My state has adequate bandwidth capacity/the ability to support adequate school connectivity but lacks the funding to fully implement the online tests.
13.7%
My state is fiscally prepared to implement the assessments, but lacks adequate bandwidth capacity/the ability to support adequate school connectivity.
9.1%
Schools in my state are, on average, fully ready to implement the online assessments.
9.1%
My state is fully prepared, in terms of funding and bandwidth capacity, to implement the fully-online assessment.
3.6%

* This analysis reflects 497 responses from 46 states.

Now, here's the surprise: Diane Ravitch posted this notice on May 31, before much blow-back has occurred: before several states pulled out of the PARCC tests, before other state-level maneuvers really took off this summer. These developments, plus the large growth of blog, YouTube activity and increased populist fury among progressives that spiked during the summer. These things will likely decrease the level of public or legislative support for the Common Core State Standards.

As school returns to session, as non-full year legislatures re-convene, parents and teachers, people that are not forced to indoctrinate their subordinates with myths and doublethink delusions, should stand up and challenge the lies and doublethink of the Common Core. Let me be clear, children deserve consistency, within a city and state to state; careful, highly reflective reading should be pursued in the classroom. Yet, the Common Core is the Emperor's New Clothes myth. It did not come from the states, it is not internationally benchmarked, it is not the only path forward for helping the nation's education system towards "college and career readiness." These things all sound very acceptable. But they are simply not true. In repeating falsehoods, in having media and armies of school supervisors stay narrowly on-script and repeat the mistruths, the Common Core engineers are using classic propaganda techniques straight out of Orwell's 1984. They keep referring to their research or what the research tells us when promoting their agenda. But they have never shared that. (The proceedings were under conditions whereby participants signed confidentiality agreements, so we have none of the CCSS's internal documentation.) Real maturity is asking questions and recognizing a falsehood when you see it, not obediently mouthing a party line. Parents and teachers should challenge the system that has non-education experts dictating to teachers how to teach. David Coleman and Susan Pimentel, the English standards authors, never worked as teachers. Coleman's Oxford friend and lead math author, Jason Zimba, and the two other math authors, professors, yes, but never teachers. Yet, they are dictating national teaching practice.

We must stand up once and for all, and collectively question what authority do these individuals have to dictate best practices? And politically more offensive, how outrageous that they have been allowed to create the Standards in a process completely parallel to, and outside of legislative or bureaucratic channels. What we see in the process of how Gates hatched and propelled this program (detailed in the link for the last sentence) is a private government, bought by paymaster Bill Gates.
[POSTSCRIPT: Washington is, rightly, in a debate over whether president Barack Obama should have American forces commit a missile strike against Syria. The contention is that Congress must have a voice, that as a democracy, there should be discussion and debate over the matter. Yet, note that there has been no discussion contending that America should have a open democratic discussion authorizing national authority to strong arm states into committing to the Common Core and Race to the Top. It is a sorry state of affairs that we recall the need to have multiple institutions authorize military force, but we do not likewise expect multiple institutions have authority over educational policy. No, we have merely ceded authority to David Coleman and his secretive author committee of the Common Core.]

One New York district superintendent, Ken Mitchell, has issued a report, "Federal Mandates on Local Education: Costs and Consequences – Yes, it’s a Race, but is it in the Right Direction?," laying out in scrupulous detail how compliance with Common Core and other Race to the Top mandates will seriously strain districts' revenues, as well as force districts to reopen union contracts. He cited Christopher Tienken: “the standards have not been validated empirically and no metric has been set to monitor the intended or unintended consequences they will have on the education system and children.” And he also cited Lucy Calkins, Mary Ehrenworth, and Christopher Lehman: “On the whole, the image of the curriculum implicit in CCSS (and explicit especially in the new documents attempting to spell out implications for instruction) is not visibly research based; it is not based on large-scale reforms that have demonstrated a method for bringing highneeds students to the levels of the Common Core. If that were the case, then the nation would be invited to observe otherwise typical high-needs schools where most of the graduates are flourishing at their colleges." In compliance with the Common Core, we are called to accept, wholesale, Gates' and Coleman's program, while suspending conventional expectations that proper research and trials be conducted.

Fortunately, some New York superintendents, for example, Joseph Rella and William Johnson are not following the official story script. The people can, and must, rebel against the Common Core script.

P.L. Thomas, Citing Common Core, and VAM Evaluations: "A Call for Non-Cooperation: So that Teachers Are Not Foreigners in Their Own Profession"

A Call for Non-Cooperation: So that Teachers Are Not Foreigners in Their Own Profession Posted on May 7, 2013 by plthomasedd

Gandhi’s views on enhancing the vernaculars…so that Indians are “not foreigners in their own land” are directly tied to his opinions on developing communities (for “the poorest of the poor” ) and making community service an integral part of any education. (Ramanathan, 2006, pp. 235-236)

Standing in the middle of the road offers some statistical advantage to avoiding being run over since you aren’t in the prescribed lanes of traffic, but standing in the middle of the road can never assure the safety that refusing to walk into the road to begin with does.

Writing about a call for a moratorium on implementing and testing Common Core State Standards (CCSS) from union leadership, Anthony Cody ends his blog post with three questions:

What do you think? Should we join Randi Weingarten in pushing for one year’s delay in the harsh consequences attached to Common Core assessments? Will this year put the project on sound footing?

These questions about CCSS have been joined by two other calls for compromise and civility—Matthew Di Carlo challenging [at the Shanker blog, May 6, 2013, "About Value-Added And “Junk Science”] charges that value-added methods (VAM) of teacher evaluation are “junk science” and Jennifer Jennings penning an apology to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan for protests at his 2013 talk at American Educational Research Association (AERA). [1]

Weingarten, Di Carlo [2], and Jennings share a call for standing in the middle of the road, a quest for ways to compromise, and these all appear reasonable positions. Ultimately, however, moratoriums, compromise, and civility are all concessions to the current education reform movement and the policies at the center of those reforms, specifically CCSS and VAM.

Teachers as Foreigners in Their Own Profession

Briefly, I want to identify how arguments about a CCSS moratorium, implementing VAM properly and cautiously, and the need for civility are concessions that render teachers foreigners in their own profession.

As long as the debate about CCSS and VAM remain how best to implement them, the essential questions remain unasked, and the agenda behind both are assured success. While I want to address the civility argument next, let me note here that calls for CCSS and VAM are inherently civil and derogatory, exposing the myopic concern for the civility of those rejecting Duncan’s discourse and policies.

The implied and stated messages of calls for CCSS and more high-stakes testing include the following: (1) Teachers do not know what to teach, or how, and (2) teachers are unlikely to perform at the needed levels of effort in their profession unless they are held accountable by external and bureaucratic means.

The implied and stated messages of calls for VAM and merit pay include the following: (1) The most urgent problem at the core of educational outcomes is teacher quality, and (2) teachers are unlikely to perform at the needed levels of effort in their profession unless they are held accountable by external and bureaucratic means.

Calls for CCSS and VAM also share another implied and stated message: Failed educational outcomes are the result of in-school deficiencies; in effect, out-of-school factors are irrelevant in the pursuit of education reform.

These messages are factually false and, despite the civility of the language, irrevocably offensive.

Standing in the middle of the road of bureaucratic, accountability-based school reform, then, may decrease the likelihood of being run over, but it concedes the road itself to those who have built it, to those who govern the laws of transportation.

To answer Cody’s second and third questions, then, No. And now to his first.

Civility: Standing in the Middle of the Road of Accountability

The call for civility exposes a foundational problem with the current education reform debate because, for all practical purposes, there is no debate.

Civility, CCSS, and VAM may all have some appeal in theory, but all of them fall apart in reality, in their implementation.

Civility is the last recourse of the powerful, those who can afford to appear civil because they hold all the power.

Through the lens of history, we must recognize that CCSS will become ”what is testing is what is taught,” as all standards movements have shown.

VAM also sits in a long history of the corrosive consequences of stack ranking, merit pay, and competition.

And this brings us back to standing in the middle of someone else’s road.

Education reform and policy have been historically and are currently under the control of political and corporate leadership who are not educators—many of whom did not even attend public schools, many of whom send their own children to schools unlike the environments they promote and implement.

The locus of power in education is catastrophically inverted; thus, we do not need more or different mechanisms for accountability-based education reform, but we do need a new era of non-cooperation.

The goal of non-cooperation must include seeking ways in which to shift the priorities of the locus of power:

* First, the central locus of power in education is the student, situated in her/his home and community.
* Next in importance is the locus of power afforded the teacher in her/his unique classrooms.
* These must then merge for a locus of power generated within the community of the school.
* Finally, the locus of power in this school-based community must radiate outward.

A Call for Non-Cooperation

Non-cooperation, as found in the philosophy and actions of Gandhi, represents another inversion—away from in-school only education reform and toward, as Ramanathan explains, “communal and educational change”:

As is evident, the take on “education” presented here is not the usual one—of teaching and learning in formal contexts of classrooms and institutions—but one that is intended to move us toward becoming collectively open to realizing that very valuable “education” often goes on outside the constraints of classrooms: in ashrams, in madrassas, in extracurricular programs, by local, politically minded youth, all drawing on local vernacular ways of healing rifts. Indeed, “education” in both these institutions is civic and community education that seems to assume Gandhian ideals of “Non-Cooperation” (and nonformal education) and that is aimed at primarily effecting changes in the community, sometimes before addressing issues relevant to formal education. (p. 230)

Non-cooperation, then, moves beyond a call for teacher autonomy; instead, non-cooperation is the act of the autonomy by “people directly involved” (Ramanathan, p. 231):

Not only do they have Gandhi’s larger philosophy of Non-Cooperation against political hegemonies [emphasis added] at their core…, but they also opened up for me a way of understanding both how Gandhianism is situated and how particular dimensions of the identities of participants (Kanno, 2003; Menard-Warwick, 2005; Norton, 2000; Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004) get laminated. I was able to see how Gandhianism is first collaboratively interpreted in workshops, then applied and translated on the ground in most local of contexts, and then recast and reinterpreted by individuals and groups as they regroup. (Ramanathan, p. 232)

Non-cooperation is a new paradigm that begins with those most directly impacted by the institution (here, education)—parents, students, teachers. In other words, the people most directly impacted ask the foundational questions: Do we need formal education? And if so, what does that include and how should that be implemented?

This is not about seeking compromise at someone else’s table, not about standing still in the middle of someone else’s road.

The purposes of universal public education, then, is refocused in the ways that address the needs of the least among us, as Gandhi envisioned:

[Nonformal education] … will check the progressive decay of our villages and lay the foundation for a juster social order in which there is no unnatural division between the “haves” and the “have nots” and everybody is assured a living wage and the rights to freedom.…It will provide a healthy and a moral basis of relationship between the city and village and will go a long way towards eradicating some of the worst evils of the present social insecurity and poisoned relationship between the classes. (Harijan, 9-10-37, cited in Prasad, 1924…). (qtd. in Ramanathan, p. 236)

Bureaucratic accountability-based reform is ill equipped to address inequity, mismatched with goals of social justice since the paradigm is authoritarian, the locus of power exclusively with the “haves.”

Non-cooperation seeks instead, as Ramanathan explains:

[an orientation] toward viewing education in broader, community-oriented terms to draw out “the best in children,” to build a “healthy and moral” base for both “the city and the village,” to be entirely secular in its orientation (with “no room … for sectional religious training,” and to eventually transform the “homes of the pupils”[)]. (p. 237)

As well, this call for non-cooperation reframes the civility debate, as Gandhi recognized: “We must welcome them to our political platforms [emphasis added] as honoured guests. We must meet them on neutral platforms as comrades” (qtd. in Ramanathan, p. 237). Civility then follows the re-imagining of the locus of power: “Non-Cooperation…emerges as a deeply historicized awareness committed to doing the opposite of repressive, silencing ills. The quiet way in which both projects bridge perceived gulfs are reminiscent of Gandhi’s insistence on responding to tyranny by searching for nonviolent, quiet alternatives that tap the moral instincts of humans” (Ramanathan, p. 238).

Currently, since calls for CCSS, VAM, and civility all work as “repressive,” “silencing,” and “tyranny,” non-cooperation is the only alternative remaining.

The results must be “interpreting all education as ‘civic education’ and on attending to the most basic of human needs—food, clothing, shelter—before addressing any issues related to formal learning” (Ramanathan, pp. 241-242) as direct action refusing to compromise on in-school only education reform that drives arguments for how best to implement CCSS and VAM:

This close attention to “educating oneself,” of figuring out and questioning one’s own default assumptions, has echoes of Gandhi’s Non-Cooperation, and finds interesting articulation in the idea that we each need to “not cooperate” with our default views but attempt to step outside them by “educating ourselves” by learning from others. (Ramanathan, pp. 244)

In the West, specifically in the United States, we are deeply entrenched in our “default views,” most of which are tinted by commitments to competition, authoritarian structures, and the sanctity of the individual. This call, however, is a call to recognize the importance of community and social justice in our national pursuit of democracy.

Arundhati Roy confronts the tensions at the core of why compromise, moratoriums, and civility fail the narrow education debate as well as the broader democracy:

Fascism is about the slow, steady infiltration of all the instruments of state power. It’s about the slow erosion of civil liberties, about unspectacular, day-to-day injustices.…It means keeping an eagle eye on public institutions and demanding accountability. It means putting your ear to the ground and listening to the whispering of the truly powerless. It means giving a forum to the myriad voices from the hundreds of resistance movements across the country that are speaking about real issues….It means fighting displacement and dispossession and the relentless, every violence of abject poverty. (Roy, 2002; qtd. Ramanathan, pp. 246)

Now is the time for non-cooperation, not moratoriums, not compromise, and not civility on other people’s terms.

Now is the time for non-cooperation so that teachers are not foreigners in their own profession and students are not foreigners in their own classrooms.

[1] See also Jeff Bryant["Education Opportunity Network, May 7, 2013, "Why We Need A Moratorium On The High-Stakes Of Common Core Testing".

[2] Of the three calls for moderation, I do not place Di Carlo’s position as essentially equal to those by Weingarten and Jennings. Di Carlo’s nuanced and detailed discussion of VAM contributes a credible position that I find compelling to a point (such as Di Carlo conceding: “Now, I personally am not opposed to using these estimates in evaluations and other personnel policies”); however, Weingarten and Jennings present far more problems and suffer from a much greater degree of lacking credibility.