Wednesday, May 11, 2016
Student Life Gaps
Dan Walters Opinion piece of 4/17/16 describes how the perennial attempt in California (and across the country) to reduce the ‘achievement’ gap between poor/English-language learners and more advantaged students has not only been a disappointment, but in fact the gap has widened. What is this ‘achievement gap’ and what does it mean to students, parents, educators and the community?
My name is Rog Lucido. For over 38 years I have taught students and teachers, physics ( and other sciences) as well as mathematics in private, public and charter schools here in Fresno and elsewhere. Our five children have attended both public and private schools over their k-12 education years. Since 1990 I have researched, written three books on the effects of tests and scores on students and teachers. [Test, Grade, and Score- Never More (1993), Educational Genocide- A Plague on our Children (2010), Returning Sanity to the Classroom (2015)]
As teacher, parent, and researcher/author I am quite familiar with the common understanding of academic ‘achievement’ that is referred to in this ‘achievement gap’. In short it means ‘how well do students score on a set of standardized tests’. That is defined as their ‘achievement’. The ‘gap’ is a comparison of a set of scores (numbers) from one administration of these tests to a specific group of students in comparison to another group in a similar time window. The test maker arbitrarily sets ‘cut scores’ that label students’ test results into specific categories (In California for over ten years described student performance achievement levels on the California Standards English and Math Tests as ‘far below,’ ‘below basic,’ ‘basic,’ ‘proficient,’ and ‘advanced.’ ) Similar designations will occur on the new common core assessments.
So, the ‘achievement gap’ means the numerical score differences on standardized English and math tests between defined groups of students based on their socio-economic and language acquisition levels. Generally the groups that are compared are classified as white, Asian, Latino, and black. Beginning in 1965, then President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) saying that the purpose of the law is to “bridge the gap between hopelessness and hope for more than five million educationally deprived children.” Since then the federal government has provided extra funds beyond ordinary state monies to help these disadvantaged children to hopefully narrow the ‘achievement gap’. The Congress has mandated standardized testing to check to see if this gap is closing. Currently in California (as is true elsewhere), the gap is widening. In my last two books I focused on the invalidity, injustice and inappropriateness of using this high-stakes standardized testing as a means of student assessment. In this article I turn my attention to the impact of a student’s life outside-of-school on academic success in-school. I call it the life gap.
From the 1960’s onward numerous studies have shown that 80 to 90 percent of student academic achievement is due to factors outside-of-school. To put it another way, it has been clearly demonstrated that only 10 to 20 percent of a student’s academic achievement is determined by what actually goes on in school. The rest is determined by family and societal issues. Much has been made of the correlation between family income and student achievement, i.e., as family income rises, so does student academic achievement.
While this is true in the generalized sense it is not necessarily true in the specific sense. Many teachers have experienced students from ‘poor’ families who have excelled both in the classroom and on these standardized tests. We have also experienced students from ‘wealthy’ families who have done very poorly on both. If 80 to 90 percent of a student’s school success comes from aspects of their life outside of school, it would behoove state and federal governments to identify those out-of-school elements, then spend time and resources on their remediation.
Schools cannot pretend that trying to get the most out of students’ 10 to 20 percent of school contributions will have a significant impact on their achievement. These in-school academic efforts cannot override the 80 to 90 percent of those out-of-school effects that students have been molded by and continue to impact them each and every day. How are schools to effectively educate students who must deal with:
-Daily fear of life and limb
-Physical/mental health issues
-Lack of parental educational support
-Lack of appropriate reading material in the home
-Severely limited life experiences
-Dysfunctional family life
-Weak academic motivation
To begin to address these out-of –school issues, each and every student needs a personal ‘case worker’( not akin to the current academic/social counselor) who can identify the limitations with which each student enters school and develop a ‘life-enhancement’ plan with state and federal resources and interventions to manage student progress within each of the afore mentioned out-of-school concerns.
Industrial manufacturers are quite aware of the need for quality raw materials to produce the best possible products. While schools are not factories they do have a mandate to take in students in whatever condition they arrive and provide a rich and wholesome educational experience. The better able students are to access the school experience the more enriched their lives will become. The actions and resources of the case worker with each student can reduce the negative impact of the out-of-school issues and provide a healthier life for them.
American students need it. When the United Nation’s Children’s Fund (UNICEF) compares children’s well being in the top twenty four richest countries the United States ranks near the bottom in all three major categories: Material well being, Education well being and Health well being. There surely are state and federal laws and programs directed at alleviating hunger, providing housing, and accessing health services. These attempts are by enlarge for the general population. They are not personally coordinated programs focused on an individual student’s daily attempts to overcome his or her personal out-of –school deprivations and obstacles.
This is not a figment of this teacher/parent/researcher/author’s imagination. It is real and is happening to the students in the school nearest you. Our state and federal governments need to wake up and allocate our education dollars where it will have the most impact: on the out-of-school limitations. Why spend our education dollars on what does not get to the heart of the matter? Teachers’ efforts and school/district normal programs will become much more efficacious with students who are healthier and happier in their personal lives.
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
'Returning Sanity to the Classroom-Eliminating the Testing Mania' is published
It seems like education is on a never ending quest to be ‘reformed’. The current trend began with the successful USSR’s orbiting of Sputnik on October 4, 1957 and reached a crescendo in 1983 with the publication of ‘A Nation at Risk.’ This flawed report spoke of a ‘rising level of mediocrity’ in our schools when in fact the evidence it cited was greatly skewed towards that desired outcome. (http://www.edutopia.org/landmark-education-report-nation-risk )
Engendering public fear, the message continues today: ‘American students are behind those of many countries. Our dominance of military and economic strength is on the decline. We are losing our competitiveness.’ The root cause of this false conclusion was laid at the feet of our schools by the U.S. corporate world. But when viewed from an international perspective our perceived ‘plight’ was due in fact not to schools but to American social, business, and political failings.
The World Economic Forum researchers have concluded that the U.S. economic competitiveness has weaknesses. The report reads that the “weaknesses include the business communities' criticism of the public and private institutions, that there is a great lack of trust in politicians, and a lack of a strong relationship between government and business. And the U.S. debt continues to grow.”
The relationship is moot
According to the World Economic Forum, student test scores on international tests in reading, mathematics and science were not even mentioned as connected to the weakening of the U.S.'s ability to compete. The relationship is moot. (World Economic Forum Report, 2011/12 http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GCR_Report_2011-12.pdf ).
Claim not supported
Further, from renowned researcher Christopher H. Tienken in Rankings of International Achievement Test Performance and Economic Strength: Correlation or Conjecture? he states, “In the case of the United States, the data does not support the claim that a correlation exists between performance on international tests of mathematics and science and economic strength as measured by the Global Competitive Index.” (http://journals.sfu.ca/ijepl/index.php/ijepl/article/view/110/44 )
With many studies demonstrating that 80 to 90 percent of student achievement is due to factors outside of school, how can we consider changes in our schooling as the solution to our economic problems? Based on the principle that schools were the culprit, over the last thirteen years Congress and the 2001 administration charged ahead with a ‘plan’ that was thought to fix all of this: No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
The plan’s fundamental paradigm was for each state to create a set of educational standards, ask educators to teach to those standards, test students on those standards, report their results back to the U.S. Department of Education, and determine if each state is progressing at a predetermined rate that would culminate in 2014 with all students being proficient in mathematics and English language arts.
High-stakes testing culture
This ‘plan’ was the genesis of today’s high-stakes testing culture. They are called high- stakes tests because the scores are then used to judge students, teachers, schools, districts and states. These scores are not a valid way to make educational decisions.( see Educational Genocide- A Plague on our Children http://www.worldcat.org/title/educational-genocide-a-plague-on-our-children/oclc/606051706 )
If schools did not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) on student proficiency percentages they were met with varying degrees of sanctions. Districts, schools and teachers came under more and more restrictive and proscriptive mandates or their schools were reconstituted with new administrators and teachers with state ‘take-over’ as the ultimate punishment.
The 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was never tested for its effectiveness before enactment. The results are now evident: academic stagnation. It did not work! Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education Diane Ravitch writes:
“Because of NCLB, more than 80 percent of our nation's public schools will be labeled "failures" this year. By 2014, on the NCLB timetable of destruction, close to 100 percent of public schools will have "failed" in their efforts to reach the unreachable goal of 100 percent proficiency in reading and math. Has there ever been a national legislative body anywhere else in the world that has passed legislation that labeled almost every one of its schools a failure?”1
Recent attempts at NCLB revival include both waivers directed at states and districts who are trying to escape the law’s harsh sanctions as well as stimulation with the ‘Race to the Top’ funding program. Both attempts are hinged on states accepting a set of national education standards called the ‘Common Core Standards’ along with national testing to follow. This new ‘plan’ was never piloted and has no evidence of success, once again making millions of U.S. students guinea pigs. Essentially it says to the states, “Accept these standards or else you will not qualify for these funding programs.”
The problem with all of these ‘reform’ efforts is that they ask the wrong questions from the wrong perspectives. They start from the outside-national and state initiatives-with the hope of improving individual student learning within the confines of the classroom. How threats and coercion from the highest levels of government could possibly translate into students becoming more eager and desirous to learn in the classroom is almost farcical. These ‘reform’ efforts were not initiated by practitioners who work daily with students. None of these programs began by asking cadres of teachers, “what are the classroom practices that best engage students in learning?”
Improvement is what this book is all about. As educationally engaged professionals, parents and community members we should have as part of our ongoing interest the improvement of the learning atmosphere for our students. This interest is not in reaction to economic fear mongering but is a genuine human response to benefit our youth. I suggest a restructuring that begins in the classroom that then moves outward to schools, districts and states as a means of supporting individual student learning.
What I share here is my personal experience of having integrated various concepts and strategies that I have found to be most beneficial to my students. While many of these ideas may have been used in isolation from each other, I have put them together into a cogent practical and successful pedagogy. I call it ‘Forgiving Learning.’
The human brain is the organ for learning, whether inside or outside of school. Each of
our bodily organs has a particular function within the context of living. As educators we hope that all of our students’ organs are working well to the benefit of their health and well being. But in particular we focus on the brain because one of its primary functions is not only a clearing house for what enters through the senses but also seeks patterns and connections.
It learns from all the random inputs that daily life puts before each of us. I address the question of what are the conditions under which the brain operates with highest efficiency. Which of those conditions is the classroom practitioner responsible for maximizing? Which of those conditions is the school, family life and the greater community responsible for providing? What aspects of having a healthy brain is the student responsible for?
The human brain makes decisions. Each of us has a preferred way of making them. These preferences can be both a strength and a weakness. The teacher needs to know and understand how these preferences influence the student’s response to the various strategies that are employed in the classroom. They also need to have a working knowledge of their own teaching preferences and how that can impact student engagement.
The all-encompassing idea is that over the millennia the human species has interacted with its environment and evolved a process of natural learning. Our brains come to us prewired and ready to follow its programming of learning from its mistakes while making positive changes along the way to success. The heart fulfills its purpose in circulating the blood. All the other organs follow suit in performing their natural functions. Just like any of the other bodily organs the neocortex portion of the brain seeks to fulfill its major role: it wants to learn.
Forgiving Learning is therefore a pedagogy of educational cooperation. It is one solution
to the question of how to create and operate a student-brain-friendly learning atmosphere k-12 and beyond. Forgiving Learning employs strategies that students readily recognize as satisfying their need to know and successfully comprehend the world in which they live. It is presented in a way that is adaptable to multiple teaching styles and of such a nature that it can be modified to best fit classroom modalities that schools and districts have already mandated. Although the principles of Forgiving Learning were developed within high school physics classes, its central tenet of students learning from their mistakes with multiple opportunities without penalty can be applied to any grade level or course offering. Errors can be redeemed.
Education from living
Learning from failure is not just the method in which a baby learns to walk, but over the millennia has become a most viable learning process for all human beings. The core elements of Forgiving Learning will be recognized by all adults who support students’ healthy development and can also be of great benefit to the community at large. I long to see what Edgar Z. Freedenberg so perceptibly envisioned:
Then, there may come a time when you can’t even tell education from living.2
- Ravitch, Diane, NCLB: End It, Don't Mend It. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/Bridging-Differences/2011/10/dear_deborah_have_you_been.html (accessed 10/25/11)
- Gross, Beatrice and Ronald Gross. Radical School Reform, New York :Simon and Schuster, 1970
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Thursday, February 05, 2015
On Peace in our Schools
By Rog Lucido
Learning is a human endeavor. Life is full of different random events. We respond-sometimes successfully, sometimes not. Fruitful actions become reinforced and failures are noted to be avoided in the future. In short, we learn from both our achievements and our disappointments. School is a place where educators attempt to mimic the real world. They create situations that have academic, athletic, social, artistic or political ‘lessons’ attached to each. Teachers hope their students see the value in what is created and make the connection to its parallel in their lives. Learning becomes more relevant.
Thus, the educators’ world view is critical in preparing these lessons. If they buy into the viewpoint that the world is ‘dog eat dog,’ where conflict between humans, such as aggressive consumer behavior on ‘Black Friday,’ is the norm, then they develop ways to mirror that belief in our schools. The fastest, the strongest and the smartest become the winners and the remainder become the losers. Some state and national education laws legislate ways to isolate and separate one group from another, whether it’s students, teachers, schools or districts. These laws compare and contrast to satisfy a need to validate a ‘survival of the fittest’ world view.
The high-stakes testing regime spawned by NCLB provides invalid test scores that are then used to promote an incentive to classify and categorize students, educators and their learning institutions. This degrades and marginalizes what appears to be the weaker in favor of those deceived into believing they are superior. This establishes criteria for conflict and division, pitting one student and educator against another and one school or district above or below others.
The truth is that this is an artificial structure not based on the reality of the human spirit. One only has to see the ways we reach out to each other in times of need like natural disasters to see the magnanimity of the human heart. We reach out to help those in need. This is when we are at our best in making our world a more peaceful place.
In the plant and animal kingdoms life is not about ‘survival of the fittest’ as common lore would have it, but rather survival of those species better able to sustain the symbiotic relationships with other organisms in the ecosystem. It is more a give and take proposition where one species seeks out its needs while providing a benefit to others. This process is mutual to the advantage of both.
I am glad ‘survival of the fittest’ is not the paradigm from which I base the most meaningful relationships in my life. I seek out common ground from which deeper understanding and appreciation of likenesses and differences can be cultivated. We humans seek peace in our relationships. One of the main purposes of the United Nations is to foster peace between countries: ‘to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors (from the UN Preamble). Here at home from the preamble of our Constitution: ‘We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility…’
We need peace in our schools-peace between students and teachers, teachers and administrators and schools and the community. One of the steps of peace is to eliminate the weapons with which we attack each other. We can go a long way in establishing this peace by eliminating high-stakes testing.
Students and educators come to the common ground of school already altered by the aggressive aspects of our culture. Our schools should be a place where a redeeming society of peace is fostered. Countries thrive with peace. Families thrive with peace. Schools will thrive with peace. Anxiety will be reduced and productivity will increase. Let the symbiotic relationships between humans without the need for winners and losers become the model for our children and a better world.
Saturday, March 01, 2014
Common Core Standards-A disaster in the making
Common Core Standards-A disaster in the making
By Rog Lucido
Horace (Rog) Lucido, now retired, taught high school physics and mathematics for over thirty-eight years as well as being both a university mentor and master teacher. He is the California Central Valley coordinator for the Assessment Reform Network and cofounder of Educators and Parents Against Testing Abuse (EPATA). He is the author of two books: Test, Grade and Score: Never More, 1993, and Educational Genocide: A Plague on our Children, 2010. He has written numerous articles on the impact of high-stakes testing as well as presenting workshops on Forgiving Learning.
It seems like education is on a never ending quest to be ‘reformed’. The current trend began with the successful USSR’s orbiting of Sputnik on October 4, 1957 and reached a crescendo in 1983 with the publication of ‘A Nation at Risk’. This flawed report spoke of a ‘rising level of mediocrity’ in our schools when in fact the evidence it cited was greatly skewed towards that desired outcome. (http://www.edutopia.org/landmark-education-report-nation-risk Engendering public fear, the message continues today: ‘American students are behind those of many countries. Our dominance of military and economic strength is on the decline. We are losing our competitiveness.’ The root cause of this false conclusion was laid at the feet of our schools by the US corporate world. But when viewed from an international perspective our perceived ‘plight’ was due in fact not to schools but to American business and political failings.
The World Economic Forum researchers have concluded that the U.S. economic competitiveness has weaknesses. The report reads that the “weaknesses include the business communities' criticism of the public and private institutions, that there is a great lack of trust in politicians, and a lack of a strong relationships between government and business. And the U.S. debt continues to grow.” According to the World Economic Forum, student test scores on international tests in reading, mathematics and science were not even mentioned as connected to the weakening of the U.S.'s ability to compete. Period. (World Economic Forum Report, 2011/12 http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GCR_Report_2011-12.pdf ). Further, from renowned researcher Christopher H. Tienken in RANKINGS OF INTERNATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT TEST PERFORMANCE AND ECONOMIC STRENGTH: CORRELATION OR CONJECTURE? he states, “In the case of the United States, the data does not support the claim that a correlation exists between performance on international tests of mathematics and science and economic strength as measured by the Global Competitive Index.” http://journals.sfu.ca/ijepl/index.php/ijepl/article/view/110/44
With many studies demonstrating that 80 to 90 percent of student achievement is due to factors outside of school, how can we consider changes in our schooling as the solution to our economic problems? Based on the principle that schools were the culprit, over the last thirteen years Congress and the 2001 administration charged ahead with a ‘plan’ that was thought to fix all of this. The plan’s fundamental paradigm was for each state to create a set of educational standards, ask educators to teach to those standards, test student mastery of those standards, report their results back to the US Department of Education, and determine if each state is progressing at a predetermined rate that would culminate in 2014 with all students being proficient in Mathematics and English Language Arts.
This ‘plan’ was the genesis of today’s high-stakes testing culture. They are called-high stakes tests because the scores are then used to judge students, teachers, schools, districts and states. These scores are not a valid way to make educational decisions.( see Educational Genocide- A Plague on our Children http://www.amazon.com/Educational-Genocide-Plague-Our-Children/dp/1607097184/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365025395&sr=1-1 ) If schools did not make adequate yearly progress on student proficiency percentages they were met with varying degrees of sanctions. Districts, schools and teachers came under more and more restrictive and proscriptive mandates or their schools were reconstituted with new administrators and teachers with state ‘take-over’ as the ultimate punishment.
This ‘plan’- never tested for its effectiveness before enactment- was the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The results are now evident: academic stagnation. It did not work. Recent attempts at NCLB revival include waivers directed at states and districts escaping the law’s harsh sanctions as well as stimulation with the ‘Race to the Top’ funding program. Both of these are hinged on states accepting a set of national education standards called the ‘Common Core Standards’ along with national testing to follow. Once again this new ‘plan’ was never piloted and has no evidence of success.
The Common Core Standards were developed by a collusion of the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers with primary funding from Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and other business and special interests. So, here we are again trying to solve an ill-defined business problem with an untested school solution, neither of which comes from educators. Common Core was not ‘state-led’ as many were led to believe. It is corporate centered not student centered.
Emmett Mc Groarty, executive director of American Principles in Action said that states were "herded" into adopting the standards with no time to deliberate on their worth. He called the standards ‘mediocre’ and costly to implement. Former Texas state commissioner Robert Scott stated, “And it was about control totality from some education reform groups who candidly admit their real goal here is to create a national marketplace for education products and services.”
The US Department of Education (USDOE) is forbidden by law from creating a national curriculum. Curriculum is a states’ right. USDOE got around this by making acceptance of a national set of standards the critical criteria for states applying for millions of dollars in both Race to the Top funding and NCLB waiver requirements. Essentially saying, “Accept these standards or else you will not qualify.” On top of this legal chicanery, these standards are not all they are cracked up to be. By just evaluating two states standards The Pioneer Institute found:
‘Our analysis of Common Core’s mathematics and ELA standards, and the evidence we provide, do not support the conclusion drawn by many other reviewers that Common Core’s standards provide a stronger and more challenging framework for the mathematics and English language arts curriculum than (or an equally as challenging framework as) California’s and Massachusetts’ standards have provided. Common Core’s standards will not prepare more high school students for authentic college-level work than standards in these states have prepared. To the contrary, they may lead to fewer high school students prepared for authentic college-level work. We offer these recommendations to states that are adopting Common Core’s standards.’
Not only are California’s current standards considered the best in the nation by the Fordham Foundation and the Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research but they are on par with those of the most respected educational systems in the world. In testimony about the Common Core, R. James Migram, Ph.D.You +1'd this publicly. Undo emeritus professor of mathematics at Stanford University, stated, “Also among these difficulties are that a large number of the arithmetic and operations, as well as the place value standards are one, two or even more years behind the corresponding standards for many if not all the high achieving countries.”
Of what value is there for all the states in the US to have the same standards? Student mobility between states is between 1 and 3 percent-hardly a reason to have common standards. It would seem to follow that those states with a 'better' set of common standards would be more financially competitive than any other state. If you look at the top ten 'competitive' states http://www.siteselection.com/issues/2011/may/comp-awards.cfm and examine the criteria on which their 'competitiveness' is based (bottom of page), you will not see even a reference to any educational attainments by their students, k-12 nor university!
Why would we then think that if the US had a common set of standards, i.e. ‘common core’, across all of our states that this would be the hallmark which would raise our status in comparison with other countries in our passion to be ‘globally competitive’? As far as global competitiveness is concerned, having a set of national standards does not make one country any more successful than any other. As an example, in California alone we have over 1000 school districts and each one of them has used California’s world class standards for over 10 years. Yet even with this commonality and quality, California has not distinguished itself above every other of the 50 states-each of which has their own set of state standards. If you consider each California school ‘district’ as a state, even having common high quality standards is not the solution to improving student learning. “The quality of standards has not mattered. From 2003 to 2009, states with terrific standards raised their National Assessment of Educational Progress scores by roughly the same margin as states with awful ones.” http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/04/18/28loveless_ep.h31.html
There are 46 states that had originally accepted the common core standards and the associated testing to follow. But as of March 3 of this year there are thirteen of these states in various stages of rescinding their original approval. https://www.box.com/s/0jcz6zo5otf0ojtfe3tu . Each state has its own reasons. Some are based on principles such as:
-The common core is an infringement on states’ rights.
-States were pressured into signing on without time to consider all ramifications.
-There is no evidence that these national standards will improve student learning.
Some reasons are based on enormous taxpayer costs. These new standards would require new textbooks, ancillary materials, ongoing teacher training time and the expensive salaries of outside consultants. And as if this is not costly enough, the testing alone is being developed using an online format where students will be tested while sitting at a computer. Districts will be required to take on the cost of upgrading schools’ computer and network capabilities to handle the testing. In California alone Education Reporter states that ‘The California Department of Education estimates that Common Core will cost the state about $760 million. Outside estimates place California's fiscal commitment at up to $1.6 billion. California already expects a $3 billion deficit at the end of fiscal year 2011, and a $10 billion deficit in 2012-13. In addition, General Fund revenues for 2011-12 are lower than expected, triggering a $2 billion cut to state programs beginning in January. "Adding up to a billion-and-a-half-dollar expenditure to implement national standards under these circumstances is fiscal madness," said Lance Izumi, senior director of education studies at the Pacific Research Institute.’ http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2012/jan12/common-core-standards.html
When you now include the costs encumbered by each of the other 45 states that accept these standards as well as adding to this the amount of our tax dollars the USDOE is using to bankroll the development of the national tests, this now becomes a multi-billion dollar enterprise. This is a dead end street.
What business would invest in a product to sell unless it had been thoroughly tested to operate and produce the desired outcome? Yet, the corporate world is willing promote this Common Core effort with no evidence of its effectiveness for the students, themselves or the country. Why would they do this unless, in the process of the Common Core development, distribution and use they would be able to garner great profits with little risk? The vast majority of the capital necessary to implement the Common Core forward is coming from our state and national taxes not their coffers. Our billions in education tax dollars are up for grabs. New text books, ancillary materials, district/state pre-testing development to prepare for the national tests, teacher training and consulting services and more are the costs we will bear.
Californian’s need to become aware that all of this time, energy, and resources our schools will invest is coming from our classrooms and will provide no benefit to our students. Do not look for improved student engagement and learning. It will not happen.
Let these state officials know your thoughts and feelings about the Common Core Standards:
The Honorable Tom Torlakson
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
1430 N Street, Suite 5602
Sacramento, CA 95814-5901
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
1430 N Street, Suite 5602
Sacramento, CA 95814-5901
Senator Carol Liu
Chair of Education Committee
State Capitol, Room 5097
Sacramento, CA 95814
Sacramento, CA 95814
Assembly Member Joan Buchanan
Chair of the Education Committee
State Capitol, Room 2148,
Sacramento, CA 94248-0016
What else can you do when Common Core comes into your community?
Corporate and education supporters always say that they require data to ‘inform their decisions’. So ask local school boards/administrators for data showing Common Core will prepare students for college and the workplace. The fact is THERE ISN’T ANY. Ask local school boards/administrators for data that shows Common Core will prepare students to compete in the global economy. Again, THERE ISN’T ANY.
They can’t give you data, so refuse to give them data OPT STUDENTS OUT OF Common Core TESTING. See: http://www.eduperspectivescv.org/opting-out
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Common Core Exposed
In the ongoing effort to debunk the Common Core Standards and associated testing, I have created a PowerPoint called Common Core Exposed. I have posted it in two downloadable versions. The first is a Read Only version that can be used at one’s own pace for presentations at school boards, parent meetings and the like. References for each slide are below each slide by just hitting Esc on your keyboard. The second version is that same PowerPoint made into a YouTube movie ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lch0gNAdS6k&feature=youtu.be ) with music in the background that proceeds at a given rate. It can be paused and reinitiated with the spacebar if you need to take more time to read any given slide. The references on the movie version are on a set of slides at the end of the presentation. I hope you will find good uses for it and pass along those who you think may be interested. Links to both versions can be found at http://www.laserpablo.com/teacherresources/teacherresources.htm . Just scroll to the bottom of the page to the right of my picture are the links.
I have also created a Facebook page called Stop Common Core in California’s Central Valley (https://www.facebook.com/stopcommoncorecentalvalleycalifornia)
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Teachers and test scores
In August, the Fresno Unified School District was given a one-year waiver from the U.S. Department of Education to be freed from the strict guidelines of No Child Left Behind. In turn, Fresno Unified agreed to find a way of connecting teacher evaluations to student annual test scores.
According to The Bee's Oct. 12 story, Rhonnie Tinsley, executive director of the Fresno Teachers Association, said of contract negotiations: "Teachers are especially concerned about changes to the ways they are evaluated. Under the deal, up to 30% of a teacher's annual review could be based on student achievement."
This year, Fresno Unified will make every effort to make the union appear to be the obstacle in Fresno Unified being freed from NCLB sanctions. Expect to hear statements like this: "See, we could be freed from the harsh effects of NCLB if the union would only agree to have 30% of teacher evaluations tied to student test scores."
In the fall of 2009, the National Research Council strongly rebuked the U.S. Department of Education for attempting to use student test scores for purposes specifically related to the evaluation of teachers. Student test data should not be used to determine teacher effectiveness.