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:
-Chronic hunger
-Daily fear of life and limb
-Physical/mental health issues
-Lack of parental educational support
-Lack of appropriate reading material in the home
-Insufficient housing
-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
http://www.livingindialogue.com/rog-lucidos-new-book-restoring-sanity-to-the-classroom/
Introduction
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
)
False conclusion
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.
No
correlation
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
)
NCLB
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
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 )
Sanctions
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.
Never tested
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
Revival?
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.”
Wrong
questions
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
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.
Experiences
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
brain
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.
Conditions
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?
Natural learning
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.
Prewired
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.
Adaptable
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
Notes
- 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
High-stakes testing makes teaching bleak
Published online on Saturday, Sep. 26,
2009
http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/valley_voices/story/1651824.html
During a post-game interview
by Coach Jim Mora of the New Orleans Saints, he responded to a sportswriter
questioning a game decision he made: "You think you know, you really do
think you understand ... but, you don't know ... you really don't understand at
all."
Coaching decisions are based on a number
of factors: Who is healthy or injured? What is the play that best fits this
situation? What are the conditions of the field, the direction of the wind?
What is the quality of our athletes for his play?
So many details and nuances that only
experience and training can take into consideration before making a decision.
These are dark days for teachers and their students. There are so many who
think they know, who think they understand, but they don't.They are not on the sidelines and in the
locker rooms; they do not have the experience and expertise with this team,
this group of humans. Decisions are being made about individual students,
teachers, and schools based on test scores that few understand and by those who
are far removed from the reality of the individuals in the classroom.
Educational judgments are being made by
those who have deluded themselves into thinking they know, when they don't.Frightened to speak up, teachers who
want to advocate for their students are squashed at site and district levels,
and are not even involved in the critical decisions that affect the very core
of their life's work-love of students. Their passion to teach is being
subjugated to becoming a mechanical administrator of test day facts and
figures.
There will be no Bill Walsh's West Coast
Offenses produced. Creativity and autonomy will become a thing of the past. Students
will be considered as so many widgets to be produced at a prescribed rate and
under strict quality control.
Gone will be the value in the uniqueness
of each child, in the variability of human diversity on which thrives our
ability to respond to our changing cultural and physical environment.
Businesses will stagnate with plenty of
robotic workers. With sameness as the mantra, new products and services cannot
be produced from employees who have been trained into conformity. Families will
find little reason to encourage their children to think beyond the status quo.
All of this because of high stakes
testing? Yes! Drop in at our colleges and universities. Ask the professors the
change they have seen in their students as a result of No Child Left Behind,
and soon, its more insidious replacement: The Race to the Top.
Forget states rights in educational
choices. Like students, their uniqueness will be bribed away by the funds only
available to states who continue with the high-stakes testing to track students,
teachers and their university training programs.
Why is it so difficult for so many to
see the tyranny of high stakes testing? The answer is simple; they are not in
the classroom. They cannot, will not, and dare not see the expressions on
students' faces and the angst in the eyes of their teachers.Day after day, week after week, sit,
look and have your eyes opened.
Those who have seen the other side of the
mountain know what the classroom is supposed to be like. They know what their
students should be experiencing. Because they know, they suffer and see their
dreams for their students wither away. They are forced to offer students only
the goal of a higher score, not love of learning.
Our children only go through school
once. Their teachers cry for mercy for those who have no voice to speak it:
their students.
Horace “Rog” Lucido is a retired from 38 years as a physics instructor.He is a member of Educators and Parents Against Testing Abuse and also Central Valley Coordinator of the Assessment Reform Network.
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. 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
916-319-0800
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.
Rog Lucido
Fresno