Skip to main content

Some honesty about Common Core standards

In the wake of the rush to adopt Common Core standards nationwide (which beautifully mirrors the standards movement of the early 1990s), Delaware held a major event this past weekend.

Four things you should know about the Common Core standards:

1.  They've been adopted before they were even completed.  I guess we had to adopt the standards before we could know what's in them.

2.  They remain very controversial among education researchers and subject matter experts (since there are no social studies standards yet [see Nr. 1 above] I can only examine the English/Language Arts standards that overlap Social Studies, because it is in that field that I am a subject matter expert.  They are bad.  I will do a detailed analysis soon.

3.  They are not going to work as advertised because they are too extensive, and they are delusional in the expectations of teacher time and the realities of student preparation for them.

4.  Even the people who wrote them are already hedging their bets (while collecting consulting dollars for selling them); see quotation in BOLD:

Tim Shanahan, a University of Illinois professor who helped write part of the standards, was a featured speaker at the conference. 
Shanahan said the Common Core will raise expectations for students, something the U.S. badly needs to compete with the world. 
“Standards don’t raise achievement,” Shanahan said. “But we can address the the standards with energy and wisdom in ways that can raise achievement.”
Common Core standards will not destroy American public education (the Federal government was already doing an excellent job with that), but they will not improve it dramatically.  It will be another multi-million/billion dollar boondoggle.

Comments

kavips said…
Common Core may have been invented with good intentions. No Child Left Behind may have been invented with good intentions.

Problem is, when you simply throw money at someones intentions, the bad people get in line first... Because... that is what bad people do.

In both cases we have billions, being siphoned away from public schools (which were already imploding from the property tax bubbles bursting), into for-profit mechanisms that don't have to answer to parents,students or teachers. They answer only to their investors....

It is pretty easy to see where this is all heading...

If there were a way to harness the private investment without a profit motive, and put that money into education where teachers were the sole arbitrators of whether a student passed or failed, we might get somewhere for a change...

There are two ways I see to do that. Both involve taxes. One is to tax corporations an additional amount exclusively for schools, obviously a messy proposition. The other is to raise corporate tax rates to then write off some corporate taxes corresponding to the amount they choose to donate hands free into the educational system...

You are right about the quality being taught... If not already clued in, check out the Common Core being used in Ontario, where it is being used as an augmentation device, and not as an accountability hammer. That distinction seems to be producing results.
MollyMo said…
I think that one of the generally accepted and fundamentally wrong standards is the standard according to which you can file for divorce only with the help of lawyers. Their services are very expensive, and not everyone has the opportunity to turn to them for a service. I'm surprised that not many people know that you can file for a divorce in Nebraska yourself. For this, you don't need to spend a lot of nerves and time. It is enough to fill out the form on the website and get the necessary documents for the divorce process in court.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...