Mary,
It is simply incorrect to argue that the Common Core will be a basis for improving DCPS and charter school performance.
Here are three of the five myths
"Five Myths About Common Core Standards" and explanations why they are myths.
Myth 1: The Common Core standards are high and internationally benchmarked to those of high achieving nations
Truth: The Common Core standards are mediocre in rigor and below what high achieving nations expect of their students
Myth 2: The Common Core standards are workplace-aligned
Truth: The Common Core standards are have not been aligned to workplace requirements
Myth 3: The Common Core standards are aligned with College Readiness
Truth: One cannot define an authentic college-readiness and expect 100% of students to meet it. The Common Core chose to dumb-down its definition of college-readiness so it can make the political claim that its standards are "college ready." Common Core standards are set to prepare students only for non-selective community colleges.
Repeated below with supporting evidence
Erich Martel ehmartel@starpower.net
Myth 1: The Common Core standards are high and internationally benchmarked to those of high achieving nations
Truth: The Common Core standards are mediocre in rigor and below what high achieving nations expect of their students
Evidence:
Prof. R. James Milgram of Stanford University, the only mathematician on Common Core Validation Committee, refused to sign on to them and wrote in his refusal letter:
This is where the problem with these standards is most marked. While the difference between these standards and those of the top states at the end of eighth grade is perhaps somewhat more than one year, the difference is more like two years when compared to the expectations of the high-achieving countries -- particularly most of the nations of East Asia
Milgram's e-mail to Chris Minnich of CCSSO and the Validation Committee on May 30, 2010.
Prof. Sandra Stotsky of the University of Arkansas, the only literacy expert on the Common Core Validation Committee, refused to sign on to them and wrote:
The two English-speaking areas for which I could find assessment material (British Columbia and Ireland) have far more demanding requirements for college readiness. The British Commonwealth examinations I have seen in the past were far more demanding in reading and literature in terms of the knowledge base students needed for taking and passing them. No material was ever provided to the Validation Committee or to the public on the specific college readiness expectations of other leading nations in mathematics or language and literature.
Memorandum to the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, June 6, 2010. http://www.doe.mass.edu/boe/docs/0710/item1.html?section=stotsky
Prof. Jonathan Goodman of the Courant Institute at the NYU, who compared them to programs of high achieving nations, wrote about them:
The proposed Common Core standard is similar in earlier grades but has significantly lower expectations with respect to algebra and geometry than the published standards of other countries.
Prof. Andrew Porter, the dean of the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education, wrote in a research paper after studying them:
Those who hope that the Common Core standards represent greater focus for U.S. education will be disappointed by our answers. Only one of our criteria for measuring focus found that the Common Core standards are more focused than current state standards … some state standards are much more focused and some much less focused than is the Common Core, and this is true for both subjects. …
We also used international benchmarking to judge the quality of the Common Core standards, and the results are surprising both for mathematics and for ELAR. … High-performing countries' emphasis on "perform procedures" runs counter to the widespread call in the United States for a greater emphasis on higher order cognitive demand.
Andrew Porter et al., "Common Core Standards: The New U.S. Intended Curriculum," Educational Researcher, April 2011
Finally, here is what Prof. William McCallum of the University of Arizona, one of the three writers of the mathematics standards—and the only mathematician among them—said about the standards, when speaking to a forum of mathematicians:
While acknowledging the concerns about front-loading demands in early grades, [McCallum] said that the overall standards would not be too high, certainly not in comparison [with] other nations, including East Asia, where math education excels.
http://toped.svefoundation.org/2010/01/17/common-core-standards-under-fire
Myth 2: The Common Core standards are workplace-aligned
Truth: The Common Core standards are have not been aligned to workplace requirements
Evidence:
Here are the comments of Prof. Michael W. Kirst of Stanford University to CCSSO on their "Career- and College-Readiness" standards. (Prof. Kirst is current president of the California State Board of Education.)
My concern is the assertion in the draft that the standards for college and career readiness are essentially the same. This implies the answer is yes to the question of whether the same standards are appropriate for 4 year universities, 2 year colleges, and technical colleges. The burden of proof for this assertion rests with CCSSO/NGA …
The ELA standards hedge this issue by saying "the evidence strongly suggests that similar reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills are necessary for success in both the college and workplace." There is no similar wording preceding the math standards. I have reviewed the sources included in the draft, and cannot follow how the panel deduced that college and career readiness standards are the same.http://collegepuzzle.stanford.edu/?p=466
Myth 3: The Common Core standards are aligned with College Readiness
Truth: One cannot define an authentic college-readiness and expect 100% of students to meet it. The Common Core chose to dumb-down its definition of college-readiness so it can make the political claim that its standards are "college ready." Common Core standards are set to prepare students only for non-selective community colleges.
Evidence:
No country around the world expects to send 100% of its high school students to college, which is what the Common Core promises, and the U.S. Department of Education wants to enforce through its new regulations. The best nations send about 70% of students into both two- and four-year colleges, which is precisely what U.S. is already doing.
Education at A Glance 2011: OECD Indicators, chart C2.3, page 312. Note the misleading nature of chart C2.1 on page 308.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/33/48631070.pdfCommon Core representatives, speaking in front of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education in March of 2010, clearly acknowledged that Common Core's concept of college readiness is "minimal and focuses on non-selective colleges."
In a survey of public four-year state colleges in the top 20 states by population, only 3 systems (University of Maryland, University of Virginia, and one campus of the University of Massachusetts (Lowell)) require less than 3-years of high school math, including Algebra 1, Algebra 2, & Geometry. Common Core defines less than a full Algebra 2 and Geometry courses as its "college readiness."
----- Original Message -----From: Mary LordSent: Friday, August 03, 2012 7:10 PMSubject: RE: [concerned4DCPS] Draft proposal of revised DC graduation requirements posted on OSSE website
Dashing off to have dinner with a dear friend (who's a school librarian, so I hear ya! :-) but want to quickly respond to Erich - who, if you don't know, has been instrumental in raising important issues, and flagging problems, with the state board of education. He also has asked smart questions and requested information that would illuminate trends in student achievement and portray student success in a much broader light.
This is a draft of a draft. Not a proposal ready for rulemaking and a vote. We pushed to get it posted so people - teachers, principals, parents, students, advocates, history buffs, archivists, coaches, etc. - would have something to frame the next round of discussions and to react to.
The proposed revisions were distilled from HUNDREDS of public and written comments made by a variety of people, from p.e. teachers to science program directors to our students (including our student representatives). This is not the work of a handful of OSSE o! r DCPS or charter school officials.
Let's take social studies. The current requirements - established by DCPS - mandate all students take a sequence of World history 1, World history 2, US history, and half a year each of DC history and US government. That leaves no room for, say, Chinese history, economics, civics, modern European history, a FULL year of government (as AP gov course would normally be taught), Latin American history or anything else. Charter school teachers complained that it tied their hands. And frankly, I couldn't understand why DCPS had two years of world history when most if not all school systems in the city, including private schools, cover the course in a year. There's room for debate, of course. But requirements are a minimum - there's no reason why schools can't offer different courses, longer courses, etc.
The point is to provide schools with some flexibility while still maintaining high expectations and courses that prepare gradua! tes for success in college, jobs, and life. That's not a Carnegie Unit or box to check.
There were people who advocated for dropping DC history - including our student reps. Board members were passionate about preserving it as a requirement, but asking if students could study DC history in 8th grade, say, and still get credit... like we do with Algebra 1.
Don't get me started on p.e. My son got up every morning for a 6:30 practice before school and played several games during the week and a travel game on the weekend. yet he got stuck into a p.e. course second semester junior year that at best had pencil and paper exercises. DC has the nation's highest rates of childhood obesity. Promoting activity and healthy lifestyles is embedded in our health and p.e. learning standards. Why wouldn't it make sense to talk about time in physical activity?
Ok - i gotta ditch the screen. but I hope this exercises all your wonderful minds and generates lots of thoughtfu! l comments and suggestions for improving the graduation requirements.
mary
To: concerned4DCPS@yahoogroups.com
From: westminster935@aol.com
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 18:06:07 -0400
Subject: Re: [concerned4DCPS] Draft proposal of revised DC graduation requirements posted on OSSE website
And librarians are important partners in this.__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.455 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/5173 - Release Date: 08/02/12 18:34:00
--
R. Ramson
3744 12th Street, N.E.,
Washington D.C., 20017
202-438-5988
"We must become the change we want to see" - Mohandas Gandhi-
(Together, for a Brighter Tomorrow)
--
WardFive@googlegroups.com is open to WardFive residents for community discussion and information sharing.
To post to this group, send email to wardfive@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wardfive+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wardfive?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment