Foes of standards creating acrimony
 |
Bob King |
The emerging argument about the adoption of the Common Core Standards is making headlines and creating unnecessary acrimony. Three full years after its unanimous adoption, several opposition groups are now attempting to derail one of the most promising reforms in public education in several decades. It is our hope that we can state clearly what we know to be true, and express unqualified support for our state’s educators as they implement these new, important standards.
First, it is important to understand what we mean by “standards.” In simplest terms, they are the words we use to describe what children need to know and be able to do at each stage of their education.
Kentucky’s General Assembly adopted Senate Bill 1 (2009) by a unanimous vote in both houses of the legislature, directing the Department of Education and the Council on Postsecondary Education to work together to implement new K-12 standards that: a) are aligned with what our colleges and universities expect students to know in order to take credit-bearing courses upon admission; and b) are benchmarked internationally so Kentucky students can compete against the best-educated students in the world.
The standards clearly describe to teachers what students need to know and be able to do at the end of kindergarten, first grade, second grade, and all the way up to high school graduation. However, the decisions on how to teach a particular subject, what textbooks to use, what homework to assign, etc. (what we generally refer to as the curriculum) remains a local decision made by local teachers, school boards and site-based councils. For example, if the standards call for students to be able to multiply fractions by a certain grade level, it is up to our classroom teachers to decide how best to teach students to perform that skill.
Terry Holliday
As we began in 2009 to implement the directives in Senate Bill 1, the National Governors Association in partnership with the Council of Chief State School Officers (then led by Kentucky’s former Education Commissioner Gene Wilhoit) announced their intention to develop a set of standards that could voluntarily be adopted by states that met the same criteria the Kentucky General Assembly had established six months earlier.
That effort, originally inspired by mostly Republican governors, assembled the finest minds and most experienced educators in the nation to draft the new standards. We decided to participate in this effort rather than expend several millions of tax dollars to develop our own separate standards.
Kentucky’s participation involved more than 100 collegiate faculty from many of our state universities and a like number of K-12 teachers from across the Commonwealth. They reviewed drafts coming from the chief state school officers and offered numerous comments and suggestions to improve the drafts, many of which were incorporated into the final version. Once the standards were finalized, Kentucky was the first state in the nation to adopt and implement them throughout our public education system.
Just three years into this effort, the results are promising.
Thousands more students are meeting college readiness standards on the ACT exam, and the performance of students in the lower grades is beginning to reflect better learning outcomes than we have seen in the last few decades. In addition, Kentucky’s teachers are widely supportive of the new standards and the guidance they are providing to help teachers know and understand what is expected of them and their students.
So what is the argument really about?
There is a claim that the standards are the work of the federal government, forcing its education agenda on the states in a top-down manner.
That is unequivocally false.
The standards are the brainchild of the states, through the governors and chief state school officers, and the product of educators across Kentucky and elsewhere across the nation. It is true that the U.S. Department of Education supports implementation of the standards and has encouraged their adoption. But it is the federal government supporting a good idea that began in a few select states and quickly spread outward. In fact, Kentucky, as an early adopter and influencer, has become a leader in this national movement, which should be a source of pride to all Kentuckians.
So don’t get cold feet, Kentucky.
The Common Core Standards are what our state and our students need. They will not solve every problem, but they will help.
As for the detractors, while honest debate is always welcome, creating arguments based on falsehoods diminishes the remarkable improvements your local teachers are creating for your kids.
Education Chairman Doesn't Expect
Major Changes To Kentucky Science Standards
This from WFPL:
The chair of the Kentucky Board of Education doesn’t expect the controversy over newly-adopted science standards to lead to a change in those standards before they're implemented.
The Next Generation Science Standards were developed by an independent consortium of 26 states, including Kentucky, and are part of Kentucky’s 2009 education reforms. They will update what students will be expected to learn in science.
The standards are based around updated scientific research and include more lessons around climate change and evolution--among many other topics--and that has drawn criticism from some.
The state education board will get recommendations this week--formally called the Statement of Consideration--from education department officials, who have considered public comments for their report.
A spokeswoman for the Kentucky Department of Education says they received thousands of comments--mostly written--last month from residents, many who were upset about the teaching of evolution and climate change.
KDE also heard public testimony, which can be viewed here.
The comments drew national headlines, but KBE chairman David Karem says it would be unusual for the state board to make large changes to the standards at this point.
“I would not expect there to be changes to the major fundamental portions of the regs because the standards were developed by 26 states,” he tells WFPL.
Karem says it’s not unusual to make changes technical changes to something that “needs attention,” but he often says those are technical and procedural issues.
If the board approves the report it goes to the legislature for final approval. The appropriate committees can approve the standards or they can find them deficient, according to KDE officials.
At any time during the process, KBE can defer, withdraw or reconsider the standards.
The governor can also decide to move forward with implementation.
6 comments:
I also feel that the great majority of the criticisms being leveled at the CCSS are either issues of assessment validity (how the standards are measured) or fears of the unknown (originating in states that have yet to implement the CCSS). Neither of these side-bar arguments are valid if the issue is actually the CCSS themselves.
It seems as if the dying embers of the local Tea Party and the blowhards of talk radio are playing on the trendy CCSS debates in other states that fear implementation.
Sure. This got politicized and now a good idea stands to be damaged as a result - but I think CCSS will stand in Ky.
I also think CCSS is the right idea. One can certainly quibble with this standard or that, but the idea that course curriculum and a high school diploma ought to have a fairly specific and uniform meaning across the nation - that one is ready to enter college (or well-paying career) - just makes sense.
King and Holliday say, "So what is the argument really about? There is a claim that the standards are the work of the federal government, forcing its education agenda on the states in a top-down manner. That is unequivocally false."
Well, actually, it is equivocal. It's quite ambiguous.
And it's not the states' fault.
While the standards are NOT the work of the federal government, once the $4.3 billion Race to the Top grant competition made internationally benchmarked common standards a requirement for receiving federal funds it applied a very heavy top-down incentive to the states. There were two states (as I recall) that built their own (so CCSS supporters can accurately argue that CCSS wasn't specifically mandatory), but the vast majority of states threw in with CCSS. And why not?
Didn't the commissioner support a Kentucky charter school law specifically because it would help Ky's RTTT grant application? Isn't that a reflection of the weight of federal incentives.
Education begins with an understanding of what it is we want kids to know or be able to do. We also must know what we will accept as evidence that the kids know or can do it.
Where it all gets messed up is when those assessments get used for purposes beyond their design. Too many eager reformers stand ready to overstate their cases and ignore bad science in favor of leveraging social pressure against teachers. Every time that happens we erode public trust.
There is plenty to fuss about in corporate education reform, but CCSS isn't it.
We are moving into some interesting times in education. Feds and locals increasingly don't have the tax funds or at least the political will to properly maintain public schools at their current level much less those expected by their legislative mandates on schools. Feds want to claim some level of oversight over states, state wants to control local but they each keep shifting the financial burden to the bottom. You can't be the cook if you don't stock the kitchen pantry.
We see it happening in many states at the post secondary level has its state funding dry up. Seems to be a slower trend at the K-12 level. Just like shifting of tax money from post secondary to individual student support through scholarships, grants and loans, can't help wondering how much longer until we see more voucher models popping up. Good news for privates so long as taking the tax voucher doesn't mean lost automony.
I wish people would understand that the science standards aren't Common Core. Different people, different process.
When I see those names attached to an op-ed piece, I wince.
Let me make a few more or less random statements:
1) Since there was no serious needs assessment associated with the standards there is no evidence that "children need to know and be able to do...." Perhaps they mean what children know and can do.
2) Dewey's Continuity of Ends and Means get scrambled when one tries to separate what is taught from how it is taught. "Decisions on how to teach...."
3) Pretty funny a standard that suggests students "should be able to multiple fractions." Talk about revolutionary! And I a lot of us have not multiplied fractions for years. So, that must be more about history than need.
4) Some of the "finest minds" were excluded from the process because they did not support it enthusiastically
5) Cause and effect gets mangled when suggesting that the "results are promising." "Thousand more students are meeting college readiness standards on the ACT (it is, of course, a score and not related to the Common Core.
6) Of course the federal government was involved. If you want money, jump through the hoop. Plus 350 million dollars for assessments of the Common Core.
7) Kentucky was an early adopter of something that could not really be adopted since it was not yet complete.
8) There are some very good reasons to question the validity of the Common Core. Among them why, for example, choose mathematics and reading. If those are such good things why not art and exercise. Reforming mathematics has been going on for a least 50 years. I give them one more year! More seriously, there are big questions about whether such things exhaust what should be and is learned in school. There are also serious questions about what students get exposed to what curriculum or what expression of a Common Core. There is still a huge amount of early tracking in schools. Students in certain tracks are never exposed to rigorous material.
9) The Common Core and the related assessments are triumphs for the managerial class. Talk about top down stuff.
10) Rather than cold feet, Kentuckians should be given good information.
When I see those names attached to an op-ed piece, I wince.
Let me make a few more or less random statements:
1) Since there was no serious needs assessment associated with the standards there is no evidence that "children need to know and be able to do...." Perhaps they mean what children know and can do.
2) Dewey's Continuity of Ends and Means get scrambled when one tries to separate what is taught from how it is taught. "Decisions on how to teach...."
3) Pretty funny a standard that suggests students "should be able to multiple fractions." Talk about revolutionary! And I a lot of us have not multiplied fractions for years. So, that must be more about history than need.
4) Some of the "finest minds" were excluded from the process because they did not support it enthusiastically
5) Cause and effect gets mangled when suggesting that the "results are promising." "Thousand more students are meeting college readiness standards on the ACT (it is, of course, a score and not related to the Common Core.
6) Of course the federal government was involved. If you want money, jump through the hoop. Plus 350 million dollars for assessments of the Common Core.
7) Kentucky was an early adopter of something that could not really be adopted since it was not yet complete.
8) There are some very good reasons to question the validity of the Common Core. Among them why, for example, choose mathematics and reading. If those are such good things why not art and exercise. Reforming mathematics has been going on for a least 50 years. I give them one more year! More seriously, there are big questions about whether such things exhaust what should be and is learned in school. There are also serious questions about what students get exposed to what curriculum or what expression of a Common Core. There is still a huge amount of early tracking in schools. Students in certain tracks are never exposed to rigorous material.
9) The Common Core and the related assessments are triumphs for the managerial class. Talk about top down stuff.
10) Rather than cold feet, Kentuckians should be given good information.
Post a Comment