|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Feb 21, 2014 11:44:36 GMT -5
It may appear that I had given up discussing the Common Core (“CC”), but not so much given up as having taken a step back from the forefront of the diatribe into which the CC debate had devolved since August. Forgetting for a moment that the CC should be all about children (it isn’t), the animosity, vituperation, and sophistry surround the CC conversation are astonishing; remembering that the CC should be all about children (it isn’t), then the calumny and rigidity that have hallmarked many gatherings and much of the discourse about the CC are more understandable; much more understandable than is the CC, itself.
Rejoining the discussion, here, I am compelled to reprise the litany of the Four Core Common Core Components:
1. The Common Core Concept
2. The Common Core Curriculum
3. The Common Core Assessments
4. The Common Core Correlation to Teacher & Principal Performance Evaluations (APPR)
It should not be difficult to parse any writing or presentation of the CC into its correct CC component buckets; seldom is any reader or audience interested in, or, attentive to more than a single CC component at any given time. Unfortunately, interest groups have amalgamated and calcified their respective group think(s) around specific CC components, but use other CC components as red herrings with which to first obfuscate the general public’s understanding of the CC and its components, and then to erode public confidence in the potential or actual value of the CC, and finally, to then attack the most flawed aspects of the current state of any CC component in the hope of bringing down the whole thing.
If you are not familiar with the CC Components, I ask your indulgence to please endure this thumbnail:
Common Core Concept
This is conceptual idea of developing a set of national educational standards for public schools. In its most simplistic rendition, the overall objective of the CC Concept is a national effort to make public school graduates college- and career-ready. (Whatever those terms mean).
Common Core Curriculum
This is a fairly significant misnomer for the more specific sets of teaching standards and student outcomes intended eventually to be included in the deliverables from implementation of the Common Core Concept. It is not a curriculum, per se, but perhaps can be envisioned as a loose framework within which actual state curricula can be developed in alignment with—if not truly in fidelity to—the CC Concept. (However, the reportage history does not support what I have just written, here, concerning the specificity and granularity or lack thereof within the CC Curriculum; more in a later edition).
Common Core Assessments
These are the standardized tests which are intended to measure several things:
• Efficacy of each state’s curriculum vis-à-vis the Common Core Curriculum framework; does your state’s (CC) curriculum developed under the CC Concept do what it is supposed to do?
• Proficiency (baseline, progress, and ultimate outcomes) of students, learning under their own state’s curriculum within the framework of the Common Core Curriculum framework
• Needs and eligibility of students for Academic Intervention Services (AIS), carrying over and following through from NCLB
• School, district, and state performance rankings using a common set of metrics (even though there can be as many as 54 different state and territorial curricula); and, perhaps, national educational rankings versus other developed nations.
• Validation of individual teacher and principal job performance in conjunction with classroom observations and other state and locally determined criteria (again, with as many as 54 different sets of high-level (state) criteria, and literally tens of thousands of different sets of local evaluation criteria (meaning different metrics, in differing combinations, with varying weights assigned or negotiated for determining performance ratings; an APPR component.
The raison d’etre of the CC is to make students “career- and college-ready”. It is not clear how the CC Assessments contribute to or measure those outcomes, which are only discernable at, upon, or after graduation, or upon a student’s dropping-out, failing-out, being expelled, or aging-out of high school. The existing legacy metrics, the 4-year and 5-year cohort graduation rates persist independently of the CC Assessments; but high school graduation rates do not measure the college- or career-readiness of those graduates.
Common Core Correlation to Teacher & Principal Performance Evaluations (APPR)
Common Core Assessment are intended to become part of the performance evaluation of every public school teacher and the principals of every public school in those states which have adopted the CC (and received millions of federal Race-to-the-Top dollars in consideration of their support). I think that establishing a hard linkage between CC Assessments and APPR was a grievous error, strategically speaking, for the eventual success of the CC Concept. Attempting to create a national evaluation standard for hundreds of thousands of public school teachers and principals along the entire continuum of the poverty-wealth spectrum, among hundreds or perhaps thousands of local, area, state and regional diversifications of culture, values, traditions, heritage, and ethnicity was Pollyanna thinking. If nothing else, and especially without regard to risk/reward considerations, linking APPR and CC Assessments has served to unite public school teachers, principals, and their unions across all cultural, economic, and geographic enclaves in CC States (and elsewhere), and created a truly massive force of active, organized resistance to the implementation of the Common Core Assessments—specifically because the assessment scores are hard-coded into APPR—along with any other components of the CC that they can attack with fear-mongering and heightened obfuscation of what the CC is (supposed to be) about. Next Edition On Monday, I want to update the current status and positions of some of the key players in the Common Core discourse, and editorialize further on the CC Components. I hope to explore each CC component in more depth in successive editions.
Thank you for reading along. Feel free to respond, agree or disagree, or add to the discussion.
Yours truly,
Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Feb 24, 2014 14:28:51 GMT -5
Monday Edition Here is an off-the-cuff status report about parts of the Common Core: • In December, responding to legislative and stakeholder pressure, the Regents commissioned a work group to make recommendations about the immediate future of the Common Core in NY. • After two short months (about one month of actual “work”, the Working Group, consisting of fellow Regents, reported back to the full Board in February with 19 recommendations. All nineteen recommendations were approved for implementation (a difficult point of diction, as you shall later appreciate). • The media, certain legislators, and several stakeholder representatives seized upon two or three of the 19 nineteen recommendations approved by the Board of Regents at their February meeting, essentially taking little or no notice of the other 16 or 17 recommendations. This was an important oversight by everyone who missed the most relevant items which, in my opinion, point to the doom of the Common Core. (At once you should wonder, what am I talking about: the Concept; the Curriculum; the Assessments; or the Correlation between CC and APPR? While the answers will be revealed, here, may I suggest you read the report Regents Work Group Report 20140210.pdf (372.61 KB) for yourselves and try to elicit the poison pills it contains?) • Governor Cuomo immediately BLASTED the Regents for “backing-off” on the implementation of the Common Core by enacting all 19 of the Work Group’s recommendation without modification. (Meanwhile, the Governor has his own Commission looking into the CC, and I suppose the Regents Work Group either co-opted his commission’s predetermined findings, or, the Regent’s newly adopted policy changes for the CC implementation fly in the face of Cuomo’s Commission’s predetermined findings; either way, the Governor is highly perturbed!) • Detractors of the CC continue apace with informational meetings, with one scheduled this week in the Seaford American Legion Hall, Post 1132, 2301 Penatiquit Avenue, Seaford, under the joint auspices of both Seaford Parents Against the Common Core and Wantagh Parents United: Our Kids are More Than a Number, 7-10 PM Wednesday, February 26. To be clear, this is for all intents and purposes an “Opt-Out” meeting, featuring some of the more prominent provocateurs of the opt-out movement; Carol Burris not appearing, here. • The WWW is replete with stories of states considering withdrawing from either of the two consortia charged with developing and implementing the REAL CC Assessments in 2015 (PARCC and SBA); or, or states delaying their adoption of the CC-in-practice; or, of states threatening to withdraw from the CC after having already received RTT funds from Washington, and with hundreds of millions of dollars of additional RTT funding hanging in the balance if they fail to follow through with implementing the CC (including the Correlation of Assessment scores with APPR). • It is becoming evident to many people and organizations (including state governments) that, in addition to the depressed test scores and ratings and rankings of schools and districts resulting from New York’s 2-year premature implementation of CC assessments, that by having come out 2 years ahead of the PARCC Assessments (NY being a non-compliant member of PARCC) that we (NY) have introduced an anomalous set of standards (assessments of the CC Curriculum), which (based on present status around the country) would bring the number of disparate CC Assessments to six (6), in addition to those 5 states which did not adopt the CC. As an attorney friend of mine noted recently, that means the Common Core will not be “Common” when fully implemented. If the CC Concept had been rolled-out successfully (as envisioned) down through the CC Assessments in 2015, then there would be only two (2) versions of CC Assessments: the PARCC version and the SBA version. Each version would have had roughly half of the nation’s school-aged population subscribed to it, based on the state memberships in each consortium. But such a beneficial ("common") outcome is no longer possible. As noted last week, The CC Curriculum is presently being billed as: “it is not a curriculum, per se, but perhaps can be envisioned as a loose framework within which actual state curricula can be developed in alignment with—if not truly in fidelity to—the CC Concept. (However, the reportage history does not support what I have just written, here, concerning the specificity and granularity or lack thereof within the CC Curriculum” This is significant in light of the proliferation of the number of versions of CC Assessments on the horizon. Here’s why: Under the original premise, the CC Curriculum was to have been highly detailed, extremely granular in terms of precisely what every student would be accountable for having attained proficiency in each grade level across most subjects; it was to have been a true, national public school curriculum. Under such a precise curriculum, then having two (2) versions of CC Assessments (PARCC & SBA) would not have generated any significant disparity between them, and I would expect that within 3-4 years that both Assessment versions would have been able to merge in order to save money and attain true commonality from the CC. While today the Common Core is officially referred to as the Common Core States Curriculum, with the implication and stated intention that each state is free to make its own (real) curriculum, and with the further blandishment that CC is only about ELA and Math, those are euphemisms designed to mislead and blunt criticism of CC having originally been intended to serve as a National Curriculum. This goes back to the “Standards & Accountability Movement” in the 1990’s, having been charged with “writing standards outlining what students were expected to know and be able to do at each grade level, and implementing assessments designed to measure whether students were meeting the standards.” This Movement spawned the founding of Achieve, Inc. in 1996. In 2001, Achieve, Inc. joined with the Education Trust, the Thos. B. Fordham Institute, and the National Business Alliance and initiated the American Diploma Project intended “to identify the ‘must have’ knowledge & skills demanded by higher education and employers”. In 2008, Achieve published a telltale report titled “Out of Many, One: Toward Rigorous Common Core Standards from the Ground Up”, which acknowledged that “Federal efforts to influence, direct or determine state standards have met with stiff and effective political resistance”. (Current stiff and effective political resistance to a re-branded Common Core (States) Curriculum should be no surprise to anyone.) Yet it was as late as 2009 that the literature prescribed that “the initiative’s stated purpose is to ‘provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn…” (not specifically limited to ELA and Math). Following from this, in 2012, the National Research Council (National Academies of Science), the National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science launched The Next Generation Science Standards: Conceptual Framework for Science Education, another initiative managed by Achieve, Inc., who also manages the PARCC consortium. I am not against any of this collaboration, per se. I am against the flim-flam of calling a national curriculum a states curriculum, and I reject the notion that CC will be limited in scope to ELA and Math. If we are going to continue to argue and fight over the CC Concept and the other Core CC Components, then let’s put all the cards on the table, and get it right. And fix what isn’t right. More later this week. Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Feb 25, 2014 14:02:35 GMT -5
Tuesday Edition In Monday’s edition I wrote: " After two short months…the Regents Working Group, consisting of fellow Regents, reported back to the full Board…with 19 recommendations. All nineteen recommendations were approved for implementation (a difficult point of diction, as you shall later appreciate). My point here is that, upon reading the Report, you will discover that, of the 19 adopted recommendations, only four (4) can actually be “implemented”, meaning translated into action by NYSED and the Commissioner by dint of revising or issuing new Commissioner’s Regulations to school districts. These are Recommendations # 3, 5, 16, and 17. So, what about the other fifteen (15) recommendations of the Regents, by the Regents, for the Regents? Five (5) of those other Recommendations begin with the intransitive verb, “advocate”, meaning that any action and results will require someone other than the Regents to approve. Those targets of the Regents’ advocacy for each Recommendation, by number, are: 1. The National Governors Association (“NGA”) 2. The Governor and Legislature, for the Regents Budget Proposal* 6. The Federal Government** 7. The Federal Government** 8. The Governor and Legislature, for the Regent’s Budget Proposal* * The Regents advocating (lobbying the Governor and Legislature) for support of their own budget proposal is an annual Right of Spring in Albany and these two recommendations are actually irrespective of the Common Core, as the items being advocated are ALREADY IN THE REGENTS BUDGET PROPOSAL which is already sitting on the Governor’s and Legislators’ desks. ** Lobbying the Federal Government for two, one-off exceptions from Common Core Components is counterproductive to the “Common Core Concept”, or would seem to be so. Regardless, these two Recommendations (6 & 7) cannot be implemented by NY State, and are essentially window dressing to appease CC opponents. The other Recommendations which do not involve action or substantial changes in the implementation or results of the Common Core include: • Five (5) more which include the issuance of “guidance” to school districts, meaning promulgating instructions or suggestions that do not have the force of law or of Regulation, and which, if implemented, then implementation would be left entirely up to the discretion of school boards to accept or reject or simply ignore on an ad hoc (hodgepodge) basis. These are numbers 4, 9, 10, and 18. Two of these, 9 & 10, would seem to violate or be substantially at odds with NCLB and AIS (Academic Intervention Services), which federal laws and programs still exist, ostensibly for the protection and benefit of children with special educational needs. • Four (4) other Recommendations involve tinkering with APPR, using passive terms like “review plan amendments” and disapproval of non-existent (future) APPR plans that may rely on certain tests not even administered by NY State, and, to “Offer flexibility to districts to reduce test time” and “allow school-wide APPR measures for Middle School Social Studies Teachers”, an idea that would equate to “Group-Evaluation”, which is essentially the same kind of pseudo-evaluation system we’ve had since before APPR. One Recommendation, #15, creates a “ blame the school board” defense for teacher failures based on 2012-13 and 2013-14 school year assessments based on “…failure to provide adequate professional development, guidance on curriculum, or other necessary supports to the educator during those school years”. (Also see # 11, 12, 13, & 14) • Finally, the last Recommendation, #19, really takes the gobledegook prize for non-specificity, presenting no real or new action; to wit: “Continue collaboration with the Commissioner’s Advisory Panel for Special Education and Special Education Parent Centers to develop a set of guiding questions for parents to use in IEP meetings and to ask teachers about how their children are being supported to progress in curricula that reflect the Common Core.” Wow. The Regents want to play parent advocates…because existing parents/advocates don’t ask the right questions? I hope a few of these points astound and astonish some readers. However, there is a lot here, and I do not want to miss the mark with this edition, which carries the most probative evidence against the Common Core, meaning, the Common Core Concept as it has now been set in motion by the NY Board of Regents. From the Regents Working Group Report: Common Core Standards
1. Periodically Review and Update the Common Core Learning Standards.
Advocate for the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers to convene states periodically to review and update – as appropriate – the Common Core standards. The review should include each state, including New York, gathering feedback from stakeholders including educators, higher education faculty, business leaders, parents, special education advocates, and bilingual education experts. To me, this represents the complete capitulation of the New York Board of Regents, a relinquishing of all authority over and responsibility for the curriculum of the public schools in our state, and gives the lie to the euphemistic palaver: Common Core States Curriculum. Who placed the National Governors Association in charge of education in NY State? Certainly NOT the NY State Constitution! Certainly not the Constitution of the United States of America! Bad enough that 50 politicians (State Governors) are now meddling with something as important as New York's public schools curriculum, we also have the Council of Chief State School Officers cobbling together this ersatz National Curriculum under which the children of New York—YOUR CHILDREN—will labor in their studies for years to come… ...with NO ACCOUNTABILITY on the part of 49 other states governors and 49 other states chief school officers for the results in New York, including failures and other potential damage done... …unless and until the Common Core is stopped! Aghast, Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Feb 26, 2014 8:10:40 GMT -5
Some graphic perspective on having the National Governors Association "in charge" of the Common Core, essentially, the future of your child's education: Jerry Brown, California Jan Brewer, Arizona Scott Walker, Wisconsin Rick Perry, Texas Chris Christie, New Jersey Andrew Cuomo, New York The Good, the bad, and those in-between. Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Feb 28, 2014 7:29:22 GMT -5
Not everyone is down on the Common Core (the concept, the curriculum, the assessments, or the correlation with teacher assessments). Arva Rice, CEO of the New York Urban League has an op-ed piece in the Daily News today. My response to this heartfelt rendition is: "This article presents a position which is valid for some schools and communities in our state and nation, but certainly not for the majority of well-performing public schools and school districts in most communities in our state or across the nation. Unfortunately, for the very schools for which the Common Core would seem to offer the most hope and the biggest promise, it will only make matters worse, not better. This is adequately born out in the 2013 Common Core Assessment scores in NY where under-performing and marginally performing schools and school districts across the state failed miserably in their third through eighth grade ELA and Math scores.
Adding too much rigor too soon and too fast to under-prepared children is more likely to increase drop-outs and decrease high school graduation rates, rather than achieving the Common Core conceptual goal of making more students more ready for college and careers." --CW Read more: Article: Can't Turn Back Now on Common Core (link)Regards, Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Mar 4, 2014 7:06:50 GMT -5
HALT!Here is a critical update, current as of this morning, March 4th. I would like, as you read the article, rather than focusing on the blah-blah of who is asking whom to do what, to instead focus on the construct of the discussion, keeping in mind the placement of public education in the U.S. Constitution and the New York State Constitution, respectively. The Suffolk County School Superintendents Association ("SCSSA") is formally asking Governor Cuomo to halt the April-May 2014 Common Core Assessments in ELA and Math for Grades 3 through 8 in NY. Of course, under the NY State Constitution, the Governor has no real power to do that...such action falls under the authority of the State Board of Regents, who are solely and completely responsible for public education policy in this state, the idea being that our children's education should not be subject to the winds or whims of politics. But that is not my main issue, and for those parents who have been whipped-up into an emotional frenzy by the teachers' union, grasping at such a visible straw as having the governor ride to their rescue may just be irresistible. Now, here's what's really, really WRONG with this entire picture: What is so wrong about this? Two things, maybe three, depending upon how you want to count them: - Federal Law has no constitutional effect on New York State Education Policy (and Law) (but who's looking?). Money talks!
- There is a significant factual error of omission in Burman's statement; NY is a member of the federally funded PARCC assessment consortium, which is scheduled to START FIELD TESTING CC assessments this spring on a limited basis, with the first full implementation scheduled for 2015; NYSED was WRONG to have tried to fully implement CC assessments last year--with no prior field testing--and, as a member of PARCC, NY is under no obligation to continue with our full implementation until next year.
- How could the governor interject himself into this process in such an operational manner, without constitutional or legislative authority, and without the capitulation of the Regents of their own authority to the governor's strong will and iron fist? And if Governor Cuomo does so, I must ask, is this the manner in which we, the people, really want education in New York State governed and managed...by the seat of our governor's pants?
I think the Common Core issues are now in the realm of absurdity. The serious kind of absurdity, not the humorous kind. Here's the article (link). Feeling a whacked-out over all this stuff! Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Mar 7, 2014 13:35:12 GMT -5
Governor Andrew Cuomo will be going on the offensive in defense of the Common Core. You will not miss his PSA messages supporting the Common Core.
This is unfortunate for real supporters of the Common Core Concept and of the Common Core Curriculum especially. Why?
Because common people do not separate the man from his politics, and coloring the Common Core with the politics of a re-election campaign (Cuomo's) can only serve to engender animosity towards the Common Core by Republican and Conservative partisans hoping to damage the Cuomo mystique and brand in the run-up to November's election.
However, this is still really muddy water. Doing anything substantial to reduce Common Core requisites under RTT will put hundreds of millions of dollars of federal education funding for NY at risk. Cuomo and Silver, and even Skelos will work very hard to prevent loss or even significant risk of those funds. That will be putting NY Senate Education Committee Chair John Flanagan under extreme pressure to resist further public unrest and outcry against the Common Core, pressure for Flanagan to cave-in to Democrat interests and pending legislation.
I think Flanagan will accede to Skelos's desire to make sure nothing happens to the RTT funding, and will reluctantly draw the ire of CC detractors, perhaps even at the expense of his own re-election. Flanagan's gotten on in years and could retire comfortably at this time. I foresee a significant up-swell this spring in the opt-put movement, which will henceforth be the "refusal to test" movement. There is a possibility that most parents could refuse to allow their 3rd-through 8th-grade children sit for Common Core-based state assessments in April and May.
But regardless of who sits for what tests this spring, if Common Core-based assessments are administered for 3rd-through-8th Grade ELA and Math, then I think the results (scores) will reinforce the disaster of New York's implementation of the CC, especially in weak or poorly performing schools, districts, and students...and I see that redounding to the demise of Cuomo, and hopefully the end of his reign in Albany.
So you can see how politicizing education, politicizing the Common Core, completely distorts the paradigm of the Common Core discussion from an educational thesis to a political gambit, to an accoutrement of a political campaign replete with harmful rhetoric and unnecessarily bruised feelings, all the while YOUR CHILDREN continue to suffer the consequences.
As my grandfather (a Trustee of the Wantagh School Board back in the 'thirties) used to say: Here's mud in your eye!
Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Mar 8, 2014 20:24:30 GMT -5
Friends, I am growing reticent about continuing the drum beat about the common core. The more I read, the more research I do, the firmer my own opinions become concerning the various facets of the Common Core (the Concept, the Curriculum, the Assessments, and the correlation with APPR Evaluations). Here's the problem. I am not a parent of public school student who is facing the Common Core dilemma, although I am the grandparent of nine present or future students. While I certainly want the best and the most for my grandchildren from their education, I certainly want their parents (my adult children and their spouses) to own any decisions they make about the Common Core respective of their own kids.
The anti-Common Core groundswell is growing deeper and louder by the day. Confusion of counsel is also growing absolutely wildly at the same time. April is only weeks away. Once a child takes a Common Core Assessment, he/she cannot un-take that test, and must live with the result and the aftermath. Your school district cannot share any data about your child if they do not possess that data, meaning Common Core Assessment scores tagged with other personal information. Once any Common Core-related data about your child is shared with the state, the central government, or third parties, that data cannot be un-shared.
This stuff all needs careful consideration by actual parents of actual public school students. The situation is really screaming for consensus, but is being met mostly with questions instead of determined responses from the majority of parents. I pray that you all make the right personal decisions for your own individual child concerning the Common Core.
Sincerely,
Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Mar 10, 2014 7:13:22 GMT -5
The Opt-Out movement on LI is indicating membership of 15,000. While an impressive number, I do not think it represents critical mass...yet. I know those who subscribe or belong are serious and intent on success, and I encourage them to continue their efforts to grow in number if they really want to succeed. I also know that the large majority of parents are unsure, or non-commital, rather than being pro-Common Core Assessments. This is a good sign, or at least a viable opportunity for Opt-Out Long Island to reach critical mass with its membership. Wantagh's Parents United: Our Kids Are More than a Number is well organized and well led, and has a better than average number of members given the size (enrollment) of our district. I was concerned upon hearing that they are diverging into the NY City Charter School debate, which, in my opinion, will not help Wantagh or do anything positive for the group's continued drive to reach critical-mass membership: stay away from NY City issues, and STAY FOCUSED on the Common Core. Taking either side in the NYC Charter School battle will certainly alienate some prospective members in Wantagh, while having no effect on the City Charter School squabble or on the statewide and national Common Core debate. Focus! Keep your eye on the goal. Parents who are on the fence should stay tuned to the Common Core developments, and, when push comes to shove next month for the Common Core Assessments, I personally think that, if YOU are still undecided, then it would be more for the greater good for you to opt out rather than to capitulate and have your kids submit to the Assessments either out of your own fear or uncertainty. My prior note about the incumbent Regents facing real trouble in the Legislature for their re-election may be coming true, as the Legislators are interviewing potential alternative candidates for four Regent seats. Their internal vote is scheduled for tomorrow. Cuomo's pro-Common Core PSA is making the rounds on TV. I will address this tomorrow. The BIG QUESTION you may want to think about is this: Where are the NYSED District Report Cards for 2012-13? Not here: NYSED Report Card Home PageRegards, Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by rr on Mar 10, 2014 7:59:36 GMT -5
Chris,
I've made a choice to basically stop posting on the subject but I would like to point out related to your previous post that the count of members of the opt-out groups is most likely very inflated. There's no real 'registration' process for many of these groups so you'll see many duplicate names, spouses names, relatives names, etc... It in no way represents the number of households with children in testing grades. While I agree that the movement is gaining popularity, I think it's unfortunate that new numbers are being inflated and many of the people that are part of the 'movement' are simply joining the club and following the actions of a few outspoken people that are relentlessly posting on popular facebook pages.
It's really a shame that people are posting so much misinformation and it goes unquestioned...I see so many people posting these ridiculous claims, conspiracy theories and just completely untrue statements. For me - I enjoy reading your posts and some of the ridiculous comments on the Patch but I no longer have the time nor the desire to debate with peoples baseless claims and conspiracy theories. Politicians are now trying to rally around all sides of this in the hopes of keeping their jobs and getting some votes, the whole thing has become a joke...shameful really, the start of meaningful change and it's become a rugby scrum of self interest and a mob of people jumping on trying to be part of a movement.
I was expecting to see outrage over the 60 minutes piece about "data brokers" last night - as it's been part of some of the conspiracies about big business taking over education. Maybe people just haven't forced that puzzle piece into their theory yet. It's crazy, I watch this stuff and start anticipating how people will roll a story into a Common Core conspiracy and a new rallying cry.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Mar 11, 2014 6:11:30 GMT -5
Cuomo's pro-Common Core PSA is making the rounds on TV. I will address this tomorrow. The BIG QUESTION you may want to think about is this: Where are the NYSED District Report Cards for 2012-13? Not here: NYSED Report Card Home PageI want to stay with my schedule here and address Cuomo's TV ad, which I incorrectly referred to as a PSA. It is clearly not a public service announcement from the Office of the Governor, but is clearly and specifically labeled and branded as an ad in Cuomo's re-election campaign. It is a political piece, meaning it is a partisan political piece. Meaning, my treatment of it and my response to it are also colored by my own partisanship, which not surprisingly stands in opposition to Andrew Cuomo and his re-election. Here's my partisan take on the Cuomo Pro-Common Core ad. - He comes on camera wearing an odd grin, or a smirk. I think I could call it "evil", but that's not a substantive argument for or against anything
- He promises that he will not allow the Common Core results to be counted against any student for two years.
- He promises that he will not allow the Common Core results to be counted against any teacher for two years.
Items 2+3 generated an autonomic "What the heck?" response. Where's the State legislative authority to back-up these two promises? Where's the federal authority (RTT, etc.) for his taking such action? The scores are data, and are associated, as data, with the students who earned or were awarded those scores, and as such, as things currently stand, that data along with the metadata (name, age, grade, and other personally identifiable information) about each student will be put into a database up in the cloud, from whence is may be hacked, stolen, sold, or manipulated against the interests of the children to whom it pertains...long after two years from now. That's what and why such information is called a student's permanent record. Likewise, this data is also associated with the metadata (name, grade, school, subject, etc.) of each teacher who taught those students who earned or were awarded those scores. That information will also wind up in the cloud, where it certainly could be drilled-into in order to determine or judge any teacher's fitness or worthiness for future employment or promotional opportunities, at any time in the future of a teacher's career. Governor, if (since, as) the State Assessment scores are so bad, so unreliable, so lacking in credibility that they should not be counted against the students or teachers to whom those scores are associated or tagged, then why not just throw away all that bad data? Why not stop generating more bad data, and STOP the assessments until they have been made right? Where are the 2012-13 School District Report Cards with the 2013 ELA & Math Assessment Scores in NY State?
These scores are NOT on the NYSED Report Card site! People, just look at how much attention, how much time and how much energy the Common Core debacle has drawn away from the job at hand! Let's shut this thing down and get back to educating the children... ...of Wantagh ...of Long Island ...of New York State ...of America. How do we do this? I can do little more than go blah, blah, blah in my blog and elsewhere on the web. Parents can refuse, en masse to let their children sit for the Grades 3 through 8 state assessments in ELA and Math this spring. Next month! We might possibly, although not probably, turn out Governor Cuomo from office in the November election. But we all do have a vote, then. Later this week, I will share my insights of last evening's meeting at the Tilles Center concerning the Common Core. Regards, Chris Wendt PS -Speaking of having a vote, there is one today at Wantagh High School, 7AM-9PM, for the establishment of a 5-year, $5 Million Capital Reserve Fund, here. —CW
|
|
|
Post by lilly on Mar 11, 2014 10:43:09 GMT -5
Chris, this weekend I was socializing with parents of school age kids. One mother who has a 12 yo told me her son came home from school saying he wasn't taking the spring state tests. The kid does ok in school but the mother is always trying to light a fire under him to improve his "school motivation". He told his mother he was "opting out", not for any civil disobedience, ethical stand, etc. or any issue prob a little complex for a 12 yo to understand - he simply just doesn't *feel* like taking a standardized test and heard at school he doesn't have to, he can just sit there and refuse it. The mother could not believe this is what her son is exposed to either from other kids or teachers at school. She put him in his place and he will be taking the tests.
rr has stated it before but his kids are younger and therefore easier to manage their expectations and behavior so it didn't register as much as this situation did. If I were the mother of that 12 yo I would be absolutely LIVID. We have sent the consistent message to our kids since preschool days that everyone has a job in life. Mommy and Daddy go to work bc that is one of our jobs. Our kids' job was to go to school and have a "professional"/responsible attitude towards their education. That has paid off in spades as they are both good, conscientious, successful students. The only saving grace was this 12 yo does not go to Wantagh bc if he did, I'd still be royally po'd. This has nothing to do with politics, religion, whatever. This is interfering with an INDISPUTABLE basic parenting premise/right to send our kids a certain message regarding education within the context of family values. I am surprised at you for even suggesting a mass opt-out movement.
As for NYSED report cards, that's a shocker that they're not timely (NOT!). How is this new news? Until NYSED can exonerate LI school districts from sh!@y NY NAEP and US PISA scores, we just can't pretend they don't exist.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Mar 11, 2014 11:18:46 GMT -5
You can lay your anger over kids deciding to opt themselves out of assessments at the doorstep of NYSED. I discussed this last night with a principal and a superintendent from two other LI districts. SED had been telling districts that only students could refuse to be tested, that parent letters would not suffice for this purpose. I specifically asked what would happen in a classroom of 23 fifth graders when four of them, at the behest of their parents, refused to be tested, and then the other nineteen decided, heck if they don't have to put up with this test, then neither should we...I refuse the take the test, too, just like those four kids! Would they be allowed to refused the test...even without their own parents permission to do so? The answer was...yes! That led to some discussion of segregating those kids whose parents want them to refuse the test from those kids who would otherwise sit for the test...so the refusals could be made out of sight and hearing of the rest of the class. Well, that then led directly into the "sit-and-stare" policy of NYESD. The entire discussion came back around to some brand new (fresh) guidance from SED that school districts could decide on their own volition to honor parental letters of refusal instead of following the SED policy that the students, themselves, must do the test-refusing, and, that districts could also fashion alternatives to "sit-and-stare" for non-test takers, with the most obvious "out" being that test rules allow students who have completed their tests to read from materials at their desks: non-test takers could, at the discretion of the district, be deemed to have finished work on their tests from the outset, and therefore be permitted to read at their desks.
Now, put all this together with faculty members not too enamored with the assessments, and anything could happen in some classrooms or buildings.
As far as a mass opt-out, I truly do not see that happening. Even with 15,000 reported members, 200 reportedly in Wantagh, the Opt-Out LI movement is woefully short of the critical mass to orchestrate an en masse boycott of the assessments. Do the math: 15,000 divided by 124 districts is an average of 120 parents per district, presuming that all members are parents of children subject to taking assessments. How many parents of such children are in Wantagh?
Chris Wendt
|
|
|
Post by lilly on Mar 11, 2014 11:48:57 GMT -5
Chris, NYSED is an easy target. They were dysfunctional BEFORE common core. It just became very public during the roll out of it. And that is not defending NYSED, never been a fan even way before CC.
Administrators and teachers (not all just some of those involved in the anti-CC movement) can share equal (unprofessional) blame.
Add on the opt out parent groups who largely circulate rhetoric and myth in social media into the blame mix.
Oh right, and let's hear again about how the largest, most powerful union in the state failed to negotiate fair APPR's. After all, anti-APPR sentiment is "for the kids", right?
I'm almost with rr here in being done with fruitless discussions and the CC blame game.
Ironic how I wanted my kids to have a sense of professionalism with regard to their attitude on their education. And, the lack of it by SOME of the adults involved in the opt-out movement.
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Mar 11, 2014 12:43:08 GMT -5
Lily, I hope you and rr will watch for my upcoming blog reporting on the symposium at the Tilles Center last night. Sometime this week. The answer to my last rhetorical question is that there should be, based on aging the 2011-12 NYSED Grade Level counts for Wantagh UFSD (link), 1,456 students eligible for this year's Grades 3-8 ELA and Math assessments. This raw number presumes each student should sit for both exams in their own grade level. I cannot estimate how many of those kids (multiples) may belong to the same opt-out member parent(s), or how many couples are members of LI Opt-out, Wantagh Brigade. Just for an order-of-magnitude comparison, there are roughly 7 times more assessment-eligible students in Wantagh than the reported number (200) of Opt-Out members. Is a mass refusal to test possible? Sure. Is it likely. No. Yours, Chris Wendt
|
|