Comments on: The rush to common-core standards http://toped.svefoundation.org/2009/12/22/the-rush-to-common-core-standards/ Analysis, opinion and ruminations on California education policy Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:45:40 +0100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Lisa Jones http://toped.svefoundation.org/2009/12/22/the-rush-to-common-core-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-4375 Lisa Jones Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:37:04 +0000 http://educatedguess.org/blog/?p=855#comment-4375 The problem I see with that argument is that decisions made concerning content affect the later "educated" decision the student is prepared to make concerning work or college pursuits. If AUTHENTIC Algebra II is not a high school expectation/requirement, so-called "reformists" will soon after diminish the mathematics content taught at EVERY LEVEL leading up to it. Children with latent ability in mathematics could be forever cut-off from discovering their passion and reaching their fullest potential because they lack the necessary content to proceed with success. It's time to be honest and acknowledge that even our current "college entrance" expectations are considered low level in some countries - you know, the ones that are out-producing us at an ever-increasing rate! Our children deserve the opportunity to reach their fullest potential! Thank you Ze'ev for your honesty and committment to providing opportunities for our children. Happy New Year! The problem I see with that argument is that decisions made concerning content affect the later “educated” decision the student is prepared to make concerning work or college pursuits.

If AUTHENTIC Algebra II is not a high school expectation/requirement, so-called “reformists” will soon after diminish the mathematics content taught at EVERY LEVEL leading up to it. Children with latent ability in mathematics could be forever cut-off from discovering their passion and reaching their fullest potential because they lack the necessary content to proceed with success.

It’s time to be honest and acknowledge that even our current “college entrance” expectations are considered low level in some countries – you know, the ones that are out-producing us at an ever-increasing rate!

Our children deserve the opportunity to reach their fullest potential!

Thank you Ze’ev for your honesty and committment to providing opportunities for our children.

Happy New Year!

Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

]]> By: Ze'ev Wurman http://toped.svefoundation.org/2009/12/22/the-rush-to-common-core-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-4213 Ze'ev Wurman Thu, 24 Dec 2009 03:02:40 +0000 http://educatedguess.org/blog/?p=855#comment-4213 John, You may be right in that the publishers will not need to adapt their textbooks to Calif., although there is a possible catch there too--states have the right to tack on up to 15% (however measured) of their own standards, so there may be "Calif. editions" in our future anyway. In any case Calif. never paid the publishers for the adaptation. It is the purchasing of new books that is typically done on a 7-10 year cycle that will need to be accelerated, and the feds will not pay for that. As to digital texts the jury is still out, and it will take a long time until them make a significant impact on textbook purchase costs in most districts, and particularly in poorer ones. Did you ever stop to ask yourself what is the true cost of a laptop per child, when you include the cost of maintenance, loss/theft insurance, software purchase and software support, and replacement every 3-5 years? You may discover that textbooks are not so expensive. As to assessment, it deserves a discussion of its own due to its complexity, and the amount of misinformation and misconceptions on the issue. Just to touch on it, $350M may be sufficient to develop something "common" but then (a) you still have the 15% that is "custom" for every (or every other) state, and (b) if indeed that assessment will have much more than what you seem to dismiss as "fill-in-the-bubbles", we may anyway need to spend much more on them. Today California spends perhaps $10/student/year on testing. With a mostly constructed-response items on a test start thinking perhaps 10X more per student. For a test that, incidentally, doesn't really test any better, and probably less reliably, than what we already do today. Just some food for thought. John,

You may be right in that the publishers will not need to adapt their textbooks to Calif., although there is a possible catch there too–states have the right to tack on up to 15% (however measured) of their own standards, so there may be “Calif. editions” in our future anyway. In any case Calif. never paid the publishers for the adaptation. It is the purchasing of new books that is typically done on a 7-10 year cycle that will need to be accelerated, and the feds will not pay for that.

As to digital texts the jury is still out, and it will take a long time until them make a significant impact on textbook purchase costs in most districts, and particularly in poorer ones. Did you ever stop to ask yourself what is the true cost of a laptop per child, when you include the cost of maintenance, loss/theft insurance, software purchase and software support, and replacement every 3-5 years? You may discover that textbooks are not so expensive.

As to assessment, it deserves a discussion of its own due to its complexity, and the amount of misinformation and misconceptions on the issue. Just to touch on it, $350M may be sufficient to develop something “common” but then (a) you still have the 15% that is “custom” for every (or every other) state, and (b) if indeed that assessment will have much more than what you seem to dismiss as “fill-in-the-bubbles”, we may anyway need to spend much more on them. Today California spends perhaps $10/student/year on testing. With a mostly constructed-response items on a test start thinking perhaps 10X more per student. For a test that, incidentally, doesn’t really test any better, and probably less reliably, than what we already do today. Just some food for thought.

Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

]]> By: John Fensterwald http://toped.svefoundation.org/2009/12/22/the-rush-to-common-core-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-4210 John Fensterwald Thu, 24 Dec 2009 01:00:27 +0000 http://educatedguess.org/blog/?p=855#comment-4210 Ze'ev: One advantage of a consortium of states is spreading the costs. And the feds are setting aside $350 million to create new assessments. Isn't it time that California abandon the fill-in-the-bubble measurements anyway? I also would expect dramatic changes in textbooks anyway in the next three or four years, as CK-12 and other free, online publishers force districts to approach materials differently. The timing might be fortuitous. Ze’ev: One advantage of a consortium of states is spreading the costs. And the feds are setting aside $350 million to create new assessments. Isn’t it time that California abandon the fill-in-the-bubble measurements anyway? I also would expect dramatic changes in textbooks anyway in the next three or four years, as CK-12 and other free, online publishers force districts to approach materials differently. The timing might be fortuitous.

Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

]]> By: Ze'ev Wurman http://toped.svefoundation.org/2009/12/22/the-rush-to-common-core-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-4204 Ze'ev Wurman Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:13:39 +0000 http://educatedguess.org/blog/?p=855#comment-4204 In theory, yes. In practice, this is quite improbable especially given where the consortium effectively put its "end of high-school" stake, and the leaks about the backmapping process. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that the issue is not simply a minor modifications of the standards. Last time we went through the process it required few additional billions(!) of dollars to align the textbooks and have school districts purchase them on accelerated schedule, put the aligned teacher training, and the assessment, in place. It also took about 5-7 years before school districts stopped using "our textboooks are still unaligned" or "we did not yet get/provide teacher training about the standards" as an excuse for their failing to teach most of their students to meet the standards. The maximum we can ever see from the Race to the Top money is $700M, even less then just the Schiff-Bustamante $1B Calif. added in late 1990s for accelerated textbook adoption. And California doesn't have extra few billions in the foreseeable future... In theory, yes. In practice, this is quite improbable especially given where the consortium effectively put its “end of high-school” stake, and the leaks about the backmapping process.

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that the issue is not simply a minor modifications of the standards. Last time we went through the process it required few additional billions(!) of dollars to align the textbooks and have school districts purchase them on accelerated schedule, put the aligned teacher training, and the assessment, in place. It also took about 5-7 years before school districts stopped using “our textboooks are still unaligned” or “we did not yet get/provide teacher training about the standards” as an excuse for their failing to teach most of their students to meet the standards. The maximum we can ever see from the Race to the Top money is $700M, even less then just the Schiff-Bustamante $1B Calif. added in late 1990s for accelerated textbook adoption. And California doesn’t have extra few billions in the foreseeable future…

Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

]]> By: Paul Muench http://toped.svefoundation.org/2009/12/22/the-rush-to-common-core-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-4201 Paul Muench Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:47:32 +0000 http://educatedguess.org/blog/?p=855#comment-4201 Does that mean once the "back-mapping" is done it might turn out that CA has nothing to change? Does that mean once the “back-mapping” is done it might turn out that CA has nothing to change?

Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

]]> By: Ze'ev Wurman http://toped.svefoundation.org/2009/12/22/the-rush-to-common-core-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-4194 Ze'ev Wurman Wed, 23 Dec 2009 06:30:50 +0000 http://educatedguess.org/blog/?p=855#comment-4194 "Common Core" are a set of standards in English Language Arts and in Math defined by a collaborative started by NGA and CCSSO. The standards were started by defining what the consortium called "work and college-readiness" standards, and now the consortium works on "back-mapping" those work and college-readiness standards into grade-by-grade K-12 standards. The reason California is being pushed to accept them is that states that join "a consortium of states" that works towards defining common standards (Common Core is currently the only such that exists) get extra up to 40 points, out of 500 possible total, for their application for the Race to the Top $4B federal grant program. If California gets one of those, it will receive between $400M and $700M as its share, and Sacramento is currently tripping over itself in racing to changing the laws to qualify for the grant competition. “Common Core” are a set of standards in English Language Arts and in Math defined by a collaborative started by NGA and CCSSO. The standards were started by defining what the consortium called “work and college-readiness” standards, and now the consortium works on “back-mapping” those work and college-readiness standards into grade-by-grade K-12 standards.

The reason California is being pushed to accept them is that states that join “a consortium of states” that works towards defining common standards (Common Core is currently the only such that exists) get extra up to 40 points, out of 500 possible total, for their application for the Race to the Top $4B federal grant program. If California gets one of those, it will receive between $400M and $700M as its share, and Sacramento is currently tripping over itself in racing to changing the laws to qualify for the grant competition.

Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

]]> By: Paul Muench http://toped.svefoundation.org/2009/12/22/the-rush-to-common-core-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-4191 Paul Muench Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:57:08 +0000 http://educatedguess.org/blog/?p=855#comment-4191 Is "common core" a standard or a program? If it is a standard and CA's standards are already "tougher" than "common core", then why does anything have to change? Is “common core” a standard or a program? If it is a standard and CA’s standards are already “tougher” than “common core”, then why does anything have to change?

Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

]]> By: Fred Jones http://toped.svefoundation.org/2009/12/22/the-rush-to-common-core-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-4181 Fred Jones Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:38:42 +0000 http://educatedguess.org/blog/?p=855#comment-4181 Dr. Kirst's concern is well founded. It is important to dispel the myth that "ready for college is the same as ready for work." Entry-level skills do not necessarily include Algebra/Trig, and yet too many districts are requiring every kid to take/pass Algebra II in order to get a high school diploma. We are redefining failure (in a way unconnected to the real world) and introducing more kids to it. Dr. Kirst’s concern is well founded. It is important to dispel the myth that “ready for college is the same as ready for work.” Entry-level skills do not necessarily include Algebra/Trig, and yet too many districts are requiring every kid to take/pass Algebra II in order to get a high school diploma. We are redefining failure (in a way unconnected to the real world) and introducing more kids to it.

Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity

]]>