Common core – a commissioner’s dissent
Yesterday, I recommended that the State Board of Education on Monday approve the recommendation of the majority of the California State Academic Standards Commission to approve the common-core standards. Ze’ev Wurman was one of two commissioners to vote against the standards. He has asked for one last chance to explain why.
A journalist has the same right to misinterpret motives as anyone else, so I will not enter into argument with John on that (smile). But I will describe the dilemma that the Academic Content Standards Commission (ACSC) faced in a different way. This being a Silicon Valley forum, I will use a few simple engineering terms.
The legislature asked the ACSC to examine if using 100% of Common Core plus limited (up to 15%) supplementation will be able to “Ensure that the rigor of the state’s reading, writing, and mathematics academic content standards, curricula, and assessments is maintained” (SB5X 1). The Governor, State Board of Education president, and Superintendent of Public Instruction, also charged us to verify that they “meet or exceed our own” (May 2009 letter).
The obvious conflict was between the indisputable fact that Common Core has structured their standards with the goal of NOT teaching Algebra 1 in grade 8 by default, and default position of California (following other high achieving countries) to teach Algebra 1 in grade 8. Presenting the dilemma in terms of the specific details of the standards focuses on the wrong thing: both California and Common Core standards are reasonable, and supplementing with 15% would easily do an adequate job of filling in the missing content. In other words, the issue was not with the standards per-se but rather with the grades at which they should be taught.
Put this way, the requirements over-constrained the system with no possible solution. Consequently, the logical implication should have been for the Commission to recommend the rejection of Common Core, effectively leaving us with what we have. Yet that is not what happened, and below is the rest of the story.
To its credit, ACSC did not try to dumb down the definition of Algebra 1. Once an authentic Algebra 1 course was created by the Commission, three possible options could have been designed.
(A) replace grade 8 with Algebra 1 and re-distribute K-8 Common Core content across K-7; or
(B) create two options for grade 8—algebra and pre-algebra—with pushing down grade 8 content to grades 6 & 7 only for the algebra-in-8 intending students; or
(C) create two options for grade 8—algebra and pre-algebra—but without pushing any content down to earlier grades.
Option A would have been very similar to what we currently have. Choosing it would imply shifting large number of standards, much over 15%. Worse, California Teachers Assn. and the Legislature dislike it because it represents the status quo which they tried to fight in 2008.
Option B would create two math lanes throughout grades 7-8 (or 6-8) in the middle school. It would also shift large number of standards for a part of student cohort, violating the 15% limit for them. CTA and many teachers dislike it too, probably because of their instinctive preference to delay offering options until as late as they can, which currently means high school. (CTA also tends to misapply equity arguments to ability grouping and confuse it with old-time tracking, although ability grouping actually tends to help disadvantaged students.)
Option C would seem to maintain the rigor but uses the slowed-down Common Core K-7 content progression for everyone (as compared with current California K-7 progression) that does not prepare students for the Algebra-in-8 option. Consequently, option C gives the appearance of meeting the constraints, but at the cost of educational infeasibility—essentially all students will end up in the pre-algebra option, with Algebra-in-8 staying around only as a window-dressing.
Had the ACSC the time and the interest to logically go through the possible options, it would have had to come to the conclusion that it CANNOT offer any option that is both educationally viable and meets the constraints that were imposed on it. None of (A), (B), or (C) above does both. Hence it should have logically recommended staying with our current standards – similar to option A but without the proliferation of standards because of squeezing Common Core K-8 into K-7 (plus filling in the bits & pieces Common Core forgot). And with the added bonus of having the entire infrastructure – aligned assessment, professional development, induction programs, and textbooks – already paid for and in place.
Instead, for various reasons, the Commission did not proceed logically and simply settled on option C, ignoring the inferior educational option this will offer, or the additional billions it will take to implement this inferior option. That is why the State Board should reject the ACSC recommendation, and that is why it may find it irresistible to approve it – it allows cover for all politicians as “rigor was maintained”; it makes the feds happy that California joins their bandwagon; it makes CTA (despite its formal complaints) happy – their hated algebra in grade 8 is effectively dead. Only the future students will get a year-behind curriculum, but they don’t vote.
8 Comments
"Darn, I wish I had read that over again before I hit send.” Don’t let this be your lament. To promote a civil dialogue, please be considerate, respectful and mindful of your tone. We encourage you to use your real name, but if you must use a nom de plume, stick with it. Anonymous postings will be removed.
 |
Featured Video |
Did You Know?
Just the Facts
Other Sites to Watch
View More >>
SVEF is the education foundation advocating for the needs of school districts across Silicon Valley. SVEF seeks to improve public education through establishing partnerships with the private sector and the education community ..
So the Oak Grove School District is rightfully proud of its accelerated math instruction for students who want to pursue that path. Does any of this effect accelerating students beyond grade level?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Future students will not be badly affected by delaying their introduction to Algebra 1. In fact, they will be better prepared by being offered a pre-algebra that will properly pave the way to the complexity of Algebra, thus making the mysteries of advanced math a little more accessible to the average kid, which is to say, the majority of the children who go to public schools.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Ze’ev – You state that ability grouping tends to help disadvantaged students. Can you provide links to the supporting research on that, particularly with math students? And can you explain your thinking on how ability grouping differs from tracking. Thanks.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Paul: I am not sure. Probably not in principle, except that the state API incentive for this acceleration may disappear. Further, given the slower K-7 curricular pace with CC, the acceleration may need to start earlier, probably as early as 6th grade. Time will tell how long will Oak Grove acceleration will last, or how broad its appeal (and enrollment) will remain, given those two.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Christiane: You are welcome to hold on to your beliefs. However, the National Advisory Math Panel recently did a most thorough study on the question of early algebra, and its finding are reflected in one of their key recommendations (#6): “All school districts should ensure that all prepared students have access to an authentic algebra course—and should prepare more students than at present to enroll in such a course by Grade 8.” (http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/final-report.pdf) ——- NMAP summary of the research on this subject says: “It is important to note that these six studies drew on four national data sets. … The consistency of their findings is striking. The studies by Ma and others provide some evidence that there are long-term benefits for Grade 7 or 8 students with the requisite mathematical background for algebra if they can take an authentic Algebra course in Grade 7 or 8. … research evidence, as well as the experience of other countries, supports the value of preparing a higher percentage of students than the U.S. does at present to complete an Algebra I course or its equivalent by Grade 7 or 8, and of providing such course work in Grade 7 or 8.” (http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/conceptual-knowledge.pdf p. 3-47)
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I keep hearing the same argument. Mr. Wurman and Mr. Evers continually state that A+ countries have Algebra in 8th grade and that their standards are more rigorous. At the basis of this argument it the notion that there is a one to one correlation between the success of A+ countries and their standards or progression of standards. This is simply not true, and not research based. There are great number of other variables that at work in these situations, and to not look at them in conjunction with standards and progression is misleading. I am not arguing that standards and progression do not contribute to A+ countries successes. I am simply making the point that a number of variables exist. I have yet to see a study that adequately addresses such extraneous variables.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Stephanie: It is important to understand the difference between tracking and laning. Laning (or ability grouping) refers to the practice of grouping students based on their achievement in a *particular subject*, rather than placing certain kids only in accelerated classes throughout the day. That is essentially what we do in high school when we allow some to take honors English and regular math, versus others taking AP Calculus and regular English. This is what we do when we place everyone in a middle school concert band but apply selection for those who wants to join the wind ensemble. In general, findings about ability grouping tend to be positive. As important, ability grouping tends to have positive effect on attitudes, particularly of low achievers (e.g., Kulick & Kulick, AERJ 19(3), Gentry & Owen, GCQ 43(4)). A nicely written accessible summary with linked citation can be found here: http://www.madisonunited.org/grouping.html .
———
Steve: I agree with you that there are many things in addition to standards that contribute to achievement. I don’t think anybody argues, as you claim I do, that there is a direct causal relation between standards and the success of the A+ countries. You don’t need to go to east-Asia to disprove that – just look at California and Massachusetts. Both have excellent standards yet widely different outcomes. What I will say is that if something is not taught, we should not expect it to be learned. And that good standards contribute to, but do not guarantee, higher achievement. In other words, if Algebra 1 is taught in grade 8 in A+ countries (or Algebra 1 & Geometry in grades 8-9) then there is little probability we can catch up with them unless we aim for the same. But I agree that aiming is insufficient. In fact, that is exactly my point, that such aim needs to be supported by a reasonable progression, by appropriate curricula, textbooks, and all the rest.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I must agree with Ze’ev on his point about “reasonable progression”. This is one of the strengths of the common core standards. Especially in grades k-5 they are an improvement. The critical transition grades 6-9 will need refining as we go through the implementation process. The authors of common core recognized this in their introduction stating, “we recognize that there is more to be learned about the most essential knowledge for student success…….. We plan to revise the standards on a set review cycle.” As I read the research and recommendations from a variety of sources there is a common idea found in all. High achieving countries, districts, and schools have a strong emphasis on collaboration. We are fortunate in California to have many experts in our classrooms who have been successfully preparing students for algebra for a decade or more! Our teachers need to be the center of this collaborative effort, supported by the latest research, technology, and our vast system of support staff.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity