Wednesday, December 28, 2011

National Standards=>=>National Student Database

 
Under regulations the Obama Department of Education released this month...the DoE has taken a giant step toward creating a de facto national student database that will track students by their personal information from preschool through career.
 
Although current federal law prohibits this, the department decided to ignore Congress and, in effect, rewrite the law. Student privacy and parental authority will suffer.
But on Dec. 2, the Department of Education rejected almost all the criticisms and released the regulations. As of Jan. 3, 2012, interstate and intergovernmental access to your child’s personal information will be practically unlimited. The federal government will have a de facto nationwide database of supposedly confidential student information.

Unless Congress steps in and reclaims its authority, student privacy and parental control over education will be relics of the past.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Class Warfare

If you achieve, you're gonna be punished!
 
Where did this attitude come from? Does it refer to academic achievement, monetary success, or both?
 
The philosophy of the classroom today will be the philosophy of government tomorrow.
Abraham Lincoln
 
As Harry Reid professes "there are no millionaire job creators" I'm wondering what has happened in our society to create an environment where some people may actually believe him?
 
As conservative candidates continue to focus on the economy, debating everything except educational freedom, state sovereignty and the threat to these under Common Core Standards and RttT, I keep wondering how we have come to this place where we find it desirable to be COMMON...
 
Our schools have been scientifically designed to prevent over-education from happening. The average American [should be] content with their humble role in life, because they're not tempted to think about any other role.
– William T. Harris, U.S. Commissioner of Education, 1889
 
 

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Education Task Force Approves Anti-Common Core Model Legislation

 
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) met last week in Scottsdale, AZ. They are an organization whose mission is “to advance the Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty, through a nonpartisan public-private partnership of America’s state legislators, members of the private sector, the federal government, and general public.” They have several task forces, one of which is education.

This group is important as model legislation is often developed and discussed and then taken home to the state capitals and placed on legislative agendas. Though the group’s mission is to advance Jeffersonian principles, in particular federalism, pro-common core state standards advocates like Achieve, Jeb Bush, and The Gates Foundation have gained ground with its members.

The education task force heard argument from Closing the Door to Innovation, a statement that has been signed by 350 prominent education policymakers, researchers, teachers and parents. As a result the education taskforce approved model legislation (sponsored by American Principles Project, The Goldwater Institute, and the Washington Policy Center) opposing the common core state standards. The model legislation below will hopefully be introduced in a state legislature near you:

Comprehensive Legislative Package Opposing the Common Core State Standards Initiative:

WHEREAS, high student performance and closing the achievement gap is fundamentally linked to an overall reform of our public education system through a strong system of accountability and transparency built on state standards; and

WHEREAS, the responsibility for the education of each child of this nation primarily lies with parents, supported by locally elected school boards and state governments; and

WHEREAS, in 2009 and 2010, the State was offered the chance to compete for education funding through the “Race to the Top” program created by the U.S. Department of Education (“ED”); and

WHEREAS, the only way to achieve a score in the competition sufficient to qualify for funding was to agree to “participation in a consortium of States that… (i)s working toward jointly developing and adopting a common set of K-12 standards…”, and

WHEREAS, the only such “common set of K-12 standards” existent at that time, or since, is known as the Common Core State Standards Initiative (“CCSSI”) and was developed without a grant of authority from any state; and

WHEREAS, local election officials, school leaders, teachers, and parents were not included in the discussion, evaluation and preparation of the CCSSI standards that would affect students in the state; and

WHEREAS, citizens had no opportunity to review and comment on the final version of CCSSI standards, and states were not offered an option to modify those standards before their adoption; and

WHEREAS, no empirical evidence indicates that centralized education standards result in higher student achievement; and

WHEREAS, adoption of the CCSSI standards would force several states to lower the rigor and quality of their standards; and

WHEREAS, the National Assessment of Educational Progress national test already exists and allows comparisons of academic achievement to be made across the states, without the necessity of imposing national standards, curricula, or assessments; and

WHEREAS, imposing a set of national standards is likely to lead to the imposition of a national curriculum and national assessment upon the various states, in violation of the General Education Provisions Act, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; and the Department of Education Organization Act and

WHEREAS, claims from the Common Core Initiative that the CCSSI standards will not dictate what teachers teach in the classroom are refuted by language in the standards as written; and

WHEREAS, common standards will lesson the ability for local stakeholders to innovate and continue to make improvement over time; and

WHEREAS, when no less than 22 states face budget shortfalls and Race to the Top funding for states is limited, $350 million for consortia to develop new assessments aligned with the CCSSI standards will not cover the entire cost of overhauling state accountability systems, which includes implementation of standards and testing and associated professional development and curriculum restructuring; and

WHEREAS, special interest groups can manipulate the vulnerability of the centralized decision making that governs common standards and lower the standards’ rigor and quality of over time to suite their priorities;

Option A (Resolution):

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the (legislative body) of the state of (name of state) rejects any policies and procedures that would be incumbent on the state based on Common Core State Standards Initiative.

Option B (Statute):

The State Board of Education may not adopt, and the State Department of Education may not implement, the Common Core State Standards developed by the Common Core State Standards Initiative. Any actions taken to adopt or implement the Common Core State Standards as the effective date of this section are void ab initio. Neither this nor any other statewide education standards may be adopted or implemented without the approval of the Legislature.

Originally posted at Caffeinated Thoughts

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Important Rebuttal on Common Core Math Promotion

When I read Rick Hess' interview with Professor Wu on Straight Up, I was very disheartened because many will use this interview in support of the federal overreach into public education.  IMO the standards are extremely WEAK at the secondary level and DO NOT prepare students for success in college algebra or beyond.
 
Ze'ev Wurman brilliantly provided rebuttal links (copied below) for several of the professor's statement in the comments section.
 
Thanks Ze'ev!!
Wu is unreliable when it comes to many of his descriptions of the Common Core. His claim that the Common Core's abandonment of algebra in grade 8 is consistent with NMAP's findings should be compared with actual NMAPs recommendation #6 (http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/final-report.pdf ) and page 3-47 in that chapter 3 he mentioned (http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/conceptual-knowledge.pdf ).
 
His sweeping statement that asking for reasoning when solving equations is somehow "new" to the Common Core should be compared with standards 7MR4.1 or A1.5 of the 1997 Calif. standards (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/mathstandards.pdf ).
 
His praise of the experimental geometry the Common Core imposes – without any prior successful experience -- on America stands in stark contrast with that of Stanford's Prof. Milgram (appendix B at http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/common_core_standards.pdf ) or of a colleague of Kolmogorov, the mathematician who dreamt up this approach more than 30 years ago (p. 34-35 at http://elib.mi.sanu.ac.rs/files/journals/tm/10/tm612.pdf ).
 
Wu's praise for CCSMS "neutrality" with high school courses is a nifty attempt to turn CC failure to deliver into a positive "feature." He seems uninformed about Finland (see http://solmu.math.helsinki.fi/2005/erik/PisaEng.html and http://journal.tc-library.org/ojs/index.php/matheducation/article/viewFile/575/355 ), and when he discusses the absence of teaching quadratic equation in China or Japan in 8th grade as an excuse for not teaching algebra in grade 8, he conveniently forgets to tell us that these countries do teach most of algebra 1 in that grade *except* quadratics, and that they additionally teach large sections of proof-based geometry in grade 8.


When I asked Wu last year to reconcile his current anti grade-8 algebra stance with his recent push *for* it when he served on the NMAP, his answer was simple: American elementary and middle school teachers are incompetent to teach algebra or prepare for it, and he came to conclusion that pushing it to high school is the best America can do. Perhaps true, but giving up on America's students is a far cry from waxing lyrical about the "pedagogical sensibility" or "mathematical soundness" of the Common Core.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Where To Start?

We've all heard some variation of this argument over the last two years...

[A response to Jay P. Greene's blog post Rick Hess Nails National Standards on Their Stealth Strategy]

"Without ‘national standards’ the USA will continue to fail as if they were 50 different nations. Some in the north east will do well but the ones that must improve refuse to admit they have a problem.

The illiterate states must be told you have ten years to get your population to the Massachusetts level of reading and math. Your standards must be at that level grade by grade.

Is this one powerful nation or 50 little backwater countries?"

If he's trying to say that we could have challenged our sovereign states to improve achievement up to the level of Massachusetts within the next ten years, then I would say "EXACTLY - I DEFINITELY AGREE!"

On the other hand, if he's trying to imply that Common Core Standards are as good as Massachusetts standards (were prior to CC) then he's wrong.  Both the Math and Language Arts Common Core standards are WEAK!! (you can find a plethora of info on that from MA's own Pioneer Institute)

The 50 sovereign United States are not in any way, shape or form "backwater countries"

IN FACT THEIR SOVEREIGNTY IS THE REASON

THAT AMERICA IS A POWERFUL NATION!! 

This might be a good time to read a little more about that...

http://www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.com/national-common-core-standards

Closing the Door on Innovation:  Why One National Curriculum is Bad for America

Education to Raise Technology Consumers Instead of Technology Creators

Rick Hess

http://educationnext.org/is-anybody-up-for-defending-the-common-core-math-standards/

http://educationnext.org/keeping-an-eye-on-state-standards/

 

Bill Evers

159911-education-hornets-nest-us-department-of-education-is-creating-a-national-k-12-curriculum

http://www.freedompolitics.com/articles/legal-2744-nclb-waivers.html

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous