CCS: Secretive, expensive and wrong

In May, Washington State Gov. Chris Gregoire quietly joined most of the governors in signing a memorandum of agreement in support of a Common Core Standards effort (CCS). This effort – really a “movement” – is creating national education standards in mathematics and language arts. I asked for documentation on Gov. Gregoire's decision, and some of what I received was heavily redacted. One critical document wasn’t sent to me because it’s “exempt” from my request.

Now I’m really curious.

The CCS movement was initiated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). The first stage (the national standards) is well under way. The second stage will “develop and implement” national assessments. Also mentioned in the NGA/CCSSO's memorandum of agreement (MOA) are textbooks, digital media, curricula, professional development and policy changes – all to be variously aligned, ensured, developed, implemented, or evaluated by “participating states.”

The concept of national standards isn’t new, but this particular movement is. The partnership between CCSSO, the NGA Center, and Achieve, Inc. was announced Sept. 9, 2008. On Dec. 19, a wish list of five “transformative steps” was announced. Step 1: “Upgrade state standards by adopting a common core of internationally benchmarked standards in math and language arts for grades K-12.”
Step 2: “Leverage states’ collective influence to ensure textbooks, digital media, curricula and assessments are aligned to internationally benchmarked standards.”

From Dec. 19, things went quickly (and quietly). On June 1, the NGA/CCSSO publicly announced the intent to develop national standards. By then, most states had already signed the NGA/CCSSO’s memorandum, reportedly having been given a May 8 deadline. The movement’s leaders refused to announce until at least July the members of the “national validation committee” or the “standards development group.” A July 1 press release finally released some names but also said “the Work Group's deliberations will be confidential throughout the process.”

Education Secretary Arne Duncan is supporting this movement with $350 million. He said so in a June 15 press release (seemingly his first on this topic). It must seem like pocket change to him – over a few months, he’s been doling out an extra $44 billion for public education. Meanwhile, the MOA signed by the governors says the “federal role” in the movement is to provide for: Revision and alignment of “existing federal education laws”; “greater flexibility in the use of existing federal funds”; and funding for the following:

• the writing and implementation of the standards
• the development of “common” assessments
• a “revised accountability structure”
• teacher and principal “professional development”
• “other common core standards over time”
• “a research agenda”

Wow. This is what happened in 1999. One minute there wasn’t a national program; the next, it was already signed, sealed and expensive. It makes me nervous.

• Influence: The more centralized the decision-making, the less influence parents have. Already, we have little influence beyond voting with our feet. In a national program, everything is vetted from far away and by committees of strangers.
• Secrecy: Leaders and participants haven’t been exactly forthcoming with names and details. Parents aren’t asked for opinions, consent or votes. The MOA said leaders would meet in an “open, inclusive, and efficient process” to develop end-of-high-school expectations – but it also set a target date of July 1, just one month after the movement was announced to the public.
• Cost: I’ve seen no estimates of costs to taxpayers in dollars, personnel, resources, benefits and expenses. What happens to current contracts, textbooks, funding programs, and assessments? State leaders predict this movement will result in decreased education costs, but I predict exponentially greater costs and more layers of $100,000 Ph.D.s at district, state and federal levels.
• Accountability: I fret over accountability to the public, especially considering the secrecy thus far. Who reviews these standards? What are their backgrounds? Where is the public in this? Who determines the efficacy of the movement?
• Outcome: The MOA says the standards will be “research and evidence-based,” “grounded in empirical research” and will “draw on best practices.” Uh huh. Much of the research and evidence in American public education is flawed, insufficient, biased, and weak as a newborn kitten. I want to see this evidence.

Despite any concerns, nearly all of the governors signed on. I wrote to Gov. Gregoire, asking for answers. One of her employees sent a copy of a letter from the State Board of Education dated May 20 that urged her to support the CCS movement. It didn’t take much urging, I guess. On May 20, copies of the MOA – signed by Gov. Gregoire and Superintendent Randy Dorn – were forwarded to interested parties. But not to the public. Neither of them issued a press release.

I was also sent a copy of an April 24 “Executive Policy Office Weekly Update,” in which the CCS movement is discussed. About two-thirds of this is redacted (blacked out so I can’t read it). I did NOT get a copy of the “Governor’s Decision Document” – dated May 15, 2009, and written by the governor’s executive policy advisor. This two-page briefing document was “exempted” due to “Executive Privilege.”

(What rotten luck. It’s probably the one I wanted.)

Whenever I see a “closed door” like this, I want to open it, see what’s behind it. Public education is full of doors that are closed, locked, stuck, too monolithic to budge, moved to a different building, stuffed in a dusty box in the backroom, or just wiped right out of existence. What do I do with this door? A lawyer stands behind it. The redactions and exemptions could be a matter of national security, or they might just be hiding Gov. Gregoire’s grocery list. Who knows? I want this information because the national standards movement is wrong-headed right out of the gate.

1. Public education is a state responsibility. Even the U.S. Department of Education acknowledges this: “Education is primarily a state and local responsibility in the U.S. In creating the Department of Education, Congress made clear its intention that the secretary of education and other Department officials be prohibited from exercising “’any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system.’ (20 USC 3403) The establishment of schools and colleges, the development of curricula, the setting of requirements for enrollment and graduation - these are responsibilities handled by states and communities, as well as by public and private organizations, not by the U.S. Department of Education.”

   The U.S. Department of Education has already overstepped its role in public education. Despite constant assurances that the CCS movement is “state-led,” it has long-term federal taxpayer money and federal fingerprints all over it.
   

2. The last set of “national standards” – from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics – plunged the country into a mathematical Dark Ages from which we have yet to emerge, and where we will remain until the education establishment once again believes in directly teaching real content.
3. There is no avenue here for input from the real stakeholders: Parents and students.

I’ve sent more questions to Washington State’s Board of Education, the governor, the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, the National Governors Association, and the U.S. Department of Education. I’ll let you know what they say.


Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (July, 2009). "CCS: Secretive, expensive and wrong." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published July 14, 2009, on Education News at: http://ednews.org/articles/common-core-standards-secretive-expensive-and-wrong.html

National standards, national curriculum dangerous

After a 2007 U.S. Department of Education (DoE) report indicated differences among the various states as to what constitutes academic “proficiency,” Sec. of Education Margaret Spellings sent a letter to The Washington Post to express her concerns that some people might be tempted to press for a national curriculum (2007c).

That would be “unprecedented and unwise,” Sec. Spellings wrote. Not only are national standards not necessarily “synonymous” with high standards, they might actually lower the standards while doing little “to address the persistent achievement gap.” Additionally, she noted, forcing one curriculum on all 50 states would contradict both tradition and the American Constitution, which places most responsibilities for education in the hands of state and local governments and administrators.

“They design the curriculum and pay 90 percent of the bills,” Sec. Spellings said. “Neighborhood schools deserve neighborhood leadership, not dictates from bureaucrats thousands of miles away.”

Ah, the irony. Some see NCLB as a “dictate” from “bureaucrats thousands of miles away.” But the comment got me thinking. Would national standards or curricula result in equity? Would they be good for students? Would they be good for the country?

A few years ago, Washington State administrators floated the possibility of developing statewide mathematics curricula. State legislators took the first step in 2007 by requiring the superintendent to choose math and science curricula that would align with the soon-to-be revised learning standards. The legislation reassured districts they wouldn’t be required to adopt the curricula, but it left the legal door open:

“However, the statewide accountability plan adopted by the state board of education … shall recommend conditions under which school districts should be required to use one of the recommended curricula. … ” (“Certification,” 2007, p.3-4).

Washington State’s standards rewrite and curricula assessments did go the way I wanted them to go – toward more traditional content. At the moment, as our children continue to choke on reform curricula, it’s tempting to wish that districts would be forced by law to adopt state-selected curricula. But the concept gives me pause.

What if the revised standards had instead continued to emphasize reform math? What if the state-selected curricula had all been reform? What if proponents of reform mathematics managed to fill every administrative and legislative seat and nothing was the way I wanted it to be? Reform could happen all over again. It probably will.

Districts must always be able to choose alternatives. Parents and students must always be able to compare procedures and results against something from the outside. Dissent is necessary to keeping any system honest and strong. That’s why I’m worried about current trends toward national education standards and a national curriculum.

National Standards:

In June 2009, the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, and the Council of Chief State School Officers – in partnership with Achieve, Inc.; ACT and the College Board – announced an initiative to develop national learning standards (“Forty-nine,” 2009). Washington State is one of 49 states and territories to have already signed on to this initiative – despite the $1.6 million Washington just spent revising its own K-12 mathematics standards.

This is purportedly a “grass-roots” initiative, but Sec. of Education Arne Duncan and the Department of Education reportedly support the initiative (Levine, 2009). How “grass-roots” can it possibly be?

Any concerns are already too late. Decisions have been made. People have been chosen. The initiative was formally announced June 1, 2009 -- along with plans to release “college and career ready standards” in July 2009. That’s either really fast work, or they’ve been on this for a while. Quietly. Behind the scenes. In secret. I’ve seen little about this in the media. I can find nothing about it on the DoE Web site. Washington State signed on to the initiative with barely a whisper to the public. This has not been a particularly public process.

Who are these people? I’d like to know their backgrounds and get a sense of their leanings. The NGA declined to give out names until July. The San Francisco Chronicle called that “a wise decision," adding that "A truly open process would result in the experts being lobbied by countless interest groups, and – given the still-controversial nature of national standards – it could torpedo the plan altogether.”

Wow. A newspaper is championing secrecy. So much for the fourth estate.

Perhaps a truly open process would result in people finding out which special interests are already lobbying these “experts,” or maybe it would uncover some inappropriate backgrounds for some of the “experts.” A truly open process could indeed torpedo the plan altogether, as perhaps it should.

The NGA press release says there will be an “expert validation committee” “composed of nationally and internationally recognized and trusted education experts who are neutral to – and independent of – the process.” The words sound so good. Expert, recognized, trusted, neutral, and independent. Then again, we always hear those sorts of words. In 1999, the DoE assured us that reform curricula were “exemplary,” chosen by a team of mathematics and education “experts.” Look how that turned out. I doubt many “education experts” are actually “neutral” or “independent.”

Hey, I have some questions. What happens if Washington’s learning standards are weakened again? How will parents know? Against what will we compare them? How will contrary philosophies and commercial products survive – competing as they’ll be with well-connected organizations and companies, exceptionally savvy marketers, and the U.S. Department of Education?

National Curriculum:

Reportedly, Sec. Duncan also supports a national education curriculum (Levine, 2009). Again, as of June 2009, I can find nothing about it on the DoE Web site, but in May, while touting Tough Choices and Tough Times (two pilot programs that could form the basis for a DoE program called Race to the Top), Sec. Duncan reportedly said that not having a national curriculum is “crazy.” Steven Levine of Business Week writes:

“Both Duncan and the Tough Choices members steer carefully around the phrase "national education" … Yet that’s clearly where the Administration is headed. Duncan wants to nudge the winning states toward agreeing on rigorous, shared curricula that could spread across the country. ‘The idea of 50 states doing their own thing I think is crazy,’ Duncan says. Race to the Top is a way ‘to say to a set of states, 'You lead the national conversation. You do this.'’”

Perhaps if I were the author or publisher of K-12 curricula, or I sold commercial products related to education, such as calculators, for example, I’d be watching these developments closely. I’d want to be involved behind the scenes, working with allies and friends to sway things to my best advantage. It would just be good business, right?

On the Texas Instruments (TI) Web site, I found multiple links to papers from the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). Coincidentally, the CCSSO is a partner in the aforementioned national standards initiative. The CCSSO and TI also have been partners for a while. One TI link is to a joint CCSSO/TI paper from 2005 titled “Standards-Based Foundations for Mathematics Education: Standards, Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment in Mathematics.” The paper says:

“In an effort to explore new ways of improving mathematics education in middle and high schools, the Council of Chief State School Officers and Texas Instruments formed a Technology Research and Development Advisory Committee (“R&D Committee”) in the spring of 2004. This R&D Committee, consisting of state deputy superintendents or commissioners, district superintendents, and CCSSO staff, met in April 2004 to examine ways in which business and education can work together to build models that will enhance mathematical literacy” (Stumbo & Lusi, 2005a).

Another TI link is to a joint CCSSO/TI paper from 2005 titled “Why Isn’t the Mathematics We Learned Good Enough for Today’s Students?” The paper says:

“This partnership will investigate the influences on mathematics education and develop recommendations for effective state actions to lead to improved student performance in mathematics” (Stumbo & Lusi, 2005b).

Hmm. This national standards initiative is looking less “grass-roots” all of the time. I’m sad to tell you that’s not all. Remember the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)? This group ushered in the “Standards” on which reform math programs claim to be based. Its former presidents have written or helped develop several of the reform curricula we have now. In a June 2009 press release, the NCTM speaks glowingly about the prospect of national standards. It also speaks hopefully about a national curriculum.

(Oo. Just got a cold shiver.)

The NCTM takes care – as does the NGA – to specify that national initiatives would be “voluntary.” But there is very little about the standards and curricula we have in Spokane that’s “voluntary.” The only “voluntary” part is where parents can voluntarily leave the district if we don’t like it.

So far.

At the moment, parents have the right to reject any part of their state’s standards or district curriculum and teach their children at home. Occasionally, some folks try to take away parents’ right to do this. Sec. Duncan supports charter schools, but what if the push for national standards and curricula weakens parents’ right to choose other kinds of alternatives? What if the national support for one curriculum drives other curricula (perhaps curricula preferred by parents) out of business? Already the parent voice is weak – even at the district level. How strong could it be at a national level? Which of us could be heard over the clamor of well-heeled interests such as the NSF, the NCTM, the Dana Center, the NGA, Achieve, Texas Instruments, and the College Board?

I worry that, ultimately, standards, tests and curricula will become streamlined in a happy little U.S.-government-led, taxpayer-funded row. Pretend scores will rise, certain businesses will make tons of money, and administrators will be happy, happy, happy – but the devastating gaps in what our children know will just be better hidden from sight. Any time the doors close and shades are drawn, I start wondering: “Where is the Accountability?” Even if these shadowy faces manage to create perfect national standards and curricula that allow our children to rise to the top of the international food chain, they – and their creations – won’t last forever. What happens then? Once we have national standards and curricula, we will never ever get rid of them.

State, district and especially parent rights must be preserved – for the people. Our children depend on educators to provide them with a proper education, but their minds and their futures are our ultimate responsibility. Parents must take back the reins of their children’s education. They must go beyond the revolving door of standards and curricula, beyond the lame-duck standardized tests, beyond the parsed and handpicked statistics. They must go beyond the teachers, beyond administrators and beyond the useless school boards. They must find a way to determine what their children should know versus what they do know, take steps to fill in the gaps, and stay on top of things until their children graduate.

Based on what I’ve seen and heard, an increasing number of parents are doing exactly that.


Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (June, 2009). "National standards, national curriculum dangerous." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published June 11, 2009, on EducationNews.org at http://ednews.org/articles/national-standards-national-curriculum-dangerous.html