[9.9.13 -- Remember that Common Core Standards and CSCOPE are twin sisters; both of them follow the same Type #2 philosophy of education. – Donna Garner]
9.8.13 – CommonCore: Education Without Representation
“Top Ten Professors
Calling Out Common Core’s So-called College Readiness”
By Christel Swasey
Ten brilliant American professors have spoken out eloquently to say that the Common Core is far from its claim of representing academic excellence; that it’s a sheer academic tragedy.
Before I share the professors’ words, let me tell you what sparked this writing.
I saw for the first time this 2013 document put out by the NCEE (National Center on Education and the Economy) that says OUT LOUD that it’s not important under Common Core to have high educational standards in high school; that it’s silly to waste time educating all high school graduates as high as the level of Algebra II.
No joke. They’re pushing for an emphasis on the lowest common denominator, while marketing Common Core as a push for “rigorous” academics.
Outragous, yes. But absolutely factual: this is what they are telling America: Read these Common Core proponents’ lips:
“Mastery of Algebra II is widely thought to be a prerequisite for success in college and careers. Our research shows that that is not so… Based on our data, one cannot make the case that high school graduates must be proficient in Algebra II to be ready for college and careers. The high school mathematics curriculum is now centered on the teaching of a sequence of courses leading to calculus that includes Geometry, Algebra II, Pre-Calculus and Calculus. However, fewer than five percent of American workers and an even smaller percentage of community college students will ever need to master the courses in this sequence in their college or in the workplace… they should not be required courses in our high schools. To require these courses in high school is to deny to many students the opportunity to graduate high school because they have not mastered a sequence of mathematics courses they will never need. In the face of these findings, the policy of requiring a passing score on an Algebra II exam for high school graduation simply cannot be justified.”
(Maybe Common Core proponents better quit using the word “rigorous.”)
So, the NCEE report goes on to say that traditional high school English classes, with their emphasis on classic literature and personal, narrative writing, is useless. The report says that Common Core will save students from the worthless classics with its emphasis on technical subjects and social studies via the dominance of informational text in the Common Core classroom:
“The Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts (CCSSE) address reading in history/social studies as well as science and technical subjects, and in so doing may increase the relevance of high school instruction.”
They just trashed English lit. And, in calling classic literature and personal writing irrelevant, these Common Core proponents only underscore the socialist mentality: that only job prep matters, only the collective economy, not the mind and soul of the individual.
A TOP TEN LIST OF AMERICAN PROFESSORS WHO SPEAK OUT AGAINST COMMON CORE
First, Dr. Anthony Esolen of Providence College in Rhode Island:
“What appalls me most about the standards … is the cavalier contempt for great works of human art and thought, in literary form. It is a sheer ignorance of the life of the imagination. We are not programming machines. We are teaching children. We are not producing functionaries, factory-like. We are to be forming the minds and hearts of men and women… to be human beings, honoring what is good and right and cherishing what is beautiful.”
Second, Dr. Thomas Newkirk of University of New Hampshire:
The standards are portrayed as so consensual, so universally endorsed, so thoroughly researched and vetted, so self-evidently necessary to economic progress, so broadly representative of beliefs in the educational community—that they cease to be even debatable… The principle of opportunity costs prompts us to ask: “What conversations won’t we be having?” Since the CCSS virtually ignore poetry, will we cease to speak about it? What about character education, service learning? What about fiction writing in the upper high school grades? What about the arts that are not amenable to standardized testing? … We lose opportunities when we cease to discuss these issues and allow the CCSS to completely set the agenda, when the only map is the one it creates.”
Third, Dr. Daniel Coupland of Hillsdale College:
“Yes, man is made for work, but he’s also made for so much more… Education should be about the highest things. We should study these things of the stars, plant cells, Mozart’s requium… not simply because they’ll get us into the right college or into the right line of work. Rather, we should study these noble things because they can tell us who we are, why we’re here… If education has become –as Common Core openly declares– preparation for work in a global economy, then this situation is far worse than Common Core critics ever anticipated. And the concerns about cost, and quality, and yes, even the constitutionality of Common Core, pale in comparison to the concerns for the hearts, minds, and souls of American children.”
Fourth, Dr. Christopher Tienken of Seton Hall University:
“Education reform in the United States is being driven largely by ideology, rhetoric, and dogma instead of evidence…. Where is the evidence of the efficacy of the standards? … Let us be very frank: The CCSS are no improvement over the current set of state standards. The CCSS are simply another set of lists of performance objectives.”
Fifth and Sixth, Dr. James Milgram (Stanford University) and Dr. Sandra Stotsky (University of Arkansas):
“We hear no proponents or endorsers of Common Core’s standards warning this country about the effects of the college-readiness level in Common Core’s mathematics standards on postsecondary and post-baccalaureate academic and professional programs. We hear no proponents or endorsers of Common Core’s standards advising district superintendents and state education policy makers on the kind of mathematics curriculum and courses they need to make available in our secondary schools if our undergraduate engineering colleges are to enroll American students.
At this time we can only conclude that a gigantic fraud has been perpetrated on
this country, in particular on parents in this country, by those developing,
promoting, or endorsing Common Core’s standards. We
have no illusion that the college-readiness level in ELA will be any more
demanding than Common Core’s college-readiness level in mathematics.” –
Sept. 2013 paper: Can This Country Survive Common Core’s College Readiness
Level? by R. James Milgram and Sandra Stotsky
Seventh, Dr. Alan Manning of Brigham Young University:
“The Core standards just set in concrete approaches to reading/writing that we already know don’t work very well. Having the Core standards set in concrete means that any attempts to innovate and improve reading/writing instruction will certainly be crushed. Actual learning outcomes will stagnate at best. An argument can be made that any improvement in reading/writing instruction should include more rather than less attention the reading/analysis of stories known to effective in terms of structure (i.e. “classic” time-tested stories). An argument can be made that any improvement in reading/writing instruction should include more rather than fewer exercises where students write stories themselves that are modeled on the classics. This creates a more stable foundation on which students can build skills for other kinds of writing. The Core standards would prevent public schools from testing these kinds of approaches.”
Eighth, Dr. Bill Evers of Hoover Institute at Stanford University:
“The Common Core — effectively national math and English curriculum standards coming soon to a school near you — is supposed to be a new, higher bar that will take the United States from the academic doldrums to international dominance.
So why is there so much unhappiness about it? There didn’t seem to be much just three years ago. Back then, state school boards and governors were sprinting to adopt the Core. In practically the blink of an eye, 45 states had signed on.
But states weren’t leaping because they couldn’t resist the Core’s academic magnetism. They were leaping because it was the Great Recession — and the Obama administration was dangling a $4.35 billion Race to the Top carrot in front of them. Big points in that federal program were awarded for adopting the Core, so, with little public debate, most did.”
Ninth: Dr. Terrence Moore of Hillsdale College:
“Literature is the study of human nature. If we dissect it in this meaningless way, kids not only do not become college and career ready, they don’t even have a love of learning; they don’t even have an understanding of their fellow men… The thing that bothers me more than anything else is found on page number one of the introduction. That says that Common Core is a living work. That means that the thing that you vote on today could be something different tomorrow, and five years from now it is completely unrecognizable.”
Tenth: Dr. William Mathis, of the University of Colorado
“The adoption of a set of standards and assessments, by themselves, is unlikely to improve learning, increase test scores, or close the achievement gap.
• For schools and districts with weak or non-existent curriculum articulation,
the CCSS may adequately serve as a basic curriculum.
• The assessment consortia are currently focused on mathematics and
English/language arts.
Schools, districts, and states must take proactive steps to protect other vital purposes of education such as citizenship, the arts, and maximizing individual talents – as well as the sciences and social sciences. As test based penalties have increased, the instructional attention given to non-tested areas has decreased.
• Educators and policymakers need to be aware of the
significant costs in instructional materials, training and computerized testing
platforms the CCSS requires. It is unlikely the federal or state governments
will adequately cover these costs.
• The nation’s “international economic competitiveness” is unlikely to be
affected by the presence or absence of national standards.”
===========
TO FIND OUT HOW MUCH IT WILL COST YOUR STATE’S TAXPAYERS TO IMPLEMENT COMMON CORE STANDARDS:
9.5.13 – “State Specific Common Core Standards Implementation Costs” – by Henry W. Burke -http://nocompromisepac.ning.com/profiles/blogs/state-specific-common-core-implementation-costs-by-henry-w-burke?xg_source=activity
===========
MORE INFORMATION ON MARC TUCKER, NCEE, COMMON CORE STANDARDS
4.19.13 – “Marc Tucker’s Bologna” – by Donna Garner -- http://www.educationnews.org/commentaries/89899.html
=========
11.29.10 – “Time To Resurrect My Article on Marc Tucker” – by Donna Garner -- http://www.educationnews.org/index.php?news=103613
========
6.7.10 – “Bad Ideas Never Seem To Die: Pennsylvania, Marc Tucker, NCEE”
http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_684788.html#axzz2eP7ifxaD
======
9.5.13 – “Updated List of Anti-Common Core Resources List – From 12.11.09 Through 9.5.13” – by Donna Garner -- http://educationviews.org/updated-anti-common-core-standards-resource-list-2-parts-12-11-09-7-19-13/
Donna Garner
Wgarner1@hot.rr.com