Common Core: The Cost of Uniformity

Outcome Based Education: From Goals 2000, NCLB, RTTT, to Common Core

Well intentioned school reformers have been pushing the idea of outcome based education for decades. What is outcome based education? It's the idea that educating kids is like building a product on an assembly line. The idea that you get predictable quality controlled equality of outcome from every student by an equality of inputs. This has created a paradigm shift in education. Viewing the education of children in an unnatural way and transforming classrooms through the one-size-fits all standardization of education. 

It is not surprising that this idea got teeth after the creation of the Federal Department of Education. Consistent with the compulsory regulatory nature of government, the DOE began it's work by "encouraging" uniform regulation compliance in exchange for federal education dollars. This pursuit of equality of inputs has pushed all the education "reforms" that parents, teachers, and students are fed up with, including the newest, "Common Core". Each "reform" gets progressively more controlling as each one fails to attain the equality of inputs/equality of outputs that is desired.

I believe those who continue to push this idea have a warped view of reality that is seriously dangerous in practice. I struggle to understand their confused thought processes that are coloring everything our kids are taught overt and subliminal. They carry with them a strange dichotomy that pushes "equality" through uniformity, and simultaneously teach the relativity of multiculturalism that supposedly celebrates diversity. These competing messages make for messy minds and kids ill equipped to make sound judgments about themselves and the world around them.

They will not stop pushing their outcome based education philosophy because it is rooted in their misconceived notions of what "equality" is. They keep trying newer forms of "quality control" because in their view the obvious failures are the fault of never quite reaching the equality of inputs (making everyone the same). They say there are still too many schools doing things in too many different ways. Basically we don't have the conveyor belt model down to a science yet.

The pressure this has put on teachers (and by extension students) has changed education from the "lighting of a fire to the filling of a pail" and prompted schools to shift their mission from extending educational opportunity to all, to a promised "guarantee" of success for all" (Thus "No Child Left Behind) -- which of course fails not only because we are all different but because there is not one singular definition of success.

My sons middle school principle once explained it to me this way as he defended the paradigm shift -- because of the failures of parents "now days", schools have a greater responsibility to ensure students succeed in a more direct way. Instead of providing opportunities and then leaving it to the student, aided by their parents, to take hold of those opportunities, school today must “guarantee” that their students will learn. He said, In education today it is “no longer the mind set to give students opportunity,” but it has become, “I’m going to make you learn it.”

My school district’s mission statement exemplified this thinking. The statement said the mission of our schools “is to guarantee that each student develops the character traits and masters the knowledge and skills necessary for personal excellence and responsible citizenship…” Can schools guarantee that children will develop character and master knowledge? How is it done? It is done as my principal suggested, by taking the attitude, “I’m going to make you learn.”

There has always been a certain segment of society that has believed you can guarantee a certain outcome through compulsory means. Whether or not that is true, I believe it is a dangerous way to be teaching American children. John Adams said that, “Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom.” How can we instruct them in the principles of freedom through compulsion?

This changing paradigm is moving us into an era where children are not empowered to pursue excellence, and largely because they are no longer free to manage their own success or to suffer the consequences of their failure. How do the character traits of responsibility and self-motivation develop without experiencing failure and true life consequences? Can any lasting life lessons be learned in a controlled, sterile, forced environment?

The lofty plans of these "reformers" to transform education may achieve the result of universal C-level proficiency. But at what cost? At the cost of highly motivated, self-disciplined, hard working, creative, ambitious, happy children.

If we force “learning” – which in this new philosophy means successfully regurgitating information on standardized tests – we will teach children far more damaging lessons. We will teach them that they are not free. Or even worse, we will teach them that freedom is dangerous because it allows for failure. We will teach them that failure is an unacceptable part of life. Therefore, freedom must also be unacceptable.

This loss of freedom and failure teaches a twisted reality and confuses and harms our children. It removes true accountability and ultimately teaches them that they are weak and reliant on others for their success. In this climate, we raise lazy, entitled children who are unsatisfied with themselves and others and are far more likely to fail in the real world and be unable to recover from it.

We ought to remember the wise words of Abraham Lincoln, “The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” If the philosophy of the school room in our generation is to seed mistrust in freedom and accountability then Lincoln's words are a true prediction of calamity for our government in the next.

National Standards Do NOT Require a National Curriculum: True or False?

A reader recently commented on my blog post, "What's Wrong With the Common Core," and I've decided to post a response because his point is so often repeated by supporters of the Common Core Stare Standards Initiative.

His comment refuted my claim that Common Standards push a Common Curriculum. He wrote, "National standards do NOT require a national curriculum. Study the CCSS and you will find for the most part skills and abilities outlined. In the area of language arts, for example, challenging writing skills are outlined. Whether a student in Oregon demonstrates these skills by writing a paper on arguing the validity of MLK assertions in his Birmingham jail letters or whether a student in Illinois writes similarly while studying women's rights, much freedom remains in the curriculum for how the challenging skills are acquired. Currently, I see the CCSS as standards which are challenging educators and students to move to high levels of universally recognized skill levels."

To defend my position that CCSS will lead to a Common Curriculum I would like to share a few logical real life examples of my own.

I often speak to teachers about education policy and how it translates into the everyday classroom. While speaking recently to a 6th grade English teacher (living in Maryland, a state who has fully implemented the Common Core) she expressed her immediate dislike of the changes made to the curriculum in her classroom since the state implemented the new ELA standards. Her chief concern was the decrease in literature and the increased focus on non-fiction reading which she says has made it more difficult to motivate reluctant readers and has shifted student writing skills to favor technical writing styles over creative writing.

This curriculum change is directly related to the Common Core State Standards and what unelected boards believed was "relevant to real life". While it is true what defenders of the Common Core say, the standards don't dictate this book over that, they certainly dictate that all schools de-emphasize literature regardless of what individual students, teachers, or schools feel is best in building strong readers and writers.

Another example of how the Common Core is pushing a national curriculum can be found in the uniform reports of parents in states who have adopted Common Core Math (reports you can read if you join education social media groups). These descriptions reflect an immediate and distinctive change in the curriculum and instructional methods used to teach math especially to the early elementary students.

This account is from a personal friend but her account echoes dozens of similar accounts from parents coast to coast: "He was coming home with this insane math that didn't actually teach him much about how to solve the problems. He COULD solve the problems using the methods they taught, but in the time it took him to answer ONE question FIVE different ways, he could've answered so many more! I had NO idea how to help him solve the problems, so if he got stuck, I'd have no idea how to help."

Need more evidence of how common standards push a common curriculum that will permeate every corner of your local school? Just do an Internet search for Common Core teacher helps and Common Core curriculum models. There are thousands of training videos for teachers to help them integrate Common Core into their curriculums and instruction methods. Achieve, the private company who published the Common Core has received federal grants to begin producing curriculum models for alignment.

Need more evidence? Read the market news reports for Pearson, McGraw-Hill, and Saxon. Nearly all producers of curriculum and text books have already or are rapidly aligning their material to Common Core. This is widely discussed among Homeschool groups nationwide.

These companies are ecstatic about these national standards because it will mean producing one text book for every grade and subject instead of catering to schools on a state by state basis. The business model alone is proof that we will have a Common Curriculum as a result of the Common Core State Standards Initiative.

Former Maryland state Superintendent, Nancy Grasmick stated that the Common Core is a "national curriculum... No longer are education initiatives developed state by state, but in a model similar to European countries." Nancy Grasmick now works as a prominent professor at Towson University, a renown teachers collage, where she was appointed a Presidential Scholar for Innovation in Teacher and Leader Education. Her job is to orchestrate a "broad overhaul of the programs at the university" that will train teachers in Common Core alignment. She has spoken openly about how Common Core will fundamentally shape education and her role in reshaping teaching methodology to align with Common Core.

While it certainly is true that curriculum is taught with variation classroom to classroom and that children will differ in the books they read or the subjects they choose to write a report on, it is equally true that text books will become uniform throughout the country and teachers will be commonly trained to administer a common curriculum. Further, universities will align the education they give their aspiring teachers to reflect the methodologies of the Common Core State Standards.

I just don't see how people defending the Common Core can make a logical argument that standards don't drive curriculum. They certainly shape the test, and of course it naturally follows that in order to perform well on the test the curriculum must be tailored to the standards. To deny the real tangible connection between standards, testing, and curriculum -- and of greater impact the standardization of teacher training and methodology -- is a disingenuous argument at best, and manipulative at worst.

Stop Common Core from the Left and Right: Can we build common ground on Common Core?

While reading a recent article from The World Socialist Website in opposition to the Common Core State Standards, I was amused by the interesting bedfellows the war over Obama's education reforms has made. A conservative like myself agreeing with the World Socialist's points of opposition to the Common Core State Standards Initiative — And an accused socialist like Obama sending Arne Duncan to ask the conservative Chamber of Commerce to support the CCSS against increasing attacks. The World Socialist Web Site is simpatico with libertarian Glenn Beck in reporting that CCSS is a "FEDERAL initiative bankrolled by various corporate interests" — while the US Media is backing Obama's agenda and pushing the administrations propaganda that CCSS is "State-led".

To reassure me that I hadn't landed in an alternate universe where socialists support limited government, the "World Socialist" article concluded their astute analysis of the deficiencies of CCSS by placing blame squarely on evil capitalism."The provision of high quality public education is incompatible with the continued existence of capitalism." Here is of course where we differ. My contention has been that Common Core is the result of a key tenet of socialism; markets heavily regulated and centrally managed industries. Common Core is the educational counterpart: managed markets, managed work force, managed career paths - P-20.

Despite our obvious differences -- our different solutions for quality education and strategies to address  poverty and other social factors that most profoundly affect educational outcomes -- we seem to have found common ground on Common Core.

Our common ground includes:

1) We oppose the "intensified testing regime to evaluate the performance of students and teachers" that will not improve education and does great harm to students and teachers.

2) We oppose Obamacore because it seeks to "tailor public and higher education entirely to the needs of corporate America" (State Capitalism). Viewing students as cogs in a global economy and "assessing students for the purpose of channeling them into collage or trade skill tracks."

3) We oppose the unholy and unaccountable partnership between the compulsory power of the federal government and the bankrolled priorities of various corporate interests and political unions.

4) We oppose the movement towards tracking our children from Pre-K through career and the privacy concerns associated with making that data available to the Federal government, private political NGO's, and corporations.

5) We oppose the creation of giant corporate education monopolies, "radically altering the market for innovation in curriculum development, professional development, and formative assessments."

6) We oppose the cost to state taxpayers — "none of the funding going to teachers’ salaries... increasing resources for art, music and gym courses" — instead states will be forced to divert funds to "CCSS implementation and testing materials such as computers, software and training materials for teachers."

Can our common ground NOW lead to a common solutions later?

Common solutions are usually built on common understanding of the problem. Albert Einstein said it this way, "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." For this reason I hope to reach open minded progressives, to persuade them to entertain the idea that the Capitalism they see today is not the product of Free Market Capitalism that propelled American freedom and prosperity. Capitalism has been corrupted by the power hungry in the government who seek to control the free market and the power hungry corporate moguls who seek corporate privilege via law. Thus both sides amassing great power and wealth by corrupting both government and business.

It would certainly make for a much more cohesive reform movement if my socialist friends (and yes I have some) might find truth in what a true believer in the virtue of Capitalist, Ayn Rand, taught: "A free mind and a free market are corollaries." Without some foundation of truth to which we all ascribe I am leery about our chances of finding common solutions, however, their is a glimmer of hope because we already oppose Common Core on common ground. It seems like a solid starting point to build meaningful education reform in the US. Can we?  I hope we have the opportunity to find out.

Common Core: Managed Corporate Monopolies for Education Reform

Monopolies are an enemy to liberty, whether those Monopolies are Corporate Monopolies or Government Monopolies.

Our constitution was designed to protect our liberties from the tyranny of government monopolies and the first government policies to "bust-the-trusts" were designed to check the power of a few corporations over the free market.

Today we are losing our footing on both sides, we are consolidating power in the federal government by moving more and more power away from states and local governments, and our federal government is hand picking corporations to provide government sponsored "services".

The Common Core Federal takeover of education is the worst kind of monopoly because it combines the principle of government monopoly with corporate monopoly. Don't be fooled by those who say the Common Core initiatives are "free market" reforms in education! There is nothing free about the federal government coercing states into a central system and making monopolies out of a small handful of companies like Achieve and Pearson to supply the educational products that schools are forced to use.

For example Achieve has a monopoly on the Common Core standards which are copyrighted. These proprietary standards when adopted can not be altered. Pearson will soon be determining what gets taught in schools across the United States with their Common Core aligned curriculum and media centered products. Where is parental or educational oversight? Not in the hands of the people.

Both Conservatives and Progressives need to wake up to the reality; America's free market is on life support and that's why our private and public institutions are failing. Common Core is the natural result of markets heavily regulated by Washington and centrally managed industries. Common Core is the educational counterpart: managed career paths, managed work force, managed markets!

True and sincere conservatives and progressives see the same sickness in America but have been diagnosing it with opposite treatments. Progressives often see capitalism as the sickness that is breaking down our institutions and look to government for the cure. Conservatives and libertarians see government meddling in the free market and heavily regulating business as the sickness and less government as the cure. Since we can agree that the nation is sick we can also agree that administering the wrong cure will be the death blow.

As a conservative I hope to convince open minded progressives to entertain the idea that the Capitalism they see today is not the product of Free Market Capitalism that propelled American freedom and prosperity. Capitalism has been corrupted by the power hungry in the government who seek to control the free market and the power hungry corporate moguls who seek corporate privilege via law. Thus both sides amassing great power and wealth by corrupting both government and business.

This central control of government and the State Capitalism it is creating are the most dangerous threat to our liberty. Capitalism is sick, but not because Capitalism was born that way, it is sick because it has been perverted and twisted by unholy power hungry alliances of big business and the government's compulsory power. Together they have created consumers forced to buy their products and now centrally groomed workers to meet their needs.

The solution in education is the same as the solution in government and markets — Free local and unique education markets! If Americans are to succeed in fighting off this latest "education reform" they must combine their efforts across the political spectrum. Tyranny is always more organized than liberty and the forces of tyranny are dividing our nation in order to conquer it. To save our children and the future of liberty in America we have to see the enemy to that freedom clearly, and that enemy is not the limited government our founders devised or the free markets they championed.

There will be no individual freedom, intellectual freedom, or economic freedom if Americans don't come together and oppose the central dangers of government sponsored monopolies. We must understand what Ayn Rand taught, this truth, "Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries."


For the visual learner: Economics 101: School Choice, why government monopolies are bad.

What's Wrong With the Common Core?

WHY COMMON CORE IS NOT FREEDOM IN EDUCATION

What is Common Core?

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are a set of content standards at this time limited to English language arts (ELA) and mathematics. FORTY-SIX STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAVE signed on to the Common Core State Standards Initiative, a project sponsored by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association (NGA). The standards were written by teams of curriculum specialists and vetted by panels of academics, teachers, and other experts. In 2010, the federal government funded two consortia to develop assessments aligned with the Common Core. The new tests are to be ready in 2014. These standards, if adopted by a state, will replace existing state standards in these subject areas.

There are other components of the initiative beyond standards and testing. States that adopt the CCSS must participate in the Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) that will be given twice yearly, and participation in the State Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS). These data basis will store testing data along with private student specific data and share that data with other states, the Federal Government, and private interests.

What's wrong with Standards?

Nothing. Every state has standards as a way of creating consistency in curriculum throughout their state. Proponents of the CCSS want this same consistency in what schools teach nationally but they defend CCSS by downplaying curriculum as the objective (which would not be popular) and asserting that CCSS are rigorous standards that will raise academic proficiency. The problem is there are real questions about what impacts student achievement most. Is it standards curriculum, and tests OR socioeconomics, family life, and biology?

The Brookings Institution studied the effect of standards on achievement and found that "states with weak content standards score about the same on NAEP as those with strong standards." It found in it's report, "How Well Are American Students Learning?", that variations are most apparent within states where all students learn under the same standards and curriculum. Brookings gives this warning to those who put too much confidence in CCSS as the solution to erasing achievement gaps and improving achievement overall, "The empirical evidence suggests that the Common Core will have little effect on American students’ achievement. The nation will have to look elsewhere for ways to improve its schools."

It's Not A National Curriculum, Right?

Curriculum follows standards. The push for common education standards argues that all American students should study a common curriculum, take comparable tests to measure their learning, and have the results interpreted on a common scale. This is the "equality of inputs = equality of outputs" philosophy. Good or bad when standards are written and copyrighted by private companies and then cashed strapped states are enticed into adopting those standards by the Federal Government who promises federal dollars and NCLB waivers in exchange, states are under contract with the Federal government and are not free to change any portion of the standards. In fact, under CCSS guidelines states are allowed to add only 15% of original content standards. The connection between standards and curriculum is clear. As the Brooking Institute wrote in their report, "The intended curriculum is embodied by standards; it is what governments want students to learn. The differences articulated by state governments in this regard are frequently trivial." So national standards will lead to a national curriculum.

Why is national curriculum a problem?

Well to start with, the authority to operate school systems is constitutionally vested in states. But just in case you are an American who isn't motivated by the constitutional argument think about it this way: Control over 100,000 public schools, 14,000 school districts, and over 500 Billion in education tax dollars will transfer from the hands of parents and local school boards to unelected boards, bureaucrats, and private partners the USDOE decides are more capable of managing education.

This massive federal takeover is fueled by the belief that states individually cannot be trusted which is just another way of saying the people can't be trusted. Our founders taught that government closest to the people governs best because it is the most responsive to the unique local needs of the people, it is the most innovative and creative, and most easily corrected when it fails. CCSS will undermine the decentralized, federalist principles on which education has been governed since America’s founding.

What Does Testing Look Like Under Common Core?

Proponents of the Common Core are excited about the CAT tests which are developed by companies like American Institutes for Research (AIR) with grants from the federal government. AIR "is one of the world's largest behavioral and social science research organizations" and is applying behavioral and social science to educational assessments. These tests are highly accurate, therefore the push for implementing the latest and greatest technologies to assist with the accurate measurement of student progress in academics. So what's the problem?

What's wrong with Common Core National Testing?

There is reason to seriously question what these tests are seeking to measure beyond cognitive ability and knowledge sets. Already in use these tests have well documented potential to be highly accurate for personality assessment and companies like AIR have the ability to devise tests that input selected variables that measure “behavioral characteristics” along with variables that measure language arts, science or math. Award winning child psychologist Dr. Gary Thompson wrote, "It would be relatively “easy” to design a language adaptive test that has behavioral characteristics embedded into the design of the test. Formulas could be designed to produce two sets of results (language and behavior), and then forward the language test results to its intended target (The Schools), and the behavioral results to another intended target (Federal Government, Private Agencies)." See the problem?

Are students disadvantaged by not participating in CAT tests?

NO. Research on cognitive ability tests shows that adaptive tests, and paper-and-pencil tests lead to equivalent scores. Paper-and-pencil tests are also cheaper and the state has more control over the content of the tests and what they are designed to measure. It is nearly impossible for state leaders to provide oversight of CAT tests because no two students will see the same test, each question on the test is predictive and prompts which question follows. A grade-level test will have about 1600 possible questions, and it requires psychometrician professionals to interpret the results of such tests.

What information will they store in these data basis and why should I be concerned?

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the Common Core agenda is the data mining of our children's information outside of parental consent or knowledge. Stored in these data basis that were created as part of the "Race to the Top" grant program is highly personal student data such as social security number, health-care histories, learning disabilities, disciplinary action (from detentions for minor infractions to expulsions), attendance, homework completion, religious affiliations, and any educational or physiological data assessed through CAT. In 2011 portions of FERPA, education privacy act, were changed by Arnie Duncan at the USDOE so that data the states share with the Federal government can then be shared with private organizations and companies WITHOUT PARENTAL PERMISSION.

GOOD OR BAD OVERALL?

Many will argue Common Core based on whether or not the standards are good rigorous standards, whether or not the Common Core will improve education in American, whether a national curriculum will lead to indoctrination of our kids, or whether or not the Common Core will make America's economy more competitive. These are interesting discussions but whatever side you come down on in each of these cases there are a few simple facts about Common Core that make it a dangerous path for American education. (1) States who adopt Common Core lend their constitutional powers and responsibilities to oversee education in their states to the Federal government and move decision making over a child's education further from the hands of parents and communities. (2) There is no way to control the private interests who are highly involved with Common Core or to be certain they have our children's best interest at heart. (3) There is no way to be certain that very private intimate data on our children and by extension our families won't be abused by the Federal Government or private interests with access to this data. And (4) There is NO evidence that further standardizing curriculum and a new testing regime will result in better educations for our children.

In the words of Ronald Reagan: “Remember that every government service, every offer of government - is paid for in the loss of some personal freedom... In the days to come, whenever a voice is raised telling you to let the government do it, analyze very carefully to see whether the suggested service is worth the personal freedom which you must forgo in return for such service.”

THE PRICE IS TOO HIGH AND THE SERVICE TOO POOR