Archive for July, 2009

Good News for the Empire State

Friday, July 31st, 2009

New York’s Board of Regents has chosen David Steiner as New York’s new education commissioner, EdWeek reported earlier this week. Steiner’s move to Albany comes after four years as dean of Hunter College’s School of Education.

Why are we happy with the regents’ pick? Because Steiner is widely known for his commitment to a rigorous, comprehensive curriculum, and he has published quite a bit on the subject.

Don’t take our word for it, though – read how Steiner describes his schoolboy days:

“I read the classics as they were then understood—Austen, Brontë, Chaucer, Conrad, Dickens (not a favorite), Eliot, Hardy, Lawrence, Milton (sampled, and put aside for years to come), Mann, Kafka, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Turgenev, Flaubert, Zola—and many authors of the second rank. I recall Trollope, Webster, Spencer, “modern” novelists of every hue—Fitzgerald, Roth, Updike, Nicholas Monsarrat, Storm Jameson (a close family friend), John le Carré—and so many others lost to memory.”

We’ll be watching with interest.

No More Social Studies for Ohio Students

Friday, July 31st, 2009

Common Core is not as concerned with whether or not certain subjects are tested as we are with ensuring that all subjects are taught. However, when states drop social studies from their testing regimen, it sends the message that learning about history, geography, and culture is unimportant.

Last month we wrote about Virginia considering eliminating its 3rd grade social studies test; ultimately, the state superintendent decided to keep it. That is not the case for Ohio; the state legislature has already made the decision to eliminate the test for a meager savings of $2 million over the next two years.

Only 61% of 5th graders passed the most recent test. What’s worse?  The fact that only 30% of African-American students and 43% of Latino students passed.  Instead of divesting from social studies education, Ohio should be concentrating on it more.

LB

“Mr. Laptop—Can I Ask a Question?”

Friday, July 24th, 2009

Common Core supports the use of technology in the classroom. But a pilot program in math instruction at Middle School 131 in New York City’s Chinatown takes technology too far. According to the New York Times this week:

Once the students arrive at school, they receive their individual playlists identifying the lessons they have to complete for the day, which could involve virtual tutoring online, computer worksheets or small-group lessons with a classroom teacher. Their schedules are also displayed on large television screens, akin to flight schedule displays in airports.

A photo accompanying the article shows students arrayed in a room. No two students are doing the same thing. Most wear headphones and face different directions. Some appear to be concentrating. Others look bored. One is sneaking a peek at her neighbor’s screen. A couple of adults oversee the “class” from behind a raised table at the end of the room (a genius bar?). Just one teacher is interacting with a student—in this case, looking at his laptop with him. No one looks anyone else in the eye.

New York’s education department plans to grow the program, expanding it into other subjects and at other schools. But how would this work, for example, in an English or Chemistry class? What about classroom discussions? Or experiments? Is there software that can accurately grade writing quality? When the laptop becomes the teacher and the student attends a “school of one”—as this program is called—students lose possibly more than they gain. Technology is a tool that can enhance learning when put in the hands of good teachers. But technology is not education.

Lynne Munson and Laura Bornfreund

Bad Timing

Thursday, July 23rd, 2009

We share Core Knowledge’s concern about the lack of specific content in the draft “Common Core” standards. But to call them “dead on arrival” is premature. This effort is too coordinated, too strategically smart, and has too much momentum to be dismissed out of hand.

As they are currently written the “Common Core” ELA standards are poised to repeat NCLB’s mistakes. NCLB has failed to increase reading achievement in any sustained way because it has approached reading purely as a skill and driven the study of literature and other core subjects from the classroom. The current draft of the ELA standards also overlooks the key role that substantial content plays in teaching students to read.

NGA and CCSSO clearly want their effort to be successful. So hopefully they will make the necessary revisions to their standards to make them work. This means providing clear guidance and examples of the kind of novels, non-fiction works, poems, and plays that students should read. That is undoubtedly the advice many of the effort’s feedback reviewers—and the larger public—will provide. And it is what Common Core told NGA in a meeting earlier this week.

The “Common Core” effort, while traveling at a fast pace, is still in its nascent stages. Condemnations are premature.

Lynne Munson

The Usual Suspects

Monday, July 20th, 2009

Longtime P21 member South Dakota has chosen Learning.com’s 21st Century Skills Assessment to “test all of the state’s eighth-grade students to understand how well students grasp critical 21st century skills,” says BusinessWire.

You can read about Learning.com’s product here. Learning.com promises that the product tests “creativity and innovation; communication and collaboration; research and information fluency; critical thinking, problem solving, and decision making; digital citizenship; and technology operations and concepts.”

That skill list is taken all but verbatim from P21′s website. Which I suppose isn’t surprising since Learning.com sits on the board of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills.

Hmm. A P21 board member gets a lucrative contract with a P21 member state to develop 21st century skills assessments. Haven’t we heard this story before? Yes–the same thing happened in Massachusetts when another P21 board member, Measured Progress, landed the contract to revise MCAS.

Sounds like good old-fashioned logrolling to us.

Can We Trust Them?

Monday, July 20th, 2009

Forty-six states, the Obama administration, and American parents are trusting the National Governors Association and the Council for Chief State School Officers with a lot.  These organizations are, simply put, setting the standards for American education.

But their response to being entrusted with such a democratic assignment has been aloof and secretive.  And it just got worse.

Last Thursday, Common Core’s blog criticized Chris Minnich–CCSSO’s director of standards–for telling Politics Daily that Shakespeare isn’t important enough to be included in the national standards.  His response?  To somehow convince the publication to change his quote.  Here’s the original:

“They’re really looking for what students should be able to do to truly be ready for college.  It means taking out some of the things that aren’t really important,” including, he says, “whether or not kids should read Shakespeare. Most of the studies say Shakespeare is not critical.”

And at some point before 5 pm the next day–Friday–the last line lost any mention of Shakespeare and turned in to:  “At this point, we don’t know yet what that will be.”

This kind of hijinks is more appropriate to teenage he-said-she-said dramas than to the education policy arena.  If NGA/CCSSO wants parents, teachers, legislators, scholars, anyone–even to give their effort the benefit of the doubt, their work must be more transparent.  They need to tell us who is writing these standards–not just publish long committee lists.  And they need to lay these documents out before the American people and provide ample time for review.  As it is, even official reviewers get only 8 days to look at these important documents.

The “Common Core” standards initiative appears to be seized by the notion that there is a briefly open window in which national standards can be set.  They’ve used this excuse to set a break-neck schedule and take a black-box approach.  But setting national standards is an acutely difficult task that only has the chance of succeeding if standards-setters are thorough and can muster the courage to name names.  That means revealing not just who is writing the documents, but–in the case of ELA standards–indicating which authors students must read.  The fact that not even Shakespeare appears to have survived the “fewer, clearer, higher” test doesn’t bode well…

Lynne Munson

Want students to read well? Make them read more.

Friday, July 17th, 2009

That’s the conclusion of a new study that Dan Willingham brought to our attention. Particularly relevant if the NGA / CCSSO is going to toss out Shakespeare and others.

Willingham says the study shows that “[o]nce students can decode, background knowledge is crucial to reading comprehension. Ensuring that students have wide-ranging knowledge of the world ideally begins at birth, through a rich home environment. Schools must do everything possible to support and expand that knowledge base, and integrating material from other subjects into the reading curriculum is an important step in the right direction.”

We think this means students should be exposed to a rich variety of texts. On the other hand, proponents of the latest educational fad, 21st century skills, believe that students should spend their time analyzing magazine ads:

“From a favorite magazine, choose a variety of advertisements of products that are personally appealing. Analyze the techniques used by each advertisement to attract teen buyers.”

Which is more likely to give students the background knowledge they need to succeed? We know where our money is …

Taking Out the Trash

Thursday, July 16th, 2009

“It means taking out some of the things that aren’t really important.” Like what? “[W]hether or not kids should read Shakespeare. Most of the studies say Shakespeare is not critical.” That’s Chris Minnich, director of standards at the Council of Chief State School Officers, talking about the English/language arts content being drafted for the ‘common core’ state standards initiative. The CCSSO’s one of the two primary organizers of the standards initiative.

spoke at the AFT’s QuEST conference earlier this week on a panel that included Bill Schmidt from Michigan State and Dane Linn, executive director of the education division at the National Governors Association, the other force behind the common core initiative. I was cautiously optimistic – suggesting that the common core initiative could strengthen the presence of the liberal arts and sciences in the classroom and help ensure that each student receives the kind of education we believe is so important.

So we’re stunned that the common core effort is looking to throw out possibly the brightest star of our literary heritage and replace it with … well, we don’t yet know. But Minnich’s comment isn’t encouraging. Of course, in a few years the loss will hardly be noticed, as someone wise once pointed out: “He that is robb’d, not wanting what is stolen, / Let him not know ‘t, and he’s not robb’d at all.” (Othello, Act III, scene 3)

Lynne Munson

Lone Star Showdown

Thursday, July 16th, 2009

Robert Pondiscio writes an incisive post at Core Knowledge about the ongoing debate in Texas about the social science curriculum, covered in greater detail at the Texas Freedom Network.

The review panel for the revisions to the state’s social studies curriculum is split 3-3 between academics from Texas universities and social conservatives. David Barton, head of WallBuilders; Peter Marshall, the minister in charge of Peter Marshall Ministries; and Daniel Dreisbach, a professor at American University, make up the conservative wing of the review panel.

According to the Dallas Morning News, Barton and Marshall would like to see a lot of changes in the state social science curriculum. They’d like to emphasize that the Founders wanted a ‘Christian nation’ and de-emphasize certain figures, like Cesar Chavez, Thurgood Marshall (not important enough), and Anne Hutchinson, a pioneer in New England and early women’s rights advocate. According to Marshall, “[Hutchinson] was certainly not a significant colonial leader, and didn’t accomplish anything except getting herself exiled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for making trouble.” Hutchinson helped establish the colony that became Rhode Island.

Robert rightly worries that “[f]ear that history is a stalking horse for religious instruction offers one more reason to downplay its importance, eliminate it from the school day, or reduce it to mere pabulum.” Texas seems well on its way to making that happen.

Back to the Future

Thursday, July 9th, 2009

No, we’re not talking about the much-disputed “School of the Future.”

Our friend Sandra Stotsky just gave a commencement address at Mystic Valley Regional Charter School. MVRCS is a Core Knowledge school with an IB program. It works to ensure that each student receives an education in the core subjects, including foreign language, art, music, and physical education. MVRCS also has a longer school day (8 AM – 3:30 PM) and year (200 days) than traditional schools, and the school actually separates reading and language arts classes! So far, every graduate of MVRCS has enrolled at a four-year college or university. Might this be because, in Stotsky’s words, the school acknowledges “a common body of knowledge that all must acquire”?

We think so.

Stotsky eloquently explains why we should care that our students don’t know much about history:

“The challenge you must all be prepared to address, especially in the next four to eight years as you go on to some form of post-secondary education, is why a common core of learning, and a common civic core, are necessary, not oppressive, in our society, especially today.  In [Paul]Gagnon’s [Gagnon was historian in residence at the AFT] words: “It is precisely our common political heritage that frees us to differ from one another, yet live together in relative peace and liberty. This heritage is also what impels us to respect and defend the rights of those we see as different from ourselves.”

Sounds good to us.