Exclusive: An interview with Jill Stein, Green Party candidate for POTUS


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Jill_Stein_by_Gage_Skidmore“Let the revolution continue,” Jill Stein, Green Party candidate for president, told RI Future in an exclusive interview yesterday, hours after Bernie Sanders conceded defeat in campaigning for Hillary Clinton in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

“We are Plan B for Bernie,” she said, “As Bernie himself said, it’s a movement, not a man!”

Stein, who will be in Rhode Island on July 20, explained, “The 99 percent is being thrown under the bus by Democrats as well as Republicans. That’s not to say there’s no difference but the differences are not enough to save your job, to save your life, or to save the planet. People growing up today see two parties that have bailed out Wall Street, including a Democratic White House with two Democratic houses of Congress. The two parties, including the Democrats, led the way on the bail-outs for Wall Street, the offshoring of our jobs, and again, thank you to Barack Obama and Bill Clinton leading the charge on the rigged corporate trade agreements, the expanding wars, the attack on immigrant rights, the massive prison-industrial complex and the militarization of our police. For young people looking at this world today it’s not working for them,” she said.

“So, Bernie’s campaign,” she added, “we owe them a great debt of gratitude for standing up and showing how the American people are ready to mobilize and say ‘let’s keep this going, let’s bring that energy and that momentum into our campaign. We deserve a future where we’re calling the shots, where we’re in charge, we are the 99 percent, we are the majority, and Bernie’s campaign showed that there can be majority support for this kind of campaign.” Stein is adamant that, if every student debtor alone in America were to vote for her, the only candidate who is promising student loan forgiveness for all borrowers via executive action, she would have a plurality and win the election.

A medical doctor by trade and a resident of nearby Lexington, Massachusetts, Stein was 18 and raised in Highland Park, Illinois, less than 30 miles away from the site of the infamous 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago that broke down into street riots, something some Baby Boomers have told me they are getting reminded of quite often this week.

“In the events of the last week, between the police murders in St. Paul, in Baton Rouge,” she said, “and then the assassinations of five police in Dallas, and then the revelations of yet another police murder in New York, it’s really I think forced us to stop and really feel the moment here, that we cannot go on like this. This is just a devastating, heartbreaking tragedy, especially to have seen these videos up close and personal.”

She added, “We really need to look at the roots of this disaster, we had both racism playing out and then we had blowback against racism in the shooting of the Dallas police, so we’re all kind of in the crossfire right now of this crisis of racism. And racism and violence really go hand in hand. We’ve got to deal with them both in order to deal with either one of them. So we call for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to understand the origins of this ongoing problem of police violence. It’s roots are in racism that you can trace back to the institution of slavery. Out of slavery, the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t put an end to it, then it was lynching, then it was Jim Crow, then it was segregation and red-lining and deficient schools and the War on Drugs and the prison system and then it was police violence.”

The idea of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission is based on a system that was created after the election of Nelson Mandela in South Africa to confront the deep wounds caused by the apartheid system.

“There’s a history here that we really have to come to terms with,” she explained. “We need to have less reliance on weapons. We need to take a look at police forces around the world that in fact have done away with their weapons.” She goes on to explain “It’s actually police forces that are far safer when they’re not armed because so much of the shooting is defensive and it’s out of fear. So actually police turn out to be far safer when they are not armed as well.”

Stein has previously run for a variety of offices on the Green Party ticket, including its 2012 presidential candidate. She also ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002 and 2010. She served as member of the Lexington Town Meeting from 2005-2011.

Her medical practice began with internal medicine before it very quickly spurred her towards environmental activism, writing reports titled In Harm’s Way: Toxic Threats to Child Development and Environmental Threats to Healthy Aging. She has worked alongside  Clean Water Action, Toxic Action Center, Global Climate Convergence, Physicians for a National Health Program, and Massachusetts Medical Society while co-founding the Massachusetts Coalition for Healthy Communities. Yet this did not stop her from developing a side-project as vocalist in a folk-rock band called Somebody’s Sister.

Listen to the full interview:

Stein wants to get rid of Common Core and all corporate education deform efforts that bust teacher unions.

“The problem here is that our education system has been bought out again by the highest bidder and that includes the likes of Bill Gates and Arne Duncan, who’s not an educator but is a basketball player, so we have an education system that’s kind of been held hostage by non-educators who are applying really a business model to education,” she told me. “So we really need to put educators back in charge of our school system and of our education. That means having small classroom sizes, it means having well-paid teachers, respecting teachers unions as being critical for high-quality education. And it means doing away with the high-stakes testing which has been used as an excuse to beat up on teachers, to attack teachers unions, and to privatize our schools and to declare them failing.”

One of the major electoral forces in Rhode Island is the union movement. Right now a growth industry in Rhode Island is developing around the construction of wind farms to generate electricity. We quickly get into a conversation about her jobs program called the Green New Deal.

“The Green New Deal would mean an explosion of jobs,” Stein told me. “The Green New Deal would basically create 20,000,000 jobs. And that’s enough jobs to give everyone a full-time, good-waged job transforming our economy on an emergency basis to a sustainable and healthy economy that’s good for workers, that’s good for communities, good for our water supply, our air, and our food and all that. So it’s kind of a transformational package. It’s based on the New Deal that got us out of the Great Depression but in this case it not only solves the economic emergency, which we definitely have, in spite of what they say, we have an economic emergency for millions upon millions of workers who are not represented because they are not actively looking for work, they’re discouraged, or they’ve been forced into part-time work so we don’t see this invisible epidemic of joblessness and under-employment. We need a lot of jobs. We have an economic emergency and we can solve it at the same time we can solve our climate and environmental emergency. So specifically we call for jobs that will green our energy system, that is build wind, water, and sun energy, that will transform our transportation and will create light-rail as well as high-speed rail and restore our bridges and the infrastructure for transportation. And we call also for a healthy and sustainable food system that makes people healthy as well as the planet. And overall it will revive the economy, it will turn the tide on climate change, and it will make wars for oil obsolete. We don’t need to be fighting wars for oil when we have 100% renewable energy right here at home and that’s part of how we fund this. It also funds itself because we get much healthier by getting rid of the pollution and also frankly the dangerous jobs that make people sick. Workers especially pay the price here for a dangerous and toxic energy system where workers are really on the front lines actually have a seven-fold, that is 700% increased risk of dying on the job!”

Stein’s program is a job program, meaning it pays to re-train labor and promises them steady work.

“Workers have been forced into this position of hoping for, begging for job training and then hoping that the right job will come along,” she said. “Well this is a series of basically guaranteed jobs. And they are a combination of independent businesses, and these are largely local businesses so that the profits aren’t going overseas and into corporate pockets. Instead those profits get re-circulated within the communities and help to build a truly healthy economy. So we’re talking about small businesses, about worker cooperatives, and also direct government jobs. And the decisions are made by the community… So for many communities that need housing, that really have a housing emergency, one of the key priorities is actually housing because we’re looking at making communities sustainable, not only economically and environmentally but also sustainable socially. So if housing is the need the community most urgently wants to fill, those are the jobs that are created. It’s nationally funded but locally controlled in order to meet the needs of everyday people and it focuses people’s needs rather than big corporations or the billionaires because this is a one person-one vote process through something called participatory budgeting that actually allows communities to decide without being bought out by the big developers who have a way of buying their way into the decisions that benefit them but leave the communities without the housing we need or the transportation we need or the affordable and healthy energy supply.”

Now the choice lies in the hands of the voters. Stein will be visiting the Ocean State later this month, an event we will be bringing you coverage and updates on as they emerge.

To volunteer with the Stein campaign, e-mail the Rhode Island Green Party at StateCommittee@rigreens.org! And be sure to ask about signing a petition for your town to get Dr. Stein on the ballot!

If you like my reporting, please consider contributing to my Patreon!
If you like my reporting, please consider contributing to my Patreon!

Dr. Wagner on developmental appropriateness


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

learn_same_wayDr. Ken Wagner, Rhode Island’s new commissioner of public education, was asked what strategies he would propose to address the achievement gap between students of color and their Caucasian counterparts at the July 13 joint meeting of the Board of Education and Council on Elementary and Secondary Education at which his nomination was confirmed. (video available here)

What is essential for closing the achievement gap, he said, is to have the same “high learning expectations for all students.” In using this phrase, he is referring to the Common Core State Standards. These standards, along with the EngageNY curriculum aligned to them, a curriculum which Dr. Wagner has taken credit for developing in NY State, have been declared developmentally inappropriate for young children by many experts on early childhood education. (See Joint Statement of Early Childhood Health and Education Professionals on the Common Core Standards Initiative)

In his remarks, Wagner disparaged these authentic voices by claiming that ideas on developmental stages by the esteemed child psychologist Jean Piaget are passé. According to Wagner, “Now the consensus seems to be much more that students can achieve things never thought possible, provided the right supports.”

I am curious to know which experts on early childhood development Wagner was referencing. There is an article by cognitive psychologist Dr. Daniel Willingham that seems on the surface to corroborate Dr. Wagner’s point. (“Ask the Cognitive Scientist: What Is Developmentally Appropriate Practice?”(AMERICAN EDUCATOR, SUMMER 2008) Willingham does indeed critique Piaget’s developmental stages and finds them wanting. However, he also states: “… changing strategies and experimenting with different methods of presenting and solving problems may be a more effective way to improve instruction than trying to match instruction to children’s developmental level.”

If you substitute the Common Core Standards/EngageNY rigid pacing for the words “developmental level,” you have an argument for not following scripted lessons paced according to grade level, which is what EngageNY provides. Scripted lessons means that teachers are provided with specific questions and explanations they are to use to teach each lesson, and students are expected to respond in predictable ways. For anyone who has spent any time with children, it should be clear that their responses are and should be unpredictable—effective teachers are open to the teachable moment, and this is a crucial tool for reaching and engaging students.

brainsDeclaring that young children can handle more difficult concepts than we have given them credit for does not translate into saying all children in the same grade should be held to the same content at the same pace, which the Common Core, EngageNY and accompanying testing essentially require. Why are Dr. Wagner and other adherents of lock-step learning using an anti-Piaget argument as an excuse for what actually amounts to what many veteran teachers consider educational malpractice? What comes to mind is how convenient this argument is for stifling objections to the scripted materials that state departments of education and districts want teachers to follow.

I found it ironic that when questioned by the student representative at the Board of Education meeting, who asked if the Common Core Standards truly allow teachers to address individual students’ learning, Dr. Wagner responded: “So the standards are not prescriptions. … I do not see this work as scripted. … It’s about justice.” Numerous experienced teachers and others knowledgeable about young children disagree.

According to the testimony of Dr. Walter Schartner, Sayville School Superintendent with 41 years of experience in education, and 26 years as an administrator:
“The NY State modules and domains that script what teachers—very, very successful, highly effective teachers–do is the problem. … I hope everybody else has a chance to go onto EngageNY, and look on how scripted these modules are, in terms of the first two minutes do this, the next eight minutes do this. It’s an insult to our teachers ….”

Programs serving young children need highly trained, autonomous teachers who are aware of the developmental appropriateness of content and process for the growth of the individual children in their charge. Those who are obsessed with a rigidly paced, standardized-test/data informed approach see value in “outcomes” and “accountability” rather than in respecting the lived experience of children.

When will sanity be restored to teaching and learning? Our children deserve it, and the clock is ticking.

Pro PARCC post in Gist memo is propaganda piece


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
gist test cartoon
by Wendy Holmes

In her recent field memo of April 3, 2015 Commissioner Gist took the unusual step of quoting an entire blog post.

“I’m a mom,” it begins. “And the happiness of my children, now and in the future as they go on to start careers and families of their own, is on my mind all the time.”

The post was written by a mother from Florida who is in support of the Common Core State Standards and the accompanying testing. She is also an attorney and president & CEO of the Multicultural Education Alliance.

The blog on which it appeared is put out by the Foundation for Excellence in Education, a Jeb Bush creation, which states on its website: “The 21st century economy is the most competitive in world history. It is an economy that requires a growing number of educated and skilled workers. Yet, on international assessments, American students rank 21st in science and 26th in math, behind their peers in countries like Singapore, Japan and Canada. We need to reverse this trend if America is to continue its dominant role.”

In other words, the goal of education is to provide a workforce with the skills to meet the needs of the global corporate economy and maintain America in a dominant world position. Does this goal resonate with most parents of preK-12 students?

The website for the EdFly blog has as its web address ExcelinEd.org. According to the 2014 donor page for ExcelinEd, those at the top of the donor list include (no surprises here):

Greater than $1,000,000:

  • Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust
  • Walton Family Foundation

Between $500,001 and $1,000,000:

  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • GE Foundation
  • News Corporation
  • Charles & Helen Schwab Foundation

Between $250,0001 and $500,000:

  • Laura and John Arnold Foundation
  • Bloomberg Philanthropies

Between $100,001 and $250,000:

  • Eli & Edythe Broad Foundatio
  • Jeb Bush & Associates

It is no coincidence that Commissioner Gist herself as a Chief for Change, a group also created by Jeb Bush, would choose this particular blog post to send to all RI superintendents. That she has used her position of authority to single out this one blog post, which can reasonably be assumed to be propaganda for the position she has espoused since assuming the role of commissioner, is very unfortunate and does a disservice to the hundreds of RI parents and other concerned citizens who have researched the Common Core and PARCC testing in depth and decided they are not in the best interests of our children.

While it is true that many prominent civil rights groups, including the National Council of La Raza, do support the allegedly “rigorous” Common Core Standards and testing for accountability of students, teachers, and schools, one can only wonder whether the members of these groups have confronted the reality of the harm this agenda is actually having on traditionally under-served children and youth. It is understandable that those concerned about children of color, children from diverse ethnic and linguistic backgrounds, children with special learning needs, and children living in poverty, should be alarmed by the very real lack of advancement of many of these children in the public schools.

This is a complex issue and needs to be addressed comprehensively. The starving of financial resources to the schools that serve these children is one culprit. The steady diet of reading and math test prep for the past dozen years of NCLB is another. For an excellent and thorough explanation of why civil rights advocates should reject market-based (i.e. corporate pushed) reforms, please read “Why People of Color Must Reject Market- oriented Education Reforms: A Compilation of the Evidence” by United Opt Out National.

Commissioner Gist continues to defend her stance on the Common Core Standards and PARCC testing, and chooses not to truly listen to the voluminous concerns that have been raised by parents, teachers, and administrators both here in RI and across the country.

Even so, the Opt Out movement is growing. Parents who have become aware of the big picture of the ramifications of the full corporate agenda for public education in America will continue to stand up for their children and their children’s future by rejecting the scripted learning of the Common Core and the meaningless accountability of the PARCC testing that drain public funds and jeopardize children’s full flowering as unique members of a diverse society.

America does not need cohorts of test-takers to march into corporate slots for the sake of global competitiveness. America needs self-actualized adults with civic-mindedness and the knowledge and ingenuity to tackle the very real challenges we all face. The Common Core rhetoric of fostering critical thinking and problem-solving is Orwellian double-speak, not reality.

Hopefully the general public will wake up to this before it is too late. Will the Commissioner take the time from her double duties in RI and in Tulsa to respond?

Amore bill would guarantee opt-out process for PARCC test


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
amore
Rep. Gregg Amore

The RI House Health, Education, and Welfare Committee took testimony last night on legislation that would mandate the Department of Education to provide uniform guidance across the districts that would guarantee parents the right to opt their children out of the PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers) assessment.

Parents have always had that right, but the recent guidance from RIDE to superintendents has been misleading and resulted in confusion and turmoil for parents across the state. The bill also stipulates that no student shall face disciplinary action for not participating in the testing and that no student shall have his or her academic record adversely affected for not participating.

RIDE’s Mary Ann Snider, and others, tried to defend the necessity of this testing, though even Ms. Snider admitted that students are being over-tested. Parents, retired teachers, and concerned citizens rebutted the value of this particular test and its ramifications.

Sponsored by Representative Gregg Amore, along with reps Canario, Regunberg, Keable and O’Brien, the bill is one step in the right direction to bring to light a situation that is menacing our public schools in the name of the “civil rights issue of our time.”

common coreOur children, our families, our neighborhoods, our public schools, and our democracy itself have become pawns in a vast and inter-connected scheme to undermine public institutions for private profit. The vehicle for this travesty in public education is the Common Core State (sic) [Stealth] Standards and their accompanying high-stakes standardized testing—PARCC. This incessant test prepping and testing, orchestrated to be taken on computers, intensifies the myth that 21st century teaching depends on the innovation of software programs that “personalize” education for each child. Nothing could be further from the truth. The entrenched belief that accounting/accountability, i.e. data collection, is the answer to lagging scores on standardized tests as compared to other nations is a travesty.

Human beings learn from other human beings. Human beings are inspired to learn in trusted relationships. The factory model of standardization and culling of the defective is antithetical to a diverse, democratic society. This is a travesty of the extreme right wing (e.g. ALEC, American Legislative Exchange Council), the Democrats for Education Reform and the White House, the Chamber of Commerce, ed tech entrepreneurs/corporatists like Bill Gates, and mega-corporations like Microsoft and Pearson, which have the willing collusion of the federal Department of Education. The critics of this so-called “innovative” strategy come from across the political spectrum – from libertarians to liberals, progressives, and socialists.

Critics of these reforms are accused of perpetuating the status quo. It is true that the status quo is unacceptable in important ways, but the remedies of the corporatists and their ilk are making the situation infinitely worse. And “cui bono” (for whose benefit)? For the benefit of edupreneurs, hedge fund managers, global corporations, and those bent on the gentrification of trodden down neighborhoods.

Consider the stealthy way the drafters of the Common Core standards were selected. Why were primarily representatives from the college testing industry, like the SAT and ACT, included when k-12 classroom teachers, specialists in early childhood education, teachers of special needs students, and authorities on students learning English as a second language were excluded? These standards and accompanying curricula have been developed with blinders on.

They reflect a narrow, technocratic vision of teaching and learning, which is at odds with decades of authentic research into children’s cognitive development, first and second language development, and literacy development. They ignore all aspects of education that promote healthy psychosocial development, and even physical health. They ignore or downplay the significance of the humanities—history, literature, drama, music, art, dance, philosophy—all of the attributes that contribute to a humane society.

Why has a monolithic curriculum in English Language Arts and Math been created to align with these ill-begotten standards, to then be aligned with the incessant testing that accompanies them? Why have state departments of education been essentially bribed by Race to the Top money and then waivers to the failed No Child Left Behind law to swallow these poorly constructed standards, curricula, and tests? Who will benefit from the massive amounts of personal student data being collected not only from the testing process, but from every keystroke of every student on every Chrome book stocked with every poor quality but snazzy program, adjusted by algorithm to the individual student’s responses?

These are questions that are serious in the extreme. They must be confronted by all segments of our society. Instead, school administrators and teachers are asked by PARCC to sign security agreements that hearken back to the McCarthy era under the guise of test security and “fairness.” Teachers, under pain of losing their jobs and even their teaching licenses, are being intimidated into not expressing their concerns about the inappropriateness of the Common Core and PARCC testing to the parents of the children in their classrooms. This is unacceptable and must be challenged.

Providence’s secretive PARCC opt-out process


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

parcc-opt-image In an effort to stymie parents interested in opting their children out of PARCC, Providence Public Schools created a secret permission form.

Not all schools even know about the form. There was confusion at the front offices of several schools. At one, I was told, the guidance department hadn’t heard anything about an opt-out program. Another administrator said that they would “talk to the parent and find out why… and then contact my supervisor.”

At other schools, workers were specifically told NOT to publicize it. However, in order to make sure that all the paperwork is handled, they were told to have parents sign the forms to release their children. While I understand the CYA attitude, keeping the forms secret is yet another signal that there is something seriously wrong with the testing industry. If nothing else, the form is designed to slow and intimidate parents who might otherwise opt-out.

PARCC testing will be running for five days between 85 and 120 minutes per day at the Middle School level. Not only does this eat up at least 7.5 teaching hours. Additionally, the lengths of each tests are irregular, making planning and logistics nearly unmanageable.

At Classical High School, although only ninth and tenth graders will be taking the PARCC tests, eleventh and twelfth graders have a late arrival time of 10:30, losing each of those students a total of 10 hours of class time. Hope and Mt. Pleasant High Schools will be operating on a regular schedule.

In a YouTube video, Lori B. McEwen, Ph.D., Chief of Instruction, Leadership and Equity for PPSD said that PARCC was important for students to graduate college-ready. She also said that parents will be informed about the testing schedule. As a parent with students in the schools, I haven’t received information in a timely or useable fashion.

Yes, there are fundamental problems with public education, and demonizing standardized testing isn’t going to solve them.

However the diversion of millions of Rhode Island tax dollars to private companies combined with the abusive amount of time spent on testing students leads me to believe that it is our duty as parents and citizens to oppose them.

Civil disobedience is simple, even though Providence made it more challenging.

As it says in the form itself, “…I have the fundamental and legal right to direct the upbringing and education of my child.”

Print this out and send in with your child tomorrow. –> CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD

The NECAP standards aren’t that different than the Common Core standards


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

NECAP Logo Color Sm 100Elisabeth Harrison’s generally good story on the Common Core in Rhode Island contains this passage:

Marilyn Adams, an expert on early reading and a professor of cognitive and linguistic sciences at Brown University helped write the standards for early reading. She says the result is far from perfect, but she does believe it is better than almost any other set of state standards out there.

“And by the time you get to the upper grades, they’re stronger than anything out there, they really are,” Adams said. “In terms of literature, in terms of writing, in terms of thoughtfulness that’s expected to permeate the curriculum, they are intellectually stronger.”

When an expert’s comment is that a document is “far from perfect,” and then goes on to praise some of the parts furthest removed from her expertise, it is a bit of a tell.  While standards documents are extensive and tedious, individual sections are manageable, so let’s just look at the 11th and 12th grade reading literature standards in the Common Core and the current NECAP.  I’ve just shortened them up a bit by removing the number codes and parenthetical examples.

Common Core

  • Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text, including determining where the text leaves matters uncertain.
  • Determine two or more themes or central ideas of a text and analyze their development over the course of the text, including how they interact and build on one another to produce a complex account; provide an objective summary of the text.
  • Analyze the impact of the author’s choices regarding how to develop and relate elements of a story or drama.
  • Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in the text, including figurative and connotative meanings; analyze the impact of specific word choices on meaning and tone, including words with multiple meanings or language that is particularly fresh, engaging, or beautiful.
  • Analyze how an author’s choices concerning how to structure specific parts of a text contribute to its overall structure and meaning as well as its aesthetic impact.
  • Analyze a case in which grasping a point of view requires distinguishing what is directly stated in a text from what is really meant.
  • Demonstrate knowledge of eighteenth-, nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century foundational works of American literature, including how two or more texts from the same period treat similar themes or topics.
  • By the end of grade 12, read and comprehend literature, including stories, dramas, and poems, at the high end of the grades 11-CCR text complexity band independently and proficiently.

NECAP

Demonstrate initial understanding of elements of literary texts by…

  • Identifying, describing, or making logical predictions about character, setting, problem/solution, or plots/subplots, as appropriate to text; or identifying any significant changes in character, relationships, or setting over time; or identifying rising action, climax, or falling action
  • Paraphrasing or summarizing key ideas/plot, with major events sequenced, as appropriate to text
  • Generating questions before, during, and after reading to enhance/expand understanding and/or gain new information
  • Identifying the characteristics of a variety of types/genres of literary text
  • Identify literary devices as appropriate to genre

Analyze and interpret literary elements within or across texts, citing evidence where appropriate by…

  • Explaining and supporting logical predictions or logical outcomes
  • Examining characterization motivation, or interactions, citing thoughts, words, or actions that reveal character traits, motivations, or changes over time
  • Making inferences about cause/effect, internal or external conflicts, or the relationship among elements within text(s)
  • Explaining how the narrator’s point of view, or author’s style, or tone is evident and affects the reader’s interpretation or is supported throughout the text(s)
  • Demonstrating knowledge of author’s style or use of literary elements and devices to analyze literary works
  • Examining author’s style or use of literary devices to convey theme

Is one of these clearly intellectually stronger than the other?  Why should we think they would be, since the NECAP standards were published in 2006 and closely aligned to Achieve’s American Diploma Project standards, which were a direct precursor to the Common Core standards?  There was no breakthrough in our understanding of high school or collegiate English in the intervening three years.

In terms of writing, it depends on if you believe that being “intellectually stronger” requires an almost singular focus on one particular type of formal, logical, academic argument.  If you believe that writing for self-expression or aesthetic reasons makes you intellectually weak, you may agree with Dr. Adams and Common Core proponents.  On the whole, though, at the high school level Rhode Island’s old and new writing standards are more similar than different.

People don’t trust the Common Core because most of what what we have been told about the standards is obviously not true.  Some people are a bit confused about exactly which bits are the lies, but it is no wonder given the context.

Common Core, high stakes tests are under attack locally and nationally

ed deform flagAs a General Assembly committee considers today a bill that would suspend high stakes test graduation requirements and reevaluate Rhode Island’s commitment to Common Core, there is a debate raging both here and across the nation about whether such accountability measures account for more harm than good.

“The Common Core State Standards were hailed as the next game changer in education,” wrote NEA President Larry Purtill on this blog recently. “Unfortunately, the way it is going, they may ruin the game, not just change it.”

Time was perspectives like Purtill’s were easily dismissed as a special interest. But other special interests in Rhode Island – parents, students, taxpayers and civil libertarians – have also organized to fight these corporate-backed “reforms” to public education.

The ACLU of RI and underfunded urban school districts in Rhode Island have long fought these measures first implemented by George Bush and heavily backed by both corporate and Wall Street interests. But then something new happened here.

The Providence Student Union made national news when they made adults take the test teenagers face as a graduation requirement. And following their inspiration, a parent group from East Greenwich is fighting against these kinds of education “reforms.” That group is led by a former Moderate Party candidate for lt. governor who was an enemy of organized labor as a member of the East Greenwich School Committee.

Opposition to high stakes testing in Rhode Island has brought together the formerly disparate interests of tax-obsessed suburban parents, underfunded inner city students, social justice activists and educators.

“The current misuse of and over reliance on standardized testing in education is nothing short of unethical and immoral,” according to Parents Across Rhode Island’s website. “Standardized tests like the NECAP are simply not able to accurately measure the knowledge and skills of all students, yet they are being used for major decisions such as graduation, promotion and teacher evaluation.”

And it’s not just happening here in Rhode Island. All across the country (please read: “Education Uprising: the Myth Behind Public School Failure“) education activists are preparing to step up the fight from peaceful street theater and strongly worded blog posts to direct action and what might be considered civil disobedience.

A new national coalition known as Testing Resistance and Reform Spring made national news last week.

“The emergence of the alliance represents a maturing of the grassroots testing resistance that has been building for several years locally in states , including Texas, Florida, New York and Illinois,” wrote Washington Post education blogger Valarie Strauss. “Though many supporters of Barack Obama expected him to end the standardized testing obsession of George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind when Obama was first elected president, many now say that the Obama administration has gone beyond the excesses of NCLB to inappropriately make high-stakes standardized tests the key measure of achievement by students, teachers, principals and schools.”

According to the group’s website, it supports “a range of public education and mobilizing tactics, including community meetings, boycotts, opt-out campaigns, rallies, petition drives and legislation. TRRS will help activists link up, communicate and learn from one another. This will build a stronger national movement to overhaul assessment policies.”

The new umbrella group has affiliates all across the nation, including Rhode Island. The RI affiliate offers a detailed blueprint for opting out of the NECAP test and graduation requirement for parents and students.

“The RIDE policy does not allow exemptions based on a refusal to test,” according to a pdf on the site. “Therefore no exemption’ will be granted on these terms. Parents/student will have to state that they are REFUSING the test rather than requesting an exemption.”

It says so far, no Rhode Islanders have opted out of the NECAP test. But there was this comment on the site from a student: “Hi, I am an 11th grader in RI and I need to take the NECAP’s to graduate even though I and my parents are HIGHLY against high stakes testing. With the opt out, would I be able to not take the test and still graduate?”

What teachers think: Tara Walsh


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Tara Walsh
Tara Walsh

Administrators have a unique vantage point to observe policy changes, and how they impact students and teachers alike. Tara Walsh, the dean of students at North Kingstown High School, has seen first hand how an emphasis on high stakes testing has changed the high school landscape.

“For sure policy changes dictate directly how we talk to students about this plans for their futures especially, now with high stakes testing here in Rhode Island,” Walsh said in an interview with RI Future.

Walsh now spend her days disciplining North Kingstown’s 9th and 11th graders, but she was once a special education teacher.

“I worked with students that are cognitively delayed, there’s educational gaps. Now that they have to meet a certain standard on a test, they can fall behind for various reasons – social/emotional, academic. They’re behind the 8 ball when they get to high school. They don’t have the foundation information for these high stakes tests and they’re at a disadvantage to the point where they may not graduate high school with a diploma.”

Walsh went onto explain the repercussions for students that do not achieve proficiency the first time around. She said, “If you don’t achieve proficiency on your NECAP, you have to go into remediation after your junior year so it could ultimately affect classes they could take – like electives — because they have to take remediation to show growth in their testing.”

Testing isn’t the only thing limiting the options available to the students of North Kingstown – another being budget limitations. “When budgets are set, positions are redistributed,” she said, going on to describe the subsequent of the shift away from elective classes towards core academic classes.

She went onto express concern for students that aren’t on the “traditional” track.

“We’ve cut a lot of resources for children who don’t necessarily learn in a four wall academic building, we don’t have a strong vocational program and I feel there’s a detriment to students who aren’t college bound students,” she said. “We need to help provide them with an education that will help them down the road.”

See the previous posts in this series here:

Susan Weigand

Jen Saarinen

Did the NECAP requirement make a positive difference?


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

What’s likely to happen to the number of students receiving diplomas in Rhode Island at the end of this year?

Even after RIDE’s release of the latest NECAP results, it’s hard to accurately predict the impact of the standardized test requirement for graduation. Historically, we know that over the past four years the percentage has averaged out to slightly less than 92%, with approximately 1,000 seniors dropping out, opting for the GED, or transferring out of state.

But last year 4,159 students failed the NECAP and needed to retake the test to try to get a passing score. Of those students, RIDE reported 1,370 succeeded. Of the remaining 2,789, RIDE reports 154 dropped out. Regardless of these drop-outs, the fall enrollment count for this fall was 10,403, which seems in line with previous fall enrollments. In other words, as RIDE stated, the impact of the testing requirement on grade 11 drop-outs was not much.

If 4,195 students failed last year and 1,370 passed this year, our best guess is that 2,789 students in this class of seniors will not graduate with diplomas. For the sake of simplicity, this number assumes that all students dropping out, moving away from the state, or getting a GED are also students who failed the NECAP on their first try.

This is what that number does to the number and percentage of seniors graduating with diplomas: it decimates them.

necap graph[* Estimates based on number of students from the class of 2014 failing NECAP for the second time (2,789)]

Of course, 2,789 is the number before students begin to take the numerous alternative tests available, including the “min-NECAP”, and activate whatever waiver process their districts have in place to compensate for a failing NECAP score.

Hopefully, the 2,789 number will go down. If districts adopt liberal waiver policies, if could go down considerably.

But from this point on, the picture for these 2,789 students looks like a form of mayhem—they will be searching out opportunities to take a variety of tests, only one of which (SAT math) has its cut-score connected to the NECAP by more than air-thin logic. Or they will be trying to get admitted into a “non-open enrollment college”. Or they will be navigating whatever waiver requirements their district has put in place, which requires them to assemble whatever evidence of academic achievement their district has decided to accept.

It’s not a pretty picture for students from here on, and that’s the larger point.

Students who come from organized, well-resourced districts and have organized, well-resourced parents will do best of all and from there on it’s downhill until the devil take the hindmost.

This is as vivid a picture as possible of why the testing policy fails the mission of our education ideal—to educate all children well and to provide an education that will be the entrée to a productive life and career. Our education system has slowly been moving in this direction by including more and more academically vulnerable students into our enrollments–students with learning disabilities, students who do not speak or write English well, students from families with little of no literacy background.

These students pose a challenge to our traditionally structured education system.

They require especially skilled teachers, special lesson plans, more time, smaller classes and, in general, more resources. But, with more adequate and equitable funding, better teacher professional development, and innovative programming, we have slowly been learning how to help these students be more successful in our schools.

The testing requirement threatens to erode this progress. The scenario most likely to emerge in the next few months–as students try to save themselves–will probably be what happened on the Titanic—most of First Class is saved and most of the others go down with the ship. The irony, and it’s bitter, is that all this is being done in the name for what’s good for kids. Anyone who speaks out against it is branded as being against high standards.

This is truly an Orwellian twist, where what is disastrous for many kids is labeled as good for all kids and where condemning some kids is the prerequisite for saving the rest. And we know who those sacrifices will be, our already vulnerable kids. Go get the low hanging fruit.

Common Core will change the game for the worse


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
NEA-RI President Larry Purtill (Photo courtesy of Pat Crowley)
NEA-RI President Larry Purtill (Photo courtesy of Pat Crowley)

The Common Core State Standards were hailed as the next game changer in education. Unfortunately, the way it is going, they may ruin the game, not just change it.

Students, especially in urban areas, are extremely mobile – and certainly educated adults are – so what is wrong with having a common set of standards whether you are in South Kingstown, RI or Tacoma, Washington? Set realistic standards, let local educators decide the best way to meet those standards, and trust teachers to be creative and motivational in helping students reach them.

Instead of widespread support, opposition grows over concerns, and rightly so. Parents across the country, including Rhode Island, are pushing back, in the belief we are dumbing down education. (A description I very much dislike but understand their meaning.) The goal now is to teach to a future test, PARCC, and the concern is growing that creative teaching and learning will disappear.

We have already seen cuts in programs across the country as the test becomes more important than anything else. It is supposed to guarantee that students are college and work ready. Obviously these are worthwhile ultimate goals, but what about the entire education experience: arts, music, sports, history, etc.? Parents have a reason to be nervous.

Educators are angry, not necessarily about the standards but about how they are being implemented much too quickly. Anecdotal evidence abounds about the confusion and wasted hours preparing for Common Core and PARCC. Teachers recently spent three months working on lessons and tests to only be given a new set of rules which required them to do much of the work over.

There is a constant stream here and around the country of “clarifying” documents changing what teachers had already spent hours developing. Confusion abounds. Elementary educators are preparing lesson plans the night before to teach to a new curriculum the next day because of rapid changes and lack of advance information.

Some states have started to slow down and put off implementation and testing until the change is complete and everyone is on the same page. This cannot be about testing companies making millions and corporations trying to control curriculum and education. It should be about high expectations where resources are available to reach them, and an education system that provides every student with the preparation to be what he/she wants, whether doctor, teacher, firefighter or poet.

Narrowing curriculum for a test and doing only half a job of it welcomes failure. If students and teachers are going to be evaluated with this system, it needs to be done correctly. Conservatives and local politicians are opposed as well, although I might disagree with some of their motives. The bottom line is that local control and decision-making have been removed

I started off by saying that we should set standards but trust our teachers to develop how we get there. To prove my point, all the so-called experts (most who have never taught) point to the success of Finland. Its secret? Teachers are trusted to do their jobs – and guess what, it works! Common Core and PARCC are edicts from on high and the truth is local educators are left scrambling without support and resources.

The cost to implement PARCC will be staggering. The commissioner says we will be ready, but local school officials tell me a different story. Think about this: Los Angeles intends to spend $1 billion on iPads for the Common Core Technology Project, to help prepare for the standards. The tests will be online so I assume they will be used for that as well. Where is this money coming from and at the expense of what other programs? I am all for students using technology but with all this profit at stake you can easily see why the technology industry is behind this movement.

Supporters of quick implementation say it is just the usual suspects who are complaining, but they shouldn’t ignore parents, teachers and administrators who voice serious issues and concerns.

“The Common Core standards emphasize critical thinking and reasoning. It is time for public officials to demonstrate critical thinking and stop the rush to implementation and do some serious field-testing. It is time to fix the standards that don’t work in real classrooms with real students.” (From CNN Opinion by Diane Ravitch, 11/25/2013.)

Calling something a game changer is just one of the many phrases the ed reformers like to throw around. It sounds hip and important, but if you really want to be a game changer you would set high attainable standards and give educators the resources and trust needed to get there, not rush through something half-baked because corporations and test companies want it.

This is not a game – these are real classrooms with real students, and when parents, teachers and administrators, i.e. those directly involved, say there are problems, it might be time to listen, learn and act.

Then and only then will Common Core have a chance, and not be just another fad for which we spent billions and did nothing to close the achievement gap. It seems an easy choice. For once, let us as a society act on the side of students and educators and not the side of power and money.

What are we to think of Common Core?


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

This month, Diane Ravitch gave a speech to the annual meeting of the Modern Language Association in which she laid out a comprehensive analysis of the Common Core. Ravitch gets a bad rap for being polemical, but this piece is far from a polemic – it’s a straightforward analysis from her perspective. (By the way, Ravitch’s speech was originally designed as a debate between Ravitch and David Coleman, the lead architect and cheerleader for the Common Core, but he backed out).

The Common Core is becoming increasingly controversial, but for many people the whole issue remains murky and poorly understood, so I was thankful to see Dr. Ravitch lay out the context, rationale, and criticisms of the Common Core in clear language, and I encourage you to download her entire speech here.

For those who don’t want to read the whole thing, here are some parts I found most insightful.

On how the standards were written:

“The Common Core standards were written in 2009 under the aegis of several D.C.-based organizations: the National Governors Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and Achieve. The development process was led behind closed doors by a small organization called Student Achievement Partners, headed by David Coleman. The writing group of 27 contained few educators, but a significant number of representatives of the testing industry. From the outset, the Common Core standards were marked by the absence of public participation, transparency, or educator participation. In a democracy, transparency is crucial, because transparency and openness builds trust. Those crucial ingredients were lacking.”

 

On why they were written:

“The advocates of the standards saw them as a way to raise test scores by making sure that students everywhere in every grade were taught using the same standards. They believed that common standards would automatically guarantee equity. Some spoke of the Common Core as a civil rights issue. They emphasized that the Common Core standards would be far more rigorous than most state standards and they predicted that students would improve their academic performance in response to raising the bar…What the advocates ignored is that test scores are heavily influenced by socioeconomic status. Standardized tests are normed on a bell curve. The upper half of the curve has an abundance of those who grew up in favorable circumstances, with educated parents, books in the home, regular medical care, and well-resourced schools. Those who dominate the bottom half of the bell curve are the kids who lack those advantages, whose parents lack basic economic security, whose schools are overcrowded and under-resourced. To expect tougher standards and a renewed emphasis on standardized testing to reduce poverty and inequality is to expect what never was and never will be.”

 

On who supports Common Core:

“Who supported the standards? Secretary Duncan has been their loudest cheerleader. Governor Jeb Bush of Florida and former DC Chancellor Michelle Rhee urged their rapid adoption. Joel Klein and Condoleeza Rice chaired a commission for the Council on Foreign Relations, which concluded that the Common Core standards were needed to protect national security. Major corporations purchased full-page ads in the New York Times and other newspapers to promote the Common Core. ExxonMobil is especially vociferous in advocating for Common Core, taking out advertisements on television and other news media saying that the standards are needed to prepare our workforce for global competition. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsed the standards, saying they were necessary to prepare workers for the global marketplace. The Business Roundtable stated that its #1 priority is the full adoption and implementation of the Common Core standards. All of this excitement was generated despite the fact that no one knows whether the Common Core will fulfill any of these promises. It will take 12 years whether we know what its effects are.”

 

On the testing component of Common Core:

“The Obama administration awarded $350 million to two groups to create tests for the Common Core standards. The testing consortia jointly decided to use a very high passing mark, which is known as a ‘cut score.’ The Common Core testing consortia decided that the passing mark on their tests would be aligned with the proficient level on the federal tests called NAEP. This is a level typically reached by about 35-40% of students. Massachusetts is the only state in which as many as 50% ever reached the NAEP proficient level. The testing consortia set the bar so high that most students were sure to fail, and they did.

In New York state, which gave the Common Core tests last spring, only 30% of students across the state passed the tests. Only 3% of English language learners passed. Only 5% of students with disabilities passed. Fewer than 20% of African American and Hispanic students passed. By the time the results were reported in August, the students did not have the same teachers; the teachers saw the scores, but did not get any item analysis. They could not use the test results for diagnostic purposes, to help students. Their only value was to rank students.”

 

On the financial cost of Common Core:

“The financial cost of implementing Common Core has barely been mentioned in the national debates. All Common Core testing will be done online. This is a bonanza for the tech industry and other vendors. Every school district must buy new computers, new teaching materials, and new bandwidth for the testing. At a time when school budgets have been cut in most states and many thousands of teachers have been laid off, school districts across the nation will spend billions to pay for Common Core testing. Los Angeles alone committed to spend $1 billion on iPads for the tests; the money is being taken from a bond issue approved by voters for construction and repair of school facilities. Meanwhile, the district has cut teachers of the arts, class size has increased, and necessary repairs are deferred because the money will be spent on iPads. The iPads will be obsolete in a year or two, and the Pearson content loaded onto the iPads has only a three-year license. The cost of implementing the Common Core and the new tests is likely to run into the billions at a time of deep budget cuts.”

 

On the standards themselves:

“Early childhood educators are nearly unanimous in saying that no one who wrote the standards had any expertise in the education of very young children. More than 500 early childhood educators signed a joint statement complaining that the standards were developmentally inappropriate for children in the early grades. The standards, they said, emphasize academic skills and leave inadequate time for imaginative play. They also objected to the likelihood that young children would be subjected to standardized testing. And yet proponents of the Common Core insist that children as young as 5 or 6 or 7 should be on track to be college-and-career ready, even though children this age are not likely to think about college, and most think of careers as cowboys, astronauts, or firefighters.”

 

On the lack of process for revising the standards:

“Another problem presented by the Common Core standards is that there is no one in charge of fixing them. If teachers find legitimate problems and seek remedies, there is no one to turn to. If the demands for students in kindergarten and first grade are developmentally inappropriate, no one can make changes. The original writing committee no longer exists. No organization or agency has the authority to revise the standards. The Common Core standards might as well be written in stone. This makes no sense. They were not handed down on Mount Sinai, they are not an infallible Papal encyclical, why is there no process for improving and revising them?”

 

So there is some of what Diane Ravitch has to say on the Common Core standards. If you’re interested in reading more, one of my favorite pieces I’ve read is from my friend at EdWeek, Nancy Flanagan, who wrote this gem of common sense in which she warns that “disaggregating the good reasons [to oppose Common Core] from the outright baloney is important. When we join the crazies, we reinforce their craziness and further muddy the discourse.”

In my personal opinion, I think that Common Core – divorced from high-stakes testing – is just another problematic, primarily profit-driven “reform” scheme that won’t do much to improve public education. The main problem – and therefore the main target of our opposition – should be the high-stakes testing that actually represents a danger to the quality of our public schools, the ability of our teachers to engage their students, and the opportunities our students have to develop the love of learning they deserve.

This Common Core chicken little is tired of bogus international comparisons


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

julia steinyI feel compelled to respond to Julia Steiny’s recent GoLocalProv column Common Core Standards Freak Out Chicken Littles. I will focus on English/Language Arts, because that is my area of expertise.

Ms. Steiny completely misrepresents the facts regarding the ubiquity of national standards globally, stating “All the countries with whom American students are compared have national standards and even national curricula (Finland). Weirdly, national standards are about the only thing those countries’ education systems have in common.”

In the international benchmarking of the Common Core College and Career Readiness Standards for ELA/Literacy by the standards’ authors, they cite documents from eight “high performing” systems: two small countries – Finland and Ireland; five provinces – Alberta, British Columbia, New South Wales, Ontario, and Victoria; and one “special administrative district” of China – Hong Kong. England, Scotland and Wales have different documents.  Shanghai is a province-level municipality. Singapore is a city-state with roughly the population of Minnesota. National standards are clearly not universal, particularly in the high performing countries most similar to the US.

In fact, American educational technocrats have adopted a conceptual model quite different from our competitors. None of the provinces or countries cited by CCSSI countries considers itself to use “standards” at all. In each case their documents are considered curriculum frameworks, outlines or syllabi, with “outcomes,” not standards.  Outcomes are broadly defined, usually within a sequence of courses. For example, Finland defines a compulsory course for high school students called “A world of texts,” with the following objectives:

  • The objectives of the course are for students to
  • understand the meaning of a broad conception of text;
  • consolidate their awareness of different genres;
  • be aware of different ways of reading, analysing, interpreting and producing texts;
  • learn to choose the style of language as required in each specific situation;
  • learn to interpret narrative texts;
  • learn the principles of placing their own contributions in relation to texts written by other people;
  • participate constructively in group discussions.

To illustrate the difference in approach, the Common Core standards for reading literature in 11th and 12th grade read like this:

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.11-12.3 Analyze the impact of the author’s choices regarding how to develop and relate elements of a story or drama (e.g., where a story is set, how the action is ordered, how the characters are introduced and developed).

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.11-12.5 Analyze how an author’s choices concerning how to structure specific parts of a text (e.g., the choice of where to begin or end a story, the choice to provide a comedic or tragic resolution) contribute to its overall structure and meaning as well as its aesthetic impact.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.11-12.7 Analyze multiple interpretations of a story, drama, or poem (e.g., recorded or live production of a play or recorded novel or poetry), evaluating how each version interprets the source text. (Include at least one play by Shakespeare and one play by an American dramatist.)

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.11-12.10 By the end of grade 12, read and comprehend literature, including stories, dramas, and poems, at the high end of the grades 11-CCR text complexity band independently and proficiently.

The point is not that the Common Core represents bad tasks that students shouldn’t doing. It is that other countries like Finland have a fundamentally different approach.  They don’t use standards as levers to force system-wide accountability and compliance.  Our method is imposing specific tasks and assessment targets sets us apart. What evidence there is indicates that the broader curriculum-based approach works just fine, yet if you proposed Finland’s outcomes in any state department of education in the US, you’d be laughed out of the room.

Nor do any high performing countries view the goal of their English Language Arts curricula to be merely “college and career readiness,” as Rhode Island has embraced with the Common Core. Even our most authoritarian peers manage to leave room for creativity, self-expression, and experiencing aesthetic pleasure as fundamental goals of their curricula. We do not. Ironically, our Asian competitors in particular seem to at least understand the economic imperative of the arts, while we seem to be walking away from even that utilitarian angle. If you want to see something more similar to the Common Core, you should look at the NECAP Grade Level Expectations (GLEs).

Despite the lengths to which some will go to claim otherwise, the NECAP GLEs represent the US technocrat consensus on standards design circa 2005, and the Common Core standards represent the US technocrat consensus on standards design circa 2010. If they were very different, it would be quite surprising. In fact, in 2007 Governor Carcieri joined the board of Achieve, one of the main drivers of the Common Core process. Their press release noted that “In February 2005, Governor Carcieri committed Rhode Island to join Achieve’s American Diploma Project Network, a coalition of 29 states committed to aligning high school standards, assessments, curriculum and accountability with the demands of postsecondary education and work.” The American Diploma Project was the direct pre-cursor to Common Core.

This is evolution, or perhaps devolution, but hardly revolution. There will be one clear result of adopting the Common Core standards. Instead of only having the 11th grade NECAP math test telling us only 30% of our students meet the standards, we’ll have new tests that tell us only 30% meet the standards at every grade level in reading, writing and math. At least that will be more consistent.

WaPost: Gist controversial on national level too


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

ccs-i-am-hereDeborah Gist is not only raising hackles with the education community here in Rhode Island, she’s doing it on a national level too! On Tuesday, Chiefs for Change released a letter attacking labor leader Randi Weingarten for opposing high stakes testing. Gist is on the board for Jeb Bush’s Chiefs for Change group and she co-signed the letter.

Only problem is, according to the Washington Post, Gist and the letter criticized Weingarten for something she didn’t say.

How’s this for a trick? Jeb Bush’s “Chiefs for Change,” a group of former and current state education superintendents, have attacked American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten for something she didn’t say — without even mentioning her name!

That’s right, a Washington Post education blogger – a fairly well-credentialed one, at that – says Gist and Chiefs for Change were being tricky. Valerie Strauss goes on to explain:

Let’s get this straight: Weingarten didn’t argue (as testing experts do) that using student standardized test scores to evaluate teachers and principals is wrong because the results are not reliable. She didn’t call for a permanent ban. She asked for a moratorium to make sure everyone is ready. Given that teachers are being evaluated on the student test scores, it seems only fair to give them enough time to actually learn the standards, develop lessons around the standards, and give students time to absorb them.

I don’t know if she was referring to Tom Sgouros specifically when she wrote that TESTING EXPERTS DO NOT THINK HIGH STAKES TEST RESULTS ARE RELIABLE, but she did give a shout to to the states that are struggling through the politics of it (emphasis mine):

Students in some states this spring started taking standardized tests supposedly aligned with the Common Core and there have been enormous problems reported by teachers and principals.

It’s well worth noting that Sgouros’ loudest criticism’s of Gist have been that the NECAP test isn’t aligned with Common Core. And like this Washington Post blogger, he’s also called her out for being disingenuous, too.