Donate today!
view counter

April 2012 Vol. 19. No. 5 Focus on Engaging Curriculum

Theme articles

With Common Core, changes are coming to curriculum, tests

Critics warn that continued high-stakes testing and lack of teacher training may undermine this ambitious reform.

By by Paul Jablow on Mar 30, 2012 03:35 PM
Photo: Reuters Media Express / Courtesy of FairTest

The Obama administration has pressed states to adopt the Common Core. Others like Monty Neill of FairTest fear continued narrowing of the curriculum due to testing pressures.

If you've never heard of the Common Core standards, it's time to take note: They could have a big effect on what students will learn – and maybe also on the tests that measure their progress.

This attempt at creating uniform academic standards stringent enough to ensure that students in every state are ready for college or career has been years in the making. It is being pushed by the Obama administration, with help from organizations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The goal is to raise the bar nationally and make American students more competitive with those abroad.

Longtime proponents point out that individual state standards are all over the place in terms of rigor and expectations. They argue that clear standards for what students at each grade level should know and be able to do, drawn up by top educators and used nationwide, can benefit everyone. And they say it doesn't require dictating what happens in the classroom.

Opponents see yet another excuse for "teaching to the test" and point out that this effort will not address persistent achievement gaps within states.

Pennsylvania is one of 45 states that have signed on to the Common Core; in May the state Board of Education is expected to okay final adoption.

The state's Department of Education plans to revise its annual PSSA test to reflect the new, tougher standards.

And districts around the state, including Philadelphia, are trying to figure out what this will mean for their curriculum, instruction, and approach to teaching and learning.

Drafts of the standards (sponsored by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers) were released in 2010 for math and English language arts.

At the time, the Gates Foundation's education director, Vicki Phillips, said, "What they've come up with is a set of consistent standards that are both clear enough and high enough to prepare all students for success."

What they have actually come up with, critics say, is a waste of resources that would be better spent in the classrooms.

No help for 'achievement gap'

In a recent report, Tom Loveless of the Brookings Institution questions how much effect these – or any uniform national standards – can have. Differences in student performance within states are far greater than those between states, he says, citing a 2006 study by the National Center for Education Statistics that found no correlation between the rigor of state standards and student achievement.

Within-state gaps in achievement largely occur along lines of race, poverty, income, and other demographic factors. According to data collected by the Pennsylvania State Education Association, Pennsylvania has one of the largest achievement gaps in the country.

Loveless notes that all states have had their own academic standards since they were mandated in 2003 by the federal No Child Left Behind law, and this has done little to close achievement gaps.

"There's just a huge difference between what the [standards] writers intend, teachers teach, and children learn," he said. "The nation will have to look elsewhere for ways to improve its schools."

Adam Tucker, a Gates Foundation program officer, says that what critics like Loveless ignore is that having true national standards will get educators across the country speaking the same language – for instance, allowing what works in Massachusetts to translate more easily to what works in Montana.

"Adoption of standards alone will not increase student achievement," he added. "It comes down to how states and districts work with their schools."

Carolyn Dumaresq, Pennsylvania's deputy secretary for elementary and secondary education, is optimistic about the standards' potential to raise student achievement. In math, "You have to do a little more work to find the answer," Dumaresq said. The new standards might mean certain subject matter would get introduced two or three grades earlier than it is now, she said.

Added Pennsylvania Department of Education consultant Jean Dyszel: "There's more emphasis on informational writing, deeper text analysis, more use of evidence based on texts."

Last spring, PDE revised questions to reflect the Common Core on the proposed Keystone Exams for high school students, which are being field-tested. "We had a slight dip in scores. It was a wakeup call," she said.

Dumaresq cautioned that there might also be declines when the PSSA tests for the elementary grades are aligned to the new standards. This is scheduled for the spring of 2014 for grades 3-5 and a year later for grades 6-8, following field testing.

Assessments are key

Arguments over the standards themselves, though, are less heated than those regarding the evaluation process that will accompany them.

In an interview posted on the Teaching Matters website, Stanford University education professor Linda Darling-Hammond said that the standards contain "a lot of good language ... about good critical thinking and problem-solving."

She added, however, that their end result would depend on other factors such as what kinds of teacher training take place and how the new assessments are structured. Pennsylvania has severely cut its education spending, and districts like Philadelphia have had to cut back on teacher support and training.

Darling-Hammond expressed concern that in the end, the assessments will still be frequent, high-stakes, and multiple-choice. She predicted that the tests will fail to change enough to measure the higher-order thinking and writing skills the Common Core aims to promote.

She also noted that this whole approach is in sharp contrast to what happens in many higher-achieving countries such as Finland and Singapore, which do not conduct annual, high-stakes tests.

Her concern is shared by many advocates. Instead of a broad, holistic curriculum, "we'll continue to see more narrow teaching to the test," predicted Monty Neill, executive director of FairTest, a Boston-based advocacy group that works to prevent the misuse of standardized tests.

"It's a model of top-down centralization," Neill said. "We should be concerned about whether it produces mandated mediocrity or high quality."

Stan Karp, director of the Secondary Reform Project for New Jersey's Education Law Center, described the entire movement as "a top-down process driven by federal dollars." Karp also cites the potential for "profiteering."

"Computer-based testing means more money for data companies that should be going into classrooms," he said.

Diane Ravitch, a prominent critic of current reform trends, has described the effort as "outsourcing" of crucial decisions around instruction and curriculum to educational publishers and test-making companies.

The view from Harrisburg, however, is that adopting the Common Core will "position our students to be more competitive," according to Dumaresq.

"They'll need less remediation when they go to college," she said. "But I want everyone to understand it's going to take a while."

About the Author

Freelance writer Paul Jablow is a regular Notebook contributor.

Comments (6)

Submitted by Susan Ohanian (not verified) on April 4, 2012 8:38 pm

Stan Karp is right that the Common Core is "a top-down process driven by federal dollars," but don't forget who's sitting at the top shelling out the money to pay for the development--and promotion--of the Common Core----The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gave big money to the National Governors Association, Council of Chief School Officers, ASCD, AFT, PTA, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, etc. to promote the Common Core State [sic] Standards.

A few of the companies/organizations with Gates grants to churn out curriculum are: Technet, Khan Academy, MetaMetrics, New Visions for Public Schools, Alliance for Excellent Education Inc, Research for Action Inc, Common Core Inc, New Venture Fund, The National Writing Project, and Achievement Network.

The James B. Hunt, Jr. Institute for Educational Leadership and Policy received Gates money to produce lots of teacher training videos featuring Common Core architect David Coleman. And if you haven't watched Coleman's lessons on how to teach "The Gettysburg Address" and Martin Luther Kings "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," then you definitely aren't horrified enough about this Common Core.

These Hunt Institute videos are flooding the states as teacher in-service tools. But for the full hero you should see David Coleman's presentation at the New York State Department of Education. (In disparaging personal narrative in writing, he insists, "When you grow up in this world you realize people don't give a shit about what you feel or what you think." THAT is the lesson he urges teachers to bring to students. ) I've provided a transcript:

The Pennsylvania State Department of Education received $526,960 from Gates "to build upon work in Elizabethtown and Lebanon, further laying down the groundwork for scaling the Common Core Standards through state portals" ; the School District of Philadelphia received $500,000 "to support the implementation of the Common Core State Standards and the alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment."

And so on and so on. Bill Gates is buying education policy. Duncan is his acolyte.

And so on. Bill Gates bought these standards and now he's buying the teacher evaluations to make sure they're taught.

Submitted by Ms.Cheng (not verified) on April 8, 2012 5:23 pm

It's sadly too obvious. A "common core" means big $$ for whoever is chosen to provide that "core". If we are interested in being "competitive"/on par with countries as Finland, i.e. are truly interested in "reproducing working models"; then Finland's wholistic model is what we should be trying to reproduce, not our own failing one.

Probably our only defense is to get the big fish to fight amongst themselves as to who will get to provide that core; And make them prove beyond any doubt that their core is the one that will bring about this greater level of understanding and skills for the kids before it is implemented. Do we have a chance?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on April 8, 2012 4:57 pm

What happens when students are just too dumb to keep up?

Submitted by Susan Ohanian (not verified) on April 8, 2012 5:08 pm

Then they can make anonymous inane comments on websites tackling serious issues.

Submitted by MBA to M'ed mom (not verified) on April 8, 2012 6:06 pm

: ) good one!!

Submitted by rs (not verified) on April 10, 2013 10:05 pm
What is being done to address parental and student attitudes, their personal responsibilities towards education, and their necessary preparedness for learning? For example: well rested; fed breakfast; clothed with non-disruptive or non-distractive attire; parent or self provided tools for learning; on-time; drug-free, receptive mind; positive, non-disruptive behaviors towards the learning environment; and an after-school environment conducive for study . Information is worthless unless the content is valued and processed by a willing recipient who is open to methods of presentation.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. We reserve the right to delete or remove any material deemed to be in violation of this rule, and to ban anyone who violates this rule. Please see our "Terms of Usage" for more detail concerning your obligations as a user of this service. Reader comments are limited to 500 words. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Table of Contents

Read the latest print issue

Philly Ed Feed


Public School Notebook

699 Ranstead St.
Third Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 839-0082
Fax: (215) 238-2300

© Copyright 2013 The Philadelphia Public School Notebook. All Rights Reserved.
Terms of Usage and Privacy Policy