Whose Math Standards Does Common Core Use?

Pioneer Institute Study Finds 
Common Core Standards Weren’t Properly Validated

Five of the 29 members of the Common Core Validation Committee refused to sign a report attesting that the standards are research-based, rigorous and internationally benchmarked. The validation report was released with 24 signatures and included no mention that five committee members refused to sign it, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute.
What were the problems?
According to the Pioneer Institute press release, no member of the Common Core Validation Committee had a doctorate in English literature or language –and only one held a doctorate in math. (He was one of only three members with extensive experience writing standards.) Two of these three refused to sign off on the standards.

“Since all 50 states have had standards for a decade or more, there is a pool of people out there experienced in writing English and math standards,” said Ze’ev Wurman, author of “Common Core’s Validation: A Weak Foundation for a Crooked House.” “It’s unclear why so few of them were tapped for the Common Core Validation Committee.”

Wurman describes two studies conducted by members who signed the Validation Committee report in an attempt to provide post facto evidence that supported their earlier decisions. In both cases, the research was poorly executed and failed to provide evidence that Common Core is internationally competitive and can prepare American high school students for college-level work.

One study, conducted by Validation Committee member and Michigan State University educational statistician William Schmidt and a colleague, explored whether the Common Core math standards are comparable to those in the highest-performing nations and what outcomes might reasonably be expected after Common Core is implemented.
Wurman describes how even after Schmidt and his colleague rearranged the logical order in which concepts would be taught to make Common Core look more like the math standards in high-performing countries, there was still less than a 60 percent congruence between the two. Their initial results also found no correlation between student achievement and the states that have math standards most like Common Core.

After engaging in highly unconventional steps to increase both the congruence between Common Core and the international standards and the correlation between Common Core and student achievement (based on states whose standards were most similar to Common Core), Schmidt and his colleague wrote that they estimate congruence “in a novel way… coupled with several assumptions.” They acknowledge that their analyses “should be viewed as only exploratory… merely suggesting the possibility of a relationship,” yet such caution disappears in their final conclusion.

Wurman’s research also uncovered that basic information was coded incorrectly for Schmidt’s study and shows examples of concepts introduced in high school under Common Core listed as being taught in seventh grade. 

Other studies have come to very different conclusions. Stanford University mathematician R. James Milgram, the only member of the Validation Committee with a doctorate in mathematics, said that Common Core is two years behind the math standards in the highest-performing countries. Milgram also wrote that Common Core fails to prepare students for careers in science, technology, engineering, and math. 

Ze’ev Wurman is a visiting scholar at the Hoover Institution and a former senior policy adviser at the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Planning, Development, and Policy Development. In 2010, he served as a commissioner on the California Academic Content Standards Commission that evaluated Common Core’s suitability for adoption in that state.

Pioneer’s comprehensive research on Common Core national education standards includes: Lowering the Bar: How Common Core Math Fails to Prepare High School Students for STEM; How Common Core’s ELA Standards Place College Readiness at Risk; Common Core Standards Still Don’t Make the Grade; The Road to a National Curriculum: The Legal Aspects of the Common Core Standards, Race to the Top, and Conditional Waivers; National Cost of Aligning States and Localities to the Common Core Standards, and A Republic of Republics: How Common Core Undermines State and Local Autonomy over K-12 Education. Pioneer produced a video series: Setting the Record Straight: Part 1, and Part 2, and has earned national media coverage.

Posted April 24, 2014 by Christel Swasey in How the Common Core Initiative Hurts Kids, Teachers, and Taxpayers

Is You Is, or Is You Ain't: CCSD Doublespeak on Math Standards

Could someone who has never learned to write in cursive actually read cursive? Probably not. Think of all the letters and historical documents that must be filtered through typeface for those individuals lacking this centuries-old skill. Think about an educational system that proposes if something isn't on standardized testing, it's too unimportant to be taught!

This ridiculous proposition and doublespeak in mathematics standards are the reason for SC's "Back to Basics in Education Act of 2013 pass[ing] with little opposition. It requires adding cursive writing and the memorization of multiplication tables to the list of required subjects of instruction in South Carolina's public schools."

CCSD's Math Specialist, Cathy DeMers, appears well educated in doublespeak. She points out that the 2010 standards require "multiplication fluency" and provides the reporter with two nebulous examples:

In the third grade, students must be able to multiply single digits, such as 9 times 9. By the fifth grade, students must fluidly multiply using the standard algorithm for multi-digit multiplication; in other words, they must be able to solve 782 times 94, for example.

Notice DeMers avoids the obvious question--does CCSD require memorization of multiplication tables or not? Was the reporter too embarrassed to ask?

So tell us, please, how much are calculators used in these circumstances? Is the student learning to plug numbers into a calculator? If you ask a random third grader what is the answer to 8 times 9, will the student be able to answer without one? And does that fifth grader learn how to solve multi-digit problems the long way, with pencil and paper?

If you've taught the upper grades recently, you already know the answer.

CCSD's Planning for Parking Fees a Joke

Evidently the reporter can't remember that part of the Memminger School property was sold off to the College of Charleston on a no-bid basis in April of 2012. Geeze, that's less than a year ago. What short memories we have.

Just think, that piece of property could have been used for parking. Instead, together with those from Buist, the Charleston County School District will spend almost $100,000 per year in parking fees for employees.

Speaking of Buist, district administrators, including Superintendent McGinley, wax poetic over the need for a gym and other spaces, expansion of the old footprint to bring the school amenities provided to other schools. That's the excuse for paying parking fees for Buist employees.

The reporter has also neglected to mention that parents in District 20 (downtown schools) proposed combining Buist and Charleston Progressive, another school being rebuilt at the old Courtenay campus only two blocks away. Several lower grades could have been assigned to the CPA campus and upper grades to the Buist campus, with the existing gym shared by both levels.

Oh, duh. That was just too logical, not to speak of putting a higher percentage of black students into the merged schools.

Here's one of those mathematical word problems:

The proceeds from the sale of the Memminger property went into the operating budget. The fees for parking come out of the operating budget. How many years will pass before the money gained from the sale will be exhausted by parking fees?

And another capital asset will have disappeared.

Just CCSD's Math, But What Does It Mean?

Seems rather startling, doesn't it?

According to the news emanating from the latest meeting of the Charleston County Schools District Board of Trustees, nearly one-third of all 2010-11 seniors did not graduate last June. Quoting from the P&C: "Charleston County graduated 67.9 percent of its seniors last school year."

If this sentence is to be believed, we are in far worse shape than we thought because the district isn't even counting those students who dropped out in the eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh grades.

Say it ain't so, Joe!

Or maybe the reporter misstated the facts?

It All Adds Up in CCSD to OPM*

* Other people's money

Kent Riddle of the Charleston Teachers Alliance revealed a telling example of mismanagement in the Charleston County School District in Wednesday's P&C. [See Charleston County District Puts Teachers in Financial Bind ]. You might say it is CCSD's mini-version of math wars.

To quote:

About three years ago the district put together a team to create a large Math Coherent Curriculum Manual the year before the state math standards were going to change.

The next year a completely new, and equally large, Math Coherent Curriculum Manual had to be created and distributed with the new standards.

Last year, the district spent millions adopting a new math series that has to be taught page by page in order to be effective. Thus, teachers could no longer follow the scope and sequence of the one-year-old Math Coherent Curriculum Manual, making it obsolete.

To top it off, the "new" math series is the same math series the CCSD got rid of five years ago.

Wanna bet this flip-flopping required the purchase of all new books and materials? Wouldn't you love to see an estimate of the actual cost of the duplicate manuals that are now useless?

Riddle has some other cogent points about why the district should not lay its financial burdens on the backs of its teachers. Too bad most of them cannot speak out for fear of losing their jobs.

Literacy Forges Ahead in CCSD

Another in Courrege's series on literacy in CCSD appeared in Sunday's P&C. Too bad this one is marred by one-sided sourcing from those who have the most to gain by looking good. [See Literacy Initiatives Show Progress.]

By even this biased account, as the lead states, "Dozens of Charleston County students are reading better as a result of the school district's newest literacy initiatives, and hundreds more will be given the same chance next year." Let's hope that "dozens" means at least seven or eight dozen (84 or 96) and not two or three dozen (24 or 36) after all this time and effort!

See, here's the administrative attitude that's led to the present state of affairs: "Students who needed the extra help this year could refuse it without consequence, but next school year those who turn it down will not be allowed to go on to the next grade." Why were they allowed to "refuse it without consequence"? This practice equates to telling a child to go to bed and then ignoring his or her staying up all night. Neither scenario promises the student will be in good shape to learn in school.

Amazingly enough, for once I find myself in agreement with Gregg Meyers's statements about continuing the third-grade academies:

". . .board member Gregg Meyers told the superintendent at a recent board meeting that the board couldn't have made it any more clear that making sure every child can read is its highest priority. If the third-grade academies are needed and working, he said the superintendent should make sure that program happens, as well as the one for first-graders.

"This is the most important thing we do," he said. "Let's make sure we do it. … If we get nothing else right, we want to get this right. I think we need to stay aggressive about this."

Gepford said officials have been working since then to find money so the third-grade academies can continue.

I vote for furloughing two of Superintendent McGinley's associate superintendents and gutting her transportation allowance. That should help considerably.

Despite sugar-coating from Doug Gepford (he wants to keep his job), the Sixth-Grade Academy is not doing as well, at least if you count in students whose reading scores fell during the program.

What's that, you say? How can reading scores go backwards? Actually what's not clear is why CCSD chose to place students who were "higher performing" "better readers" into a remedial program with the district's worst readers. Why not have an even smaller academy instead? Were the parents of these students even aware of what was happening? Were those parents so desperate to get them out of another school that they presumed anything else would be better?

Is there some reason that the reporter couldn't ask these questions?

Finally, for all of you who have struggled through algebra out there, I have a great quote:

"Gepford said math is easier to teach than reading because it's more concrete and easier to understand. Learning to read is a more complex process that involves multiple skills, he said."

What Gepford means is that math is more objective, not more concrete, at least not once you leave the realm of 2 plus 2! However, perhaps he misspoke and meant that math is easier to learn? Or easier for the teacher to understand how to teach?

Ask anyone who's tried to raise SAT scores whether it's easier to raise the verbal or math components, and you will get the same response as the Sixth-Grade Academy's results.

Math tests measure skills; reading tests measure skills and common knowledge. If CCSD seriously wants to raise reading scores, it must teach both.

Replace Testing with Portfolios? That'll Be Effective

Effective in hiding discrepancies in learning between schools, that is. This one goes on the same list with fuzzy math and constructivist learning.

To quote Flypaper, "If you think 'adequate yearly progress' is complicated and leads to insane results, wait till you introduce portfolios. With every grader coming up with a different score, you are going to see mass confusion about whether kids are reaching standards or not. (This 2004 Education Next Jay Mathews' article on portfolios is a good primer on the pros and cons of the approach.)"

NCLB testing has created problems, but most of them concern not being able to sweep bad results under the rug any more.

A 2015 Letter to the P & C Regarding Bin Laden

Saturday's P & C features a Letter to the Editor that I have updated [in italics] to reflect October 18, 2015:

A different Bin Laden

There has been so much talk in the news lately focusing on Osama Bin Laden and his protest activities 10-plus years ago.

I've heard nothing about the gentleman I met at a constructivist [see below] education conference two years ago.

Osama Bin Laden gave an inspiring speech there about the moral heart and ethical task of teaching. Many heads were nodding in agreement as he discussed what is and what could be in America's madrassas.

I invite your readers to inform themselves about the Osama Bin Laden of today, who is an advocate for social justice. He brings enormous insight into making things better for the next generation, especially for the nation's poorest citizens.

With the recent economic news, we could use many more like Osama Bin Laden working to improve the status quo. Go to http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen1.htm

We can all benefit from his inspiring words and judge him on his contributions today.

Leftist College Professor of Education

Old Dominion University

A sample of the constructivist theory of education:

Some subjects, such as mathematics, are more "bounded" than others by rules, formulae, and procedures. They are more likely to be regarded by teachers as producing problems and tasks to which there are "correct" answers. Individual interpretations and construction of ideas and concepts are less likely to be encouraged by teachers than in subjects such as literature and writing.

Person Alice Wakefield

Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts

CCSD Technology & Library Funding

While touting the latest moves by CCSD Monday, the P & C inadvertently revealed that it pays attention only to CCSD press releases, no surprise to readers of this blog! According to our local paper, anything that emerges from the publicity (i.e., Planning, Marketing, and Communications) department of CCSD could only be positive. The editors have never met a CCSD press release they didn't swallow--hook, line, and sinker. In fact, they never find it necessary to ask anyone outside of 75 Calhoun whether the district is on course or needs a few course corrections.

It remains true that the paper has stood by and watched as "them that had got" over the three decades since the district was consolidated--watched as PTA's in wealthier suburbs raised the money to provide new band uniforms, new band instruments, computers, Smartboards, even overhead projectors, watched as the disparity in equipment ballooned to the point of embarrassment. Surely, not even the parents at Charles Pinckney Elementary in Mt. Pleasant would claim that parents at Fraser Elementary downtown could replicate their 41 Smartboards if only the Fraser parents were more involved! [See Schools to Get Technology Boost]

Smartboards are an exciting, albeit expensive, new technology that may indeed advance student motivation. However, although it looks promising, its effectiveness in advancing learning remains anecdotal so far. We can be sure that if discipline is not improved in classrooms, Smartboards will be no more effective than blackboards.

Of more concern is how the technology is being financed and whether it will be fully utilized.

Any large expenditure--and at a cost of $42.5 million over five years, this one qualifies--needs to be justified in two ways. First, will the return on this investment be worth the cost? One would have to say that having equally equipped schools is worth the cost; it's not as clear that the full bells and whistles in play here are all as necessary, but perhaps CCSD is getting a good deal on the full package that justifies the extra cost. We'll never know.

Second, and equally important, is the foregone expenditure on some other aspect of CCSD. Think of it this way--going to college full-time has tuition, room, and board expenditures that we know all too well; most of us do not consider the foregone INCOME that the student does not make while he or she is a full-time student. Even adding in that foregone income may still suggest that the student should go full time in order to reap future benefits.

So, what aspect that might cost $42.5 million over five years (and over $6 million per year thereafter) is being foregone? Where is the money coming from anyway? Here's what CCSD says,

The plan will be paid for through the capital fund because this expense requires an ongoing funding stream, said Michael Bobby, district chief financial officer. A majority of the tax increase on the debt service fund is tied to these improvements, as well as those for school libraries. After five years, the plan will require about 75 percent of the $8.5 million annual amount to replace and enhance equipment.

What I get out of this is that the money will come from the capital fund that is not limited by being tied to sales tax revenues and, as far as I can tell, that is limited only by how much the Board wants to increase taxes. The district is spending $42.5 million over five years. Then CCSD will need to spend about $6.4 million every year thereafter to keep on track. I hope it's worth it.

As for full utilization--is there a teacher out there who has not had the experience of watching new technology's being underutilized because of lack of training or lack of time built in to learn to use it? Training is usually not considered a capital expense. 'Nuff said.

In regard to libraries (excuse me, media centers), I've addressed in previous blogs the ridiculous disparities that exist, especially in District 20. I do wonder about the P & C's math skills, however. According to '09 Budget Addresses Libraries, "[CCSD officials] found the district's median book age was 17 years old. The average age of collections in school libraries statewide ranges from two to 38 years, and the average age overall was 15 years, according to state education department reports."[italics mine]

Who is it--the editors or CCSD officials or the reporter--who does not know the difference between a median and an average? It is a difference!

AP Education Poll Reflects CCSD Realities

A Bill Gates-financed national AP poll on education, as reported in Saturday's P & C, actually emphasizes the concerns of CCSD parents, especially those in District 20 on the penninsula.

For example, more than half believe students are not prepared for everyday jobs or for college--echoing the concerns of Burke parents who wonder why the new technology campus can't be at Burke and why Burke gets short shrift in vocational courses.

But it's when the numbers are broken out by minority versus white that the story gets interesting. For example, the poll suggests "minority parents are more likely to believe their children are getting a better education than they received." Well, yes, especially if the parents dropped out of school earlier than their white counterparts did--it's not clear if the poll corrected for this factor. Historically, whites have higher educational attainment.

More telling is the disparity in those who rate their schools as good or excellent. Only 42 percent of minority parents agreed versus 59 percent of white parents. Was this adjusted for economic background? Let's see--could schools in poor areas be worse than those in rich areas? Are more minority parents poor? Wouldn't you love to see such a survey done in CCSD? Don't hold your breath.

Is education important to minority parents? Yes. They know education is the way up economically. That's why they consider it just as important as the economy. That's where it becomes obvious that the survey reflects District 20 and its ubiquitous failing schools.

What percentage of minority parents in District 20 would rate their schools as good or excellent? Don't make me laugh.

On a lighter note, the desire expressed in the survey for more math is being met with the Charter School for Math and Science. What an irony that the school board is fighting it!

Why Teachers Hate In-Service Days

Making the rounds is this video of teachers in the Beaufort area complying with asinine preparations for teaching Everyday Math. No matter that the dance has absolutely nothing to do with math. No matter that Everyday Math is hated and reviled in all other parts of the country as being ineffective and detrimental to student math proficiency, these hapless victims of in-service bravely attempt to follow an idiotic dance with varying degrees of enthusiasm.

FYI--almost all teachers have encountered some idiocy like this one on an in-service day. During one particularly inane and demeaning exercise, I walked out, ready to confront anyone who got in my way. Probably the rest thought I was ill or had an emergency. More likely, at least half were wishing they had the nerve to follow.


Thanks to The Palmetto Scoop for the memories!

Show Me the Teacher, Joe!

Dorchester District 2's math scores have been slipping on the elementary level. To forestall further deterioration, the district is taking action. Sunday's P & C carefully enumerates Superintendent Joe Pye's plans, developed at his request by a curriculum specialist. [See Dorchester 2 on a Mission to Change Math Instruction ]

But when Pye made the statement that "no longer will teachers lecture for 40 minutes," every fact that had previously been presented was called into question. Lecturing for 40 minutes in a math classroom? Lecturing for 40 minutes in any high school classroom? You must be joking, Joe.

Remember "Show me the money"?

Well, "show me the teacher"!

If DD2's superintendent really believes that 40-minute lectures are being given in high school classrooms in his district, he is totally out of contact with reality. In fact, his brain has been left in the 19th century, not the 20th. No, that's not the likely problem. Instead, he has revealed himself to be an educrat, part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Maybe the problem is that third-grade teachers are spending more time on "dot plotting, mode, and range" than making sure that students are proficient in basic math skills such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division without a calculator.

Personally, I cringe every I see high school students dive for one to figure out what percentage 47 out of 50 is!