PA. Common Core from an Educational Consumer Perspective
How many consumers would ever consider purchasing a car without seeing it, or test driving it? For smart consumers that would never be an option, but that is exactly what was done with the implementation of the Common Core Academic Standard’s framework within Pennsylvania and other states. The states jumped on board and committed to the standards sight unseen in order to receive federal dollars. What kind of educational consumer does that make a state like Pennsylvania? The Common Core movement clearly places money and control before a quality education for each of our students. This national academic initiative is a massive experiment with students across Pennsylvania, and the country being the guinea pigs.
IS COMMON CORE A STATE INITIATIVE ?
Common Core is not a state initiative. A real state initiative would have involved the use of the existing state standards, which had a track record in the classrooms across this country. The states could have shared this information with each other and learned from
what the other states were doing. That did not happen, and instead they agreed to a set of Common Core Standards that have no track record, or research to back them up. Pennsylvania hired the University of Pittsburgh to do an alignment and integration of the National Common Core framework with our previous state academic standards. 85% of our standards were required to be in alignment to Common Core. In order to say the states had some say in this movement, the states were given 15% flexibility in the standard changes. This is more about semantics and marketing than what good state standards really should look like. Besides a flawed process that gives us PA Common Core Standards (states have changed the name of the standards in order to sell them to the public), the real question should be are these standards best for all students?
ARE THEY RIGOROUS ?
Pennsylvania had existing educational standards, and when looking at the record of those previous standards they were deemed rigorous by the state. Now we are being told they were not. Meanwhile we now are being told we have rigorous academic standards due to the integration of the Common Core framework. Thousands of students were educated under those old standards with many students being successful while clearly some students were not as successful. This begs the question does the state know what real rigorous standards look like given they use that term for marketing purposes every time they want to make a change, and are standard changes the answer for students struggling in school?
ARE THEY INTERNATIONALLY BENCH MARKED ?
One of the selling points used by the National Common Core supporters, and our own
Pennsylvania Department of Education is these standards are now supposed to be internationally benchmarked. What country are we benchmarked to? Germany and China use a national school to work model where students are channeled very early towards specific jobs. Canada and Australia have provincial systems similar to what we had when states controlled their own academic standards. Finland gives the teachers a generic outline of expectations allowing them the flexibility to teach to the individual needs in their classroom with very few state or national assessments. Clearly countries vary with what they do in their schools, so internationally benchmarked is nothing more than Common Core supporters using words that sound good in order to sell their agenda.
HOW DO THEY IMPACT EARLY LEARNERS, AND SPECIAL NEED STUDENTS ?
One of the major flaws in Common Core stems from the lack of consideration for how young children learn, and also the needs of students with learning issues. No early learning experts were part of the writing of the National Common Core Standards. All early learning specialists refer to the developmentally appropriate practices based on the cognitive development of young children (K to 3rd grade). In simple terms, young children’s brains are developing. Certain educational concepts can, or can’t be processed and mastered by the average early learner at varying times based on that development. There is also research that indicates boys’ brain development happens at a slower rate than girls. Even a boy’s senses respond differently. Technology, such as the MRI, gives us a better understanding of a child’s development, which impacts their ability to learn. That is why many early learning educators across the nation and state have expressed deep concerns with these standards. The architects of the Common Core framework, which PA used to align their standards, were not teachers, curriculum, or standard experts. The standard and testing changes drive curriculum no matter what the supporters of Common Core/Pa Common Core say.
There are also people stepping forward expressing the same concerns with these standards and children with learning issues. More is happening than just the standards.
The process by which subjects like math are being taught is also changing, and then there are the assessments, which are being aligned to the standards. During the summer of 2012, the Pennsylvania Department of Education submitted to the US Department of Education a transition report showing the rollout schedule of the changes to the PSSA, the Keystone Exams, and the embedding of the standard changes into the tests. In the beginning of the report, Pennsylvania is asking the federal government for permission to make these changes. Children with special needs must have the flexibility to learn the best way they can, which does not mean they need a rigid bureaucratic system designed by people who know nothing of their needs. As these standard changes are showing up in our schools, more and more people involved with children with special learning needs are expressing concerns. Students with school anxiety do not need further stress placed on them by these poorly implemented and poorly researched standards.
ARE THEY REALLY COLLEGE AND WORFORCE READY ?
One of the selling points to the business community is the standard changes are college and workforce ready. There is no research to indicate that a set of standards can be both college and workforce ready at the same time. Common sense will tell us the requirements to be accepted by the College of Engineering at Penn State are not the same as the requirements for a community college. The job requirements to be an electrical engineer are not the same as the requirement to be a technician working for the cable company. This does not mean both jobs are not important, but they both require a different type of post-secondary training and workforce skills. The Common Core/ PA.Common Core Standards are not being sold as minimal acceptable standards. They impact every student no matter what their abilities, or future interests.
While attending an Allegheny Intermediate Unit presentation, their staff tried to explain the standards as they relate to STEM (science, technology, engineering and math). Teaching less levels of math, as they indicated in their presentation, is not going to produce more physicists or medical researchers. They also agreed with the proposal by David Coleman (one of the architects of Common Core and the head of the College Boards) to eliminate the AP Calculus test, since Calculus is not part of the Common Core math sequence. This decision does not help to produce more engineers or scientists either.
At the annual meeting of the Pennsylvania mayors last summer, it became clear that these standard changes are not going to correct many of the problems businesses are having in their communities. Consider some of their expressed concerns, and how that relates to standards.
- How will these standard changes teach a student that showing up to work on time is critical?
- How will this correct the problem of people not being able to pass drug testing?
- How will these changes advance vocational training when public schools are promoting college as the best choice for almost everyone?
- How will these standards teach students what it means to dress for success, or how to speak correctly in an interview?
- How will these standards help children already struggling in poorly performing and unsafe schools in the Commonwealth?
- Are the current changes promoted by people like Bill Gates a business move given education is a billion dollar a year industry?
- Do we want the German or Chinese model of education, school to work, where students are tracked into career paths by bureaucrats, which is known to stifle
creativity, allows for fewer personal choices, and does not promote innovation?
- Should education be about the agenda of adults, or the needs of students to reach their highest potential?
WHAT ABOUT FUNDING ?
Lastly, there is the issue of funding. Education spending is a major part of Pennsylvania’s budget. As we continue to spend more in education, we are getting less for our tax dollars. The legislators did not vote on these standard and testing changes, yet they will be expected to appropriate education funds to help subsidize these changes. Meanwhile, many of the legislators continue to be clueless about the ramifications of these standards.
These changes are called Chapter 4 regulations, and went through a regulatory process. The PA Independent Regulatory Review Commission submitted questions after their review, and noted the cost to implement these changes are not cost neutral as indicated by the Department of Education and State Board of Education. The initial costs for implementation and ongoing execution of the standards and assessment will be prohibitive, resulting in massive unfunded mandates at a time when our Commonwealth is facing severe budgetary problems, including an unresolved pension problem. Some of these costs will involve the hiring of countless additional staff, extensive training of both new hires and current teachers, purchasing new instructional materials and additional technology., developing and aligning curriculum to these changes, providing remediation and project-based assessments for struggling students, and administering and grading the innumerable mandated tests. Many of these costs will become the responsibility of the already cash strapped school districts.
The Senate Education Committee asked the PA. Secretary of Education about the costs to implement the PA Common Core and related assessment changes during two hearings. Not once did the committee receive a precise answer. Why is it that changes like this can come through the Department of Education/State Board of Education without a comprehensive cost analysis for their own department and the 29 Intermediate Units, including an additional cost impact study on the school districts?
Before making such a massive shift in the direction of education in this country, should there not have been a more transparent debate about these standards and the direction they are taking our students? This conversation should have happened both nationally and within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania prior to any changes being made. Does anyone wonder what Bill Gates ( he has spent $200 million to promote Common Core nationally with some of his grants coming into PA.) would say if we defined the direction of education for his three children, and we used our money to influence that direction?
WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP ?
Talk to your schools and find out how they are handling these changes? Talk to your school board members, and legislators! Contact the Governor’s office! Contact the State School Board Association and express your concerns! Contact your US Congressman and Senators! Become better informed, and help to educate your friends and neighbors! You have every right to ask questions, and to expect good answers! You have every right to express your thoughts and concerns! Remember these are our children, our schools, and our tax dollars!
|
Posts
