Monthly Archives: August 2013

News

State Board Member Challenges Stotsky and Wurman

Leave a comment

On July 20th, we published an article entitled “What do the CC math authors say about them?” In this article we shared comments the 2 math-field related authors (Zimba and McCallum) of the Common Core standards made.

On July 25th, the Deseret News published an op-ed from Dr. Sandra Stotsky entitled “This is why I oppose Common Core” and in which she quotes Zimba and McCallum’s remarks. Dr. Stotsky has been quoting them ever since their remarks were first made in 2010 at the time the Common Core standards were released.

On August 2nd, the Deseret News published an op-ed response from state school board member Jennifer Johnson entitled “Clarifying Criticism of Common Core.”  In her response, Jennifer takes issue with Dr. Stotsky’s quote on Zimba, and received an email from McCallum stating that Ze’ev Wurman misunderstood comments he made at a meeting in 2010 in San Diego.

Here’s where the story gets interesting.

I received this email from Dr. Stotsky which she sent to the Deseret News after reading Jennifer’s op-ed.

Jennifer Johnson contacted me several times in the past few weeks about the official minutes of the March 2010 meeting of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.  According to the official minutes of the meeting, Jason Zimba told the Board and others at this large public meeting that “the concept of college readiness is minimal and focuses on non-selective colleges.”  I was a member of this Board at the time and heard Professor Zimba’s comments on the meaning of college readiness in Common Core’s mathematics standards.

Rhoda Schneider, the chief legal counsel for the Board, usually writes up and/or approves the minutes of every meeting, and the minutes were approved by about a dozen people—Board members and the Commissioner of Education—the next month. http://www.doe.mass.edu/boe/minutes/10/0323reg.pdf.

Most or all of these people were at the meeting at which Professor Zimba spoke.  I have been referring to these minutes and Professor Zimba’s comments for several years.  The minutes have not changed since they were officially approved in April 2010.

I wrote back to Ms. Johnson and suggested that if there were any concerns about the accuracy of the official minutes, she should feel free to contact Ms. Schneider at rschneider@doe.mass.edu. I am obviously not the person to question the official minutes of the meeting.

Jennifer failed to note in her op-ed that Jason Zimba’s quote by Dr. Stotsky is straight out of the official board minutes of the March 2010 Massachusetts Board of Education…something Dr. Stotsky pointed her to much prior to her op-ed. That omission of an important fact in determining the real story is troubling. For 3 years Jason’s statements have been available and quoted by Dr. Stotsky. Jason has never sought to change the official record, and the MA state superintendent and a dozen board members including Dr. Stotsky who was on the board at that time, authenticated the minutes as correct.

I also received this email from Ze’ev Wurman after he read Jennifer’s op-ed.

Editor,

In her Aug.2, 2013 OpEd, State School Board Member Jennifer Johnson quotes William McCallum:

“In January 2010, six months before the standards were finalized, I gave a presentation about them at the joint meetings of the American Mathematical Society and the Mathematical Association of America in San Diego. After the presentation, one audience member expressed a worry that the standards would be too high (as in excessively high). I replied that they would not be too high and that they would be equal to the standards of high achieving East Asian countries. In context, it was clear that I meant ‘not excessively high,’ but the phrase ‘not too high,’ taken out of context, can be interpreted colloquially as ‘not very high.’ This is the way Wurman, who was there, chose to misinterpret it, despite the fact that my meaning was crystal clear from the context.”

Prof. McCallum is engaging here in a bit of historical revisionism. The report of his statement at the time is as follows: (http://toped.svefoundation.org/2010/01/17/common-core-standards-under-fire/ )

“While acknowledging the concerns about front-loading demands in early grades, [McCallum] said that the overall standards would not be too high, certainly not in comparison other nations, including East Asia, where math education excels.”

From the “certainly” in the “certainly not in comparison to other nations” and from the reference to East Asia “where math education excels” it is clear that McCallum meant that the Common Core will be lower, rather than equal to those of other nations, as he currently wants us to believe.

McCallum did not correct the original report at the time nor until recently, when that quote became evidence of an embarrassing admission. To put his modern recollection of the past in a sharper relief, McCallum’s memory is not as perfect as it seems – that joint meeting in January 2010 took place in San Francisco rather than in San Diego.

Ze’ev Wurman

The fact that Zimba and McCallum have changed their tune from the time of the standards being released, to something different now, indicates to me that they’ve come under some pressure to change their stances, not that they have been misrepresented from that time period as Jennifer would lead us to believe.

News

A Common Core Replacement Plan

6 Comments

Math

We have often been asked by legislators and the public, “well if you don’t like Common Core, what do you want?” We have posted this elsewhere, but I was reminded of something while visiting Dr. David Wright’s website this week. Back in 2006 when we were crusading against Utah’s “D-” Fordham rated math standards, and trying to get a major overhaul, the USOE was fighting us every step of the way. It took legislative hearings and testimony by Dr. Jim Milgram to get legislators to pressure the state superintendent into agreeing to rewrite the math standards. One idea we had at the time was to use California’s highly rated math standards which had been revised around 2000 and the Fordham Foundation had given an “A” rating to, stating:

“California’s standards are excellent in every respect. The language is crystal clear, important topics are given priority, and key connections between different skills and tasks are explicitly addressed. Computational skills, problem-solving, and mathematical reasoning are unambiguously supported and integrated throughout.”

The USOE immediately rejected this idea without even a review of their standards (I guess that’s somewhat of a pattern for them), even though there would have been plenty of curriculum materials and assessments completely aligned to the standards. They stated they “didn’t want to be like California” and “we don’t want California standards in Utah”. <smile> Now that California has adopted Common Core standards below their own created standards, Utah is pleased to be on the same page as them.

So back in 2006 when this fight was raging, Dr. David Wright created his own math petition, and got 144 Utah university professors of math, science, and engineering to sign asking that we adopt California’s math standards. Now there’s consensus and a good solid plan from our university professors.

A Petition Directed to the State of Utah

We ask the state of Utah to adopt and implement the California Mathematics Standards for our public schools. We agree with the Fordham Foundation report on state mathematics standards that gave Utah’s current standards a D rating while giving California an A. We agree with the foundation’s assessment, “California’s standards are excellent in every respect. The language is crystal clear, important topics are given priority, and key connections between different skills and tasks are explicitly addressed. Computational skills, problem-solving, and mathematical reasoning are unambiguously supported and integrated throughout.” We want our Utah children to master the mathematics they need to compete favorably with the best students of other states and nations. Setting good standards is an important step toward achieving that goal. Please adopt and implement the California Mathematics Standards for our public schools.

Reading Fordham’s review of the California standards now that Common Core has been added to the mix, we find this:

California’s standards could well serve as a model for internationally competitive national standards. They are explicit, clear, and cover the essential topics for rigorous mathematics instruction.
…
The Bottom Line
With some minor differences, Common Core and California both cover the essential content for a rigorous, K-12 mathematics program. That said, California’s standards are exceptionally clear and well presented, and indeed represent a model for mathematically sound writing. They are further supported by excellent peripheral material, including the Framework that provides clear and detailed guidance on the standards. Taken together, these enhancements make the standards easier to read and follow than Common Core. In addition, the high school content is organized so that the standards about various topics, such as quadratic functions, are grouped together in a mathematically coherent way. The organization of the Common Core is more difficult to navigate, in part because standards on related topics sometimes appear separately rather than together.
Common Core includes some minor high school content—including the vertex form of quadratics and max/min problems—that is missing in California.
Footnote 1: California’s academic content standards have not changed since Fordham’s last evaluation, the State of State Mathematics Standards 2005. However, the evaluation criteria that we used to judge the 2010 standards have been substantially revised and improved since 2005. (See Appendix C for a complete explanation of changes in criteria.) Even through this new lens, California’s math grade remained an impressive A.
As noted, the USOE rejected the California standards plan and created a committee to create our own. We wound up with A- rated standards which Fordham says are clearer than Common Core, but California’s are still widely acknowledged as stronger.

English Language Arts

Utah’s ELA standards prior to Common Core were rated a “C” by the Fordham Foundation. On June 2, 2010, the final version of the Common Core standards was released. The Fordham Foundation interestingly released their review of Common Core on that very day. Two days later at the USOE’s June 4th board meeting, the board was encouraged to adopt the standards on their first reading. They didn’t know what the standards were and I doubt there was any discussion of how the Fordham Foundation rated the standards. It was all about the Race to the Top money.

Fordham’s review of Common Core ELA standards only gave it a “B+”, and it should be noted that this was after the Gates Foundation gave Fordham a hefty grant/bribe to review the standards so Fordham can’t be viewed as giving a totally honest rating. In spite of this, several other states have superior standards to Common Core (including California which received an “A” on their ELA standards.

In 2001, Dr. Sandra Stotsky was one of the chief contributors to the Massachusetts ELA standards which put MA on track to become the consistent top scoring state on standardized exams. In 2010 those standards were reviewed by Fordham as part of their comparison to Common Core and they said this of Massachusetts’ “A-” rated ELA standards:

The Bottom Line
Massachusetts’s existing standards are clearer, more thorough, and easier to read than the Common Core standards. Essential content is grouped more logically, so that standards addressing inextricably linked characteristics, such as themes in literary texts, can be found together rather than spread across strands. In addition, Massachusetts frequently uses standard-specific examples to clarify expectations. Unlike the Common Core, Massachusetts’s standards treat both literary and non-literary texts in systematic detail throughout the document, addressing the specific genres, sub-genres, and characteristics of both text types. While both sets of standards address American literature and append lists of exemplar texts, Massachusetts’s reading list is far more comprehensive. Standards addressing vocabulary development and grammar are also more detailed and rigorous in the Massachusetts document.
On the other hand, Common Core includes samples of student writing to clarify grade- and genre-specific writing expectations. In addition, the Common Core standards explicitly address foundational U.S. documents. Such enhancements would benefit Massachusetts’s already-strong standards.
In 2010, Dr. Stotsky helped create a new revision of the 2001 A- rated standards. Those standards were never submitted for use in MA, but they were passed onto one of the Fordham ELA reviewers for comment. Sheila Byrd Carmichael had this to say about the 2010 draft Dr. Stotsky worked on.
Overview
The 2010 draft ELA standards have improved upon already clear and rigorous expectations without losing any of the essential content that was included in the original. The organization of the draft standards is clearer, and most of the few gaps that existed have been addressed.
Comparison
Improvements
The organization of the 2010 draft is dramatically improved. Grade-specific standards are now presented for all grades in a single, coherent document. By more clearly delineating grade specific standards, the 2010 draft has also more clearly defined the progression of content and rigor across all strands. While many states slip into repetition across grades, this draft makes meaningful distinctions in every strand from one grade to the next. The 2010 draft also includes several small enhancements that further strengthen Massachusetts’s already excellent expectations. For example, while the 2001 document included standards addressing “discussion and presentation” within the Language strand, the 2010 draft devotes a separate strand to “discussion and presentation.” Within this strand, the state has more clearly and rigorously defined standards for discussion, group work, and oral presentation. Each genre of writing is also now addressed in its own sub-strand, making genre-specific expectations even clearer, more detailed, and rigorous. Finally, the draft standards have addressed the two minor weaknesses that were noted (above) in the 2001 document. They now include expectations that specifically address foundational U.S. documents, and they require students to write a coherent paragraph in third grade.
No Change
All of the strengths that existed in the 2001 document remain, or have been improved and enhanced, in the 2010 update. For example, the standards continue to include helpful examples to clarify the intent and rigor of the standards, as in these from various strands: Identify the sense (touch, hearing, sight, taste, smell, and taste) implied in words appealing to the senses (fiction, grade 1) Analyze the function of character types (e.g., antagonist, protagonist, foil, tragic hero) (fiction, grade 9) Identify the type of evidence used to support a claim in a persuasive text (e.g., scientific research evidence, anecdotal evidence based on personal knowledge, or the discipline based opinion of experts) (nonfiction, grade 5) In addition, the reading, writing, grammar, and research standards remain clear, specific, and rigorous. The one gap that remains in the 2010 draft is the continued absence of exemplar student writing samples that could further clarify writing expectations across grade levels.
The Bottom Line
The 2001 edition of the Massachusetts ELA standards were already among the best in the nation. The 2010 draft manages to further strengthen these standards without losing any of the essential content or clarity. These standards are a model of clear, rigorous K-12 ELA content and expectations.
Dr. Stotsky has taken those excellent 2010 draft standards and made another revision with feedback from ALSCW (Association of Literary Scholars, Critics, and Writers) and has contributed it to the public domain. Any state could adopt these for free and they would have the best standards in the nation. Dr. Stotsky also has a standing offer to come to a state and work with the teachers in that state to create their own standards that would be the best in the nation. To see her 2013 standards, click here.

Recommendations

  1. Adopt California’s math standards since they are clearly better than Common Core and have the strong support of 144 Utah math-field related university professors
  2. Adopt Dr. Stotsky’s free revision of Massachusett’s excellent ELA standards. Nobody else is using them and they are probably the best available. If Utah wants to tweak the ELA standards, Dr. Stotsky has offered for free to come to Utah and sit down and create the strongest ELA standards in the nation with the input of Utah teachers.
Concerns

Dr. Wright Slams USOE Implementation of CC Math

1 Comment

Dr. David Wright, math professor at BYU, just published this op-ed in the Deseret News on concerns about common core math implementation in Utah (leave comments on DNews site) and has given me permission to re-post his article. I share Dr. Wright’s concerns on the implementation of Common Core math standards in Utah and am grateful he has spoken out. This quote is from the American Educational Research Association and contradicts the claims made by the USOE that Common Core was internationally benchmarked.

“International Benchmarking
Wisconsin’s SEC database contains some information on content standards for other countries. In mathematics, there are data for Finland, Japan, and Singapore on eighth-grade standards; alignments to the U.S. Common Core are .21, .17, and .13, respectively. All three of these countries have higher eighth-grade mathematics achievement levels than does the United States. The content differences that lead to these low levels of alignment for cognitive demand are, for all three countries, a much greater emphasis on ‘perform procedures’ than found in the U.S. Common Core standards. For each country, approximately 75% of the content involves ‘perform procedures,’ whereas in the Common Core standards, the percentage for procedures is 38%.”

By going down the integrated math hole, Utah claimed that’s what the high achieving nations are doing. Comparisons don’t support that notion. Common Core is sorely lacking, and the USOE is using it to transform Utah into a total constructivist pedagogy state.

From Dr. Wright:

Utah has a serious math problem, as shown by our performance on the NAEP (the nation’s report card). When broken down by ethnicity, our students perform poorly. Eighth grade white students are in the bottom 27 percent and eighth grade Hispanic students are in the bottom 4 percent.

The new Utah Mathematics Core adopted from the national Common Core, gives us a chance to improve math education in Utah. I favor common math standards, and I think it is possible to implement the Common Core standards in a responsible way. Any new program can be improved. I am offering my suggestions.

Do away with the honors standards developed as a supplement for seventh and eighth grade math. They are not part of the national Common Core. They are vague, poorly written and unnecessary for future courses. The only purpose they serve is to keep students from being accelerated into higher-level math classes.

Do away with the integrated math program that has been rejected by over 90 percent of the states. Integrated math is uncommon. Implement algebra 1, geometry and algebra 2. There is no research evidence that integrated math is better. It keeps motivated students from taking geometry and algebra 2 concurrently. It keeps Utah from using nationally developed math materials.

Find a way to support students who are well-above grade level. The Utah State Office of Education thinks that it will be “rare” for an “especially advanced student to take calculus before the senior year.” Currently it is common for almost half the students who take the AP calculus tests to be in grades 9, 10, or 11. Mathematically gifted students with sufficient motivation appear to be able to learn mathematics much faster than students proceeding through the curriculum at a normal pace, with no harm to their learning, and should be allowed to do so (National Math Panel Report).

Take pedagogy out of the Utah Math Core. The national Common Core does not dictate any particular teaching method. Utah’s Mathematics Common Core implementation is an effort to supplant traditional math with discovery-based pedagogy. Recommendations that instruction should be entirely based on the discovery method are not supported by research.

Stop supporting curricula that focus entirely on discovery teaching like the Mathematics Vision Project. This project is producing materials for teaching Secondary Math 1, 2 and 3 with almost no math content like definitions, theorems, proofs and examples. It will not prepare students for college level courses. The project expects the teacher to orchestrate student discussion and explorations that will eventually solidify into a body of practices that belong to the students. Too bad if the student doesn’t get it some day because there is no way to make sense of the material without a teacher.

Stop making promises that cannot be kept such as, “By the end of 11th grade students will have the quantitative skills they need for post-secondary work and study.” According to the 2012 ACT scores, only 40 percent of Utah students are “math college ready,” a very low standard meaning that they have a 50 percent chance of earning a B or better in college algebra. Students who want to have a science, technology, engineering or mathematics career would have a better chance with an ACT score of 30-36. Only 4 percent of Utah students scored in that range.

The implementation of Utah’s Common Core has been so controversial that the Utah State Republican delegates passed an anti-Common Core resolution by a 65 percent vote. This is certainly a public relations disaster for the State School Board and State Office of Education. Failure to address concerns about the core will further erode support for public education.

——–

David G. Wright is a professor of mathematics at BYU. He is writing as an educator, parent and concerned citizen and his opinions do not necessarily reflect those of BYU.

Concerns

Speech Pathologist speaks out against Common Core

1 Comment

Another teacher speaks out against Common Core. This was Noel’s speech she was unable to fully give at the Capitol event. Bolding below is mine.

***********************

My name is Noel Lee and I speak as a mother, an educator, and a law-abiding, tax-paying, voting citizen of the state of Utah and the United States of America.

As a parent, the Common Core standards so far introduced are mediocre at best and fundamentally lacking at worst. Massachusetts, prior to the CC, had developed excellent Language Arts standards that were researched and practically applied with excellent results. These standards were recommended to the Utah board for adoption, but were ignored in favor of the not-even-written-yet Common Core standards. Common Core de-emphasizes classical literature in the upper grades in favor of technical reading. This is appalling. Critical/analytical thought is developed through the study of classical literature through many periods in history. Jr. High and High School is the prime time developmentally to explore concepts of cause/effect, personal morality, foreshadowing, use of metaphors/similes, etc. for cognitive development. Technical reading requires vocabulary and practical application to be meaningful which is impossible to do in an academic setting, outside of real-life experiences. It is also tedious by disinterested readers and will actually destroy the fun and adventure in reading. Why should we extinguish the very skill that promotes life-long learning?!

The Common Core math standards are atrocious. Homework from my children consist of math worksheets that are far too easy (a whole page of multiplication problems of 1x__ and 0x___). Others contain unfamiliar vocabulary, concepts, and techniques. I was unable to assist in their understanding because I did not know how it was taught to them or applied – there were no explanations. And I have a masters-level education with classes in calculus! These standards discourage parental involvement!

The testing is excessive and personal data to be collected infringes on my and my family’s right to privacy. Race, socio-economic level, gender, religion, political affiliation, SS#, medical information, etc. are not this states’ business and certainly not the federal government’s business in conjunction with education. I have found no outlined provisions protecting me and my family from obtaining this kind of information under the guise of “education.”

As an educator, I am a speech/language pathologist whose job is to support education and the curriculum by remediating speech and language disorders. This past year with the implementation of math and language arts Common Core, the amount of testing has doubled. I had extreme difficulty in getting students for therapy; many were either testing, reviewing for a test, or discussing answers from the test, interfering with quality learning time.

The Common Core was also too hastily implemented. There were not enough manuals for both teachers and students. Computerized testing systems part of implementation of Common core were not ready at the beginning of the school year and required modifications and training throughout the year. Teachers were told at faculty meetings at my two schools at the beginning of the year that implementation of the Common Core was like “learning how to fly an airplane while building it all while it’s in the air.”

The Common Core math standards fail to meet students’ needs at both ends of the learning continuum. Teachers are given a “road map” that tells them what, how, and when to teach via an internet site shown on a white screen. I observed one 3rd grade class complete the math portion of the curriculum halfway through the 2nd semester (not following the “road map”). This left 6 weeks to study/review for district assessments without any new material to learn. What a waste of teaching/learning time! Another 3rd grade class directly across the hall struggled to maintain the pace required to complete the content in time for district assessments. The students had whole portions of the curriculum that were never learned, let alone mastered, due to the required delivery of content. The Common Core math standards failed students in both classrooms.

As a law-abiding, tax-paying, voting citizen I am outraged at how this Common Core of educational standards was adopted for our children. The people using the standards (parents and educators) were not given adequate time or representation to review the standards, studying monetary costs, and researching validity or superiority to standards already in place either in Utah or other states. Also, adopting these standards undermines the very strength of the American system – striving for excellence through competition, rigorous testing for validity, research and development of best-practices, and consumer choice. We are not allowed to choose from the best to achieve the best.

And, what if I want to “opt out” of the standards all-together? Private, chartered, and home schooling will all be required to use the same standards to prepare for SAT, ACT, and other college entrance exams that are aligned to the Common Core. What kind of choice is that?!

If anything, I ask that the implementation of the Common Core standards be suspended until a more rigorous review is made and before more of my money is spent!