A real Common Core assessment problem – Indoctrinating

A Utah parent posted this on his Facebook page. This is from a Common Core assessment.

*****

PARENTS please read this. My 3rd grade little girl was out sick for one week. Her teacher asked if she could complete a test online. Here is an example of a comprehension story with questions. THIS IS PURE BRAINWASHING. I am a capitalist and find the below completely inappropriate. What education value does the below have. I look forward to your comments. WARNING YOU MIGHT NEED SOME DUCT TAPE!

“Money Means Worries”

A rich merchant named Chen had all the money he needed. He lived in perfect comfort. His food was rich, his bed was soft, and his clothing was beautiful.

A poor potter named Li lived next door. He did not have much money. He ate simple food, he slept on the floor, and he wore old, plain clothes. His only treasure was a golden canary that lived in a wooden cage.

The merchant worked day and night. He hunched over his account books, adding and subtracting. He yelled at his clerks and made them work as hard as he did. He rarely stopped work to eat a real meal. He ate at his desk and hardly noticed the delicious food. Late at night, the tired man went to bed, but he was unable to sleep. Thinking about money, he tossed and turned in his soft bed.

His neighbor spent the day making pots from clay. At the end of the day, Li sat in his garden and enjoyed a simple supper. Then he brought his canary outside. Li played his flute while the canary sand. At night, Li slept soundly on his floor.

For years, the music from the garden had disturbed the merchant. It made him angry. One sleepless night, he came up with a plan to make the music stop.

The next afternoon, he visited his neighbor. He held out a sack of gold coins and gave it to Li. Chen said, “You have been a good neighbor for many years. Here is a gift for you.”

Li thanked Chen. Then he sat in his garden, thinking about the money. Should he hide it? Should he spend it? The poor canary cried for its owner, but Li was lost in his thoughts. He forgot about his supper. He forgot about his flute. He thought all night long.

Chen grinned happily at the success of his plan. He knew that having money would destroy Li’s simple pleasures.

Le made no pots the next day. He did not eat or play the flute. He just worried about the money all day. He worried throughout the long, sleepless night.

The next morning, his canary took pity on him. “Money means worries,” she sang. “Give it back. Give it back.”

Li heard the canary’s song. He remembered how happy he had been before the money arrived. He picked up the bag of coins and went next door.

WHY WAS CHEN ANGRY?
A. His clerks were cheating him
B. Li’s happiness disturbed him
C. His neighbors were richer than he was
D. Li made beautiful pots while he only made money

WHAT LESSON DID LI LEARN IN THIS STORY?
A. Nature is beautiful
B. People should save their money
C. Money does not buy happiness
D. It is important to be a good neighbor

WHAT WOULD BE ANOTHER GOOD TITLE FOR THIS STORY?
A. “The Magic Canary”
B. “A Mean Neighbor”
C. “Rich with Happiness”
D. “Music and Money”

Which meaning of the homonym plain is used in the following sentence?
He wore old, plain clothes.
A. Flat
B. Pure
C. Clear
D. Simple

Li sat in his garden and enjoyed a simple supper.
Which word has the same middle sound as the pp in supper?
A. Open
B. Nap
C. Rabbit
D. Pilot

 

Common Core Assessment Myths and Realities: Moratorium Needed

The website Fairtest.org has released some Myth/Reality facts related to Common Core assessments. Utah withdrew from SBAC in 2012, only to have the USOE (Utah State Office of Education) contract with AIR, SBAC’s official assessment partner, in January 2013 for $39 million. This webpage lists all the Myth/Reality facts with details below them. I’ve put a couple below, but please visit their site for the rest of the details.

http://www.fairtest.org/common-core-assessments-factsheet

Under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), each state set its own learning standards and developed tests to measure them. But NCLB’s failure to spur overall test score gains or close racial gaps led “reformers” to push for national, or “common,” standards. With millions in federal Race to the Top money and NCLB “waivers” as incentives, all but a few states agreed to adopt Common Core standards. Two multi-state consortia — the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) — won federal grants to develop Common Core tests, which are due to be rolled out in 2014-15. Here are the realities behind major Common Core myths.  

Myth: Common Core tests will be much better than current exams, with many items measuring higher-order skills.
Reality: New tests will largely consist of the same old, multiple-choice questions.

Proponents initially hyped new assessments that they said would measure – and help teachers promote – critical thinking. In fact, the exams will remain predominantly multiple choice. Heavy reliance on such items continues to promote rote teaching and learning. Assessments will generally include just one session of short performance tasks per subject. Some short-answer and “essay” questions will appear, just as on many current state tests. Common Core math items are often simple computation tasks buried in complex and sometimes confusing “word problems” (PARCC, 2012; SBAC, 2012). The prominent Gordon Commission of measurement and education experts concluded Common Core tests are currently “far from what is ultimately needed for either accountability or classroom instructional improvement purposes” (Gordon Commission, 2013).

Myth: Adoption of Common Core exams will end NCLB testing overkill.
Reality: Under Common Core, there will be many more tests and the same misuses.
NCLB triggered a testing tsunami (Guisbond, et al., 2012); the Common Core will flood classrooms with even more tests. Both consortia keep mandatory annual English/language arts (ELA) and math testing in grades 3-8 and once in high school, as with NCLB. However, the tests will be longer than current state exams. PARCC will test reading and math in three high school grades instead of one; SBAC moves reading and math tests from 10th grade to 11th. In PARCC states, high schoolers will also take a speaking and listening test. PARCC also offers “formative” tests for kindergarten through second grade. Both consortia produce and encourage additional interim testing two to three times a year (PARCC, 2012; SBAC, 2012). As with NCLB, Common Core tests will be used improperly to make high-stakes decisions, including high school graduation (Gewertz, 2012), teacher evaluation, and school accountability.

Myth: New multi-state assessments will save taxpayers money.
Reality: Test costs will increase for most states. Schools will spend even more for computer infrastructure upgrades.

Myth: New assessment consortia will replace error-prone test manufacturers.
Reality: The same, incompetent, profit-driven companies will make new exams and prep materials.

Myth: More rigor means more, or better, learning.
Reality: Harder tests do not make kids smarter.

In New York, teachers witnessed students brought to tears (Hernandez & Baker, 2013), faced with confusing instructions and unfamiliar material on Common Core tests. New York tests gave fifth graders questions written at an 8th grade level (Ravitch, 2013). New York and Kentucky showed dramatic drops in proficiency and wider achievement gaps. Poor results hammer students’ self-confidence and disengage them from learning. They also bolster misperceptions about public school failure, place urban schools in the cross hairs and lend ammunition to privatization schemes. If a child struggles to clear the high bar at five feet, she will not become a “world class” jumper because someone raised the bar to six feet and yelled “jump higher,” or if her “poor” performance is used to punish her coach.

Myth: Common Core assessments are designed to meet the needs of all students.
Reality: The new tests put students with disabilities and English language learners at risk.

Myth: Common Core “proficiency” is an objective measure of college- and career-readiness.
Reality: Proficiency levels on Common Core tests are subjective, like all performance levels.

Myth: States have to implement the Common Core assessments; they have no other choice.
Reality: Yes they do. Activists should call for an indefinite moratorium on Common Core tests to allow time for implementation of truly better assessments.

Lowering the Bar: Pioneer Institute Whitepaper

Pioneer Institute has released a new White Paper by R. James Milgram and Sandra Stotsky entitled “Lowering the Bar: How Common Core Math Fails to Prepare High School Students for STEM.” The purpose of this paper is to explain what the level of college readiness in Common Core’s mathematics standards is and what this level means for the high school mathematics and science curriculum, post-secondary education, and mathematics-dependent professional programs.

Among the topics covered is an extensive expose on Jason Zimba’s (one of the 3 math standards authors) statements regarding his definition and explanation of college and career readiness from 2010 when the standards were released, to what he now says he meant back then. Members of our State Board of Education are under the impression that Jason’s 2013 statements are accurate representations of what he meant back in 2010, but looking at the full text of what he said back then, it’s totally clear what he was talking about.

You can download the white paper here:

http://pioneerinstitute.org/download/lowering-the-bar-how-common-core-math-fails-to-prepare-high-school-students-for-stem/

Here’s a snippet:

To verify the accuracy of the official minutes
of the March 2010 meeting, the authors of
this paper obtained a copy of the official
recording of the meeting. Its sound quality
is excellent. Zimba’s exact comment in his
initial presentation was: “We have agreement
to the extent that it’s a fuzzy definition, that
the minimally college-ready student is a
student who passed Algebra II.”

Stotsky (a member of the state board at the
time) later asked him to clarify what he meant.
Zimba stated: “In my original remarks, I
didn’t make that point strongly enough or
signal the agreement that we have on this—
the definition of college readiness. I think it’s
a fair critique that it’s a minimal definition of
college readiness.”

Stotsky remarked at this point “for some
colleges,” and Zimba responded by stating:
“Well, for the colleges most kids go to, but
not for the colleges most parents aspire to.”
Stotsky then asked “Not for STEM? Not
for international competitiveness?” Zimba
responded “Not only not for STEM, it’s also
not for selective colleges. For example, for
UC Berkeley, whether you are going to be an
engineer or not, you’d better have precalculus
to get into UC Berkeley.”

Stotsky then said: “Right, but we have to
think of the engineering colleges and the
scientific pathway.”

Zimba added “That’s true, I think the third
pathway [a pathway that does not exist in
the final version. See Section V for further
discussion] goes a lot towards that. But your
issue is broader than that.”8

Stotsky agreed saying “I’m not just thinking
about selective colleges. There’s a much
broader question here. Zimba then added
“That’s right. It’s both, I think, in the sense of
being clear about what this college readiness
does and doesn’t get you, and that’s the big
subject.”

Stotsky then summarized her objections
to this minimalist definition by explaining
that a set of standards labeled as making
students college-ready when the readiness
level applies only to a certain type of college
and to a low level of mathematical expertise
wouldn’t command much international
respect in areas like technology, economics,
and business. Zimba appeared to agree as he
then said “OK. Thank you.”