Catholic Scholars Denounce Common Core Standards

Dr. Wendy Ghiora – Posting #128 - November 15, 2014
 

I had a close friend as a child growing up in Long Beach, California.  She attended a local Catholic School, St. Anthony’s.  It always seemed like she had much more homework that I did and that she was learning about a lot more subjects.  Later, when I began my teaching career and had school-aged children of my own,  I met parents who had enrolled their children in Catholic Schools.  Many of these parents were not Catholic, but were certain their children would receive a better education in Catholic School than in Public School.  Students who have attended Catholic schools say they were more disciplined and the approach to academics was more regimented. For the most part, students from Catholic schools are still receiving higher scores on performance tests than students in public schools. 

This brings me to the article by Valerie Strauss in The Washington Post, regarding the Common Core Standards.  According to the article, “about 130 Catholic scholars around the country have signed a hard-hitting letter to U.S. Catholic bishops denouncing the Common Core State Standards as doing “a grave disservice to Catholic education” and urging the bishops to ignore the standards or, in the more than 100 dioceses that have already adopted them, to give them up.”

The letter was signed by 132 scholars from various disciplines and institutions.  This well thought-out and compelling letter was sent by Gerard V. Bradley, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, to every Catholic bishop in the country.  “The document blasts the standards, saying they are ‘contrary to tradition and academic studies on reading and human  formation, ‘and accuses Core proponents of seeking to “transform ‘literacy’ into a ‘critical’ skill set, at the expense of sustained and heartfelt encounters with great works of literature.”

“The letter, which calls the Core  a recipe for standardized workforce preparation,” cites criticism of the standards by academics including James Milgram, professor emeritus of mathematics at Stanford University, and Sandra Stotsky, professor emerita of education at the University of Arkansas. They have both testified before various state legislatures against the Core, saying the standards aren’t strong enough to prepare students for college. “

This letter was sent individually to each Catholic bishop in the United States. 132 Catholic professors signed the letter.

The authors of the letter are devoted teachers; many of whom are now professors’ emeriti.  They state the reason for the letter is their devotion to teaching and caring for what children are learning and being prepared to do.

Here is a summary of the main reasons these esteemed educators oppose Common Core:

1.The early rush to adopt Common Core has been displaced by sober second looks, and widespread regrets. Several states have decided to “pause” implementation.

2. Prominent educators and political leaders have declared their opposition..

3.Much of today’s vigorous debate focuses upon particular standards in English and math. Supporters say that Common Core will “raise academic standards.” But we find persuasive the critiques of educational experts (such as James Milgram, professor emeritus of mathematics at Stanford University, and Sandra Stotsky, professor emerita of education at the University of Arkansas) who have studied Common Core, and who judge it to be a step backwards. We endorse their judgment that this “reform” is really a radical shift in emphasis, goals, and expectations for K-12 education, with the result that Common Core-educated children will not be prepared to do authentic college work. Even supporters of Common Core admit that it is geared to prepare children only for community-college-level studies.

4.Every student deserves to be prepared for a life of the imagination, of the spirit, and of a deep appreciation for beauty, goodness, truth, and faith. 

5.The judgments of Stotsky and Milgram (among many others) are supported by a host of particulars. These particulars include when algebra is to be taught, whether advanced mathematics coursework should be taught in high school, the misalignment of writing and reading standards, and whether cursive writing is to be taught.

6.Common Core adopts a bottom-line, pragmatic approach to education. The heart of its philosophy is, as far as we can see, that it is a waste of resources to “over-educate” people. The basic goal of K-12 schools is to provide everyone with a modest skill set; after that, people can specialize in college – if they end up there. Truck-drivers do not need to know Huck Finn. Physicians have no use for the humanities. Only those destined to major in literature need to worry about Ulysses.

7.Perhaps a truck-driver needs no acquaintance with Paradise Lost to do his or her day’s work. But everyone is better off knowing Shakespeare and Euclidean geometry, and everyone is capable of it. Everyone bears the responsibility of growing in wisdom and grace and in deliberating with fellow-citizens about how we should all live together. A sound education helps each of us to do so.

8.The sad facts about Common Core are most visible in its reduction in the study of classic, narrative fiction in favor of “informational texts.” This is a dramatic change. It is contrary to tradition and academic studies on reading and human formation. Proponents of Common Core do not disguise their intention to transform “literacy” into a “critical” skill set, at the expense of sustained and heartfelt encounters with great works of literature.

9.Professor Stotsky was the chief architect of the universally-praised Massachusetts English language arts standards, which contributed greatly to that state’s educational success. She describes Common Core as an incubator of “empty skill sets . . . [that] weaken the basis of literary and cultural knowledge needed for authentic college coursework.” Rather than explore the creativity of man, the great lessons of life, tragedy, love, good and evil, the rich textures of history that underlie great works of fiction, and the tales of self-sacrifice and mercy in the works of the great writers that have shaped our cultural literacy over the centuries, Common Core reduces reading to a servile activity.

10.A rich, classical, traditional education forms men and women capable of discerning and pursuing their path in life and who stand ready to defend truth, their church, their families, and their country.

11.In contrast to such academic rigor, the Common Core standards lack an empirical evidentiary basis and have not been field-tested anywhere. Sadly, over one hundred Catholic dioceses have set aside our teaching tradition in favor of these secular standards.

12.Parents embrace traditional education and long for adherence to it – indeed, for its renaissance. That longing reflects itself in the growing Catholic homeschool and classical-education movements and, now, in the burgeoning desire among Catholic parents for their dioceses to reject the Common Core.

The professors end the letter with the following:

“Because we believe that this moment in history again calls for the intercession of each bishop, we have been made bold to impose upon your time with our judgments of Common Core.”

In my humble opinion, this letter minimally gives us “food for thought.”  What is the real purpose of Common Core? What are its benefits and which students are its beneficiaries? Is it another “panacea” which is merely a guise for teaching to the lowest common denominator? This is a common occurrence that plays out every day in our nation’s classrooms. Students with high aptitude (defined as the ability to learn/reason) and competence (defined as having documented success) are left languishing in classes taught to the lowest common denominator. Parents of children in both public and private schools want their children to be able to achieve and to be all they can be.

As a high school English teacher, I taught what was called “Basic English” to twelfth grade students. The curriculum I was given was comprised of reading material written at about fourth grade reading level, with ideas and themes that were of no interest to my students.  I sneaked into the bookroom and took a class set of Macbeth and several other works that were in the curriculum for the “regular” twelfth grade English classes.  Through scaffolding and other highly motivating techniques, I was able to teach all of the works these “basic” twelfth graders supposedly could not learn.  All I can say is, THEY LOVED IT! All children are capable of learning, if they have proficient and caring teachers. By teaching to the lowest common denominator, which seems to be what Common Core is doing,  we are not only failing those high potential students, but we are also sabotaging our own future as a country.

 

Physical Activity in our Schools

Dr. Wendy Ghiora – Posting#127

October 1, 2014

 

It’s a simple formula; obesity results from energy imbalance: too many calories in, too few calories burned. A number of factors influence how many calories (or how much “energy”) people burn each day, among them, age, body size, and genes. But the most variable factor—and the most easily modified—is the amount of activity people get each day.

Even as practically every state has begun significant school reforms, many American students are being granted little or no exercise time. In its biennial survey of high school students across the nation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in June that nearly half said they had no physical education classes in an average week. That echoed findings by New York City’s comptroller, in October, of inadequate physical education at each of the elementary schools that auditors visited. Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, found just 20 percent of elementary schools in San Francisco’s system were meeting the state’s requirements: 20 minutes per day.

The flip side of this decrease in physical activity is an increase in sedentary activities—watching television, playing video games, and using the computer. Add it up, and it’s clear that globally, the “energy out” side of the energy balance equation is tilting toward weight gain.

Besides its value in fighting obesity, physical education has also been linked in several studies to good academic outcomes. Dr. John J. Ratey, a Harvard professor and author of “Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain” cited a 2010 study on the topic from the federal Health and Human Services Department.

Since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, 44 percent of school administrators have reported cutting significant time from physical education classes and recess to devote more time to reading and mathematics in the classroom, according to the Institute of Medicine, a nonprofit that provides public policy research and recommendations.

These cuts are detrimental to the health of our children. As the research suggests, giving kids more physical activity seems like a no-brainer to help lower the prevalence of obesity rates in elementary school kids, with the percentage of children ages 6 to 11 years old in the United States who were obese to nearly 18 percent in 2010 from 7 percent in 1980.

In addition to the obvious physical benefits, exercise increases oxygen to the brain and therefore can have a positive impact on  a child’s learning.

“There is considerable research showing physical exercise improves the brain development for learning.”  Jack Shonkoff, MD, Center for the Developing Child, Harvard University.

Get involved in your local school. Be proactive for daily physical activity for the health and well-being of our children.

Fantastic First Day Feats

Fantastic First Day Feats

Suggestions for making your first day of school successful and fun!

 

 

Dr. Wendy Ghiora – Posting #126

August 23, 2014

 

It’s that time again. Teachers around the world are about to start another school year.  The excitement is growing and we all have something in common; we want it to be the best year ever for our students!

After going through years of notes and also searching the Internet I came up with a few ideas which can be helpful and I would like to share them with you. Here are a few suggestions for the first day of school.

Start Learning Names Immediately

Many teachers will tell you that learning names quickly will help with discipline. This is certainly true, however;  I believe that rather than assisting in an authoritative way, it more importantly sends the message loudly and clearly that you are interested in your students on a personal level, and that you care.

Have Too Much and Too Many of Everything

Make extra copies, just in case of any prepared handouts. There is really nothing worse than being one or two copies short.  Need name tags or construction paper? Get the extra-large pack (you can use the leftovers for another project). Have a surplus of pens or pencils handy for those kids who have already misplaced or lost theirs.

Icebreakers/Learning Activities

Some teachers prefer to jump right into classroom rules and instruction. They think icebreakers are a waste of good instructional time. Thankfully, most teachers recognize the potential of icebreakers. Icebreakers can help teachers get to know their students. They can reveal who the class leaders might be, what skills and special abilities students possess, and how well students work together.

Teacher Ellen Berg used to rush into instruction on the first day of school. Getting down to business was a good way to get kids focused on learning right from the start. Berg's ideas about the importance of the first days of school have changed, however. "Because cooperative learning skills are essential and necessary for good community, I like to set up high-interest cooperative projects for the first days that allow my kids to practice group skills while allowing me to get a good picture of their strengths and weaknesses," said Berg, who teaches at Turner MEGA Magnet Middle School in St. Louis, Missouri.

One of Berg's favorite activities is a mini-lesson on scale drawing. After the lesson, she challenges students to work in groups to draw scaled-down maps of the school hallway. "The project allows my students to work together in small teams while it helps them learn where their core classes will be," said Berg. "It is exciting to see them with their yardsticks, heads bent together, debating measurements and how to deal with fractions." Lessons such as this one are great icebreakers, and they are great teaching lessons too, Berg added.

Anne Jolly agrees that icebreakers can be easily slanted to accomplish academic goals. Students could compile a class book by having each subject-area teacher focus an opening day icebreaker on the subject, Jolly suggested. "In science, kids might tell about the most catastrophic natural event that ever happened to them and how they felt," explained Jolly. "In language arts, they could tell about their favorite book character and why they like him or her. In history, they could tell about a place they've visited or would like to visit or name a historical figure they admire and tell why. In math, they could tell about a time when a knowledge of math was vital to them; it will probably have to do with money!" The students can keep a record of their responses as they go from class to class, said Jolly, a veteran grade-eight science teacher. Icebreakers are not good activities only for the start of the school year, Jolly added. When she was in the classroom, she found ways to use icebreaker activities throughout the year to reinforce the ideas of community and teamwork.

The Name Continuum

Put a sign that has a large A on it on one wall of the classroom. Put a sign that has a large Z on it on the opposite wall. Then have all participants arrange themselves in alphabetical order between the letters. You might do first name order first, then repeat for family name order. Variations: See whether students can do this without saying a word! You might have them organize themselves in order by birth date, height, or another piece of orderable information.

   Cliff Lightfoot, Nunthorpe Youth Centre, Middlesbrough, Yorkshire, England

Teach Your Best Lesson!

While all the other middle school or high school subject teachers are going over class rules and handing out books, make your class the one students remember at the end of the day! You can do that by teaching your best lesson on the first day of school. Choose a lesson that requires some previous knowledge but is something most students will be successful at. When they leave class on the first day, the kids feel positive about the subject you teach and they are excited about returning to class tomorrow. Add a homework assignment -- one that will excite and motivate them that they'll be eager to complete. Save those class rules, expectations, and syllabus for the second day of school.

   Julie Deppner, Chelsea High School, Chelsea, Michigan 

 I hope these ideas will be helpful to you in your endeavor.  I wish you all an exciting learning adventure with your students this year!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Important Addition to your Curriculum: Cooking

Dr. Wendy Ghiora – Posting #125 – July 1, 2014

 

Without question, academics are important; additionally, a basic skill such as cooking merits consideration when creating a curriculum. It is also fairly easy to integrate cooking with other subjects. Cross-curricular learning comes with the territory in a cooking class. Students learn: science, language, counting, fractions, budgeting, weighing, following directions, sequencing, measuring, problem-solving, sharing, fine motor skills, and reading, just to name a few subjects incorporated within the cooking class.

Children acquire many benefits while learning to cook.  Cooking skills should be learned both at school and at home. Cooking from scratch helps kids develop a mature palate and a taste for fresh, wholesome ingredients. The earlier kids become accustomed to nutritious foods, the less likely they are liable to acquire a taste for processed foods. Kids are much more likely to eat what they make. Cooking creates a sense of ownership. When kids help in the kitchen at home, there are fewer mealtime battles and more willingness to try new foods.

Meals prepared from scratch usually contain more nutrients, fewer calories, chemicals and sweeteners than found in packaged foods and restaurant meals. Cooking together provides a natural way to discuss nutrition and the impact that food choices have on the environment. The more educated children are about food, the more likely they will appreciate your suggestions to eat something healthy.  The earlier children learn how to cook, the sooner they will learn an essential life skill.

Kids thrive on feeling they have accomplished something. Spending time working in a kitchen gives kids confidence. Cooking is an ideal way to boost self-worth and to teach responsibility. There is nothing cuter than watching children proudly serving food they have prepared to others. Preparing meals together means quality time as a family. Cooking with children when they are young offers an opportunity to communicate with them on a regular basis. The time you spend together chatting and cooking in the kitchen becomes even more important as they reach their teenage years.

Students should learn about, develop and demonstrate sanitary and safe work habits. This skill will benefit them in every area of their lives. This would include knowing how to organize a kitchen, wash dishes, sanitize a work space, operate a dishwasher, scrub a pot and even sweep and mop the floor after food preparation.

Learning the names and uses of kitchen equipment should be a part of a student's culinary education. It is helpful to know when to use a sauce pan versus a frying pan. Being able to identify a whisk and spatula is vital. As with all jobs, being familiar with the tools involved is crucial. Teach your students how to use and maintain a food processor, blender, microwave, mixer and other common kitchen appliances.

Another valuable aspect of a cooking class is the chance for your students to use their math and science skills in a practical way. Students will measure, learn to double recipes, and develop menu plans for various size groups. A good kitchen chemistry book will help them understand why certain reactions between foods occur. Why does yeast make bread rise? What causes the fizzling when baking soda and vinegar are mixed? Integrating other subjects with cooking will inspire your students to want to learn more.

Make sure your student learns how to take inventory of the pantry, read a recipe, prepare a menu and a shopping list. A field trip to the grocery store will provide a wonderful lesson in comparison shopping and how to choose the best meats and produce. Knowing how to double or divide a recipe will exercise their math skills and provide a useful life skill.

Most important of all, culinary education is one of the most effective strategies we can use to combat the childhood obesity epidemic. Hands-on activities such as cooking are powerful ways to transmit healthy habits to children. Teaching children basic cooking skills such as knife skills, sautéing, roasting, and how to transform raw ingredients into a tasty, balanced meal means they can feed themselves healthy meals for the rest of their lives.

The more proficient our children are in the kitchen, the less dependent they’ll be on packaged and fast foods. When kids bring home recipes they know how to prepare, they ultimately influence how the entire family approaches food. Learning how to cook from scratch also means that families on a budget can prepare nutritious, inexpensive meals with real, unprocessed fresh ingredients.

 

 

Does High Stakes Testing Improve Learning?

 

Dr. Wendy Ghiora – Post #124 -  June 9, 2014

High stakes testing has been used throughout our great nation for decades.  The results of these tests can bring rewards, but they can also bring gruesome sanctions to schools and teachers.  All this is based on student test scores.  Much of the research at hand indicates, such testing such be looked at more closely and carefully evaluated for what it is really doing.

A recent article in, Issues in Science and Technology, Michael Hout, Stuart Elliott, and Sara Frueh, discusses the efforts by U.S. policymakers to improve K-12 education by offering incentives—either to schools, to teachers, or to students themselves—to increase students’ standardized test scores. The article further states:

“All of these policies share a fundamental principle: They reward or sanction students, teachers, or schools based on how well students score on standardized tests. Policymakers hope that by holding various players in the education system accountable for how much students learn, they will be motivated to improve student performance.”

So, how are these incentives affecting student learning? The National Research Council, using experts in education, economics, and psychology, found:

“The incentive systems that have been carefully studied have had only small effects, and in many cases no effect, on student learning.”

Research has shown that incentives tend to encourage teachers to “teach to the test” by narrowing their focus to the material most likely to appear on the test. As a result, their students’ scores may be artificially inflated because the score reflects their knowledge of only part of the material the students should know about the subject; i.e. the part that is most likely to appear on the test. For example, if teachers move from covering the full range of material in eighth-grade mathematics to focusing only on the portion included on the test, their students’ test scores may rise even as their learning in the untested part of the subject stays the same or even declines.

Jonathan Supovitz, Penn Graduate School of Education, affirms through his research that high-stakes assessments can and do motivate change in teachers’ instruction. But that these changes tend to be superficial adjustments of practice that are often focused on modifications in content coverage and test preparation practices rather than deep improvements to instruction efforts.

Instead of providing a system to make real improvement in teaching and learning, we have created a system that values summative testing as the cure to what ails us. No one wins in this system, not the schools, nor the teachers and especially not the students.

In the article, High-Stakes Testing, Uncertainty, and Student Learning, March 28, 2002, Audrey L. Amrein,  and David C. Berliner of Arizona State University conclude the following in their research on this very topic:

At the present time, there is no compelling evidence from a set of states with high-stakes testing policies that those policies result in transfer to the broader domains of knowledge and skill for which high-stakes test scores must be indicators. Because of this, the high-stakes tests being used today do not, as a general rule, appear valid as indicators of genuine learning, of the types of learning that approach the American ideal of what an educated person knows and can do. Moreover, as predicted by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, data from high-stakes testing programs too often appear distorted and corrupted.

Both the uncertainty associated with high-stakes testing data, and the questionable validity of high-stakes tests as indicators of the domains they are intended to reflect, suggest that this is a failed policy initiative. High-stakes testing policies are not now and may never be policies that will accomplish what they intend. Could the hundreds of millions of dollars and the billions of person hours spent in these programs be used more wisely? Furthermore, if failure in attaining the goals for which the policy was created results in disproportionate negative affects on the life chances of America's poor and minority students, as it appears to do, then a high-stakes testing policy is more than a benign error in political judgment. It is an error in policy that results in structural and institutional mechanisms that discriminate against all of America's poor and many of America's minority students. It is now time to debate high-stakes testing policies more thoroughly and seek to change them if they do not do what was intended and have some unintended negative consequences, as well.

Harold L. Scott, of The University of Nebraska at Omaha, note that through the implementation of No Child Left Behind, every school is trying to motivate students to achieve while addressing the needs of students who struggle (Roderick, 2005).

He found that rather than being taught to think critically, students are more likely to be taught

how to take the test. Mr. Scott further asserts there is no evidence that states that implemented high stakes tests showed improvement in student achievement on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), American College Testing (ACT) or National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (Braun, 2004). Research concluded that states that introduce consequences (high-stakes) to their statewide tests did not show any particular gain in their statewide NAEP scores (Rosenshine, 2003).

Furthermore, Amrein and Berliner (2002) indicated that there is no evidence that high-stakes tests improved student achievement. Their findings showed that student achievement either remained at the same level or went down when compared to results prior to the date when high stakes testing was implemented.

Mr. Scott’s study, also included data from McNeil, 2008, revealing that in the state of Texas, where the standardized, high-stakes testing became the model for the nation’s most comprehensive federal education policy, more than 135,000 youth are lost from the state’s high schools every year. Dropout rates were highest (60%) among African American and Latino students. Results of the study, which included analysis of the accountability policy in high-poverty high schools in a major urban district, showed that the state’s high-stakes accountability system had a direct impact on the severity of the dropout problem.

“Demographic characteristics were related significantly to most achievement outcomes, but high-stakes testing policies demonstrated few relationships with achievement. The Few relationships between high-stakes testing and achievement tended to appear only when demographic data was missing. Based on the negative consequences, high-stakes testing does not improve student learning.” (Marchant, G.J. 2006).

In Chicago, retained students were expected to raise their test scores to the promotional requirements by the end of their second time in the grade. If unsuccessful, these students were referred to special education because without the exemption given for special education status, students would not be able to progress. Thus, special education may have been used as a means of getting struggling students around the mandated testing and reporting policy. (Roderick, 2005).

The extensive research done by these and many other educational experts suggests that high stakes testing is not the solution to improvement in learning.  What it accomplishes is it makes teachers more likely to set up their curriculum to “teach to the test,” rather than teach critical thinking skills and a more comprehensive overview of the subject they are supposed to teach.  Student gains and achievement have not improved due to high stakes testing.  The only increase noted was the dropout rate, especially of minorities in the state of Texas.

I humbly suggest, instead of spending billions of tax dollars on high stakes testing; how about spending half the amount on research-based, proven methods of professional development that works? Money should also be spent on quality leadership training.  A school with outstanding academic achievement is a school with outstanding leadership. The two go hand in hand.

Real, Long-term Rewards

Dr. Wendy Ghiora

May 8, 2014 – Posting #123

 

In, Punished by Rewards, Alfie Kohn’s latest book, the author points out the futility of depending on rewards in order to get production from workers and students alike.

One of the basic strategies used to get children and workers to comply with orders or requests, in simple terms is:  Do this and you'll get that. We dangle goodies (from candy bars to sales commissions) in front of people; in a way akin to training the family pet.

"Do rewards motivate people?" asks Kohn. "Yes. They motivate people to get rewards."

Kohn explains that praise can be used as a reward, if it is done with these specific steps in mind:

1.      Don’t praise people, only what people do.

For example, instead of saying, “You are so smart,” or “You are so talented,” say “I can tell you worked really hard on this assignment.”

2.      Make praise as specific as possible.

Focus on the specific parts of the assignment that the student performed well.

3.      Avoid phony praise.

Students and workers can tell the difference between genuine praise and phony praise, and they react accordingly.

4.      Avoid praise that sets up a competition.

Comparing students or workers to each other or talking about the “best in the class,” creates a situation that few students want to enter.  If only one student can be the best in the class, everyone else loses.

The best reward or motivation is the intrinsic kind.  We can promote intrinsic motivation in the classroom and the workplace by encouraging autonomy and setting up structured situations where students and workers can show us their competence and individual skills.  Giving them meaningful choices, designed around subjects you have found to be interesting and important to them individually, will lead to intrinsic motivation.  Intrinsic motivation definitely trumps external motivation, as this is the key to creating life-long learners.  Seeing the first green sprouts from a seed you have planted; or witnessing the joy of all the pieces of the puzzle coming together is truly a reward with no equal. 

You’ve got to “Walk the Walk!”

Dr. Wendy Ghiora

March 17, 2014 – Posting #122

How many times have you been around people who complain about some injustice or something going on they just don’t think is right? Of these “constant complainers,” how many of them actually take the initiative to do something about their grievance?

It’s pretty evident that complaining, in and of itself is a way to vent and let a few people within earshot hear you; however, that’s not the way to initiate change. Of course, for those who just love to hear themselves rant, I suppose whining will suffice.

I believe if one has a credible complaint; instead of squawking, “walk the walk,” and do something about it. Here’s an experience I had a couple weeks ago.

I attended a high school basketball game with my husband.  At half time there was a special ceremony honoring the seniors (12^th grade) members of the school Dance Team. Then, the dance team performed a couple numbers.  Dance, was one of the subjects I taught at several high schools. I also taught English and Theatre Arts.  I was very excited to see the team perform.  The parents of one of the dancers were sitting next to me.  As the music began, my ears perked up and I thought to myself,

“No, they couldn’t be using those lyrics. Really?” 

I quickly Googled the song, and sure enough, it was even worse than I thought.  In case you think I’m exaggerating, the song was Partition/Beyonce’.

I asked the Mom next to me if she had heard the lyrics to this song before.  She said she hadn’t, and added,

“Why, are they bad?” I showed her & her husband the lyrics and they both said,

“Oh my God!”  

 But did they do anything about it? No. Did I do anything about it? You betcha!

The next day, I emailed the principal. I included an attachment with the song lyrics.  I basically said,

“I attended the basketball game last night.  When the senior dance team began to perform, I was shocked by the lyrics of the music they used. I’m pretty sure using X-rated lyrics is not permitted at any school function. Can you please check into this?”

The principal answered very promptly and forwarded my email to the Athletic Director.  After speaking with the dance coach, he said she apologized profusely and was very embarrassed. She said she usually checks all the music, but missed this one.  She also said it was a good lesson for her and that she would use it in an upcoming conference, where she would be training dance coaches from several schools.

It is so difficult to understand the lyrics of current songs; the teacher must go on the Internet and read them for him or herself before giving a stamp of approval for use.  I felt good about this. I know I felt better than if all I had done was kvetched.

As Benjamin Franklin once said, “Well done is better than well said.” 

What you Should Know About the Common Core Curriculum

Dr. Wendy Ghiora-Posting #121-February 8, 2014

 

1.       Common Core is an educational curriculum being forced upon the states by the Obama administration, which is scheduled to be mostly implemented this year in the 46 states that have adopted it.

2.       Common Core eliminates local control over K-12 curriculum in math and English, instead imposing a one-size-fits-all, top-down curriculum that will also apply to private schools and homeschoolers.

3.       The American Principles Project released an analysis last year of Common Core, exposing the duplicitous language. Common Core describes itself as "internationally benchmarked," "robust," "aligned with college and work expectations," "rigorous," and "evidence-based." None of this is true.

4.       Diane Ravitch, a former assistant U.S. secretary of education who was appointed to office by both Clinton and George H.W. Bush, recently changed her mind about Common Core. Ravitch now refutes claims by Obama and Common Core that the standards were created by the states and voluntarily adopted by them. She writes in The Washington Post, "They were developed by an organization called Achieve and the National Governors Association, both of which were generously funded by the Gates Foundation. There was minimal public engagement in the development of the Common Core. Their creation was neither grassroots nor did it emanate from the states." Instead, Common Core is being driven by policymakers in D.C.

5.       There is no evidence that the curriculum works, and it will destroy innovation amongst the states. Ravitch writes, "We are a nation of guinea pigs, almost all trying an unknown new program at the same time...Would the Federal Drug Administration approve the use of a drug with no trials, no concern for possible harm or unintended consequences?" Jane Robbins, a senior fellow for the American Principles Project, writes, "Common Core has never been piloted. How can anyone say it is good for kids when it's not in place anywhere?" In fact, the results are coming in and they are the opposite. A principal in the Midwest told Ravitch that "his school piloted the Common Core assessments and the failure rate rocketed upwards, especially among the students with the highest needs."

6.       Many of the creators of the Common Core standards have now taken jobs with testing companies which stand to make millions of dollars developing tests based on the standards they created.

7.       If a state or local school district is making great advances lately in English and math, why change a good thing? States and localities should be allowed to innovate and figure out what works best for their students. When Florida adopted the most favorable climate for charter schools in the country, allowing for innovation from school to school, student test scores increased dramatically. Education policy expert Matthew Ladner, who studied the effects of the legislation in Florida for the Goldwater Institute, concluded, "In 1999, when these reforms were enacted, nearly half of Florida fourth-graders scored 'below basic' on the NAEP reading test, meaning that they could not read at a basic level. But by 2007, less than a decade after the education reforms took effect, 70 percent of Florida's fourth-graders scored basic or above. Florida's Hispanic students now have the second-highest statewide reading scores in the nation, and African-Americans score fourth-highest, when compared with their peers."

8.       Six states have dropped out or are considering dropping out of Common Core. Nebraska has dropped out, and is conducting a study to compare its own educational standards to Common Core's. Common Core amasses large amounts of personal information about students. Michelle Malkin cites research by Joy Pullmann of the Heartland Institute, who discovered a report by the Department of Education revealing that Common Core's data mining includes "using cameras to judge facial expressions, an electronic seat that judges posture, a pressure-sensitive computer mouse and a biometric wrap on kids' wrists."

9.       The Kansas House Committee is currently considering a bill to withdraw. Last week, the Oklahoma House passed House Bill 1989, which would prohibit the sharing of minors' school records without parental consent. Michelle Malkin notes that you can download a Common Core opt-out form to submit to your school district, courtesy of the group Truth in American Education.

Here are my specific questions and answers:

1.       Are the “Common Core Standards” different from any previous educational reform movement?

My answer,  “Of course not.”  Just Google “Educational Reform,” in any previous decade and you will find the exact same “ideas” and rhetoric as we have with Common Core Standards.

2.       Why is this being done?

My answer, “Follow the money trail. That usually gets to the source.” (Number 6 above, is only scratching the service of who will be raking in the money on this one).

3.       As a parent, should I get an “opt-out form,” as recommended in #7?

My answer, “If I had a child in public school right now, I definitely would.”

4.       If I don’t like the Common Core Standards Policy, is there anything I can do about it?

My answer, “Read about it. Educate yourself by reading both sides of the issue.  If you still think it is an absurdly gargantuan waste of time and your tax dollars, write to your State Department of Education. Let the State Superintendent of Education know that you do not want your child subjected to the Common Core Curriculum.