http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/20/seattle_teachers_students_win_historic_victory
http://scrapthemap.wordpress.com/
The term "High-Stakes" testing comes up in this video wherein the MAP testing requirement for some Seattle schools is no longer mandated. Some other method of assessing the student's performance is required, but this need not be the MAP testing. In this video, they do provide some explanation why the MAP testing isn't seen as a good thing. Of course, I don't imagine students like standardized testing, but their reasoning seems to go farther than this.
It seems well-reasoned. It would be nice if the money spent on testing could be spent on education. Some parts of the argument do not resonate so well with me. Unlike some opponents, the teachers are suggesting an alternative assessment.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Yong and Common Core
Five Questions to Ask about the Common Core.
Yong Zhao seems better educated and reasoned than other attempts at opposing Common Core. It would be foolish for me to lightly dismiss his experience and knowledge. I can, however, state with some confidence a few things.
He seems to favor individuality, and I can agree with that. America should be about diversity. Diversity of perspectives and opinions working together. There should be a respect for liberty and an individualized approach. Not all children learn the same or can be taught via the same toolset. I would assume there are many educators out there superior than I who can discuss this.
He does not make this a political attack against Obama. Or, at least, he conceals this which is refreshing at least. Some people, particularly Conservative Republicans, will oppose anything Obama promotes. Not because it's bad; they oppose everything blindly. This is exceedingly unwise. It builds a partisan attitude which does not respect a diversity of perspectives. Conservative Republicans seem disadvantaged when it comes to addressing evidence and employing reason. They engage, excessively, in highly motivated reasoning. They begin with an agenda; they work to that agenda while ignoring, deflecting, distracting, or distorting all available evidence to that end. They are blind; they have eyes but will not see. They are deaf; they have ears but will not hear.
Obama is not a saint; nor is he a devil. He is a popularly elected second-term President of the United States. The will of the people have spoken and they asked for him to lead. The Republican approach is inherently disloyal to the political process of America. Their own vested interest should, in their eyes, be imposed on others. This, I fear, is the tyranny which they seem to fear but cannot recognize in themselves. They cannot see it, perhaps, because people can be terrible at seeing through their own delusions.
Common Core may not be a good thing. If, however, it works for weal or brings about woe, this should be assessed on the merits of Common Core as opposed to knee jerk opposition. The American education system needs improvement and reform. The question needs to be asked, does Common Core offer any advantage over the existing, fractured system.
People greatly value their autonomy. The imposition of a set of standards can seem intimidating. The lack of autonomy hinders a person's ability to freely respond to their circumstances. This is also seen in nature as individuals of any given species all possess some slight affinity for variation. Some variations are superior to others and, in the event of unforeseen circumstances, these variations can have surprising benefits. For example, an animal may vary in a way that generates feathers and these may slowly transition into the gift of flight. The advantage of flight could not have been understood or expected from the first evolution of feathers. So, too, it may be that the variation in the approach to the educational system can lead to variations in outcomes which, although difficult to foresee, can lead to variations which are well suited to exploit some heretofore unforeseen circumstance.
We do not want to become cookie-cutter clones of each other. Diversity is good. The problem here lies in the tendency for Conservatives to not value diversity. The people promoting the Common Core educational reforms are more Liberal. We should expect to be able to reach such people with an appeal to maintain diversity within our education system. The contrary cannot be expected for the Conservative agenda. Therefore, while it seems this is something to keep an eye on, we would needs be more fearful if the transformation were being spearheaded by Conservative groups.
Yong also seems to want to transition what he sees as a left-side of the brain intensive education into a more right-side manner. Here, I must admit to having read somewhere in the past that this whole turn of phrase.. right-side vs. left-side is overused and inaccurate. It is possible, however, to understand the gist of what Yong advocates. He wants a more creative education. The question would be, can you educate creativity? If so, how do you do it?
He is arguing, as it were, in a vacuum. Let me explain that. Our existing education system is left-sided, not right-sided. No Child Left Behind is the existing system. Yong does not state that No Child Left Behind is better than Common Core at educating towards a creative intelligence. To oppose Common Core on these grounds, one would have to show the existing system in some credible way superior to the proposed changes. He has not done so.
Uniformity, while something we fear being enforced upon us, is also something we greatly prize. Widgets are made all exactly the same. Assembly lines intend to create exactly duplicate goods. We understand that uniformity and organization brings efficiency. We can see, through the evolution of businesses within our economy, what systems produce goods and services of reproducible quality and, thus succeed. Chaotic, fractured, inconstant, business models do not seem to be highly successful. In order to oppose uniformity in the education system, one would need some credible reason to believe that education operates differently than any other process in our economy.
And, as far as I can see, it does not. To do my job, for example, you have to pass a test by the Nuclear Medicine Technology Certification board and engage in Continuing Education on a two-year cycle. If you want to complain about teaching to the test, it might be prudent to realize that some jobs revolve around being able, specifically, to pass a test. Doctors, like my employer, must also routinely take and pass tests in order to continue practicing. Lawyers must pass the Bar examination. How can you change the education system without changing the workforce requirements?
Yong may be very right about profit in finding some way of educating young minds to be more creative and flexible. But, as there is no plan on the table for accomplishing that, it doesn't make sense to criticize Common Core education reforms. For many occupations, we much teach to the test anyway. Creative intelligence is difficult to test, assess, measure, quantify, etc...
Response to Marc Tucker
I got to understand and know Yong Zhao a little better form his response to Marc Tucker. The response seems to me to have very understandable and expected errors of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. I am, of course, always more comfortable talking to educated people because even if they have such biases, they have a more organized style of thought and it does remain, occasionally, possible to have a conversation.
It is hard to not have an agenda; a challenge to identify our biases and work to minimize them. Yong Zhao's background, coming from China, seems to have set him against a test-heavy mentality and State directed education. He has some good points about education becoming obsolete with a change in culture. We cannot expect Yong Zhao to lightly change his opposition to the Chinese style of education.
I can see his perspective. However, there is also a clear and defensible perspective in this video that he simply remains incapable of seeing. A great measure of intelligence and a healthy store of education does not necessarily help one critically and skeptically address their own biases.
There are many things in the video which will not resonate with Yong, but will resonate strongly with others. Consistency and fairness. The idea that the same student in different cities would be receiving a different education. We would like to know that a Grade Point Average of 3.8 in Seattle meant the same thing as one from a school in Chicago. When these kids go to college, their respective GPAs might be put in competition against each other as if they were equal. There is a measure of apparent unfairness in such a system. Yong, although undoubtedly more educated and intelligent than I, simply cannot see this point.
However, we cannot expect a Knife to serve the same function as a Hammer nor a Bolt to serve where a Nail works better. Instead of trying to tear down a great mind with significant education, allow me to try to see where he is seeing clearly and where he has something worth considering. That is, let me see the strengths of his position instead of merely seeking to immediately reject his position. Let me avoid or resist the temptation towards motivated reasoning.
We have an example of a system from Yong's experience and perspective which was in place in China. He tells us of the problems he saw with such an enforced set of standards. The phrase used is "high-stakes testing." Education is high stakes for the children. I have seen teachers who are dispassionate and merely hand out pamphlets. See also: Jeff Bliss (viral video), "there are kids in here that don't learn like that." Some stakes for teachers seem like a good idea.
As a part of the education system, we would expect people from Yong's perspective to take the side of the teacher's union. Now, I expect Unions strive to protect the jobs of their members. As such, it would be reasonable for a Union to wish to avoid or defeat any imposition of a standard that holds teachers accountable. However, there are teachers who have achieved tenure that need a little shaking up.
As the times change, we would expect the standards to change as well. Given the power of tradition and the reluctance to change, we would expect periodic pushes being necessary to update those standards for the same reasons they were originally attempted. Establishing standards has been happening in the education system and will continue. Common Core doesn't change that. Common Core is merely the latest attempt at defining and establishing standards which may need to shift to keep pace with shifting times.
I cannot validate Tucker's claim that it is "now more important than ever," but I can suppose that every time someone has advocated for education reform and the establishment of standards that they have probably believed that it was "now more important than ever." Conversely, while portraying a continued effort at establishing standards, Zhao doesn't seem to establish a reason for believing it is not, in fact, "now more important than ever." Of course, it is hard to prove a negative.. as I recall hearing. Zhao does not believe there is anything particularly important about establishing standards. Or, at least he says he doesn't.
Elsewhere, Zhao has mentioned a changing workforce and, specifically, suggested a need to move away from a testing-heavy education system (left brained) to a more creative education (right-brained). He seems to have assessed the world as reaching a particular place of change where it is difficult to fathom what skills might be needed in the coming years to succeed. He has said that globalization has brought vast changes.. which, stated another way, would seem to support the perception that “it is now more important than ever to figure out what all young people need to know and be able to do.”
In other words, he rejects a sentiment by Tucker because it supports Common Core but in another place has used a very similar argument to oppose Common Core. This is one of the ways to identify a particular strain of motivated reasoning.
Zhao says, "The Common Core initiative seems to suggest that either there are no standards in America or the existing standards are not good enough." Now this seems fairly well defensible, if one takes the or into consideration. Clearly there are standards, so the full statement is a waste of time. So, removing the useless bit, we get: 'The Common Core initiative seems to suggest that the existing standards are not good enough." This is immanently logical. As the world changes, existing standards will no longer be good enough. Standards much change with a changing world.
But, is there any evidence that Common Core is better than previous ones? Zhao would like to know, but he forgets to turn the question around. Is there any evidence that the existing ones are better than Common Core? Clearly, in some states of our Union, there is reason to believe quite the opposite. For example, in any state who's local standards support teaching Intelligent Design as a "theory" on an even footing with the Theory of Evolution.
Creationism is religion. Evolution, even if it were wrong, is Science. A State's local standards that can possibly confuse the two is 1) a violation of the separation of Church and State in my opinion and 2) evidence that the standards in place are not good enough. There is no marketable value in teaching children Intelligent Design or muddying their understanding of Science and the Scientific Method in this way. Do not misunderstand me, you can teach your children any religion you like. Just don't pretend it is science. We must needs teach our children to identify and reject motivated reasoning, and trying to validate Intelligent Design accomplishes the opposite. There are no marketable jobs to be found from an understanding of Intelligent Design. Truth is not a matter of opinion.
I don't expect Zhao to read my little blog. I don't really expect anyone to read it. However, even if he did, I don't expect I'd be able to change his mind about anything. Even so, I would hope that he would agree with me that some autonomy to set standards at the State level aren't exactly helpful and that States pressing to put ID on the same footing as Evolution are no less tyrannical than the education system in China from which he fled. I would imaging this would very much look like forcing propaganda down the throats of the young and impressionable. I have done a little reading on Mao. I would really be surprised if Zhao can't see the comparison.
Zhao includes an anecdote to support his views, without realizing that the same argument can be turned around against them.
Aristotle believed that virtues were the means between two extremes. To endorse an excessive Federal control of education might lead to inflexibility which is damaging. And yet, to endorse too little oversight allows for a different set of abuses. The debate shouldn't be between "Common Core is a panacea" and "Common Core is evil." There should be a way to find a balance of concerns, I think.
Zhao asks if truly creative people are passionate about what they are interested in or about what the State feels they should know. And here, he has a solid point. It is far easier to work with the interests and proclivities of the student. By easier, I also mean more effective. I believe that P. T. Barnum wrote about this in his book, The Art of Money Getting.
Clearly, Zhao has a defensible point in asserting that education must address the strengths and interests of the child in question. He questions whether Common Core can accomplish this. In that, he has what seems to me a defensible argument, especially when one considers his anecdote and experiences with education in China.
And yet, I have also read "The Advance of Science in the Last Half-Century" by Thomas Henry Huxley. And in that book, Huxley explains that the greats like Newton studied science from a pure perspective without paying attention to what advances may come from it. While those who studied electricity did so from curiosity, this information drastically changed the world. Without pure scientific research, great advances cannot easily happen.
Zhao might think this supports his point, which it does to a good extent. Newton explored science because he thirsted for knowledge. Contrariwise, this also supports Tucker in a manner. You cannot know where a child's proclivity may lie. So, if you teach him a broad spectrum of knowledge, it may well be that one bit or another ignites a spark within him. When he goes on to higher education, like College, he may be better able to capitalize on this and individualize his education. Alternatively, once that spark is ignited within him (or her) she may be inspired to study independently and achieve much despite being unable to afford a traditional college education.
My stipulation here is that a student may sometimes need a certain broad exposure to knowledge and education in order to find where their interests lie. A reasonable set of standards can try to establish a broad base of information upon which the student can build what they will. Providing a standard base to children all across American can help ensure that every citizen starts with this broad base of knowledge and can use it as a personal resource. Spark needs tender to ignite. Making sure everyone is provided with a similar store of tender seems just.
Everyone is free to do extra learning on their own.
Zhao continues to point out the expected emphasis on testing. He mentions some evidence of dishonesty and cheating on standardized testing. I am fully prepared to accept the probability of this being true. I believe that excessive testing wearies our students and takes from them any love they may have for learning. Accepting Common Core does not make inevitable an excessive level of testing and, I fear, No Child Left Behind has already created such a system. You'd have to explain how Common Core is worse than the existing testing. You can't just purport that it will be worse, you need a reason for believing this.
The end of the article seems to devolve into both sides asserting that one thing or another "simply is not true."
Zhao, on the contrary, asserts something which cannot be supported as "simply not true." Common Core could do a better job of preparing children for the future than the existing system. As standards must adapt and change with the time in order to be relevant (see Zhao's own record of continuing efforts to upgrade the standards with time) it seems clear that failure to update the standards will eventually cause those standards to become outdated.
He further closes with a style that seems very familiar. He insults. "Common Core Standards are idiots." There is no more reason to accept such a bold assertion coming from Gene Glass, whom Zhao respects than from Zhao himself. As such, it is base name-calling and I would have thought beneath Zhao's education. We need reasons to believe Common Core is bad.. not just fears that it is bad and comparisons to a system put in place by Communists in another country.
So, with respect for Yong Zhao's education, his articles seem full of suspicion, fear of tyranny, and concerns over things that might happen without anything concrete better to offer. He is better educated and better reasoned than other opponents to Common Core, but at the root his opposition is very similar to theirs. Knee jerk reaction against change and government involvement. I can understand why he might have such a response, but it doesn't mean that his background should determine American educational policy.
Yong Zhao seems better educated and reasoned than other attempts at opposing Common Core. It would be foolish for me to lightly dismiss his experience and knowledge. I can, however, state with some confidence a few things.
He seems to favor individuality, and I can agree with that. America should be about diversity. Diversity of perspectives and opinions working together. There should be a respect for liberty and an individualized approach. Not all children learn the same or can be taught via the same toolset. I would assume there are many educators out there superior than I who can discuss this.
He does not make this a political attack against Obama. Or, at least, he conceals this which is refreshing at least. Some people, particularly Conservative Republicans, will oppose anything Obama promotes. Not because it's bad; they oppose everything blindly. This is exceedingly unwise. It builds a partisan attitude which does not respect a diversity of perspectives. Conservative Republicans seem disadvantaged when it comes to addressing evidence and employing reason. They engage, excessively, in highly motivated reasoning. They begin with an agenda; they work to that agenda while ignoring, deflecting, distracting, or distorting all available evidence to that end. They are blind; they have eyes but will not see. They are deaf; they have ears but will not hear.
Obama is not a saint; nor is he a devil. He is a popularly elected second-term President of the United States. The will of the people have spoken and they asked for him to lead. The Republican approach is inherently disloyal to the political process of America. Their own vested interest should, in their eyes, be imposed on others. This, I fear, is the tyranny which they seem to fear but cannot recognize in themselves. They cannot see it, perhaps, because people can be terrible at seeing through their own delusions.
Common Core may not be a good thing. If, however, it works for weal or brings about woe, this should be assessed on the merits of Common Core as opposed to knee jerk opposition. The American education system needs improvement and reform. The question needs to be asked, does Common Core offer any advantage over the existing, fractured system.
People greatly value their autonomy. The imposition of a set of standards can seem intimidating. The lack of autonomy hinders a person's ability to freely respond to their circumstances. This is also seen in nature as individuals of any given species all possess some slight affinity for variation. Some variations are superior to others and, in the event of unforeseen circumstances, these variations can have surprising benefits. For example, an animal may vary in a way that generates feathers and these may slowly transition into the gift of flight. The advantage of flight could not have been understood or expected from the first evolution of feathers. So, too, it may be that the variation in the approach to the educational system can lead to variations in outcomes which, although difficult to foresee, can lead to variations which are well suited to exploit some heretofore unforeseen circumstance.
We do not want to become cookie-cutter clones of each other. Diversity is good. The problem here lies in the tendency for Conservatives to not value diversity. The people promoting the Common Core educational reforms are more Liberal. We should expect to be able to reach such people with an appeal to maintain diversity within our education system. The contrary cannot be expected for the Conservative agenda. Therefore, while it seems this is something to keep an eye on, we would needs be more fearful if the transformation were being spearheaded by Conservative groups.
Yong also seems to want to transition what he sees as a left-side of the brain intensive education into a more right-side manner. Here, I must admit to having read somewhere in the past that this whole turn of phrase.. right-side vs. left-side is overused and inaccurate. It is possible, however, to understand the gist of what Yong advocates. He wants a more creative education. The question would be, can you educate creativity? If so, how do you do it?
He is arguing, as it were, in a vacuum. Let me explain that. Our existing education system is left-sided, not right-sided. No Child Left Behind is the existing system. Yong does not state that No Child Left Behind is better than Common Core at educating towards a creative intelligence. To oppose Common Core on these grounds, one would have to show the existing system in some credible way superior to the proposed changes. He has not done so.
Uniformity, while something we fear being enforced upon us, is also something we greatly prize. Widgets are made all exactly the same. Assembly lines intend to create exactly duplicate goods. We understand that uniformity and organization brings efficiency. We can see, through the evolution of businesses within our economy, what systems produce goods and services of reproducible quality and, thus succeed. Chaotic, fractured, inconstant, business models do not seem to be highly successful. In order to oppose uniformity in the education system, one would need some credible reason to believe that education operates differently than any other process in our economy.
And, as far as I can see, it does not. To do my job, for example, you have to pass a test by the Nuclear Medicine Technology Certification board and engage in Continuing Education on a two-year cycle. If you want to complain about teaching to the test, it might be prudent to realize that some jobs revolve around being able, specifically, to pass a test. Doctors, like my employer, must also routinely take and pass tests in order to continue practicing. Lawyers must pass the Bar examination. How can you change the education system without changing the workforce requirements?
Yong may be very right about profit in finding some way of educating young minds to be more creative and flexible. But, as there is no plan on the table for accomplishing that, it doesn't make sense to criticize Common Core education reforms. For many occupations, we much teach to the test anyway. Creative intelligence is difficult to test, assess, measure, quantify, etc...
Response to Marc Tucker
I got to understand and know Yong Zhao a little better form his response to Marc Tucker. The response seems to me to have very understandable and expected errors of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. I am, of course, always more comfortable talking to educated people because even if they have such biases, they have a more organized style of thought and it does remain, occasionally, possible to have a conversation.
It is hard to not have an agenda; a challenge to identify our biases and work to minimize them. Yong Zhao's background, coming from China, seems to have set him against a test-heavy mentality and State directed education. He has some good points about education becoming obsolete with a change in culture. We cannot expect Yong Zhao to lightly change his opposition to the Chinese style of education.
I can see his perspective. However, there is also a clear and defensible perspective in this video that he simply remains incapable of seeing. A great measure of intelligence and a healthy store of education does not necessarily help one critically and skeptically address their own biases.
There are many things in the video which will not resonate with Yong, but will resonate strongly with others. Consistency and fairness. The idea that the same student in different cities would be receiving a different education. We would like to know that a Grade Point Average of 3.8 in Seattle meant the same thing as one from a school in Chicago. When these kids go to college, their respective GPAs might be put in competition against each other as if they were equal. There is a measure of apparent unfairness in such a system. Yong, although undoubtedly more educated and intelligent than I, simply cannot see this point.
However, we cannot expect a Knife to serve the same function as a Hammer nor a Bolt to serve where a Nail works better. Instead of trying to tear down a great mind with significant education, allow me to try to see where he is seeing clearly and where he has something worth considering. That is, let me see the strengths of his position instead of merely seeking to immediately reject his position. Let me avoid or resist the temptation towards motivated reasoning.
We have an example of a system from Yong's experience and perspective which was in place in China. He tells us of the problems he saw with such an enforced set of standards. The phrase used is "high-stakes testing." Education is high stakes for the children. I have seen teachers who are dispassionate and merely hand out pamphlets. See also: Jeff Bliss (viral video), "there are kids in here that don't learn like that." Some stakes for teachers seem like a good idea.
As a part of the education system, we would expect people from Yong's perspective to take the side of the teacher's union. Now, I expect Unions strive to protect the jobs of their members. As such, it would be reasonable for a Union to wish to avoid or defeat any imposition of a standard that holds teachers accountable. However, there are teachers who have achieved tenure that need a little shaking up.
Zhao: First, it is not true that “it is now more important than ever to figure out what all young people need to know and be able to do.”Zhao is addressing Tucker in this excerpt. He quotes a British Philosopher advocating education reform from 150 years ago and illustrates briefly some continued effort at establishing standards. Zhao suggests, "There has never been a lack of attempts to figure out what all young people should know and be able to do, consequently there is no shortage of standards around." He also comments that "America did just fine as a Nation" without being able to come up with a set of standards.
As the times change, we would expect the standards to change as well. Given the power of tradition and the reluctance to change, we would expect periodic pushes being necessary to update those standards for the same reasons they were originally attempted. Establishing standards has been happening in the education system and will continue. Common Core doesn't change that. Common Core is merely the latest attempt at defining and establishing standards which may need to shift to keep pace with shifting times.
I cannot validate Tucker's claim that it is "now more important than ever," but I can suppose that every time someone has advocated for education reform and the establishment of standards that they have probably believed that it was "now more important than ever." Conversely, while portraying a continued effort at establishing standards, Zhao doesn't seem to establish a reason for believing it is not, in fact, "now more important than ever." Of course, it is hard to prove a negative.. as I recall hearing. Zhao does not believe there is anything particularly important about establishing standards. Or, at least he says he doesn't.
Elsewhere, Zhao has mentioned a changing workforce and, specifically, suggested a need to move away from a testing-heavy education system (left brained) to a more creative education (right-brained). He seems to have assessed the world as reaching a particular place of change where it is difficult to fathom what skills might be needed in the coming years to succeed. He has said that globalization has brought vast changes.. which, stated another way, would seem to support the perception that “it is now more important than ever to figure out what all young people need to know and be able to do.”
In other words, he rejects a sentiment by Tucker because it supports Common Core but in another place has used a very similar argument to oppose Common Core. This is one of the ways to identify a particular strain of motivated reasoning.
Zhao says, "The Common Core initiative seems to suggest that either there are no standards in America or the existing standards are not good enough." Now this seems fairly well defensible, if one takes the or into consideration. Clearly there are standards, so the full statement is a waste of time. So, removing the useless bit, we get: 'The Common Core initiative seems to suggest that the existing standards are not good enough." This is immanently logical. As the world changes, existing standards will no longer be good enough. Standards much change with a changing world.
But, is there any evidence that Common Core is better than previous ones? Zhao would like to know, but he forgets to turn the question around. Is there any evidence that the existing ones are better than Common Core? Clearly, in some states of our Union, there is reason to believe quite the opposite. For example, in any state who's local standards support teaching Intelligent Design as a "theory" on an even footing with the Theory of Evolution.
Creationism is religion. Evolution, even if it were wrong, is Science. A State's local standards that can possibly confuse the two is 1) a violation of the separation of Church and State in my opinion and 2) evidence that the standards in place are not good enough. There is no marketable value in teaching children Intelligent Design or muddying their understanding of Science and the Scientific Method in this way. Do not misunderstand me, you can teach your children any religion you like. Just don't pretend it is science. We must needs teach our children to identify and reject motivated reasoning, and trying to validate Intelligent Design accomplishes the opposite. There are no marketable jobs to be found from an understanding of Intelligent Design. Truth is not a matter of opinion.
I don't expect Zhao to read my little blog. I don't really expect anyone to read it. However, even if he did, I don't expect I'd be able to change his mind about anything. Even so, I would hope that he would agree with me that some autonomy to set standards at the State level aren't exactly helpful and that States pressing to put ID on the same footing as Evolution are no less tyrannical than the education system in China from which he fled. I would imaging this would very much look like forcing propaganda down the throats of the young and impressionable. I have done a little reading on Mao. I would really be surprised if Zhao can't see the comparison.
Zhao includes an anecdote to support his views, without realizing that the same argument can be turned around against them.
An anecdote: For hundreds of years it was possible for the adults in my little village in China to figure out what all children should know and be able to do: handling the water buffalo was one for the boys and sewing for the girls. My village was small and isolated, with around 200 people. But that predication became invalid when China opened up to the outside world in the 1980s. The common standards in my village proved to be wrong later in at least two cases. First it did not work for me. I was pretty bad at what my village’s Common Core prescribed (handling the water buffalo) so I had to do something else (coming to America to debate with Marc Tucker, for example). Second, it did not work for the rest of the children in the village either, because working as a migrant worker in the city is different from handling a water buffalo.How would it be possible for education to be under any more "local" control than parents? In his own anecdote, he shows how local control failed to work. Common Core does not suggest such a limited education where boys are taught only one skill and girls only taught one other skill, both of which later prove inadequate in changing times. To attempt to defeat Common Core by such an anecdote seems clearly to be a Straw Man Logical Fallacy. You are not defeating the point under consideration, but substituting a vastly inferior point to defeat.
Aristotle believed that virtues were the means between two extremes. To endorse an excessive Federal control of education might lead to inflexibility which is damaging. And yet, to endorse too little oversight allows for a different set of abuses. The debate shouldn't be between "Common Core is a panacea" and "Common Core is evil." There should be a way to find a balance of concerns, I think.
Zhao asks if truly creative people are passionate about what they are interested in or about what the State feels they should know. And here, he has a solid point. It is far easier to work with the interests and proclivities of the student. By easier, I also mean more effective. I believe that P. T. Barnum wrote about this in his book, The Art of Money Getting.
The safest plan, and the one most sure of success for the young man starting in life, is to select the vocation which is most congenial to his tastes. Parents and guardians are often quite too negligent in regard to this. It very common for a father to say, for example: "I have five boys. I will make Billy a clergyman; John a lawyer; Tom a doctor, and Dick a farmer." He then goes into town and looks about to see what he will do with Sammy. He returns home and says "Sammy, I see watch- making is a nice genteel business; I think I will make you a goldsmith." He does this, regardless of Sam's natural inclinations, or genius.
Barnum, P. T. (Phineas Taylor) (2005-07-01). Art of Money Getting Or, Golden Rules for Making Money (p. 6). Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition.
Clearly, Zhao has a defensible point in asserting that education must address the strengths and interests of the child in question. He questions whether Common Core can accomplish this. In that, he has what seems to me a defensible argument, especially when one considers his anecdote and experiences with education in China.
And yet, I have also read "The Advance of Science in the Last Half-Century" by Thomas Henry Huxley. And in that book, Huxley explains that the greats like Newton studied science from a pure perspective without paying attention to what advances may come from it. While those who studied electricity did so from curiosity, this information drastically changed the world. Without pure scientific research, great advances cannot easily happen.
Zhao might think this supports his point, which it does to a good extent. Newton explored science because he thirsted for knowledge. Contrariwise, this also supports Tucker in a manner. You cannot know where a child's proclivity may lie. So, if you teach him a broad spectrum of knowledge, it may well be that one bit or another ignites a spark within him. When he goes on to higher education, like College, he may be better able to capitalize on this and individualize his education. Alternatively, once that spark is ignited within him (or her) she may be inspired to study independently and achieve much despite being unable to afford a traditional college education.
My stipulation here is that a student may sometimes need a certain broad exposure to knowledge and education in order to find where their interests lie. A reasonable set of standards can try to establish a broad base of information upon which the student can build what they will. Providing a standard base to children all across American can help ensure that every citizen starts with this broad base of knowledge and can use it as a personal resource. Spark needs tender to ignite. Making sure everyone is provided with a similar store of tender seems just.
Everyone is free to do extra learning on their own.
Zhao: Where do the children learn these and other “unrelated things” when they are pushed aside by the Common Core?Where do they learn them, currently? You cannot make an argument against Common Core in this way unless the current system is demonstrably better. Is there any reason to believe that Common Core is less suitable to teaching the "unrelated things?" Zhao says they are "pushed aside by Common Core" which implies they are currently being taught. I don't believe that is self-evident.
Zhao: I am very appreciative of Tucker’s understanding of my background but I am not convinced that the U.S. is immune to the same problems China has suffered from testing.Immune, probably not. Although, I would think we possess more than a few rather significant differences from a country run by Mao. I doesn't seem as if Zhao can recognize differences between setting standards via Common Core and through a Communist totalitarian regime completely taking over the education system.
Zhao continues to point out the expected emphasis on testing. He mentions some evidence of dishonesty and cheating on standardized testing. I am fully prepared to accept the probability of this being true. I believe that excessive testing wearies our students and takes from them any love they may have for learning. Accepting Common Core does not make inevitable an excessive level of testing and, I fear, No Child Left Behind has already created such a system. You'd have to explain how Common Core is worse than the existing testing. You can't just purport that it will be worse, you need a reason for believing this.
The end of the article seems to devolve into both sides asserting that one thing or another "simply is not true."
Tucker: It is simply not true that our inability to predict the jobs people will have to do in the future and the demand of creative, entrepreneurial young people relieves us of the obligation to figure out what skills and knowledge all young people need to have before they go their separate ways, or the obligation to translate that list of skills and knowledge into standards and assessments that can drive instruction in our schools.
Zhao: It is simply not true that the Common Core will prepare our children for the future. To conclude, I quote a comment left on my Facebook page by one of my personal heros, former president of America Educational Research Association (AERA) and widely respected educational researcher Gene Glass: “Common Core Standards are idiots’ solution to a misunderstood problem. The problem is an archaic, useless curriculum that will prepare no child for life in 2040 and beyond.”Of the two, Tucker is stronger here. Any difficulty that the Common Core standards would have in predicting the jobs people will have to do in the future would be shared with local teachers with more autonomy. Despite the difficulties or even the impossibility of the task, at the Federal or at the Local level, someone has to do exactly this. So, Tucker's "it simply isn't true" is hard to fault.
Zhao, on the contrary, asserts something which cannot be supported as "simply not true." Common Core could do a better job of preparing children for the future than the existing system. As standards must adapt and change with the time in order to be relevant (see Zhao's own record of continuing efforts to upgrade the standards with time) it seems clear that failure to update the standards will eventually cause those standards to become outdated.
He further closes with a style that seems very familiar. He insults. "Common Core Standards are idiots." There is no more reason to accept such a bold assertion coming from Gene Glass, whom Zhao respects than from Zhao himself. As such, it is base name-calling and I would have thought beneath Zhao's education. We need reasons to believe Common Core is bad.. not just fears that it is bad and comparisons to a system put in place by Communists in another country.
So, with respect for Yong Zhao's education, his articles seem full of suspicion, fear of tyranny, and concerns over things that might happen without anything concrete better to offer. He is better educated and better reasoned than other opponents to Common Core, but at the root his opposition is very similar to theirs. Knee jerk reaction against change and government involvement. I can understand why he might have such a response, but it doesn't mean that his background should determine American educational policy.
Monday, May 13, 2013
Common Core, Continuing Research
Peg With Pen: For the Show Me State of Missouri: What they Didn't Show You.
Today, my research has uncovered the above message, which promises to be a read more worth my time than my previous attempts to listen to Will Estrada's conspiracy theory approach and fear-mongering. This article seems to be from a teacher.
Peg seems to be concerned with the money trail involved in the implementation of Common Core. The first question that comes to mind for me would be a curiosity regarding how she felt about No Child Left Behind. One can argue very persuasively about the fears of a money trail, but if one was silent about the money trail during the Bush Era education reform, I would find their concerns regarding Common Core suspicious. Any education reform will generate a specific need for advice and consulting. The question should be, is this money trail more extensive or more corrupt than the Republican-led effort was. It seems to me that there is always money being spent on education and, therefore, someone is always making money. The question would need to be is this money more wisely spent?
In her argument I see a shade of anti-federalism. She believes that teachers will have less autonomy and control in their classroom. This is a question with two sides. For example, consider Jeff Bliss' video rant:
.
It might be that this teacher is the type of teacher you get when you have a teacher who must teach to the test. She has no autonomy and no control over her classroom because her job and the children's promotion might be tied to test performance. (This is the concern raised in Peg's post.) If that is the case, then the situation Peg worries about already exists. It may be then worthwhile to wonder if Common Core will make this problem worse. Do we have anything more than gut-instinct to work with?
Peg goes on to consider the high stakes tied to Common Core. Making teacher's dependent on their performance on standardized testing could seem to make a teacher more than a little uncertain. Especially, the sort of teacher Jeff Bliss complains about above. On some level, it seems to me, we do want to measure the results of a teacher's performance in order to get rid of the teachers who are not adequately performing their job. On another level, we do want to give students a reason to be motivated to take their education seriously. Holding the teacher accountable for test scores but not the students puts the teacher under the thumb of the students. Doing the opposite punishes the students for a teacher's lack of interest in doing her job (see teacher above). The question we need to be asking here, is how do we achieve a healthy balance?
To be honest, the stakes for a child's education are really pretty high to begin with. This is their future. This is their hope. This is the type of job they can have and the kind of place they can live. Some mechanism for tying a teacher's employment to the actual education the students receive seems prudent. The stakes should not be only high for the students when two parties are involved in the process. And, to be honest, there are teachers who need to be fired so a means, mechanism, an excuse for doing so isn't such a bad idea.
Peg circles back to finance, suggesting that publishing companies will make money by stepping in to save the day. Really, I don't so much care about companies making money so long as the education of our children is improving. Publishing companies already produce textbooks and worksheets. You'd have to establish that Pearson making money from helping to implement Common Core standards wasn't a good use of money.
But what about teacher autonomy, Peg complains. Consider the videos above again. Does that teacher really need autonomy? Does her autonomy actually benefit the students? That said, I will be respectful enough to try and understand Peg's concern. Some of it must come from anti-federalism or some similar fear of Big Brother watching. I do not thing many of us really enjoy being micro-managed in our work. It is stressful and leads to poor job satisfaction. We do want teachers to have enough autonomy to enjoy their work and find it rewarding. However, think to the videos above again. If this teacher only hands out packets and possesses a dispassionate attitude, her kids will not learn as well or as quickly. Jeff is correct in that some kids don't learn that way and this woman isn't reaching them. She will find her students not performing as well on the tests and if she values her employment, she will be motivated to do something different. That teacher doesn't really need autonomy. Contrariwise, a teacher who is able to motivate their students and "touch his heart" will find her students learning more quickly. As such her class, doing better on their tests, will have more time available with which to express their desire for autonomy.
Think about the Classroom. Some students in a given class progress more quickly than others. The teacher must teach at a rate limited to the slower students in the class. Therefor, the students who perform their required tasks more quickly enjoy more time to.. say, flirt or check text messages on their cell phones. In a school system at the teacher's level, we have another organized group much like the individual classroom. The standards have to be aligned so as to be achievable by the lesser quality teachers as well. Therefore, a better quality teacher will achieve their goals more efficiently and have more leeway. The process will continue at the school administration level.
Accountability is a good thing.
Peg's feelings regarding standardized testing certainly seems balanced. To teach a student, as Jeff Bliss tells us, you have to touch his heart. Constantly teaching to the test seems likely to be boring and lead to student lack of interest, burn out, or drop out. Peg says that some schools spend 5 1/2 months of the school year on testing. (Aside: an link to a source would be nice, a certain degree of skepticism is healthy in the reader. We wouldn't want to be falling for someone "cherry picking" their data, and that's what the formulation of this sentence sounds like. By saying "some schools," a person criticizing your assertion musts check every school to reject your assertion. It would have been better for her to give statistics for "most schools" and then point to a source for those numbers.) I don't want this heavy testing to be the case with our students. Memorizing facts and spitting them back out is not very useful in the long run. I'd rather have some way of working towards students comprehending information presented to them. Changes were made to the public school system during the days of No Child Left Behind's implementation. I would like to see the emphasis on excessive testing rolled back.
.
Peg provides a link when discussion the standards and their appropriateness for the level of development where they apply. I'm going to suspect that teachers were consulted in the drafting of the Common Core standards, so this may be question about teacher's disagreeing with the level of development where certain materials are appropriate. At this point, we must digress into the link she provides in order to have some understanding of her perspective. Our current focus is on Peg, so we want to address the link as an aside to be given a lighter treatment.
http://www.allianceforchildhood.org/standards
I am entirely behind that.
I also checked the sites' "About Us" link. Again, I cannot verify the details listed under their link for "Partners" but it seems consistent with their style of writing and general level of apparent thoughtfulness and concern for the welfare of children. I cannot engage in background checking everything, and I don't want to venture into the territory of being one of the Conspiracy Theory nutjobs. I will now return to Peg's blog post.
....
Peg discusses what "history shows us quite clearly." Now, this is very similar to other bold assertions made. "As very one knows..," "it needs to explanations...," "common sense dictates." Not to needlessly question Peg's honest intent, but this isn't a sort of phrasing I like. She does go on to point to a blog by a Chinese educator. His "Vita" link provides credentials. Even so, Yong Zhao, does not appear to be an educator in China, as seems implied by Peg's blog. (He is referenced after she alludes to China moving away from test mentality.) Reading through the Vita, we can discern that he appears to have come from an education background in China sometime around 1992, subsequently, he appears to have held a number of appointments at various American colleges. (The level of detail he provides about himself is very comforting and does lend to him credibility.) Indeed, his writing seems worthy of additional attention and will be added to my "to do" list.
http://zhaolearning.com/2013/01/02/five-questions-to-ask-about-the-common-core/
I like reading things written by people smarter than I am.
http://www.aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/Journals/AASA_Journal_of_Scholarship_and_Practice/Winter_10_FINAL.pdf
Yong has said elsewhere that we cannot predict what the jobs will be in the future. This may be a very valid reason for wishing to retain a diversity in our education system. Perhaps, even though we cannot foresee the future, some individual variability of teaching mechanism could produce certain individuals well-suited to some heretofore unexpected advance in technology.
....
Returning to Peg, she also earns some respect by the implication that she reads from sources like Yong Zhao. It further supports her status as it seems unlikely that anyone who is not a teacher and an education advocate would be likely to know of Yong's writing.
Peg's sixth problem seems to have already been addressed when I touched on Pearson publishing and making money previously.
Peg's seventh problem involves local control. This is rather blatant anti-federalism. You only have to worry about a loss of local control if the federalism generates a less well functioning system. Local control, in and of itself, is only a good thing if the local region is best suited to control the particular problem. For example, the federal government probably isn't the place to go if you want to ensure that the lawns in your neighborhood are all trimmed and adequately maintained.
Peg engages in a play on words regarding Common Core by asking you want your children to be Common. This is both manipulative and poorly reasoned. A Common (uniform) set of educational standards does not necessarily produce Common (base or poor quality) children. A loss of diversity might be a problem if one believes in the lessons to be learned by life science and ecology. However, for people who don't believe in evolution and who do not value diversity, this seems at best a questionable line of reasoning. Surrendering control to a local jurisdiction which is very Conservative and does not value diversity may be a more certain way of generating Common children.
Here, Peg inserts a link and a suggestion that Common Core was not written by educators. This would further serve to frighten people who are afraid of bureaucrats and federalism. However, the link she provides is from 2009. I mention this because I am prepared to believe she is cherry picking her data. This is 2013, should there not be an article regarding who actually, in the final assessment wrote the Common Core? Someone's fears about who is going to be writing Common Core from 2009 is not, perhaps, the best and most accurate source to go with.
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2009/07/national_standards_process_ign.html
This is how Common Core suggests citing the work:
So, I guess I would not expect a lot of teachers on such a governmental board. And if the standards are out of touch with the advice of professional educators, this might be a concern. However, the above we see reference to 9 people who would probably have access to people qualified to advise them with regards to education practices and standards. (Five from ACT and four from Achieve.) The Common Core site does not say they were written by local individuals, parents, and teachers. It only says that "Teachers, parents and community leaders have all weighed in to help create the Common Core State Standards." So, it may be a lie that the Standards were written by "hundreds of teachers" (Peg) it would not be a great stretch to say they were created with teachers depending on how one accounts for feedback and "weighing in."
Peg transitions to her eight point and seems to be getting flustered. She devolves even more into an anti-federalist perspective and then transitions to a deeper level by suggesting corporations are the power behind the throne as it were. It would be hard to know better without having read more of Peg's blogs, but a little bit of anger and paranoia seem to be found here. She also insists: "Romney and Obama’s education policies differed on one count – Romney supported vouchers and Obama did not – just food for thought." Apparently this assertion is deeply partisan and does not appear to be factually accurate. Vouchers were one area in which Romney and Obama differed, but represents a rather large policy shift between the two. (At least according to the source referenced above; but there others 2 3 4.)
Peg's next issue would seem to be that Common Core has never been field tested. That would be a really important point if field testing of education reforms was something we had come to expect. Generally speaking, reforms are made which one has reason to expect will be beneficial and results are seen. If the quality of education seems to decline, then people are politically motivated to vote for politicians who will change or roll back those reforms. This complaint seems like the NRA complaining that criminals won't follow gun laws so we shouldn't have any. Do we have credible reason to believe that the advice fo the National Governors Association will be better or worse in the long run? Time should tell us if we watch carefully. Unfortunately, there is no clear way of prognosticating the future.
At the tenth point, Peg continues the fear of Big Brother idea. She doesn't like the idea of children's data being collected and used by corporations to create materials with which to make profits. Um, if the data helps a publisher identify areas in need of improvement and they provide materials to fill this need.. I'm not sure how this is a bad thing. I make money in my job, too. I do something that people need and am compensated for doing so. I'm trying to figure out how Peg is working because she is sounding very socialist and I thought the conservatives were busy accusing Obama of that.
Peggy Robinson, at the end of her piece, does admit her bias. She is one of the founders of United Opt Out National. Her mind is probably rather set on the issue. I do not, however, mean to disrespect her in any way. She is certainly better reasoned than some of the opinions that I've read on this subject. Unfortunately, the farther into the article she wrote, the more and more she seemed dominated by a fear of government and corporate interests to a degree that seems, perhaps, excessive.
Good insights to come from this reading is a reasonable skepticism towards bureaucrats meddling too greatly in public education. We do want to see educators being set in charge of education. People with Ph. D's in the matter, I would expect. Most Ph.D's in Education to be unlikely to be considered classroom teachers. We were also encouraged to ask about field tests and it would seem wise to have ongoing research concerning the outcomes of implementation. This seems like a fair request to make. We have a great concern about the loss of local control, which might be more weighty for me if local control hadn't been the means by which people previously had hoped to perpetuate racial segregation.
All and all, still a process of learning and we have a new link for future investigation. Yong Zhao.
Peg seems to be concerned with the money trail involved in the implementation of Common Core. The first question that comes to mind for me would be a curiosity regarding how she felt about No Child Left Behind. One can argue very persuasively about the fears of a money trail, but if one was silent about the money trail during the Bush Era education reform, I would find their concerns regarding Common Core suspicious. Any education reform will generate a specific need for advice and consulting. The question should be, is this money trail more extensive or more corrupt than the Republican-led effort was. It seems to me that there is always money being spent on education and, therefore, someone is always making money. The question would need to be is this money more wisely spent?
In her argument I see a shade of anti-federalism. She believes that teachers will have less autonomy and control in their classroom. This is a question with two sides. For example, consider Jeff Bliss' video rant:
.
It might be that this teacher is the type of teacher you get when you have a teacher who must teach to the test. She has no autonomy and no control over her classroom because her job and the children's promotion might be tied to test performance. (This is the concern raised in Peg's post.) If that is the case, then the situation Peg worries about already exists. It may be then worthwhile to wonder if Common Core will make this problem worse. Do we have anything more than gut-instinct to work with?
Peg goes on to consider the high stakes tied to Common Core. Making teacher's dependent on their performance on standardized testing could seem to make a teacher more than a little uncertain. Especially, the sort of teacher Jeff Bliss complains about above. On some level, it seems to me, we do want to measure the results of a teacher's performance in order to get rid of the teachers who are not adequately performing their job. On another level, we do want to give students a reason to be motivated to take their education seriously. Holding the teacher accountable for test scores but not the students puts the teacher under the thumb of the students. Doing the opposite punishes the students for a teacher's lack of interest in doing her job (see teacher above). The question we need to be asking here, is how do we achieve a healthy balance?
To be honest, the stakes for a child's education are really pretty high to begin with. This is their future. This is their hope. This is the type of job they can have and the kind of place they can live. Some mechanism for tying a teacher's employment to the actual education the students receive seems prudent. The stakes should not be only high for the students when two parties are involved in the process. And, to be honest, there are teachers who need to be fired so a means, mechanism, an excuse for doing so isn't such a bad idea.
Peg circles back to finance, suggesting that publishing companies will make money by stepping in to save the day. Really, I don't so much care about companies making money so long as the education of our children is improving. Publishing companies already produce textbooks and worksheets. You'd have to establish that Pearson making money from helping to implement Common Core standards wasn't a good use of money.
But what about teacher autonomy, Peg complains. Consider the videos above again. Does that teacher really need autonomy? Does her autonomy actually benefit the students? That said, I will be respectful enough to try and understand Peg's concern. Some of it must come from anti-federalism or some similar fear of Big Brother watching. I do not thing many of us really enjoy being micro-managed in our work. It is stressful and leads to poor job satisfaction. We do want teachers to have enough autonomy to enjoy their work and find it rewarding. However, think to the videos above again. If this teacher only hands out packets and possesses a dispassionate attitude, her kids will not learn as well or as quickly. Jeff is correct in that some kids don't learn that way and this woman isn't reaching them. She will find her students not performing as well on the tests and if she values her employment, she will be motivated to do something different. That teacher doesn't really need autonomy. Contrariwise, a teacher who is able to motivate their students and "touch his heart" will find her students learning more quickly. As such her class, doing better on their tests, will have more time available with which to express their desire for autonomy.
Think about the Classroom. Some students in a given class progress more quickly than others. The teacher must teach at a rate limited to the slower students in the class. Therefor, the students who perform their required tasks more quickly enjoy more time to.. say, flirt or check text messages on their cell phones. In a school system at the teacher's level, we have another organized group much like the individual classroom. The standards have to be aligned so as to be achievable by the lesser quality teachers as well. Therefore, a better quality teacher will achieve their goals more efficiently and have more leeway. The process will continue at the school administration level.
Accountability is a good thing.
Peg's feelings regarding standardized testing certainly seems balanced. To teach a student, as Jeff Bliss tells us, you have to touch his heart. Constantly teaching to the test seems likely to be boring and lead to student lack of interest, burn out, or drop out. Peg says that some schools spend 5 1/2 months of the school year on testing. (Aside: an link to a source would be nice, a certain degree of skepticism is healthy in the reader. We wouldn't want to be falling for someone "cherry picking" their data, and that's what the formulation of this sentence sounds like. By saying "some schools," a person criticizing your assertion musts check every school to reject your assertion. It would have been better for her to give statistics for "most schools" and then point to a source for those numbers.) I don't want this heavy testing to be the case with our students. Memorizing facts and spitting them back out is not very useful in the long run. I'd rather have some way of working towards students comprehending information presented to them. Changes were made to the public school system during the days of No Child Left Behind's implementation. I would like to see the emphasis on excessive testing rolled back.
.
Peg provides a link when discussion the standards and their appropriateness for the level of development where they apply. I'm going to suspect that teachers were consulted in the drafting of the Common Core standards, so this may be question about teacher's disagreeing with the level of development where certain materials are appropriate. At this point, we must digress into the link she provides in order to have some understanding of her perspective. Our current focus is on Peg, so we want to address the link as an aside to be given a lighter treatment.
http://www.allianceforchildhood.org/standards
"New research points to the indivisibility of physical, social, emotional, and cognitive development. The core standards are based on a narrow and flawed focus on subject matter in isolation, overemphasizing cognitive skills at the expense of all others."A pointer to this research might have been nice to see. Seems reasonable, however. Even so, we would want to know what the general consensus is, not a minority opinion of a group performing new research. "New research" could also show the opposite and the authors of this page might be cherry picking their data.
"The core standards do not provide for ongoing research or review of the outcomes of their adoption. The entire K–12 standards initiative is flawed by this omission, which is especially egregious in relation to the youngest students."Again, this criticism could be levied at No Child Left Behind as well. To selectively demand such a process for the new education reform while not having the same criticism of the previous administration's push seems somewhat politically motivated. In fact, this isn't a reason to reject Common Core insomuch as it is something people might ask to be added to it.
"Tell your own governor, chief state school officer, and state early childhood specialists about the need to promote play and play-based learning in Kindergarten and the need to protect young children from testing."
I am entirely behind that.
I also checked the sites' "About Us" link. Again, I cannot verify the details listed under their link for "Partners" but it seems consistent with their style of writing and general level of apparent thoughtfulness and concern for the welfare of children. I cannot engage in background checking everything, and I don't want to venture into the territory of being one of the Conspiracy Theory nutjobs. I will now return to Peg's blog post.
....
Peg discusses what "history shows us quite clearly." Now, this is very similar to other bold assertions made. "As very one knows..," "it needs to explanations...," "common sense dictates." Not to needlessly question Peg's honest intent, but this isn't a sort of phrasing I like. She does go on to point to a blog by a Chinese educator. His "Vita" link provides credentials. Even so, Yong Zhao, does not appear to be an educator in China, as seems implied by Peg's blog. (He is referenced after she alludes to China moving away from test mentality.) Reading through the Vita, we can discern that he appears to have come from an education background in China sometime around 1992, subsequently, he appears to have held a number of appointments at various American colleges. (The level of detail he provides about himself is very comforting and does lend to him credibility.) Indeed, his writing seems worthy of additional attention and will be added to my "to do" list.
http://zhaolearning.com/2013/01/02/five-questions-to-ask-about-the-common-core/
I like reading things written by people smarter than I am.
"But the Common Core, by forcing children to master the same curriculum, essentially discriminates against talents that are not consistent with their prescribed knowledge and skills."So does the current education system. I suspect you know that. I would like to see more emphasis on solutions than problems. However, I am finding his clarity of thought comforting.
http://www.aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/Journals/AASA_Journal_of_Scholarship_and_Practice/Winter_10_FINAL.pdf
"When we looked at the underlying theories of mandated statewide testing from the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (No Child Le ft Behind [NCLB PL 107-110], 2002), Common Core State Standards, and the proposals put forth in the Race To The Top program, we found them driven by behaviorism and rational choice theories. Those types of theories produce policies based on power relationships focused on efficiency and monitorial control. The fundamental idea of policies based on behaviorism and rational choice is that some policy body (e.g., State Education Agency (SEA) or U.S. Department of Education) develops a set of expected education outcome measures, monitors the relationship between the measures and school processes through a monitoring device (e.g., high-stakes test), and then implements rewards or sanctions to attempt to change behavior through external force to maximize performance on the monitoring device."I include this paragraph for two reasons. Yong has, in fact, addressed No Child Left Behind. The second reason to include the quote involves thoughts that occur to me as I read it. It can lead one towards having anti-federalist thoughts. I mean, it can do this in a way that makes sense as opposed to seeming paranoid. One of the advantages a system of governance like America enjoys is a diversity of perspective. A consistent education could be a good thing, but could also limit diversity of perspective. A lot depends on how the matter is accomplished. Perhaps that autonomy Peg mentions can help ensure some variability which may well be helpful. Nature does not know which variations will be helpful, but by chance some variations are found to be helpful and worth being retained by Natural Selection.
Yong has said elsewhere that we cannot predict what the jobs will be in the future. This may be a very valid reason for wishing to retain a diversity in our education system. Perhaps, even though we cannot foresee the future, some individual variability of teaching mechanism could produce certain individuals well-suited to some heretofore unexpected advance in technology.
....
Returning to Peg, she also earns some respect by the implication that she reads from sources like Yong Zhao. It further supports her status as it seems unlikely that anyone who is not a teacher and an education advocate would be likely to know of Yong's writing.
Peg's sixth problem seems to have already been addressed when I touched on Pearson publishing and making money previously.
Peg's seventh problem involves local control. This is rather blatant anti-federalism. You only have to worry about a loss of local control if the federalism generates a less well functioning system. Local control, in and of itself, is only a good thing if the local region is best suited to control the particular problem. For example, the federal government probably isn't the place to go if you want to ensure that the lawns in your neighborhood are all trimmed and adequately maintained.
Peg engages in a play on words regarding Common Core by asking you want your children to be Common. This is both manipulative and poorly reasoned. A Common (uniform) set of educational standards does not necessarily produce Common (base or poor quality) children. A loss of diversity might be a problem if one believes in the lessons to be learned by life science and ecology. However, for people who don't believe in evolution and who do not value diversity, this seems at best a questionable line of reasoning. Surrendering control to a local jurisdiction which is very Conservative and does not value diversity may be a more certain way of generating Common children.
Here, Peg inserts a link and a suggestion that Common Core was not written by educators. This would further serve to frighten people who are afraid of bureaucrats and federalism. However, the link she provides is from 2009. I mention this because I am prepared to believe she is cherry picking her data. This is 2013, should there not be an article regarding who actually, in the final assessment wrote the Common Core? Someone's fears about who is going to be writing Common Core from 2009 is not, perhaps, the best and most accurate source to go with.
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2009/07/national_standards_process_ign.html
"So who makes up the two Work Groups? Of the 25 individuals on the two teams, (four people are on both) six are associated with the test-makers from the College Board, five are with fellow test-publishers ACT, and four are with Achieve. Zero teachers are on either Work Group. The Feedback Groups have 35 participants, almost all of whom are university professors. There appears to be exactly one classroom teacher involved in the entire process, on one of the Feedback Groups"Might it not be, if you are hoping for a college educated work force seeking white collar jobs of tomorrow, that one may well be biased in their thinking towards preparing children for a college career? Might your classroom teacher be not entirely well versed in that ultimate goal? Might he be unable to see the forest for the trees? The question would be, do you trust teachers to do what is going to be ultimately necessary for the children or to focus on the short term. The teacher in Jeff Bliss' video does not seem to be highly motivated in the long term picture. Would you want her sitting on the task force for Common Core?
This is how Common Core suggests citing the work:
Authors: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers
Title: Common Core State Standards (insert specific content area if you are using only one)
Publisher: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington D.C.
Copyright Date: 2010
So, I guess I would not expect a lot of teachers on such a governmental board. And if the standards are out of touch with the advice of professional educators, this might be a concern. However, the above we see reference to 9 people who would probably have access to people qualified to advise them with regards to education practices and standards. (Five from ACT and four from Achieve.) The Common Core site does not say they were written by local individuals, parents, and teachers. It only says that "Teachers, parents and community leaders have all weighed in to help create the Common Core State Standards." So, it may be a lie that the Standards were written by "hundreds of teachers" (Peg) it would not be a great stretch to say they were created with teachers depending on how one accounts for feedback and "weighing in."
Peg transitions to her eight point and seems to be getting flustered. She devolves even more into an anti-federalist perspective and then transitions to a deeper level by suggesting corporations are the power behind the throne as it were. It would be hard to know better without having read more of Peg's blogs, but a little bit of anger and paranoia seem to be found here. She also insists: "Romney and Obama’s education policies differed on one count – Romney supported vouchers and Obama did not – just food for thought." Apparently this assertion is deeply partisan and does not appear to be factually accurate. Vouchers were one area in which Romney and Obama differed, but represents a rather large policy shift between the two. (At least according to the source referenced above; but there others 2 3 4.)
Peg's next issue would seem to be that Common Core has never been field tested. That would be a really important point if field testing of education reforms was something we had come to expect. Generally speaking, reforms are made which one has reason to expect will be beneficial and results are seen. If the quality of education seems to decline, then people are politically motivated to vote for politicians who will change or roll back those reforms. This complaint seems like the NRA complaining that criminals won't follow gun laws so we shouldn't have any. Do we have credible reason to believe that the advice fo the National Governors Association will be better or worse in the long run? Time should tell us if we watch carefully. Unfortunately, there is no clear way of prognosticating the future.
At the tenth point, Peg continues the fear of Big Brother idea. She doesn't like the idea of children's data being collected and used by corporations to create materials with which to make profits. Um, if the data helps a publisher identify areas in need of improvement and they provide materials to fill this need.. I'm not sure how this is a bad thing. I make money in my job, too. I do something that people need and am compensated for doing so. I'm trying to figure out how Peg is working because she is sounding very socialist and I thought the conservatives were busy accusing Obama of that.
Peggy Robinson, at the end of her piece, does admit her bias. She is one of the founders of United Opt Out National. Her mind is probably rather set on the issue. I do not, however, mean to disrespect her in any way. She is certainly better reasoned than some of the opinions that I've read on this subject. Unfortunately, the farther into the article she wrote, the more and more she seemed dominated by a fear of government and corporate interests to a degree that seems, perhaps, excessive.
Good insights to come from this reading is a reasonable skepticism towards bureaucrats meddling too greatly in public education. We do want to see educators being set in charge of education. People with Ph. D's in the matter, I would expect. Most Ph.D's in Education to be unlikely to be considered classroom teachers. We were also encouraged to ask about field tests and it would seem wise to have ongoing research concerning the outcomes of implementation. This seems like a fair request to make. We have a great concern about the loss of local control, which might be more weighty for me if local control hadn't been the means by which people previously had hoped to perpetuate racial segregation.
All and all, still a process of learning and we have a new link for future investigation. Yong Zhao.
Friday, May 10, 2013
How to think, not what to think.
Random Ruminations:
When homeschooling my daughter, I'm trying to focus on teaching her processes that she can use later in life.. how to find information, how to think, as opposed to forcing her to regurgitate dry facts. I'm starting to think that my own education is lacking in one area that may be a building block for building a soundly rational mind. I'm working on cobbling it together.
I've read "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt. Some good source material there. He likens moral judgements to an elephant with a rider on its back. The moral system kicks in with an intuitive judgement and then the rider perched atop the back starts making post hoc rationalizations for that moral choice.
This seems to fit well with previous reading I've done on Wikipedia regarding confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. I can see some similarities in several of Wikipedia's list of logical fallacies. Today, in my reading.. (I do a lot of that...) I encountered a phrase "motivated reasoning" which seems to dovetail quite nicely with this amorphous collection of suspicion.
Essentially, the picture of human reasoning in my mind is less like a search light and more like a tangled mass of oozy Lovecraftian tentacles. Depressing as this seems; it appears more consistent with the train of reasoning I've observed from people.
I have a suspicion that somewhere underneath all these types of unsound reasoning lies the mechanism which may explain hypnosis. The mind likes harmony, patterns, predictability, regularity. Hypnosis starts like that, establishing a rhythm, a pattern. Music and poetry both captivate and inspire; both have an orderliness. Palindromes or chiasmatic structures of bible prose intrigue by their symmetry. The beauty of a face or a structure seems likely to be keyed to the symmetry of proportions, lines, and angles. The hypnotist creates a rhythmic structure to his narrative which would activate some circuit in the brain that seeks to find patterns and is pleased when they are found. The hypnotist then associates, as if by contagion, his droning pattern with thoughts he wishes to implant in the subject. The subject's mind being rendered pliable by the pleasing rhythmic pattern does not wish to reject the suggestions and therefore leave the quite peaceful pleasure. Willfully rejecting the hypnotist's words would break the pleasant "look, look, patterns" moment. Falling out the the reverie would cause "cognitive dissonance" or stress. The mind having accepted a pleasant pattern, wishes to protect the pattern it has found. The mind then turns towards confirmation bias, making the hypnotist's words seem more reasonable and giving them greater credibility than they deserve. They may engage in a line of "motivated reasoning" to remain entranced. (For example, some hypnotized subject claim they were merely playing along with the hypnotist.)
As I only just recently discussed the Scientific Method in my daughter's Science Club, it seems to me that I might consider drawing a lesson together for her regarding logic, reasoning, logical fallacies, and the like. There seems so much, however, that I'm not sure where to begin tackling the beast. Perhaps, I could start with a discussion of magical thinking as an example of flawed logic and work from there.
What is Motivated Reasoning
Common Core
Jonathan Haidt states in his book The Righteous Mind that people tend to make moral judgements and then seek to back up those initial answers with whatever evidence and reasoning they can find instead of using evidence and reasoning to come to a judgement. I have my initial bias on the matter, and I think it would be good to clear up my biases before I do my research.
Thus far, I have heard some people being very, very, afraid of the Common Core standards. More so that the push for No Child Left Behind. The biggest difference between these two education reforms seems to be the political party behind them. This bespeaks motivated reasoning to me. Motivated reasoning would be exactly what Johnathan has warned about in his book. To quote Sherlock:
No Child Left Behind is, essentially, a very important reason why I am homeschooling. Too much time out of the school day seems to be spent on testing or preparing for testing and I can't help but feel this makes school a terrible chore for children. I believe, in order to educate children, you have to find their love and their passion and work with that. In essence, No Child Left Behind created a need for a new business niche consisting of standardized test creation, preparation, and administration. I cannot help but think that the politicos in charge of putting this test-heavy practice in place also helped their friends gain lucrative contracts.
At least, my mind is prepared to see this as true. That would be a bias and I should both admit it to my readers as well as admit it to myself before continuing. It is only by knowing my biases that I can endeavor to resist them or accommodate for them.
As to Common Core, I have different goals or priorities for my education than learning to take tests. I'd like people to be able to use what they've learned later on in life. So, if Common Core somehow also allowed the schools to leave behind the crazy testing, then Common Core would have some of my support for that alone. However, I do not immediately see that as likely. Common Core would, perhaps, standardize what is taught. This might allow the students to do better on Standardized Testing because they would all be working from the same basic starting point.
So, if Common Core isn't going to lesson the burden of test taking, what else am I prepared to believe about it? I like standards. I work in the field of medicine. I run a room with a camera and there are a list of procedures and rules for what to do and what to record. I like order. I like guidelines. I would certainly worry about the safety of other labs if this record keeping were not necessary. So, the idea of uniformity in education doesn't seem all that bad.
I am prepared to believe, however, that some.. motivated groups.. might find this intimidating. For example, if I lived down south a ways and I really thought Intelligent Design was a theory of equal value with Evolution, I might worry that my child would have to learn science that I don't understand and that I feel invalidates my religion. This might make me afraid. If Intelligent Design and Evolution were more equal in merits, I wouldn't have to worry so much. However, if I really can't provide a rational support for my aversion to Evolution, I might really be afraid that my children might hear evidence I don't want them to know. They might question their religion. They might question my authority over them, which I derive in part from my religion. They might change family traditions. My father and mother, brothers and sisters, friends and church acquaintances might look at me and speak ill of how my children have "strayed from the path."
Now, as far as these two theories go.. one of them allows for testing and prediction while the other does not. That doesn't mean the truth may be otherwise than the evidence laid out before us in the physical world. That might be a perfectly valid truth from a religious perspective and God might just tell me that at the End Times. But, all this aside, I stand ready to ask (most politely) of God why he'd create a world with so many innumerable bits of evidence implying something that wasn't true. As every question is supposed to be answered, I think I'll get my explanation and it will all make sense. For the time being, however, Evolution gives us a way to organize and understand the web of life upon the world and the extensive fossil record. Advances in understanding become possible by understanding Evolution, it generates results. If Evolution is not literally true (which may be) it is still, certainly, useful for scientists. It may well be that an Almighty God made the world look as it did to give Scientists a means and mechanism by which to make sense of the world.
So, while I support the right of parents to teach their children religion and religious values, I do not think that understanding evolution accurately in anyway inhibits religious freedom. One can understand evolution and still believe, from a religious perspective, that the world was really created in seven days and just looks different for some, unknown, reason.
So, on the issue of Standardized Education, I can see how some particularly motivated perspectives might generate a great deal of fear and loathing. I can even understand and respect that from a perspective of freedom of religion. That would be a point that we could discuss. But we should wait to cross that bridge when we come to it.
The other gut instinct I recognize about Standardized Education is a suspicious doubt that one size really does fit all. For the democratic process to work, it is vitally important that we have a well-educated citizenry. People who know how to reason and how to think instead of just accepting what is told to them. Standards are a checklist to try to make sure no obvious gaps are overlooked in providing a well-rounded education. The same might be said, however, of Standardized Testing. Here, I recognize some uncertainty or hesitation in my opinions.
I like checklists, so Standardization might be good. However, I also like flexibility and think an education that can be individualized for the child might well be of more value to that child down the road. A boring one-size-fits all approach might cause a child to detest education. I want to awaken in children a love of learning that lasts their whole life long. How much wonderful learning could one accomplish if they were inspired, like to tortoise more than the hare, to keep learning all life long?
As you can see, I have a lot of overhead even before I start investigating. I have to be aware of my biases and set them quietly aside. I must be searching for the truth underlying reality instead of confirmation of reality as I would like to see it.
Let's start with a Google Search.
At the top of the page, I see a sponsored add. I first ask Dr. Web to check the link for viruses and then continue. This page is a commercial one and states, "Implementing the Common Core State Standards The Goal: Every Child College and Career Ready!" This sounds like a noble enough goal, but this particular website sounds like a consulting group trying to secure business opportunities assisting schools implement the new standards. This reminds me of the businesses that sprung up offering Standardize Testing subsequent to "No Child Left Behind." They include a video:
http://beta.schoolimprovement.com/docs/common-core-standards-video.mp4
Understandably, they are trying to earn revenue providing a service to teachers and administrations who may be fearful or anxious about the new standards. The video does, however, provide one perspective on what Common Core means for students in the public school system.
Returning to our web search, I next notice several links from a website called "Dailycaller.com." I believe that I have read articles from there before and I'm initially suspicious. Trying to keep an open mind, I begin listening to the video. Will Estrada starts talking. He is, apparently, affiliated with Home School Legal Defense Association. We do pay a small fee to HSLDA to represent us in case we need any help with homeschooling our daughter. That is to say, in case the State comes knocking. However, I have followed these people and they do not seem to keep their focus on what they've promised to be their primary interest. For example, they recently lobbied against ratification of the UN Disabilities Treaty. I had done some research on this Treaty, what it meant, and why the HSLDA opposed it. The treaty had nothing directly to do with homeschooling. Some people thought that they may be unable to home-school their children with disabilities if the guarantee of the opportunity for an inclusive education somehow infringed on their option to home-school. That is, a gaurantee of the right for an inclusive education was feared to be a mandate for an inclusive education. Instead of seeking confirmation that homeschooling opportunities for children with disabilities would not be infringed, HSLDA campaigned to prevent rights and protections being extended for people with disabilities. This treaty is not the topic immediately under discussion, but the reader can read more about the extreme right agenda of the HSLDA in order to form their own assessment.
( http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/organizations/home-school-legal-defense-association )
My assessment of the HSLDA is that they are extremely conservative and, I'm afraid, nearly as paranoid as the NRA. And if you would ask me why I pay them to represent me if we run into any trouble with homeschooling my daughter, I would say you have a good point. I find it troubling to give money to any organization that fights against extending rights and protections to people with disabilities. I have a hard time wrapping my head around that.
Listening to the video and Will Estrada to about 1:11 seconds in, I have uncovered what seems to be a strong theory about why HSLDA is opposing Common Core. A hard-set core of conservative politicians have dug a deep trench to oppose pretty much literally anything Obama has chosen to support. Right here, we have the rhetoric being built up in a traditional narrative. People do not like Obama. Use his name in connection with something you don't like and people will transfer their dislike of the man to the issue. Strictly speaking, this is not an ad hominem logical fallacy, but it is skirting the territory. If there are reasons to dislike and mistrust the Common Core, you should be able to address the point instead of relying on Obamaphobia. Just like how the first person to loose their cool and start yelling in an argument is most often the one with the weaker position, any person who motivates with emotion before facts should be treated with suspicion.
As the video moves along, somewhere about 2:03, you come to the fear of Federalism argument. Ever since the Southern States wanted to keep their slaves and feared the Northern Abolitionists, you've had this sentiment brewing in the background of American politics. If you can keep the Federal Government out of your business, you can amass enough local support to oppress some interest:
Will Estrada continues: "I think you lose the incentive for parents to be engaged in their child's education.." Ok, I realize I haven't gotten very far into this video, but Will keeps saying entirely unfounded things and making unsubstantiated claims. I know the type of person who would listen to him and agree with every fearful suspicion that issues forth from his lips. I will, however, try to give him a little credit.
Homeschooling parents don't just fear Federal involvement in their child's education. Home-schooling parents home school for one reason or another: fear of bullying, religious motivations, or special educational needs for children with disabilities. As a homeschooling parent, I do believe that I can do right by my child with her education. I don't want the State coming to my door with a complicated list of requirements. I want to tailor my education of my child to what I perceive to be her needs. To teach to her strengths or to take time to shore up her weaknesses.
What we still need and are not getting from Will is any concrete reason at all to feel that Common Core standards are going to somehow complicate or obfuscate the process of homeschooling our children. Obamaphobia, anti-federalism, fear... but no credible reasons to ground that fear to as of yet.
Will continues, "It never stops at State Standards.." He proceeds into what is clearly a slippery slope logical fallacy. If Common Core is bad, then we oppose Common Core. If what may come next from Common Core is bad ... we oppose what comes next! I think it is foolish to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Figure out if there are good things in Common Core standards and identify what may not be so good or even outright bad. Then address those issues directly.
Will asserts, "I mean, you have the classics being abandoned for instead reading executive orders from President Obama." Asserts... he doesn't back this up. He doesn't give any reason to believe this. What do you think happened? Perform your own web search on the terms, "abandon classics to read executive orders." What do you find? Well, what I found was a barrage of sites referring to Will saying this. This is important. Will may be right (I don't know, he doesn't cite a source I can check.) However, everyone else is picking this up and echoing it. Repeat a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it. If you wanted to "really" know if what Will has said is true, you can't find any critical analysis because it is drowned out from all the bloggers and message boards mindlessly repeated what Will said without any apparent effort to verify this information.
I feel as if I am watching a Nazi propaganda machine operating in the Internet age. Truth requires skepticism and a willingness to withhold judgement until facts can be weighed. There are no facts being employed here at all. But, with some effort, we can continue looking for a "Common Core Reading List."
Here's a link to the list: Common Core Reading List
Can you locate the executive orders?
There may be reasons to oppose the Common Core material, but the people who are frantically opposing the standards are not well-reasoned, deeply-researched, critical thinkers. The fears evidenced by these people should not become your own no matter how many times they repeated or how widely their fears propagate across the Internet. The dissemination of a fear is not the truth and we must be highly critical of any side of an issue who's primary tool of promoting their interests shares so many striking similarities with the Nazi Propaganda machine. Demand evidence. Ask for facts. Engage in skeptical analysis. Please, for the love of God and Country, think for yourselves.
Will wonders if a homeschool or privately educated student might be disadvantage from having not learned from the Common Core curriculum. (4:28) This would be something to take seriously. We want our homeschool kids to have the opportunity to go to college. Doing so means they have to take various tests like the ACT or the SAT. In this way, however, Common Core works for you. It helps you understand what sorts of material would be found on these tests and you can prepare your child. With Common Core or without it, you should still be gearing your child for taking the ACT/SAT and buying books to help ascertain their readiness for doing so. As a homeschool parent, your life hasn't changed. You are still going to have to read, review, buy, and teach from these ACT and SAT test prep materials. Common Core standards would simply help you align your child's homeschool education from the beginning with the path needed to prepare for these potentially very important tests. The advantage of time is like the length of a lever multiplying force if used appropriately. I see nothing to fear here.
7:04 Gina (the interviewer) says, "science based on political thought instead of the scientific method." She is talking about a perceived change in education. These aren't even her words, she's reading from some statement made by the "Constitutional Coalition in St. Louis." Now a critique of Common Core would be fair game. Does Common Core under-perform the type of education "Constitutional Coalition" favors? Again, all we have is a statement by someone that Common Core does something. Previously, we've seen Will's comment about kids being made to read Executive Orders disseminating across the blogosphere without any effort at fact checking. Further, we checked the facts and see that Will is talking without basis. We've linked to the actual reading list and we don't have to wonder or say might and maybe. We know that we should require some support for statements and not simply accept them at face value. At best, Will did not think critically about his own statement. At worse, he is intentionally spreading what he knows to be a lie.
But, back to Constitutional Coalition. They are advocating an approach to learning. "The classical education of seeking truth in an orderly way with chronological history, facts, and sequential mathematic exercises has been replaced ..." The continue into a critique of Common Core which conclude with "science based on political thought instead of the scientific method." This type of discussion might be profitable. However, Common Core exactly intends to have evidenced-based education. This seems to be the pot calling the kettle black. Some States have tried to teach Intelligent Design in class as a Scientific Theory of equal value to Evolution. That is science based on political (and religious) thought and not on the scientific method. You can believe in Intelligent Design. You can believe a literal reading of the bible. But so did people in Galileo's time. The quoted passages of the bible which they deemed proved the earth was immovable and therefore could not rotate around the sun. Except that these beliefs were not based on the Scientific Method. Nor is Intelligent Design. No application of the Scientific Method to the study of life results in believing the story of Genesis is literally true. You can believe that as an element of faith, that's your choice. But that is not Science, that is motivate reasoning. (Other Reading: The Story Behind Those Creationist Test Papers. Short version, not a public school but rather Blue Ridge Christian Academy, which is more understandable)
At 8:06, Will seems to be criticizing Common Core by illustrating an inadequacy in the current education system. A 5th grader that has not yet been taught the Constitution and Declaration of Independence has homework depicting the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the linchpin for freedom. Now, first, this could be called the logical fallacy of cherry picking your data. If you look far enough and hard enough across the country, you will find some example of lunacy. See also The Story Behind Those Creationist Test Papers, (above) which would also be cherry picking of data. But back to the linchpin comment, this is another echoing of anti-federalism and anti-UN sentiment. It is a fear-based argument as opposed to a reasoned one.
At around 8:35, he mentions "buzzwords" and then he uses his own set. In particular, he talks about "universal healthcare" which anyone who is Obamaphobic has already rejected. Probably effective for those who are afraid of Obamacare. Because somehow people having access to medical care is frightening and people having no access to medical care is comforting to some people. You know, like Jesus said, "When I was sick, you told me to get a job..." I might not be remembering that correctly.
I will pause in my deliberations at 9:45 into this video. The video is highly political, not evidence-based, doesn't cite resources, and seems to be very poorly reasoned. If I really want to understand Common Core, I suppose I will have to be more selective about what resources I invest time in listening to. I will set aside the conversation at this time and hope to pick it up again in a latter post with a more analytical source. Perhaps, something coming from professional teachers if I can find one.
Thus far, I have heard some people being very, very, afraid of the Common Core standards. More so that the push for No Child Left Behind. The biggest difference between these two education reforms seems to be the political party behind them. This bespeaks motivated reasoning to me. Motivated reasoning would be exactly what Johnathan has warned about in his book. To quote Sherlock:
In fact, people become so pigheadedly stuck in their initial assumptions that I become almost physically sick. If someone were to be extremely far to the left, I would find them just as annoying as someone dead set in the deep right field. Both are errors in judgement.'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.'Sherlock Holmes Quote-A Scandal in Bohemia
No Child Left Behind is, essentially, a very important reason why I am homeschooling. Too much time out of the school day seems to be spent on testing or preparing for testing and I can't help but feel this makes school a terrible chore for children. I believe, in order to educate children, you have to find their love and their passion and work with that. In essence, No Child Left Behind created a need for a new business niche consisting of standardized test creation, preparation, and administration. I cannot help but think that the politicos in charge of putting this test-heavy practice in place also helped their friends gain lucrative contracts.
At least, my mind is prepared to see this as true. That would be a bias and I should both admit it to my readers as well as admit it to myself before continuing. It is only by knowing my biases that I can endeavor to resist them or accommodate for them.
As to Common Core, I have different goals or priorities for my education than learning to take tests. I'd like people to be able to use what they've learned later on in life. So, if Common Core somehow also allowed the schools to leave behind the crazy testing, then Common Core would have some of my support for that alone. However, I do not immediately see that as likely. Common Core would, perhaps, standardize what is taught. This might allow the students to do better on Standardized Testing because they would all be working from the same basic starting point.
So, if Common Core isn't going to lesson the burden of test taking, what else am I prepared to believe about it? I like standards. I work in the field of medicine. I run a room with a camera and there are a list of procedures and rules for what to do and what to record. I like order. I like guidelines. I would certainly worry about the safety of other labs if this record keeping were not necessary. So, the idea of uniformity in education doesn't seem all that bad.
I am prepared to believe, however, that some.. motivated groups.. might find this intimidating. For example, if I lived down south a ways and I really thought Intelligent Design was a theory of equal value with Evolution, I might worry that my child would have to learn science that I don't understand and that I feel invalidates my religion. This might make me afraid. If Intelligent Design and Evolution were more equal in merits, I wouldn't have to worry so much. However, if I really can't provide a rational support for my aversion to Evolution, I might really be afraid that my children might hear evidence I don't want them to know. They might question their religion. They might question my authority over them, which I derive in part from my religion. They might change family traditions. My father and mother, brothers and sisters, friends and church acquaintances might look at me and speak ill of how my children have "strayed from the path."
Now, as far as these two theories go.. one of them allows for testing and prediction while the other does not. That doesn't mean the truth may be otherwise than the evidence laid out before us in the physical world. That might be a perfectly valid truth from a religious perspective and God might just tell me that at the End Times. But, all this aside, I stand ready to ask (most politely) of God why he'd create a world with so many innumerable bits of evidence implying something that wasn't true. As every question is supposed to be answered, I think I'll get my explanation and it will all make sense. For the time being, however, Evolution gives us a way to organize and understand the web of life upon the world and the extensive fossil record. Advances in understanding become possible by understanding Evolution, it generates results. If Evolution is not literally true (which may be) it is still, certainly, useful for scientists. It may well be that an Almighty God made the world look as it did to give Scientists a means and mechanism by which to make sense of the world.
So, while I support the right of parents to teach their children religion and religious values, I do not think that understanding evolution accurately in anyway inhibits religious freedom. One can understand evolution and still believe, from a religious perspective, that the world was really created in seven days and just looks different for some, unknown, reason.
So, on the issue of Standardized Education, I can see how some particularly motivated perspectives might generate a great deal of fear and loathing. I can even understand and respect that from a perspective of freedom of religion. That would be a point that we could discuss. But we should wait to cross that bridge when we come to it.
The other gut instinct I recognize about Standardized Education is a suspicious doubt that one size really does fit all. For the democratic process to work, it is vitally important that we have a well-educated citizenry. People who know how to reason and how to think instead of just accepting what is told to them. Standards are a checklist to try to make sure no obvious gaps are overlooked in providing a well-rounded education. The same might be said, however, of Standardized Testing. Here, I recognize some uncertainty or hesitation in my opinions.
I like checklists, so Standardization might be good. However, I also like flexibility and think an education that can be individualized for the child might well be of more value to that child down the road. A boring one-size-fits all approach might cause a child to detest education. I want to awaken in children a love of learning that lasts their whole life long. How much wonderful learning could one accomplish if they were inspired, like to tortoise more than the hare, to keep learning all life long?
As you can see, I have a lot of overhead even before I start investigating. I have to be aware of my biases and set them quietly aside. I must be searching for the truth underlying reality instead of confirmation of reality as I would like to see it.
Let's start with a Google Search.
At the top of the page, I see a sponsored add. I first ask Dr. Web to check the link for viruses and then continue. This page is a commercial one and states, "Implementing the Common Core State Standards The Goal: Every Child College and Career Ready!" This sounds like a noble enough goal, but this particular website sounds like a consulting group trying to secure business opportunities assisting schools implement the new standards. This reminds me of the businesses that sprung up offering Standardize Testing subsequent to "No Child Left Behind." They include a video:
http://beta.schoolimprovement.com/docs/common-core-standards-video.mp4
Understandably, they are trying to earn revenue providing a service to teachers and administrations who may be fearful or anxious about the new standards. The video does, however, provide one perspective on what Common Core means for students in the public school system.
Returning to our web search, I next notice several links from a website called "Dailycaller.com." I believe that I have read articles from there before and I'm initially suspicious. Trying to keep an open mind, I begin listening to the video. Will Estrada starts talking. He is, apparently, affiliated with Home School Legal Defense Association. We do pay a small fee to HSLDA to represent us in case we need any help with homeschooling our daughter. That is to say, in case the State comes knocking. However, I have followed these people and they do not seem to keep their focus on what they've promised to be their primary interest. For example, they recently lobbied against ratification of the UN Disabilities Treaty. I had done some research on this Treaty, what it meant, and why the HSLDA opposed it. The treaty had nothing directly to do with homeschooling. Some people thought that they may be unable to home-school their children with disabilities if the guarantee of the opportunity for an inclusive education somehow infringed on their option to home-school. That is, a gaurantee of the right for an inclusive education was feared to be a mandate for an inclusive education. Instead of seeking confirmation that homeschooling opportunities for children with disabilities would not be infringed, HSLDA campaigned to prevent rights and protections being extended for people with disabilities. This treaty is not the topic immediately under discussion, but the reader can read more about the extreme right agenda of the HSLDA in order to form their own assessment.
( http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/organizations/home-school-legal-defense-association )
My assessment of the HSLDA is that they are extremely conservative and, I'm afraid, nearly as paranoid as the NRA. And if you would ask me why I pay them to represent me if we run into any trouble with homeschooling my daughter, I would say you have a good point. I find it troubling to give money to any organization that fights against extending rights and protections to people with disabilities. I have a hard time wrapping my head around that.
Listening to the video and Will Estrada to about 1:11 seconds in, I have uncovered what seems to be a strong theory about why HSLDA is opposing Common Core. A hard-set core of conservative politicians have dug a deep trench to oppose pretty much literally anything Obama has chosen to support. Right here, we have the rhetoric being built up in a traditional narrative. People do not like Obama. Use his name in connection with something you don't like and people will transfer their dislike of the man to the issue. Strictly speaking, this is not an ad hominem logical fallacy, but it is skirting the territory. If there are reasons to dislike and mistrust the Common Core, you should be able to address the point instead of relying on Obamaphobia. Just like how the first person to loose their cool and start yelling in an argument is most often the one with the weaker position, any person who motivates with emotion before facts should be treated with suspicion.
As the video moves along, somewhere about 2:03, you come to the fear of Federalism argument. Ever since the Southern States wanted to keep their slaves and feared the Northern Abolitionists, you've had this sentiment brewing in the background of American politics. If you can keep the Federal Government out of your business, you can amass enough local support to oppress some interest:
- Owning slaves,
- portraying the Civil War as the "War of Northern Aggression,"
- not having your kids mix with "coloreds,"
- establishing various Jim Crow laws.
- teaching Intelligent Design instead of Evolution,
- thwarting marriage equality efforts,
- blocking access to abortion services,
- preventing sex education,
- and limiting access to birth control.
Will Estrada continues: "I think you lose the incentive for parents to be engaged in their child's education.." Ok, I realize I haven't gotten very far into this video, but Will keeps saying entirely unfounded things and making unsubstantiated claims. I know the type of person who would listen to him and agree with every fearful suspicion that issues forth from his lips. I will, however, try to give him a little credit.
Homeschooling parents don't just fear Federal involvement in their child's education. Home-schooling parents home school for one reason or another: fear of bullying, religious motivations, or special educational needs for children with disabilities. As a homeschooling parent, I do believe that I can do right by my child with her education. I don't want the State coming to my door with a complicated list of requirements. I want to tailor my education of my child to what I perceive to be her needs. To teach to her strengths or to take time to shore up her weaknesses.
What we still need and are not getting from Will is any concrete reason at all to feel that Common Core standards are going to somehow complicate or obfuscate the process of homeschooling our children. Obamaphobia, anti-federalism, fear... but no credible reasons to ground that fear to as of yet.
Will continues, "It never stops at State Standards.." He proceeds into what is clearly a slippery slope logical fallacy. If Common Core is bad, then we oppose Common Core. If what may come next from Common Core is bad ... we oppose what comes next! I think it is foolish to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Figure out if there are good things in Common Core standards and identify what may not be so good or even outright bad. Then address those issues directly.
Will asserts, "I mean, you have the classics being abandoned for instead reading executive orders from President Obama." Asserts... he doesn't back this up. He doesn't give any reason to believe this. What do you think happened? Perform your own web search on the terms, "abandon classics to read executive orders." What do you find? Well, what I found was a barrage of sites referring to Will saying this. This is important. Will may be right (I don't know, he doesn't cite a source I can check.) However, everyone else is picking this up and echoing it. Repeat a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it. If you wanted to "really" know if what Will has said is true, you can't find any critical analysis because it is drowned out from all the bloggers and message boards mindlessly repeated what Will said without any apparent effort to verify this information.
I feel as if I am watching a Nazi propaganda machine operating in the Internet age. Truth requires skepticism and a willingness to withhold judgement until facts can be weighed. There are no facts being employed here at all. But, with some effort, we can continue looking for a "Common Core Reading List."
Here's a link to the list: Common Core Reading List
Can you locate the executive orders?
There may be reasons to oppose the Common Core material, but the people who are frantically opposing the standards are not well-reasoned, deeply-researched, critical thinkers. The fears evidenced by these people should not become your own no matter how many times they repeated or how widely their fears propagate across the Internet. The dissemination of a fear is not the truth and we must be highly critical of any side of an issue who's primary tool of promoting their interests shares so many striking similarities with the Nazi Propaganda machine. Demand evidence. Ask for facts. Engage in skeptical analysis. Please, for the love of God and Country, think for yourselves.
Will wonders if a homeschool or privately educated student might be disadvantage from having not learned from the Common Core curriculum. (4:28) This would be something to take seriously. We want our homeschool kids to have the opportunity to go to college. Doing so means they have to take various tests like the ACT or the SAT. In this way, however, Common Core works for you. It helps you understand what sorts of material would be found on these tests and you can prepare your child. With Common Core or without it, you should still be gearing your child for taking the ACT/SAT and buying books to help ascertain their readiness for doing so. As a homeschool parent, your life hasn't changed. You are still going to have to read, review, buy, and teach from these ACT and SAT test prep materials. Common Core standards would simply help you align your child's homeschool education from the beginning with the path needed to prepare for these potentially very important tests. The advantage of time is like the length of a lever multiplying force if used appropriately. I see nothing to fear here.
7:04 Gina (the interviewer) says, "science based on political thought instead of the scientific method." She is talking about a perceived change in education. These aren't even her words, she's reading from some statement made by the "Constitutional Coalition in St. Louis." Now a critique of Common Core would be fair game. Does Common Core under-perform the type of education "Constitutional Coalition" favors? Again, all we have is a statement by someone that Common Core does something. Previously, we've seen Will's comment about kids being made to read Executive Orders disseminating across the blogosphere without any effort at fact checking. Further, we checked the facts and see that Will is talking without basis. We've linked to the actual reading list and we don't have to wonder or say might and maybe. We know that we should require some support for statements and not simply accept them at face value. At best, Will did not think critically about his own statement. At worse, he is intentionally spreading what he knows to be a lie.
But, back to Constitutional Coalition. They are advocating an approach to learning. "The classical education of seeking truth in an orderly way with chronological history, facts, and sequential mathematic exercises has been replaced ..." The continue into a critique of Common Core which conclude with "science based on political thought instead of the scientific method." This type of discussion might be profitable. However, Common Core exactly intends to have evidenced-based education. This seems to be the pot calling the kettle black. Some States have tried to teach Intelligent Design in class as a Scientific Theory of equal value to Evolution. That is science based on political (and religious) thought and not on the scientific method. You can believe in Intelligent Design. You can believe a literal reading of the bible. But so did people in Galileo's time. The quoted passages of the bible which they deemed proved the earth was immovable and therefore could not rotate around the sun. Except that these beliefs were not based on the Scientific Method. Nor is Intelligent Design. No application of the Scientific Method to the study of life results in believing the story of Genesis is literally true. You can believe that as an element of faith, that's your choice. But that is not Science, that is motivate reasoning. (Other Reading: The Story Behind Those Creationist Test Papers. Short version, not a public school but rather Blue Ridge Christian Academy, which is more understandable)
At 8:06, Will seems to be criticizing Common Core by illustrating an inadequacy in the current education system. A 5th grader that has not yet been taught the Constitution and Declaration of Independence has homework depicting the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the linchpin for freedom. Now, first, this could be called the logical fallacy of cherry picking your data. If you look far enough and hard enough across the country, you will find some example of lunacy. See also The Story Behind Those Creationist Test Papers, (above) which would also be cherry picking of data. But back to the linchpin comment, this is another echoing of anti-federalism and anti-UN sentiment. It is a fear-based argument as opposed to a reasoned one.
At around 8:35, he mentions "buzzwords" and then he uses his own set. In particular, he talks about "universal healthcare" which anyone who is Obamaphobic has already rejected. Probably effective for those who are afraid of Obamacare. Because somehow people having access to medical care is frightening and people having no access to medical care is comforting to some people. You know, like Jesus said, "When I was sick, you told me to get a job..." I might not be remembering that correctly.
I will pause in my deliberations at 9:45 into this video. The video is highly political, not evidence-based, doesn't cite resources, and seems to be very poorly reasoned. If I really want to understand Common Core, I suppose I will have to be more selective about what resources I invest time in listening to. I will set aside the conversation at this time and hope to pick it up again in a latter post with a more analytical source. Perhaps, something coming from professional teachers if I can find one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)