James Joyner points us to a Washington Post article on how Bill Gates somewhat single-handedly pulled off a dramatic restructuring of American public education, via promoting the Common Core standards. There is much that is fascinating here, including the fact that a billionaire with a plan can get things done in our fractured Republic a lot more easily than our actual governments (plural because education is still largely a local matter) ever could. Apparently, Gates got a pitch in 2008 from a pair of education reformers who wanted to see uniform standards for US schools. Gates thought about it, then jumped in with two feet (and a vast philanthropic and lobbying apparatus). Within two years, 45 states and the District of Columbia had fully adopted the Common Core Standards. The idea enjoyed bipartisan support; only quite recently, when members of the Tea Party realized that all this happened under Obama’s watch, have Republicans taken up the fight against it.
Personally, I’m completely in favor of national curricula and standards. Indeed, I’d like to go much further, and nationalize the schools, so that public spending on students in rural Louisiana is just as high as that in wealthy suburbs in the Northeast. I’m also not dead set against swift action by small groups of people who are willing to get things done, rather than sit around for decades trading white papers and town hall meetings. (I even helped a bit with such non-democratic action myself, and suffered the attendant abuse with stoic calm.)
What I don’t know, since I simply am completely unfamiliar with the details, is whether the actual Common Core initiative (as opposed to the general idea of a common curriculum) is a good idea. I know that some people are very much against it — so much so that it’s difficult to find actual information about it, since emotions run very high, and you are more likely to find either rampant boosterism or strident criticism. Of course you can look up what the standards are, both in English Language Arts and in Mathematics (there don’t seem to be standards for science, history, or social studies). But what you read is so vague as to be pretty useless. For example, the winningly-named “CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.W.1” standard reads
Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.
That sounds like a good idea! But doesn’t translate unambiguously into something teachable. The devil is in the implementation.
So — anyone have any informed ideas about how it works in practice, and whether it’s helpful and realistic? (Early results seem to be mildly promising.) I worry from skimming some of the information that there seems to be an enormous emphasis on “assessment,” which presumably translates into standardized testing. I recognize the value of such testing in the right context, but also have the feeling that it’s already way overdone (in part because of No Child Left Behind), and the Common Core just adds another layer of requirements. I’d rather have students and schools spend more time on teaching and less time on testing, all else being equal.
Jim in IA,
Would those be Iowa standards? Or the science and technical standards that fall under the English Language Art standards (ELA)? Just curious.
A common curriculum makes sense as long as it’s sensibly constructed, and isn’t after the fashion of, for example, the preponderance of Texas school boards. I suppose the profit-driven textbook industry, in subservience to Texas standards, is the de facto architect of the common curriculum.
I think a standardized curriculum makes sense. But does it recognize the striking intelligence evident in present design, yet fail to acknowledge the exquisite wisdom emergent within natural selection? Is systematic exploration of all available evidence a friend or a foe?
Testing has long been abused throughout the educational system, as it’s regarded as a means of rating performance rather than as a guide to more targeted, perhaps more effectively delivered, information. The grading system needed to measure individual strengths has been co-opted into a system of judgment, historically of students, but lately also of teachers and schools. That’s readily understandable, given the relative authority of politicians, boards, schools, teachers, and students. Unfortunately, there’s ample and growing historical evidence that the present approach isn’t working. Teachers quickly learn to teach for the test, even as students quickly learn to study for the test. That’s as opposed to teachers expressing their passion for the information, and students pursuing their native curiosity about it.
The notion of a universal standardized test is ethnically flawed. The quoted essay assignment is an example of this. Without watering it down in the least, this challenge can be articulated in a far less intimidating manner.
Here’s the original: “Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.”
And here’s just one of infinite possible alternatives: “Write about something you feel is important by describing the evidence, reasoning and key experiences that support your belief in its importance.”
Even this would be appropriate for only a subset of potential participants. Surely others could readily come up with something better. The point is that when questions become too abstract, they may lose their ability to evoke any gut-level response other than despair.
Interestingly, the national science standards currently being bandied about are not called “Common Core” standards, but rather “Next Generation Science Standards”.
Anybody who is interested can read them here.
Much of this discussion on education in America, is really ill defined and nonsensical, both from the right and the left.
We have good examples of systems that work, with an enormous body of empirical research behind them.
Lots of talk about poverty/inequality/blah blah blah when in reality this is nothing that other countries don’t face.
I mean its difficult to justify our enormous per capita cost of education (amongst the highest in the OECD) with the result (somewhere in the 40s or 50s).
We should simply institutionalize the systems that are known to work elsewhere (Japan, China, Korea) and as a general rule they frequently involve some sort of standardized core and the standards are at a considerably higher level which is why their students frequently outpace our own, even in the most economically disadvantaged areas.
First, it is great to see a strong intellect applied to issues outside one’s primary expertise. Lucid explanations and arguments go a long way toward helping me clarify my own positions, no matter if I agree or not. So, thanks for putting this out here.
Second, it is shocking how much a teacher’s “ability” matters: A “Core” of any kind will mean most to mediocre teachers. The best teachers already have their own paths to excellence. I don’t have any memorable classes or courses: I have memorable teachers.
Third, the process of turning a “standard” into a “curriculum” then into a “course” taught by a particular teacher in a particular “class” is tortuous indeed. The best of the teacher’s I’ve known only rarely love the texts they use: Each would like to write their own, one that matches their talents and teaching goals. And how many teachers even begin to be qualified or are even able to write their own text books? That level of teacher-text integration usually doesn’t happen until college.
Fourth, the ultimate goal isn’t “education”! The ultimate goal is to create a “productive member of society”, where “productive” has contexts of happiness, usefulness, satisfaction and wealth at both personal and societal levels. From this perspective, aren’t we really talking about exposing a child to enough experiences and information to permit good career choices to be made?
Fifth: Why are we now so focused on the informational, and so little on the experiential? Where are the shop and art and cooking classes, and other things that are more related to “trades” than “professions”? To me, these matter far more than any “Core” ever could. Yes, we need good instructional goals. But we also need good experiential goals!
I’m lucky enough to have found something I’m truly good at, something I enjoy doing each and every day. But I never would have made it here without many excellent teachers along the way, and schools that let me try many different things, enabling me to learn what I did and didn’t like, or could and couldn’t do!
I suspect the presence of absence of a “Core” would have made very little difference to me: Good teachers can and do fill the gaps and extend the shortcomings of any “Core”. Good schools will provide access to and experience with many things not covered by any “Core” (such as “non-academic” classes).
But isn’t it easier to debate a “Core” than to find and develop inspired and inspiring teachers, or to expand faculty and space to support “non-academic” experiential classes?
I would support school nationalization not to standardize on a “Core”, but to do the other things I’ve mentioned. Our schools need a Manhattan Project and an Apollo Program, not a new “Core”.
“Nationalization of the schools is tempting on the one hand…but it would also politicize curriculum even further. Do you really want Congress debating whether the standards should include Inelegant Design or exclude climate change?”
Who debates them now? Local independent school boards. Is that better? With national-level debates, there is at least some hope that such debates will get more publicity and ridicule from the civilized world.
As others have pointed out, the real problem is not lack of standards, but is social and economic. As long as one has a better chance in life if one has gone to a private school, there is no hope.
Sean, as an employee of a private university, perhaps you can comment on how many prospective students who are otherwise well qualified can’t go to a private university because of lack of money. In other words, shouldn’t the universities be nationalized as well?
Yes, there are scholarships. However, if everyone in need gets a scholarship, why not just make tuition free, from the same pot of money? If a substantial fraction is paid by students who are rich but not good enough to get a scholarship, something is wrong.
I lasted two weeks at a U.S. college (St. John’s College in Annapolis, Maryland) before returning to Europe (where I studied, tuition-free (even as (then) a foreigner) at the University of Hamburg). I had money through a collection of scholarships, a large part from my father’s employer (aerospace industry, mainly defense) (obviously, those whose parents don’t work for a scholarship-providing company are at a disadvantage). Others had some sort of financial aid, where they had to work for part of it. I remember sitting in the cafeteria after lunch, discussing Ancient Greek philosophy or beaches in Denmark or whatever, while a fellow student was cleaning the tables. One reason I left was because I wasn’t comfortable in this environment. (Another was because my view of the Great Books Program had changed since I had applied; the main one was that I wanted to return to Europe.)
By the way, I read “From Eternity to Here” last week, probably the only person to have read your book in Macedonia. 🙂 I had bought it last summer when I was in Manchester, along with several other books, and remember showing them to Tony Readhead, who was visiting at the time. He said you were a good writer and speaker. 🙂
Does it bother anyone else when public policy is determined by the deep pockets of the elite instead of public debate and democratic consensus? I don’t know much about Gate’s efforts, and I can certainly believe he is well intentioned, but this isn’t the way public policy should be formed in my opinion.
Bill Gates has an army of researchers behind him, which is why I often find myself in agreement with him. He focuses on operational questions moreso than proselytizing the linear and simplistic left and right divide.
For instance his solution to climate change involves education and eg creating a better condom which is trivial to see will have far greater potential impact than having everyone purchase change lightbulbs. (Orders of magnitude difference actually) That his solutions are easy to swallow for almost everyone, is one of the reasons he is so well regarded and has the clout to push things through.
As far as education goes, I believe the consensus in education circles is simply that teachers are the most important aspect, followed by having a strong and set curriculum, followed by the amount of hours/day/effort that each student spends working.
I completely disagree with the socioeconomic argument as it has been debunked multiple times before. Put the 10 best teachers that have the highest test scores in a school in a ghetto, and within a few years those students are within striking distance from the best in the country. All it takes is sufficient work and proper teachers.
The more scientifically literate America becomes the more potential a ‘Common Core’ will continue to help. When few people understand science, there is always a danger that the others will be fearful of what they do not understand and consequently use science to their advantage without understanding the consequences.
Common Core is an excellent start, regardless of who controls it or pays for it.
“Talk of poverty/inequality blah blah” The connection between poverty and poor educational achievement is very well documented throughout the world–not just in US. A recent article in the NY Times states: ” New research by Sean F. Reardon of Stanford University traces the achievement gap between children from high- and low-income families over the last 50 years and finds that it now far exceeds the gap between white and black students.
Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress show that more than 40 percent of the variation in average reading scores and 46 percent of the variation in average math scores across states is associated with variation in child poverty rates.
International research tells the same story. Results of the 2009 reading tests conducted by the Program for International Student Assessment show that, among 15-year-olds in the United States and the 13 countries whose students outperformed ours, students with lower economic and social status had far lower test scores than their more advantaged counterparts within every country. Can anyone credibly believe that the mediocre overall performance of American students on international tests is unrelated to the fact that one-fifth of American children live in poverty? ”
A little google search will yield links to many such studies across many countries.
Bill Gates doesn’t really have access to this cadre of educational experts–because no such thing exists. Just think for a second: why hasn’t there been any noticeable improvements in the last fifty years despite innumerable theories and studies? Education as a “science”is governed by what Feynman likened to Pacific Island Cargo Cults–all the trappings of real science but none of its rigor–i.e. pseudoscience..
Start with early child education, especially in the inner core immigrant and poor black and white communities, get parents involved. If the parents won’t, have others assigned to students as soon as possible to mentor them as much as possible. Nothing, not curriculum nor any method of teaching can replace the human element in education and the wellbeing of young people.
Sorry, the level of achievement by a typical student in rural china, where poverty obviously far outweighs anything that we have in the states completely shatters that story.
So while it is obvious an avg poor student does less well than an avg rich student regardless of location, the reason why our poor students do less well than their poor students is the crux of the matter.
This notion that we can’t properly educate disadvantaged students is a complete myth. We know exactly what it takes.
OK–last post by me. A few seconds search on google comes up with this:
“Children in China’s poor rural areas (including poor rural boarders), have been shown to be the worst performing group of students in the entire country”
Assertions are not facts. Far from a consensus that teacher quality counts most, the nearly universal, fact-based consensus is that the student’s socioeconomic status counts most (notice most, not entirely). If anyone here really does know what it takes, please share the details. (Please note that the worst performing states are those with weak or no teacher’s unions–which may mean nothing. Many of best performing countries have strong teacher’s unions. Just the fact–I’m not arguing for unions per se.)
Sigh, again you are missing the point. I am not saying that there isn’t a difference between rich and poor, country vs city or any other measure you might pick up. I am however arguing that it is possible to educate poor children and to do it well.
The fact of the matter is that a child in poverty in China outperforms the comparable child in the US by a frightening margin, in fact thats almost the entire difference between our relative rank and theirs. This despite spending significantly more money per capita than they do.
Moreover the biggest difference between the quality of education between a rich and a poor child is of course access to quality teachers, so I would need to see studies that control for this before jumping to too many conclusions.
Doesn’t this story tell us something? Can we figure it out and stop acting as if schools must teach children to ‘know their place’,i.e.., channeling.
‘After a box of Motorola Xoom tablets was dropped off in an Ethiopian village, kids who had never seen a computer before quickly taught themselves how to make modifications to Android’.
see…
http://www.fastcoexist.com/1681011/ethiopian-kids-hacked-their-donated-tablets-in-just-five-months
I can only speak to the math standards. They are probably a slight improvement for the curricula in some states. Washington, where I reside, had among the best developed state standards for math already. The state did a detailed comparison to the existing state standards that found them to be very similar, so any effect here is likely to be undetectable. The largest issue for Washington in the transition is the timing of certain topics and skills, (e.g., Common Core introduces a topic or skill a year or two earlier or later than Washington previously did). For students who are attending school now, during the transitional period, this has to be handled carefully.
While the math standard itself is written in a very sparse, dry style, it is not vague or unclear. More than anything it is a reference document, not a textbook or even the outline of a textbook. The topics and skills described as targets for each grade are clear to anyone familiar with math education. Further, it is not intended to stand alone, but rather serve as a starting point and framework for the development of supplementary and supporting material, such as lesson plans, textbooks, educational videos and software etc.
This is not a New Math style curriculum change, it does not take a radical new approach to how to teach concepts or what concepts to teach.
It is neutral on the question of an Integrated Math vs. Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II style curriculum. The common core standard includes guidance for both.
While a national curriculum standard makes standardized testing easier to implement, perhaps, there are other reasons to have one. For example, it makes it possible to develop textbooks and supporting material that can easily be marketed across many states. It also makes it less likely that a student moving from one state to another will miss out on a topic and instead have to sit through material they already had in their old school.
Very few professional educators see common core as a panacea or as a menace, but primarily as a change that might do a little good if the transition is handled properly. (Most experienced teachers have been through at least one curriculum change at the state or district level in their careers). However, these pragmatic, well informed, caring professionals are not the people the media talks to. The media prefers to talk to highly opinionated individuals with significant political clout, monetary resources, or simplistic ideologically driven views, because that makes for the best sound bites. Education is one of many areas where American journalism is frankly an embarrassment.
Math is perhaps the easiest of the four major curricular areas to establish standards for, so perhaps it is just the most solid at this point. I can’t say much about the others. The one concern about the English standard I’ve heard from multiple people is that it perhaps stresses nonfiction reading and writing too much and literature too little.
The first point we can talk is: Our children’s should be great’s man’s in job market or, great’s man’s in social community? Common core no have doubt is a more efficient form to assess student’s for a University or Job’s, but when you talk the social discussion or how children’s in future can do for USA, common core is inoperative. Beside common core enables students for university, and decreases necessity for acess the student a “student-borrower”.
Haelfix,
I might be missing something, but I don’t understand your objection. James Collins, and others, have not claimed or implied that students from poorer households are somehow innately less capable of learning. They have been suggesting other reasons for why there is a discrepancy, and there is, the statistics are plain to read. Things like allocation of resources, which is often very skewed and certainly does play a significant role. And using ineffective methods. The claims have been that there are problems with the system, not with the students innate abilities.
I don’t know if the issue is with the actual standards or rather that the standards keep changing almost every year or so now, so that creating textbooks and curriculum and lessons that align with the standards is happening too quickly and they’re no longer written by people who are content experts or educators. For example, I used to work on math textbooks 20 years ago. The cycle for developing a math textbook was three to five years because we sent the material to be tested in dozens of classrooms and paid teachers to provide feedback on what lessons worked and used this to make better books. The folks working on the books were math teachers, math education specialists, and professional mathematicians so we made sure that the final product was pedagogically sound, engaging, and mathematically correct. If you look at just about any textbook from 20-30 years or so back you’ll see that they were written by a similar group of subject matter experts and educators. The folks that developed the common core standards didn’t even put their names anywhere on the website and it’s a secret who they are. If you look at the curriculum materials developed for common core such as what’s on https://www.engageny.org/about you can see these are very low quality. I think just about anyone can make a list of “standards” but the real work is in turning that into something that works with real children in a real classroom. It can take years to do this well. Another concern is that there seems to be no way to modify the standards. For example, the common core moves the Pythagorean theorem out of Geometry and into 8th grade math (CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.8.G.B.6). If math teachers all decided that perhaps it works better to learn to prove the Pythagorean theorem in Geometry when students are learning how to write proofs and about triangles… then there doesn’t seem to be a mechanism to change this.
The two main problems with our educational system are teaching for the test instead of teaching how to think and actually learning the material and the fallacy of an age based grade system as the best solution for educating our young. It might be the easiest for the administrators and teachers and it gives the politicians issues so they can strut around boasting of their success and laying blame on others for the failures but it is definitely not the best for the students.
An age-based grade system is inherently unfair to students from impoverished and/or so called “lower class” households who are not prepared when they enter the first grade because of conditions in the neighborhood, the lack of preschool or from a home environment with poor nutrition and a lack of proper childhood developemt.
It is unfair for the kids who can’t assimilate the course material at the average rate. They become labeled as stupid, suffer from lowered self-esteem, lash out at others in their frustration, and will eventually stop trying to really learn and instead learn to get through the system to get passed to the next grade.
And it is also unfair to the students who can assimilate the course material at a faster rate than the average. They become bored, distracted by negative pastimes, and/or they can become victims of their own success by becoming targets for bullying.
All of the above increase the likelihood that they will fail to achieve their potential because of our inefficient educational system.
My objections to the standards are: too low when specified,too vague otherwise and designed to test facts.
The goal should be to motivate/inspire children to learn and to be curious. The goal is not to have kids remember a bunch of facts or follow 5 step instructions because computers are way better at that. Society benefits when kids are curious and ask questions and understand, are not be satisfied with the simplest or the most common answer (which is often wrong) and drop the ‘it makes sense’ phrase. Kids need to question even the basis of our theories, even the terms that are being used-only then, when they look for the answer can they learn; things need to make sense only after said things have been pondered/reflected on. No standard can accomplish that by dictating requirements. The goal can be accomplished by giving the tools for open-ended, self-driven/motivated, guided research.
I don’t care if a 1st grader passed the spelling test last week if today he can’t read the title of a simple book; the spelling test measured nothing. I want the kid to know that if he can’t read the title, that’s ok, he can figure it out and if he has unknown words he can look at a picture dictionary. The kids need to learn how to go from a problem/challenge to a question to an answer. The job of the teacher is to challenge the student’s understanding, to pose questions to lead to a firm learning. If the student associates experience with learning, the student will be better able to recall/recreate the arguments and make analogies. When kids are engaged in a conversation as part of their learning, they are communicating not only what they know but also what they do not know and what they want to know and how they want to go about finding it.
Low requirements: by know the world should be tired of the world algebra, algebra is something 5th graders should get easily these days; algebra has been taught so much that the collective understanding must have only improved and the transfer of that learning must have improved. Why is algebra the requirement for high school gratuation? Why is geometry taught in first year of high school when Europe has shown that geometry can be taught in all its glory in fifth grade once algebra concepts have set in. Geometry is everywhere, appreciation of the subject can be achieved through exploration, hands-on, of architecture and robotics.
Vagueness was discussed: I also want to be rich. Great. Good luck to me since there is no proven formula!
Testing facts: yes, yes, there are some things which are good putting to memory such as not a good idea to cross the street on red, but do I really need to know who peed his pants during a ball in Versaille in January 1753? Seriously? Art-how about teaching kids how hazardous of an activity.
Let’s teach kids relevant skills to-things they will use inn their day-inn-day-out lives. Even things such as accounting and financial responsibility.
Common core was supposed to do good things for education at the state level that would among other things be less punitive to school systems and teachers than something like NCLB. Anyone want to argue that if standardization is going to happen, that the Fed would be better at getting the job done than the states? I wouldn’t.
Then last week, before the standards have even been in place long enough for the schools to get their assessments aligned with instruction, some jokers already wish to use student performance or lack thereof to begin punishing the teachers again. Even the Gates foundation is opposed to this.
I’ll bet that even if Common Core did everything that it was supposed to do, some folks wouldn’t be happy about it unless it was also punitive to teachers, or could in some way be co-opted into providing more vouchers for sending their children to private charter schools or home schooling that included religious indoctrination that can be credited toward a GED or high school equivalency.
NCLB or no, some children are going to be left behind, and I blame the parents more than teachers. By the time the politicians figure this out, an awful lot of teachers are going to be not just left behind, but punished unfairly for an anti-education movement that was never their fault. Those who are actually left, that is.
Fascinating that NONE of these comments actually address the Common Core standards themselves! Go read them, and tell me one thing in their that doesn’t belong.
Do I want students to be able to solve word problems? Hell yes: life is a word problem. Would YOU hire a student who answered, “If a school bus holds 30 students, and you have 100 to transport, how many buses should you hire?” with the answer 3 1/3?!
The Common Core doesn’t solve school problems. It diagnoses if we have problems. The choice is to know, or to pretend things are ok. American students are near the top in the world in self esteem. How about getting to the top in actual performance? Unless you measure (and, yes, good exams are EXPENSIVE to create) you don’t know.
Unless you have clear goals or standards it is very very hard to teach them.
How to SOLVE our problems is a very complex story. But not knowing how to solve them doesn’t argue for throwing out standards..
My read is that the Common Code standards are great, but that the associated curricula adopted by various states have a lot of problems. And like you mention, the emphasis on endless testing is problematic as well.
Simple subtraction of 243 – 105. We were all taught a very simple and easy method to solve this. No go look up how CC does it. CC will use 6 different steps to solve this problem. And no money is NOT the answer. How come in NYC 65-70% of all students in the highest rated public schools are Asian or Asian immigrants. has nothing to do with money.