The South Dakota Chamber of Commerce is throwing its weight behind the Common Core education standards:
David Owen, the chamber’s president, said today that he’ll officially announce the endorsement on Friday morning.
"We believe we need rigorous standards," Owen said. "Common Core are the kind of standards we think make sense, and we don’t see any others."
Owen said opponents of the standards, developed by the National Governors Association, should produce their own “set of standards that helps in the same way Common Core does” [David Montgomery, "Chamber of Commerce to Endorse Common Core Standards," Political Smokeout, 2014.01.09].
I can't imagine why an ultimately ineffective policy like Common Core warrants an expenditure of the Chamber's political capital. Owen must be doing someone a favor. But since Owen and the business lobby feel qualified to weigh in on education, I look forward to the respect they will accord teachers when the South Dakota Education Association weighs in on business licensing requirements, sales tax, economic development grants, and other economic policy issues.
Owen commits a familiar fallacy. He's trying to make you think that our only policy options are the Common Core standards or an alternative set of standards. Offer no alternative, and your opposition is bogus.
That's like saying, "Teachers need beatings. We don't have to listen to your opposition to beatings for teachers unless you offer an alternative plan for dishing out beatings." That position ignores the fact that "No beatings!" is a perfectly valid and possibly superior policy position.
But opposition to interstate Common Core standards doesn't mean "No standards!" Every good school already offers alternative standards. Every good teacher already teaches the knowledge and skills that their professional expertise says kids need. Every good administrator already hires who can bring such expertise to bear in selecting books, delivering lessons, and evaluating student performance.
If teachers read the Common Core standards and decide they align with what they find necessary and effective in their classrooms, great. But teachers and schools should have the freedom to say they prefer the high standards their own professional expertise has led them to use for years. They should also be free to revise or reject national standards, even if—or perhaps especially if—some salesman or business organization tells them they should use those standards.
I have seen many fads/standards in education come and go. I really view Common Core as nothing more than that. However, I have read the Common Core standards for eight through 12th grades, and compare them to what I had done in my classroom. My classroom standards were always better than anything I read in Common Core. So what scares me, in an attempt to "improve our failing education system," we are really dumbing down our education system. I have no doubt that what we see in Common Core will be an improvement in many schools nationwide, but what happens in classrooms that exceed the standards? The only possible result that is that in attempting to make the poor to mediocre students better, the good ones will become mediocre. The state Chamber may be in favor of this because, they, no doubt, have seen the stats that mediocre students tend to stay in the state.
The South Dakota Education Association (SDEA), the School Administrators of South Dakota (SASD), and my organization, the Associated School Boards of South Dakota (ASBSD) are all on board to support CCSS. In regard to the comment above, I've also read portions of the standards from multiple grade levels. As a non-educator, if you would be so kind, I would appreciate examples of dumbing down. Some months ago I participated in a joint SASD-ASBSD conference. I was in a room with perhaps 80-100 administrators discussing CCSS. I stood up and asked the administrators to please raise their hand if they felt CCSS were dumbing down our children. You would have thought I was a comedian for the big laugh I got. Not a single hand went up. When I asked how many believe CCSS will "raise-the-bar" for our students, every hand in the room went up. I appreciate not all teachers and administrators agree on CCSS - there is little in education that all educators agree on - but if you're going to throw out the comment that the new standards will dumb down our kids, some supportive evidence would be appreciated.
Two comments:
1) The federal government doesn't allow us to have no state standards. Until we eliminate the federal DOE, we will be required to have standards.
2) There is nothing that prevents a school or teacher from exceeding the Common Core Standards.
Your arguments are bogus Cory.
If a President Mitt Romney (thank you, goddess) proposed these identical recommendations, the GOP would be slobbering all over it.
Eliminate the US Depts. of Agriculture and Fatherland Security.
I like the Common Core, Larry. My point is Cory's arguments against are bogus.
The scariest part is that funding for implementing the standards give too much power to scary states like South Dakota at the whims of its nutcase legislature. There are too many schools that need help from the feds because the state has shown time and time again that the politics are are hijacked by the various white-centered religious cults.
First, I have nothing against Common Core. It is just another fad in education that we will see come and go. Experienced teachers have seen it all before and will roll with it. But the chamber endorsement tends to prove that Cory's points may be anything but "bogus," which my last post referred to when I wrote: "what scares me, in an attempt to 'improve our failing education system,' we are really dumbing down our education system." I didn't say this was a fact, I stated that I was concerned. South Dakota- and Midwestern-educated young people are sought after all over the nation for employment, and especially South Dakota's young are lured away by the better pay that they can get almost anywhere else. The South Dakota Chamber of Commerce knows this. So doesn't it enter the realm of possibility that they take time to endorse educational standards that have the ulterior motive to make South Dakota's young people less sought after elsewhere? Cory makes a valid, "non-bogus" point. Whether it is ultimately true or not true, doesn't matter. The point is still something we should consider. As to asking a room of 80 to 100 administrators about classroom standards, I would, instead, ask them how much classroom experience they have. Most - not all- administrators I know were teachers for a very short time before deciding to get their administrative degrees. In general, people like to advance in their professions. In teaching, sadly, the only way to advance is to no longer be a teacher, but to go back to higher education where they are instructed by people who likely never taught in an elementary or secondary classroom, and then being put into positions where they supervise people who have much more experience with education young people. After all, while those same 80-100 administrators can look at Common Core standards on paper and applaud, not ONE of then will ever have to lift a finger to adopt any of them into actual practice. Remember, it sounded like an outstanding idea to put a bell on the cat to everyone ...except the mouse who had to do it.
If the Chamber wants improvement in education, it must do more than support Common Core State Standards. That's a start, but it's a pretty easy one for the Chamber. It requires nothing of them. Where is their plan for an income tax, or other additional money to fund increased dollars to education? That would be something that would do more good than the CCSS.
I support CCSS, but Cory is right that the CCSS won't make much of a difference absent good teaching in all subject matter from Pre-K to 12. I don't view CCSS as an attack on good teaching. It's just one of many tools that can be used by districts and teachers to improve education. It sets a floor and a roadmap for what we want students to be introduced to and master.
No one should be under the assumption that the standards are the last word on teaching. As with any standards, some are probably pretty good, others probably will need to be changed.
I don't have a problem with the Chamber being involved in and stating a position on education issues. We actually want the business community more involved in the schools. If we want their money, we better listen to what they think. We don't have to agree, but we have to take their ideas into consideration, and vice versa. It's not just a one-way conversation. Many times on many issues educators are involved in local and state economic development issues.
I have thought for some time now that my daughter's math is taught strangely, and it made me feel a bit better when I read the article Jonathan Ellis had in the Argus Leader a few days ago about struggling with his 4th grade daughter's math. I totally agree with Ellis, I have looked at my third grade daughter's math trying to figure out what the heck they're trying to have the student do. I agree with the opinion of some math teachers that commented below his article that Common Core is making math very abstract for the child when it doesn't need to be. The Common Core math concepts are trying to get the child to think critically. For instance, my daughter's math homework a lot of times have been focused on drawing the math problem out. Math isn't art class, and some kids are going to be too overly focused on the drawing - too many concepts going on at once. Children's brains are still growing. Whoever thought this newest math standard up is just making it confusing for the majority of students and parents. We don't need more insecurity with math. Students learn by repetition, basic math rules, and lots of practice with math problems, They've made it more difficult than it needs to be.
For all teachers out here-didn't NCLB pretty much take away teacher options for teaching and force teachers to teach to standardized testing? That is the biggest criticism I recall hearing. That and having education monies stripped from budgets due to tax cuts. It would be nice to get authentic teacher's viewpoints unless that would be another post sometime.
Oh Mr. Deutsch! That Morrocan Chicken really looks good. Thanks for the recipe.
It's been many years since I taught and I don't pretend to be versed in CCSS. My comment is based on common experiences in any school I've had contact with. Class size is a key.
Very frequently when the students from a tiny rural school come to town for high school, they are among the top of their class. The same is often true of homeschoolers. Their teachers have time to get to know them. They learn how each student thinks, their likes and dislikes, what resonates with them, how to teach them.
Teachers can't do that in enormous classes with many discipline issues. A teacher in a small class can keep a troublesome child interested and busy without disrupting the his classmates. And the teacher who is just beginning and feeling tentative gets an opportunity to learn her way and develop her skills without excessive pressure.
I believe many goodwilled people are sincerely working hard to improve education for teachers and students. I'm also quite certain that numerous corporations are looking for ways to make money off those same students and teachers by raking in armloads of tax payer dollars. Therein lies persistent conflict and people such as yourself, Mr. Deutsch, are tasked with hearing both those sides, in addition to parents and teachers. So I have two suggestions:
1. Small classes. It will require more teachers, and less of all other personnel. Teachers and students will both improve. Money will stay in SD, rather than Pearson's corporate pockets.
2. Listen very, very, closely to the classroom teachers. They are your true experts. They have more expertise than Pearson, etc., without compromising interests. Administrators can be valuable assets, but they are not on the front line. Teachers, teachers, teachers. Ask them, listen closely to the answers you hear - and Believe Them.
Thank you for contributing and for thinking about my comment.
Deb Geelsdottir, you're welcome. It was a delicious meal! I appreciate your diligence in researching me -- I always think it's nice to know who you're conversing with. For everyone else who wonders what she is talking about, here is the link to good eating: http://drfredsplace.com/moroccan-chicken-eggplant-tomato-almonds/
Fred Deutsch,the iowa vote for your recipe is evenly divided. One vote for yummy(me),one vote no(my acid reflux) and one vote maybe/maybe not(my monthly food budget).
Troy, you're right: nothing in statute prevents districts and teachers from setting different or better standards. But the practical implementation does. If teachers have to dedicate their professional development time and classroom time to satisfying the requirements of CCSS, they lose time to work on their own initiatives. Common Core distracts not just our discourse but our resources. And it's exactly this kind of standard distraction that Mike Rounds embraces, his DOE-elimination rhetoric notwithstanding.
That's not true. Practical applications of school districts establishing improved or customized standards can be seen all over the state. In our district, CCSS serves as the floor, not the ceiling, and our teachers have worked extensively with them for the past three years. When you say CCSS causes teachers to lose time to work on thier own initiatives, that's just not correct. The vast majority of educators across the state support CCSS, and the official position of the SDEA is the same. Why might that be? Because CCSS is good for kids.
You are right Fred.
How many issues are all major education "interest" groups on the same side?
For Common Core you have the State Department of Education (under the State Constitution principally responsible for education), Associated School Boards (the principal instruments of K-12 education), School Administrators of South Dakota (principal managers of K-12 education), and the SDEA (principal representative of the direct providers of K-12 education).
So, catholics support CCSS and Protestants don't.
So Republicans are against the federal Department of Education because they support local control by parents, but they are for CCSS????!!
This is where the SDGOP loses Republicans, so many establishment "Republicans" that embrace this liberal position of big government controlling education, despite the national & state GOP platform's indicating that Republicans oppose such national control of education.
These standards were not enacted after careful consideration and review by our elected representatives. CCSS was enacted in SD in the last months of the Rounds administration by his royal bureaucratic edict. They very well may violate SD's Constitution in how they were enacted.
If schools are required to implement CCSS, can Troy or Deutsch explain to me how this supports the SDGOP platform plank that says Republicans support local control of education by the parent? How is CCSS not a radical departure from the tried and proven methods of educating our children? Conservatives believe in sticking with traditional methods that work. The traditional method in SD is local decision making by the parents, who are the most qualified and entrusted in deciding how their children are to be educated, not big government.
Fred, Troy, I guess I'm just the minority. We all share the goal of doing good things for kids. I've just never seen evidence that any outside group or national consortium or state legislature can come up with better ideas for our classrooms than my fellow teachers and I in the building can. I've never seen how professional development time dedicated to CCSS does better for kids than professional development time spent creating and improving my own lesson plans and materials. And Fred, when I have to spend a day rebuilding the floor to suit the latest standards fad, that's an hour I don't get to spend doing other work. The law of conservation of matter and energy does apply here.
Hey, DD, why don't you mention trusting teachers to make decisions?