Showing posts with label CCSSI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CCSSI. Show all posts
Friday, May 13, 2011
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Common Core Standards - A Thought Experiment
More about the Common Core....nationalization of all things educations, no local control or influence
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
The Great Cursive Debate
The Common Core State Standards do not mention cursive writing. Will RSU 1 continue to each this skill? This is a question for the School Board.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Guest column Focus on quality of teachers to improve Arkansas education
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
February 21, 2011
Guest column Focus on quality of teachers to improve Arkansas education
By SANDRA STOTSKY SPECIAL TO THE DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE
LITTLE ROCK — As reported by the Center for American Progress, urban students tend to be taught by academically less able teachers than are their suburban peers. According to this report, academically stronger teachers tend to choose to teach in non-urban schools or move there from urban schools to continue teaching. The use of academically weak licensure tests, in effect, discriminates against urban and rural students, who depend far more than do other students on the academic quality of their teachers for fostering their academic growth. As the National Council on Teacher Quality just noted, Arkansas needs to require a strong and independent licensure test of the foundations of reading instruction for prospective teachers in K-8 in order to begin to move its reading scores higher at all grade levels.
According to the 2011 “Quality Counts” report, published by Education Week, Arkansas came in 6th in its annual ranking of states’ public education policies, environment and performance. That’s the good news. But, according to the latest “State Teacher Policy Yearbook,” released by the National Council on Teacher Quality on January 27, Arkansas received a grade of C- on “delivering well-prepared teachers” to its schools. Among the policy areas that Arkansas needs to address in order to advance teacher quality and student achievement, according to the report, is to require a “stand-alone licensure test” of the fundamentals of beginning reading instruction to ensure that prospective early childhood and elementary teachers know how to teach reading effectively when they begin their teaching careers. The report also notes that Arkansas has set its passing score for the required PRAXIS elementary content test so low that “it is questionable whether this assessment is indeed provid
ing any assurance of content knowledge.” In fact, Arkansas has one of the lowest passing scores in the country for this test.
The U.S. Department of Education is clearly not satisfied with the overall quality of this country’s teaching force. Yet, its 500-point system for judging Race to the Top applications gave far more weight to state plans for upgrading those who are already in the classroom than for recruiting, preparing or licensing the kind of teachers the USDE wants to see in the classroom.
This enormous hole is surprising because it ignores what we have learned from high quality research-that the chief characteristic of an effective teacher is knowledge of the subject being taught. There is no body of evidence for any other characteristic of an “effective” teacher, although educational researchers have long tried to find one. The National Mathematics Advisory Panel duly noted that finding in its 2006 final report.
This hole is also surprising because it is common knowledge that this country draws most of its teachers from the bottom two-thirds of our college population. High-achieving countries like South Korea, Finland and Singapore draw those they train as teachers very selectively from an application pool consisting of theirmost academically able college students-the top third. In contrast, only 23 percent of American teachers come from the top third.
The USDE (perhaps deliberately) missed the opportunity to call attention to the quality controls in place in other countries that ensure the academic competence of those who are allowed to become teachers. It is reasonable to infer that these quality controls also drastically reduce the need for massive amounts of remedial professional development-a distinctly American phenomenon. No other country would spend what we lavish on professional development, especially when most of it is for remedial purposes and there is so little evidence of its effectiveness in raising student achievement.
This is precisely what Massachusetts sought to avoid by means of its teacher tests. Because of the requirement in its 1993 Education ReformAct that prospective teachers pass a subject area test for licensure (as well as a skills test), the state developed the strongest subject tests it could over a decade ago. These tests have been a significant factor in raising student achievement in the state, especially minority group achievement, because they have helped to assure an academically stronger teaching corps in its urban and rural schools, as well as in its suburban schools.
Yes, more academically rigorous licensure tests for teachers do create issues that need to be dealt with. Many undergraduates and graduates admitted into Massachusetts teacher preparation programs fail the strong subject tests the state developed. What we don’t know is whether the state’s preparation programs have given aspiring teachers enough support, required enough academic coursework, or simply admitted too many weak students as tuition-paying bodies in orderto maintain or expand the number of education faculty positions the legislature funds. Contrary to what critics charge, the tests are not the problem. They serve their intended purpose-to safeguard the public interest in ensuring academically competent teachers for all children.
For Arkansas to see increases in student reading achievement, the state should require prospective early childhood and elementary teachers to pass an independent licensure test of reading fundamentals, set passing scores much higher on the current tests it requires, and set higher admissions requirements for early childhood and elementary teacher preparation programs.
Sandra Stotsky is Professor of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas and former Senior Associate Commissioner in the Massachusetts Department of Education.
February 21, 2011
Guest column Focus on quality of teachers to improve Arkansas education
By SANDRA STOTSKY SPECIAL TO THE DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE
LITTLE ROCK — As reported by the Center for American Progress, urban students tend to be taught by academically less able teachers than are their suburban peers. According to this report, academically stronger teachers tend to choose to teach in non-urban schools or move there from urban schools to continue teaching. The use of academically weak licensure tests, in effect, discriminates against urban and rural students, who depend far more than do other students on the academic quality of their teachers for fostering their academic growth. As the National Council on Teacher Quality just noted, Arkansas needs to require a strong and independent licensure test of the foundations of reading instruction for prospective teachers in K-8 in order to begin to move its reading scores higher at all grade levels.
According to the 2011 “Quality Counts” report, published by Education Week, Arkansas came in 6th in its annual ranking of states’ public education policies, environment and performance. That’s the good news. But, according to the latest “State Teacher Policy Yearbook,” released by the National Council on Teacher Quality on January 27, Arkansas received a grade of C- on “delivering well-prepared teachers” to its schools. Among the policy areas that Arkansas needs to address in order to advance teacher quality and student achievement, according to the report, is to require a “stand-alone licensure test” of the fundamentals of beginning reading instruction to ensure that prospective early childhood and elementary teachers know how to teach reading effectively when they begin their teaching careers. The report also notes that Arkansas has set its passing score for the required PRAXIS elementary content test so low that “it is questionable whether this assessment is indeed provid
ing any assurance of content knowledge.” In fact, Arkansas has one of the lowest passing scores in the country for this test.
The U.S. Department of Education is clearly not satisfied with the overall quality of this country’s teaching force. Yet, its 500-point system for judging Race to the Top applications gave far more weight to state plans for upgrading those who are already in the classroom than for recruiting, preparing or licensing the kind of teachers the USDE wants to see in the classroom.
This enormous hole is surprising because it ignores what we have learned from high quality research-that the chief characteristic of an effective teacher is knowledge of the subject being taught. There is no body of evidence for any other characteristic of an “effective” teacher, although educational researchers have long tried to find one. The National Mathematics Advisory Panel duly noted that finding in its 2006 final report.
This hole is also surprising because it is common knowledge that this country draws most of its teachers from the bottom two-thirds of our college population. High-achieving countries like South Korea, Finland and Singapore draw those they train as teachers very selectively from an application pool consisting of theirmost academically able college students-the top third. In contrast, only 23 percent of American teachers come from the top third.
The USDE (perhaps deliberately) missed the opportunity to call attention to the quality controls in place in other countries that ensure the academic competence of those who are allowed to become teachers. It is reasonable to infer that these quality controls also drastically reduce the need for massive amounts of remedial professional development-a distinctly American phenomenon. No other country would spend what we lavish on professional development, especially when most of it is for remedial purposes and there is so little evidence of its effectiveness in raising student achievement.
This is precisely what Massachusetts sought to avoid by means of its teacher tests. Because of the requirement in its 1993 Education ReformAct that prospective teachers pass a subject area test for licensure (as well as a skills test), the state developed the strongest subject tests it could over a decade ago. These tests have been a significant factor in raising student achievement in the state, especially minority group achievement, because they have helped to assure an academically stronger teaching corps in its urban and rural schools, as well as in its suburban schools.
Yes, more academically rigorous licensure tests for teachers do create issues that need to be dealt with. Many undergraduates and graduates admitted into Massachusetts teacher preparation programs fail the strong subject tests the state developed. What we don’t know is whether the state’s preparation programs have given aspiring teachers enough support, required enough academic coursework, or simply admitted too many weak students as tuition-paying bodies in orderto maintain or expand the number of education faculty positions the legislature funds. Contrary to what critics charge, the tests are not the problem. They serve their intended purpose-to safeguard the public interest in ensuring academically competent teachers for all children.
For Arkansas to see increases in student reading achievement, the state should require prospective early childhood and elementary teachers to pass an independent licensure test of reading fundamentals, set passing scores much higher on the current tests it requires, and set higher admissions requirements for early childhood and elementary teacher preparation programs.
Sandra Stotsky is Professor of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas and former Senior Associate Commissioner in the Massachusetts Department of Education.
Points to Consider regarding Common Core State Standards
By adopting these Common Core State Standards (CCSS), Maine risks reducing our local school boards to clerical duties only. Parents will no longer be able to go to their local school board with curriculum concerns. National Standards will lead to National Testing which leads to a National Curriculum. This will remove the “Public” from “Public education.”The CCSS are vague enough to allow the testing companies to control the curriculum.
Our state standards do need improvement. They received a “C” grade by the Thomas B Fordham Foundation. A close study our National Assessment of Educational (NAEP) testing data is concerning. Our largest demographic, ranks us as follows in mathematics:
4th Grade – 37th
8th Grade – 38th
Massachusetts is #1, regardless of Demographic.
Do we really need the CCSS for education reform in Maine? Local school boards and the state are free to improve upon our current state standards, without signing onto National Standards. Why not adopt another state’s “A” rated Thomas B Fordham standards and use an inexpensive national norm referenced test like the IOWA test?
The bottom line is that the CCSS math standards are better than our current standards, but they are not world class. (Example: You would think kids need to know the standard algorithm for addition and subtraction by 3rd grade, but the Common Core says 4th. Multiplication and division are at 6th grade.) Has everyone voting on these standards actually read them?
Dr. Sandra Stotsky and Prof. James Milgram were both on the validation committee for the Common Core State Standards. Both refused to sign off on them, but their comments go unremarked in the committee’s official report. Why not invite them to testify before voting on the CCSS for Maine?
It will soon be too late to put on the brakes in Maine. Few discussions have focused on the Common Core State Standards in Maine. Even worse, no discussions have focused on the National Testing. What about the costly and extensive databases mandated under this federal plan? All teachers and students from pre-K forward must be assessed, tracked, and reported on, but does anyone know if there are sufficient safeguards for their privacy rights?
Maine finished 33rd in our Race to the Top (RttT) application (283.4 out of 500). Washington State finished just above Maine (290.6 points). There were only 36 applicants. Washington is a lead state in the consortium awarded a $160 million grant to develop a student assessment system aligned with the common core academic standards. Dan Hupp of Maine DoE is part of this consortium. Why we should trust these assessments will be good when those overseeing them finished at the bottom in the RttT?
Is Washington picking those at the bottom of the RttT to do the assessments so that they can also get federal $$?
Maine didn’t win any “Race to the Top” federal funds. Why risk committing to a national test? Why not simply adopt our own version of the Common Core State Standards and cut the Federal Government?
President Obama has recently proposed tying in the common core standards adoption to Title 1 funding, which is subject to Congress approval or disapproval. This would make the adoption of the Common Core State Standards “mandated as a condition for receiving federal education program funds.” This is very concerning.
Will student testing data be attached to student’s Social Security numbers? What guarantees are there that this data won’t be share with colleges and future employers?
Will the CCSS “suggested readings” be tested on the “National Test”? If so, are they actually “mandatory reading?”
Have you researched those writing the “National Tests?”
What exactly does it mean to be “college-ready” in mathematics and English Language Arts?
What will the long-term cost of the transition to national standards be to the State of Maine?
Where will parents go if they have concerns with the curriculum?
By signing onto the Math and ELA Common Core Standards and testing, are we committing to the Science and History Common Core State Standards?
Can students “opt-out” of nationalized testing
Saturday, February 26, 2011
How to Avoid Dumbing High Schools Down in Re-authorizing ESEA
An article from Dr. Stotsky, member of the team creating the excellent standards that made Massachusetts students among the highest achieving in the world.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Common Core - The real scoop
Here’s the scoop, in most states, the CCSSI were pushed through because of the promise of grant $ (via RtTT). In some states, only the state superintendent or the Board could make the decision to approve the CCSSI. In Massachusetts, the governor stacked the deck in his favor. He appoints to the Board. Before the vote, Gov Patrick didn’t reappoint those who planned to vote AGAINST the CCSSI, so he actually controlled the vote. NH & WA state are trying to pass a bill to mandate that the legislature vote on the CCSSI (not the Board). A local school board in Massachusetts got three state reps to draft a bill for Massachusetts to pull out of the CCSSI.
Check out this blog from Washington State:
Bottom line from this blog:
The people for the CCSS want to nationalize our education system. They want to give away the rights of the citizens of Washington to affect the education of our children and give it to a very small group of unelected people in Washington DC. This small group of people (CCSSI) was formed and financed by Bill Gates and then put under the auspices of the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Counsel of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). The governors and the state superintendents really have very little input to this group. Any state only has one vote to make any changes or to resist what they are doing. While a state could back out of the association, once we start down the CCSS road it would cost hundreds of millions to reverse course. This is even worse than federal control because these people are insulated from any public vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)