The legislature in my home state is currently on a roll. They鈥檙e planning , once a landmark district, drain it of resources, and make it super-easy for predatory, for-profit charters to move in. Plus other ultra-important stuff like , and
And, of course,
I鈥檓 no advocate for the Common Core (although the thought of abandoning all the CCSS alignment work and pricey professional training teachers have been dragged through makes me shake my head). But here鈥檚 the funny thing: the --the ones MA abandoned when they adopted...the Common Core.
I know. Confusing to the general public (and more than a few educators). Didn鈥檛 we already adopt the CCSS to raise standards? Aren鈥檛 teachers complaining about how unrealistic the standards and tests are-- What do the old Massachusetts standards have that made them more--what, successful?--than the Common Core?
Good question. Quick answer: they were being utilized in Massachusetts. Fully 55% of adults in Massachusetts have at least an Associates鈥� degree, Poverty rates? --and Michigan鈥檚 in the bottom third.*
Massachusetts had a reputation for having excellent state-built education standards, but they (like many other states) dropped all their in-house work and jumped on the Common Core bandwagon, probably in hopes of tapping into the federal grant machine. And here鈥檚 the real irony
So
The legislation was introduced by Sen. Patrick Colbeck, a longtime critic of Common Core who argues the change is needed because the standards haven't delivered on their promise of increased student achievement. "The goals that it has set out to achieve, which are improved student performance or academic achievement, it's not achieving," said Colbeck, R-Canton.
Colbeck and his media cheerleaders are making a classic mistake, here (albeit one that many citizens make): Believing that raising standards will raise achievement. Problems with low-achieving students? Don鈥檛 look for causes! Don鈥檛 bother trying solutions! Just raise the standards!
Besides, I鈥檇 be willing to bet that none of the senators co-sponsoring this bill have actually read the standards--either set. This is a political ploy--a jab at the folks who adopted the CCSS in the first place (the State Board), and a chance to poke some more at public schools, who have been diligently (and often reluctantly) rolling out the Common Core to meet the latest tests--
By shifting to the Massachusetts standards, the lawmakers think they can claim they raised the bar. So high that an increasing number of students can鈥檛 get over them. 鈥淧roving鈥� that public schools are failing, and need to be replaced by for-profit charters.
Colbeck says the state shouldn't bet on standards that aren't proven. "Beyond that, I think it's important from a government control perspective ... I'm actually very concerned about making sure that we have Michigan control of our education system."
Maybe adopting the unproven Common Core standards wasn鈥檛 such a great idea. But blaming them for not raising test scores is idiotic--and expecting another set of standards to do the job is worse.
Nobody seems to understand that the Common Core was the essential building block in crafting a set of national tests that would generate a comparative-data gold mine for would-be 鈥渞eformers鈥� and a boondoggle for publishers and professional training. There was a lot of happy talk about building your own curricula and but in the end, the Common Core was mostly about what Arne Duncan called
Some people think the Common Core is what has or We can argue about instructional, curricular and assessment issues--it鈥檚 my professional wheelhouse--but the Common Core is not what has broken public education. It鈥檚 the accountability movement and austerity funding. And maybe, in some states, a craven disregard for the children of the poor.
The Common Core is just another set of standards. We can raise and lower, tweak and replace standards until the cows come home, but until other things are in place (clean, safe classrooms, say--or books, supplies and experienced teachers), it鈥檚 an exercise in blah-blah over reality.
Most important: if we鈥檙e going to dump everything we鈥檝e been working on, let鈥檚 put the rebuilding back in the hands of educators, not politicians.
* These data are presented in the same verbal format as the linked source, but somewhat confusing. Massachusetts is #10 on a list of state poverty rates, and 9th in the nation in childhood poverty; the lowest poverty rate is #1, New Hampshire. Michigan is number 33. See the linked source for more information.