Common Core Curriculum

How CCSS Determine Curriculum

There is a great deal of controversy surrounding the curriculum associated with CCSS. While the Common Core Standards themselves are not an actual curriculum, they are very specific. Any curriculum used under CCSS will be heavily influenced and written to reflect the standards themselves, and standardized testing aligned with CCSS will ensure that CCSS aligned curriculum is followed. As explained in the previous section, Bill Gates has provided a huge portion of the funding for CCSS through his Gates Foundation. In his July 2009 address at the National Conference of State Legislatures, Bill Gates explained, “We’ll know we’ve succeeded when the curriculum and the tests are aligned to these standards. Secretary Arne Duncan recently announced that $350 million of the stimulus package will be used to create just these kinds of tests—next-generation assessments aligned to the common core. When the tests are aligned to the common standards, the curriculum will line up as well” (emphasis added). Furthermore, the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium Supplemental Funding Scope Overview Table lays out how SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC), one of the testing arms of Common Core, is using federal funding to “develop curriculum materials,” to design “effective lessons to teach the CCSS in learning progressions aligned to the SBAC specifications,” and to create “model curriculum and instructional modules that are aligned with the CCSS.” So, while the Standards themselves are not a curriculum, there is definitely curriculum that is closely linked with the Standards. 

Problems with the Curriculum

There are currently CCSS written for English language arts and Math. Science standards, called the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) have just come out, and I have not yet looked into these in much detail. There are also plans to create social studies standards in the future. Some of the members of the validation committee for the CCSS saw so many problems with the Math and English language arts standards that they refused to sign off on them. Additionally, a number of early childhood experts have actually protested Common Core as being harmful to young children because it doesn’t account well for how they develop and learn.

English and Language Arts Curriculum Problems

The new CCSS for English require that students read a great deal more of nonfiction and “informational text” than previously used in this subject. Specifically, half of the reading for elementary school students under CCSS should come from “informational text” sources and by twelfth grade students are supposed to have 70 percent of their reading from such nonfictional sources. You can find CCSS suggested reading here. It includes reading material such as:

• Petroski, Henry. “The Evolution of the Grocery Bag.”
• California Invasive Plant Council. Invasive Plant Inventory
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Department of Energy. Recommended Levels of Insulation
• FedViews by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
• Gawande, Atul. “The Cost Conundrum: Health Care Costs in McAllen, Texas.”
• U.S. General Services Administration. Executive Order 13423: Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management
• Calishain, Tara, and Rael Dornfest. Google Hacks: Tips & Tools for Smarter Searching, 2^nd Edition
• Kane, Gordon. “The Mysteries of Mass.”

Reading was always one of my strongest points in school. I loved reading classic literary works. I loved learning about different rhetorical devices and reading stories about different times and places. However, I knew many who didn’t even enjoy such things much, and I can’t imagine many students will glean any love for reading while plowing through many of the informational texts suggested by CCSS. Besides, such informational texts are along the line of things I may have read in other classes, such as my science, math, or history classes, but not in my English and language art classes. The focus in my English classes was on reading and writing about literature, which is where I believe it should be.

Other teachers seem to be having such problems with these “informational texts” too. For example, the article “Common Core Sparks War Over Words” from the Washington Post explains that:

"Jamie Highfill is mourning the six weeks’ worth of poetry she removed from her eighth-grade English class at Woodland Junior High School in Fayetteville, Ark. She also dropped some short stories and a favorite unit on the legends of King Arthur to make room for essays by Malcolm Gladwell and a chapter from 'The Tipping Point,' Gladwell’s book about social behavior. 'I’m struggling with this, and my students are struggling,' said Highfill, who was named 2011 middle school teacher of the year in her state. 'With informational text, there isn’t that human connection that you get with literature. And the kids are shutting down. They’re getting bored. I’m seeing more behavior problems in my classroom than I’ve ever seen.'”

Dr. Sandra Stotsky, a member of CCSS validation committee who refused to sign off on the standards, called the English language arts standards “empty skill sets . . . [that] weaken the basis of literary and cultural knowledge needed for authentic college coursework.” (page 9 of Controlling Education From the Top). The rest of her testimony here is also well worth reading. 

Michelle Malkin’s article “Rotten to the Core (Part 2): Readin’, Writin’ and Deconstructionism”  further breaks down the some of the problems with Common Core’s approach to literature.

Math Curriculum Problems

There is also plenty of controversy surrounding the math standards. A number of voices have come out explaining that the Standards will generally push students back a year from where many used to be in math, making it so that students may have difficulty getting to Calculus in high school. This is because CCSS places Algebra 1 in ninth grade instead of eighth, a year behind when many students currently take it. In fact, currently about half of U.S. students take Algebra in eighth grade, and that number has been increasing over the years. California has decided to end its 15 year policy of expecting eighth graders to take Algebra 1 and instead allow eighth graders to take either Algebra 1 or an alternative Common Core aligned class being adopted through most of the nation. Other states are making similar changes. While Algebra 1 will still be left as an option for advanced eighth grade students in California, in many cases, students will not have been provided the level of preparation they need for Algebra 1 at that time under CCSS. As explained by Ze’ev Wurman, who served as a Senior Policy Adviser in the U.S. Department of Education from 2007-2009 and served on the California Standards Commission that evaluated CCSS for math for California, “a course of study aligned with the Common Core would provide students with poor preparation for taking Algebra in grade 8. Only private and elite schools will continue to provide sufficient preparation and, consequently, one should expect the proportion of students from challenging backgrounds taking Algebra by grade 8, or advanced mathematics in high school, to drop precipitously.” He explains additional problems he sees with the math Standards starting on page 26 of Controlling Education From the Top. 

In this same document, Ze’ev Wurman  also explains that, “Common Core replaces the traditional foundations of Euclidean geometry with an experimental approach. This approach has never been successfully used in any sizable system; in fact, it failed even in the school for gifted and talented students in Moscow, where it was originally invented. Yet Common Core effectively imposes this experimental approach on the entire country, without any piloting” (pg. 27). 

Mathematics Professor R. James Milgram of Stanford University (who was the only mathematics content expert on the Common Core Validation Committee, and who refused to sign off on the Standards) has said the standards will put students two years behind students from other countries known for their high academic achievements (pg. 13 of Controlling Education From the Top).

There are also a lot of concerns about how the standards focus a great deal on math concepts and not enough on actually doing math. The article “How The Common Core Is Changing Math Instruction For Indiana’s Youngest Students” discusses some of the details of these teaching methods, as does "A New Kind of Problem: The Common Core Math Standards."

Ze’ev Wurman classifies such methods as “fuzzy math” in a March 1, 2013 testimony that is well worth reading that he gave about Common Core in Indiana:

Even in its core focus, basic arithmetic, the Common Core opens the way for the pernicious “fuzzy math” to creep back into the curriculum. On the one hand, it expects – even if later than our international competitors – that eventually the standard algorithms for the four basic operations be mastered. On the other hand, many prior years are full with intermediate standards that repeatedly demand students to explain their actions in terms of crude strategies based on various concrete and visual models or invented algorithms applicable only to specific cases. The consequence of this skewed attention is that students will end up confused by the variety of pseudo-algorithms they are forced to study…Small wonder that…New York’s Common Core curriculum can promote fuzzy foolishness such as 'Working in small groups, the students rotated through the classrooms in the second-grade wing to work at the various stations. Using edible gingerbread men, the second-graders utilized their math skills by tasting the cookies and graphing which portions of the cookies that they took their first bites of.'”

Ironically, there is criticism that those who are most hurt by the standards are those who are most prone to struggle academically, such as minorities, or those attending Title 1 schools.

College Ready???

Overall, for a set of Standards that claims to prepare students well for college, the CCSS seem to fall short of this lofty goal based on many universities’ current standards. As Ze’ev Wurman explained in his testimony on CCSS to Indiana, “Taking Algebra I in grade 8 is of critical importance if one wants to reach calculus by grade 12 and to enroll in competitive colleges.” Dr. Sandra Stotsky explained in her evaluation of that standards that “the average reading level of the passages on the common tests now being developed to determine ‘college-readiness’ may be at about the grade 7 level” (page 9 of Controlling Education From the Top). How can the CCSS claim to help propel students to college given such problems? Jason Zimba, who helped draft the CCSS for mathematics, explained this to the Massachusetts Board of Educators in 2010 when he said the “concept of college readiness is minimal and focuses on non-selective colleges” (again see Ze’evWurman’s Indiana testimony).

Additionally, there are some reports out about the content of some Common Core lessons that seem controversial. (This last story linked to here has since been updated with another article.)

Common Core Privacy and Data Mining

Longitudinal Data Systems and Personally Identifiable Information

When states accepted the CCSS, they were also given money through the State Fiscal Stabilization Funds to set up longitudinal data systems (LDS), also referred to as state longitudinal data systems (SLDS). The Department of Education (DOE) has explained that data systems created with these funds were required to “have the capacity to link preschool, K-12, and postsecondary education as well as workforce data.” The DOE further explains, “These data systems will capture data on students from one grade to the next, measuring whether they are on track to graduate and telling K-12 schools whether they are preparing their students to succeed in college and the workforce. The data systems also can help identify teachers who are succeeding so states can reward them, and find teachers who are struggling and help them improve.” These systems are managed by individual states’ P-20 or P-20W Councils. The P stands for Preschool. Depending on where you look, the 20 stands for grade 20 or age 20 and is intended to span to “education after college.” The W stands for Workforce. The Data Quality Campaign also explains how these SLDS work and how they were started: “Every governor and chief state school officer has agreed to build statewide longitudinal data systems that can follow individual students from early childhood through K–12 and postsecondary education and into the workforce as a condition for receiving State Fiscal Stabilization Funds as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).”

Under these systems, each student is supposed to be assigned a unique identifier under which Personally Identifiable Information (PII) will be collected. The data that is potentially being gathered under these systems is large and personal. Personally Identifiable Information is defined on page 6 of Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Regulations 34 CFR Part 99.  It includes such things as a student’s medical information, bus stop information, family income, religious affiliation, nickname, family relationships, mother’s and father’s education levels, transportation status, social security numbers, and a number of other things. Many of these seem to have little or no relation to education. You can see a number of these data categories here.   It also includes biometric records, which are (as defined on page 4 of Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Regulations 34CFR Part 99) “a record of one or more measurable biological or behavioral characteristics that can be used for automated recognition of an individual. Examples include fingerprints; retina and iris patterns; voiceprints; DNA sequence; facial characteristics; and handwriting.”  No one knows for sure exactly what information will actually be collected with the SLDS, but it seems that they have opened the doors for just about anything. To get a better understanding of how some personal information may be collected without students or parents even realizing it, you can read Dr. Thompson’s letter to Superintendent Menlove of Utah.

The DOE explains the “unique identifier for every student…does not permit a student to be individually identified (except as permitted by federal and state law).” However, if personally identifiable information such as social security numbers are allowed to be collected as part of these LDS, I am not sure how students will not be individually identified as the DOE claims. After all, personally identifiable information is, by definition, personally identifiable! Either way, I am not comfortable with the schools and government collecting all this information on my children.

Changing the Privacy Laws so Data Can be Shared

I am especially opposed to this data collection though given that the federal privacy regulations under FERPA were recently changed by the request of Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education. The new laws were effective starting January 3, 2012. These laws were specifically changed in order to “reduce barriers that have inhibited the effective use of SLDS as envisioned in the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act (the America COMPETES Act) (Pub. L. 110–69) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) (Pub. L. 111–5)” (page 2 of the DOE’s FERPA document).

Under these new FERPA regulations, students’ PII are not to be disclosed without written consent from parents or students eighteen years of age or older, “except to the extent that FERPA authorized disclosure without consent.” The rules go on to explain that:

One exception, which permits disclosure without consent, is disclosure to school officials with legitimate educational interests. A school official is a person employed by the school as an administrator, supervisor, instructor, or support staff member (including health or medical staff and law enforcement unit personnel) or a person serving on the school board. A school official also may include a volunteer or contractor outside of the school who performs an institutional service of function for which the school would otherwise use its own employees and who is under the direct control of the school with respect to the use and maintenance of PII from education records, such as an attorney, auditor, medical consultant, or therapist; a parent or student volunteering to serve on an official committee, such as a disciplinary or grievance committee; or a parent, student, or other volunteer assisting another school official in performing his or her tasks. A school official has legitimate educational interest if the official needs to review and education record in order to fulfill his or her professional responsibility. (pg. 52)

That seems pretty broad to me, and that is huge array of people who could possibly be authorized to share PII without any consent from parents.

The document goes on to list eleven specific instances in which PII may be shared without the consent of parents or eligible students. Some of these instances seem reasonable, while others may be questionable. Particularly alarming to me though is that PII may be released without consent, “to organizations conducting studies for, or on behalf of, the school, in order to: (a)  develop, validate, or administer predictive test; (b)  administer student aid programs or (c)  improve instruction” (page 54). I don’t want the school releasing any PII of my children to any organizations without my consent.

Furthermore, under these FERPA rules, keeping the public informed about what, when, and why PII is disclosed is optional. FERPA only states that “it is best practice to keep the public informed when you disclose PII from education records” (pg. 51). It is therefore not required.

(By the way, Family EducationalRights and Privacy Act Regulations 34 CFR Part 99 is a document that defines all the terminology in the federal FERPA Rules.)

While the language in FERPA suggests that sharing PII is permitted but not required, other contracts made through the CCSS and SBAC make the sharing of student data mandatory. For example, the Cooperative Agreement Between the U.S. DOE and the SBAC for the State of Washington clarifies that the state, “must provide timely and complete access to any and all data collected at the State level to ED or its designated program monitors, technical assistance providers, or researcher partners, and to GAO, and the auditors” (page 10).

The legality of the new FERPA regulations are also in serious question. For that reason, there is currently a law suit pending by the Electronic Privacy Information Center against the DOE.

But for now, it appears that data is set to be collected and shared. This data is not only being shared with the government; as set forth in the new FERPA regulations it can also be shared with private organizations and interests.  According to Class Size Matters, nine states are currently part of a pilot program in which they have “agreed to share confidential student and teacher data with a Gates-funded organization called the “Shared Learning Collaborative” or SLC, which has now spun off as a separate corporation called inBloom Inc.” You can view the data that inBloom plans to collect here. If that isn’t bad enough, inBloom’s privacy policy states that they “cannot guarantee the security of the information stored in inBloom or that the information will not be intercepted when it is being transmitted.”

Additionally, you can read some of the possible implications of all this data collection here.

Data and Standardized Testing

It should be easy for this data to be collected under SBAC and PARCC, the testing arms of CCSS, because these tests will be computerized (see question 7 here). Also, based on all the accommodations and set up for this testing that schools will have to do, it will doubtlessly be quite expensive. (See “Race to the Top Assessment and YOU: MakingSense of SBAC/PARCC Technology" to get and idea of what is involved.) The Heritage Foundation’s article “National Education Standards and Tests: Big Expense, Little Value” breaks down some of the estimated costs of implementing CCSS and their assessment testing.

Also, as a general note on standardized testing: It is not always a good measure of academic performance or knowledge. I have always performed very well academically but not well on standardized tests. For example, I excelled academically in high school and graduated as one of the top ten members of my class. However, my ACT score was significantly lower than everyone else’s in that group, and for that reason I did not get offered scholarship money to attend college. Yet, I performed so well in my first year at Brigham Young University, I was given half tuition scholarship the following year, and full tuition scholarship for all the years following that. Some people test well, and others do not.

While standardized tests have their place, I do not believe that such testing should be given excessive emphasis in determining where students or teachers stand. The first 30 or so minutes of the previously mentioned video between the authors of the blog “Common Core Education Without Representation” and Chicago History teacher Paul Horton who is part of Citizens Against Corporate Collusion delves into some of the problems with so called high stakes testing of CCSS.  (This is the same video I referred to when talking about how some businesses are profiting from CCSS.) I also recently read about an email that an eighth grade teacher from the Jordan School District in Utah sent to Utahns Against Common Core explaining how teachers are to use testing in their classes as explained to them during a meeting on Common Core. This teacher explains that during the meeting:

“We were told that students would no longer be graded on completion of assignments or an average of assignment and test scores over a grading period.  Instead grading will be based on mastery of a subject.  How do we determine mastery?  The district has provided bench mark tests in language arts.  We were told that these are not mandatory BUT that if we did not use them they would become mandatory.  I find it scary that students will now be graded only on tests written by the core.  The final assessment was a research paper on modern revolutions.  Interesting how now in the sixth grade learning can be skewed to a political point of view that may or may not be historically accurate.  I find the curriculum scary and the measurement of learning terrifying.”

So, what can you do if you are concerned about Common Core? First, make sure you are well educated about it. After that, you can contact your governor and state legislators with your concerns and tell them you want to get your state out of Common Core. If you are in Utah, you can sign the ongoing petition against CCSS here. (This site also contains a great deal of helpful information and links.) Other states have similar movements going which you will probably easily find if you look for them. You can also visit TruthInAmericanEducation.com and StopCommonCore.com for further resources and information. There is also a facebook page for people against Common Core across the country, and other facebook pages for those against Common Core in individual states. You can also spread the word about Common Core. Feel free to use the information I have written here if you want to.

Playing with Pinwheels

Last Sunday I made a pinwheel as part of an object lesson for my Primary class. After church, we let Austin play with it. We tried to show him how to blow on it, or how to hold it while spinning in a circle to make it spin.

He thought it was so much fun, even though he couldn't figure out how to make it spin himself. He tried spinning in a circle, blowing on it, and sticking it next to the heat vent.

Later during the week, we took the pinwheel outside where Austin had more success getting the pinwheel to spin with the help of a slight breeze.