Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Friends, Romans, Countrymen, you’ve been snookered.

By

Well, the Board of Education worked its magic today and voted for the new Common Core State Standards.  The race to the bottom begins.  

Here are a few of the money quotes from the piece by the Globe appearing on the website now:

Linda Noonan, executive director of the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education, said the national standards will lay a strong foundation to bolster the quality of public education in Massachusetts with an eye to preparing students to be productive members of the workforce.

And this:

 State Republicans urged state officials Tuesday to delay a vote on the standards, saying that the public had not had enough time to weigh in.

You read it here first:  the Republicans are right on this.  Anyone who spends any real time, without ideological blinders on, with these standards should be able to see the bogeyman in the bushes.  Well-rounded citizenry?  Not on your life.  

I’m going to go drink my supper and leave you all with this from The Merchant of Venice written by that old guy few students will be reading in our “brave new world”:

What’s here? The portrait of a blinking idiot

Presenting me a schedule! I will read it.-

How much unlike art thou to Portia!

How much unlike my hopes and my deservings!

“Who chooseth me shall have as much as he deserves”!

Did I deserve no more than a fool’s head?

Is that my prize? Are my deserts no better?

 

 

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I know so little about what is contained in these national standards that I don’t know if I support or oppose adoption.

    <

    p>And I bet most others are in the same boat.

    <

    p>I am sceptical of national educational standards, and favor local and state-level standards as attainable by that community – but the adoption today in order to get money may sell out our schools for short money.

    <

    p>We may strangle in the Federal strings.

    • Today we are one step closer to Mississippi. The federal bureaucracy will make calling the DESE seem like a walk in the park. And, oh by the way, what was the hurry?  

      • They needed to adopt these by August (forgetting the exact date but it is the beginning of August), in order to earn “points” for the Race to the Top Grant.

        <

        p>Yes, they have given away control of our curriculum… for a lottery ticket.

        <

        p>Consider the MILLIONS that cities and towns have spent aligning their curriculum (text, supplies, Professional Development) to the MA Frameworks.  If I was a School Committee Member, Mayor, or Super. of Schools in a cash strapped city/town…   I would be losing my mind right about….  NOW.  

  2. Today the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education
    unanimously chose to relinquish control of our curriculum, in the pursuit of “points” towards a competitive grant (Race to the Top), throwing away 17 years of progress that has propelled our students to the top in the country.

    <

    p>Massachusetts HAD the most rigorous academic standards in the country.  Massachusetts’ fourth and eighth graders outscored the nation, and most of their international peers, in math and science on the world’s largest study of student performance in those subjects (TIMSS:  Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study).  Massachusetts’ fourth and eighth graders outscored the nation on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)  reading exam.  (Commonly referred to as the Nation’s Report Card.)  The latest ranking of “First in the Nation” marks the third time in a row that the state’s students outscored their peers nationwide!

    <

    p>My favorite quote from the Globe article…
    Education Secretary Paul Reville called the vote a “watershed moment”.

    <

    p>Can someone PLEASE show our Secretary of Education a dictionary?  

    <

    p>Considering that Massachusetts’ students rank first nationally (reading, math and science), a “watershed moment”, is what all of us fear!!!

    • I recently say my daughter graduate from HS. 95% of the kids in her class are attending college next year. The roster of schools that my daughter’s fellow classmates are attending is astounding. Swampscott is probably the norm amongst suburban districts. So why the change? And why the hurry?  

    • Instead of adopting what works here and Mass and spreading it across the country?

      <

      p>The rejection of evidence is astonishing.  What next from them?  Abstinence-based sex education?

    • I agree with the point about relinquishing control. I am not really fully informed about the substantive differences between our curriculum and the national curriculum, but why would we want to tie ourselves to what other states are doing when our model has been a success? What happens when national standars become politicized, as state curricula have in, say, Texas?

      <

      p>TedF

  3. I have a question about the oft-quoted $250 million Race To The Top money and how it will be used to ease the burden of transition to these new standards.  

    <

    p>Is the $250 million a done deal?  If MA makes the switch does MA automatically get the money?  If MA doesn’t are we automatically excluded?

    <

    p>Just wondering because, as it is being portrayed, it is being made out as if MA has already won and the check is in the mail.  I have checked, but I can not find any mention of the awards having been made and MA a winner.

    <

    p>So, if this is the case, have we just sold out our leading educational system in which billions of $’s and untold hours have been invested for a chance at some short-term gain.

    <

    p>Has the whole gambling thing gone to everyone’s head?

    • We are not guaranteed the money. As a matter of fact we have yet to apply. My understanding is that we could get some or lots of the $250 million and most of it will probably go to urban communities. Solving the so-called and very real achievement gap issue is in large part the reason for the funding.

      <

      p>If we do not get funding as we did not get funding the first time we applied, we have ourselves new standards and a new rather large partner, the feds. That sucks. By the way, what do we do when the $250 million or a subpart thereof is gone? The chapter 70 program is worth $4 billion per year to give you some idea as to how quickly the funding comes and goes.

      <

      p>The deal sucks!

    • We may get a fraction of that money.

      <

      p>The school districts of the state will spend far more than that to realign their curricula in all subjects and all grades to these different standards.

      <

      p>This is already a net loser for Massachusetts.

        • This makes NO sense.

          <

          p>All I keep thinking about is the Administration continually touting (and rightly so) our student achievement/strengths and being a leader in the biotech and green economy.  Our students ARE our state’s greatest strength!  They ARE our competitive advantage.  They exemplify the desired workforce of the future.

          <

          p>RTTT money is chump change to what this may end up costing us.

          • Maybe now it’s time to tell us how wonderful this decision is and how thoughtful Reville, Chester and Banta are.  

  4. Institute, but this white paper made the rounds at my school in the spring:

    <

    p>National Standards Still Don’t Make the Grade–Part I: Review of Four Sets of English Language Arts Standards

    <

    p>A money quote:

    <

    p>

    English teachers can clearly teach the literary content required in its 9-12 standards-one play by Shakespeare, one play by an American writer, and foundational works of American literature from the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries in grade 11 or 12.  But Common Core expects English teachers to spend over 50 percent of their time addressing literary nonfiction and informational texts such as seminal U.S. documents and U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Although the 2010 draft Massachusetts standards also expect high school English teachers to address seminal U.S. documents and other 18th-century (or earlier) texts, its nonfiction/informational strand is only one of five literature/reading strands (i.e., requiring only 20 percent of their time on text-based study, not over 50 percent) and English teachers will be able to select and teach seminal documents they have often addressed (e.g., The Declaration of Independence or Letter from Birmingham Jail). Given what they are prepared to teach based on their undergraduate or graduate coursework, English teachers cannot teach to many of Common Core’s informational reading standards and they are unlikely to try to do so for over half of the time they can allot to text-based study.

    ….

    In conclusion, if California and Massachusetts adopted Common Core’s standards for their own, the intellectual demands on students in the areas of language and literature would be significantly weakened. Adopting Common Core’s standards would also weaken the base of literary and cultural knowledge needed for actual college-level work now implied by each state’s current or draft standards.

    <

    p>Yes, I know I have a Masters degree in English Literature because I want to teach historical texts and documents.  

    <

    p>And there’s this:

    <

    p>

     The academic content of English as a K-12 subject area consists of the concepts that guide literary study (including nonfiction) through the grades (e.g., genres, subgenres, rhetorical and literary techniques and elements, literary periods, literary traditions). But the texts that teach these concepts cannot take up even half of the reading curriculum at each grade level if it is to address all of Common Core’s reading standards with the weight it requires. What informational topics can contribute to coherent learning progressions from grade to grade in the over 50 percent of the reading at each grade level that is to be informational? What concepts can a progression of informational texts be based on for a coherent English curriculum in grades 6-12? Or is the ELA informational reading curriculum to cannibalize the reading content of the science, history/social studies, mathematics, and arts curricula in grades 6-12, content that English teachers are not expected and prepared to teach?

    Common Core’s standards thus require drastic changes in preparation programs and professional development for English teachers. They will need to take academic coursework (or a significant amount of professional development) in history and political science to understand the historical context, philosophical influences, unique features, and national and international significance, historically and today, of the seminal documents they are being required to teach students how to read. They will also have to undergo professional training in reading scientific texts. In addition, because the organizing framework for Common Core’s ELA standards consists chiefly of generic skills, teachers will need to learn how to teach summary writing, student-generated questioning, paraphrasing, and all the other study skills they have generally expected students to do without necessarily showing them how to acquire these skills.

    <

    p>And, I love this from an earlier publication:
    Fair to Middling:  A National Standards Progress Report

    <

    p>

    No “complexity” formula can tell an English teacher a text’s literary context and literary history–what links it to earlier and contemporarytexts. The nation’s English teachers do not need a “complexity” formula to judge the complexity of a literary text. Its very presence implies negative view of their competence.  It has always been clear to educators, parents, and others in any country that a progressively more challenging curriculum should include texts of greater and greater difficulty and complexity.  Common Core’s explanation (in Appendix A) of why complexity matters and why the school curriculum has failed our students on this issue diagnose the problem correctly; textbooks have been continuously dumbed down for decades.  But the solution is not to expect English teachersto use a complexity formula to help them judge what texts to teach at each grade level. They know (or should know) how to determine complexity better than any mechanical formula can. If they can’t, we need to inquire into their academic and professional education.

    <

    p>These reports are scathing–and justifiably so.  If you have the time and inclination, you should spend a little time with the conclusions.  When the Pioneer Institute declares the ELA standards to be “content-free,” you know there’s a problem….

  5. In a Patrick/Murray email update from Paul Broutas today, I thought it was telling who was quoted as “A bipartisan chorus of officials and organizations across the state have spoken out in support of the new standards”:

    <

    p>

    Associated Industries of Massachusetts
    Massachusetts Business Roundtable
    Progressive Business Leaders Network
    Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education
    Former Education Commissioners under Republican Governors Robert Antonucci and David Driscoll
    Former Boston Superintendent of Schools Thomas Payzant
    Boston Globe
    Lowell Sun
    Metrowest Daily News
    Springfield Republican

    <

    p>Lots of business and media; not so much education experts.

    • I consider Thomas Payzant, David Driscoll and Robert Antonucci education experts, and the fact is two of those experts served under Republican Governors.  Plus, Governor Romoney’s appointment to the board was recorded in favor of the move to the new standards.

      <

      p>There are plenty of education experts who support this move.  In addition it was passed unanimously by the Board in a 9-0 vote.  The Governor and LG have been clear and on the record – they support this move only if it meets or exceeds the existing standards in MA.  They have also been clear about their support for MCAS as a graduation requirement and a way to keep accountability in the system.

      <

      p>Gov Patrick and LG Murray have placed a high priority on maintaining and increasing our position as the #1 state in student achievement – including funding public education at the highest level in state history despite the global economic crisis and working with the Legislature to pass the next round of ed reform to help close the achievement gap once and for all.

      <

      p>Remember, both Baker and Cahill have proposed tax policies that would cut over $2 billion from state revenues and gut education funding.  This is par for the course for Baker, who when he was in charge of the state budget proposed massive cuts in public education.  

        • This was a horrible decision made by a board that makes bad choices. Explain Glocester Charter and I’ll listen, but you can’t. Not even Deval Patrick can explain Gloucester Charter. Paul Reville can’t defend Gloucester!

          <

          p>And you blame Baker?

          <

          p>

          Remember, both Baker and Cahill have proposed tax policies that would cut over $2 billion from state revenues and gut education funding.  This is par for the course for Baker, who when he was in charge of the state budget proposed massive cuts in public education.  

          <

          p>This decision is not suppossed to be about money, yet you throw the money issue into the dialog.

          <

          p>Rubin to the rescue..blah, blah, and blah.

      • Someone needs to do a top-to-bottom review of both bloated state agencies. The only thing the DOE seems effective at doing is the Educator Data Warehouse that helps schools analyze and use MCAS test data. No one really knows what else goes on there. Ask a teacher how long it takes to find out if they passed the MTEL, and good luck getting a live voice on the line if you want to find out… As Jim Stergios pointed out:

        <

        p>http://boston.com/community/bl…

        Think about it: Almost half of all K-12 education positions in the United States are not classroom teachers. Massachusetts needs to take the lead in making by far the majority of positions to be teachers in the classrooms.

        <

        p>The DOE needs the big sweep– why are so many people there making close to six figures???

        <

        p>Secondly, eliminate the Executive Office of Education and the Secretary of Education (Paul Reville). Again, hat tip to Jim Stergios:

        <

        p>

        The Secretary position did not exist during the period of reform that led to Massachusetts’ ascension to lead the nation in student performance. Since the advent of the Secretary’s position, we have seen no evidence of accelerated improvement; rather, student achievement on national assessments has flattened. Given the number of questions about how the Secretary has politicized the charter approval process and the education agenda broadly, elimination of this position would cause no harm.

        <

        p>We need to clear out the bureaucrats and give that money back to the districts in the form of local aid– and local aid is what I hear Charlie Baker talk about on the stump– that’s why he’s in favor of rolling the income tax back to 5%, not 3, because he does not want to cut local aid.  

      • when you said this above…

        <

        p>

        The Governor and LG have been clear and on the record – they support this move only if it meets or exceeds the existing standards in MA.  They have also been clear about their support for MCAS as a graduation requirement and a way to keep accountability in the system.

        <

        p>Are you declaring that the MCAS standards and testing will remain “unchanged” and in place “and” that any change to Federal standards will have to meet or exceed the existing MCAS?

      • Seriously the Patrick/Murray team can’t expect to win the election by just scaring progressive voters about Baker and Cahill. Let me be clear, they would be awful for this state, but this proposal also is incredibly awful for this state. It will cost local towns and school committees thousands possibly millions of dollars to water down their curriculum to match these standards. My curriculum, and the time teachers spent actually teaching, at the Cambridge Public Schools was already significantly weakened by the MCAS regime, let alone these new national standards that may bring Texas up to speed but at the expense of dragging us down. Listen I support a national curriculum, but doing it this way is asinine. Let us do what the French, Germans, and Japanese do and actually nationalize education standards and funding, pump a ton more money into the DoE and give it the teeth to enforce it. And how about we adopt the most rigorous standards we can nationally, like I don’t know, the ONES IN MASSACHUSETTS. I have taught at Chicago Public Schools and I can testify that Arnie Duncan made them a whole lot worse, why are we listening to him when our state is already working so well? For a lottery chance to grab some extra federal cash that will not offset the amount of costs to local programs?

        <

        p>Give us a compelling reason why this is a good idea Dougie, don’t insult us with your boogey man Baker routine, its really tired.

  7. 1) I’m really not familiar with this, so some discussion about it would be helpful.

    <

    p>2) I’m skeptical about any giant “reform” or changes to our education system given that it’s consistently proven to be the best in the country and one of the only in this country that competes at an international level in terms of excellence. Yes, our schools aren’t perfect, yes, there’s a helluva lot more we could do for our districts and students that struggle with poverty issues, drug issues, etc. etc. etc. However, that doesn’t mean we need state-wide changes that are vast in nature… what we need is a focus on our struggling schools and students, which probably means a change in priorities for this state so we’re providing the necessary resources to these students so they can exceed (whether that means longer school days and years, more teachers and tutors, etc. I don’t know for sure, but I’m guessing it’s probably not “Common Core.”)

    • We have done a fabulous job educating our kids in spite of serious economic challenges over the past few years and the money we gain from the RttT grant (if we even get any) will be gone quickly. If this decision was about the money, then it is an even worse decision. If it is about politics, then maybe you guys needs to reevaluate your candidate.

      <

      p>By the way, Brad Jones appropriately asked that the evaluation process be slowed down. A fair request given the last Friday afternoon announcement by Chester and the quick vote 5 days later. Reville accused Jones of politicizing the process. That’s just about perfect given Reville’s midnight Gloucester email to Mitch Chester.

      <

      p>

      From: Reville, Paul
      Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2009, 11:54 p.m.

      To: Chester, Mitchell D. (DOE)

      Subject: charters

      Mitchell,

      Hope all’s well and warm in AZ. I appreciated our talk today and your openness and flexibility. This situation presents one of those painful dilemmas. In addition to being a no-win situation, it forces us into a political cul de sac where we could be permanently trapped. Our reality is that we have to show some sympathy in this group of charters or we’ll get permanently labeled as hostile and they will cripple us with a number of key moderate allies like the Globe and the Boston Foundation. Frankly, I’d rather fight for the kids in the Waltham situation, but it sounds like you can’t find a solid basis for standing behind that one. I’m not inclined to push Worcester, so that leaves Gloucester. My inclination is to think that you, I and the Governor all need to send at least one positive signal in this batch, and I gather that you think the best candidate is Gloucester. Can you see your way clear to supporting it? Would you want to do the financial trigger even in light of likely stimulus aid?

      Thanks for not seeing this as an independence issue. It really is a matter of positioning ourselves so that we can be viable to implement the rest of our agenda. It’s a tough but I think necessary pill to swallow. Let’s discuss some more tomorrow.

      Paul

      <

      p>So why the hurry all the time? Where was the public discourse on the education standards issue? Why are they deciding this issue in Malden, in a relatively small room, on a Wednesday morning? Sunshine and disinfectant are need badly.

  8. No surprise here.  During the last three years, the Patrick administration has systematically dismantled education reform:

    <

    p>1. Eliminated the independent school district accountability office.  We now essentially have no accountability for $9 billion annually spent on education

    <

    p>2. Pushing soft “21st Century Skills.”  Everywhere it’s been tried, scores have nosedived.

    <

    p>3. Eliminating the addition of US history as an MCAS graduation requirement.  Commissioner Chester said it was because of the $2.4 million it would cost, but Patrick released $168 million in stimulus funding right after the announcement.  Chester later admitted is was so they could integrate 21st century skills into the test

    <

    p>4.  Utter politicization of a charter school selection process that had been a national model.  After more than a decade with no problems with the process (though charters themselves have been controversial), Paul Reville has injected politics into and corrupted the process in each of the last three years

    <

    p>Isn’t it great when “St. Paul,” with his usual insufferablw self righteousness, accuses others of being motivated by politics?

    <

    p>As for the board, no surprise there.  Patrick’s 2008 legislation packed it and eliminated the board’s long-standing independence.  It’s now nothing more than another arm of the administration.

    <

    p>And if you didn’t like the Gloucester fiasco, just wait for the Inspector General’s report on the inappropriate rejection of a charter school in Brockton the previous year…

    • What kind of an application takes points away when our Mass standards are higher than the Federal standards? That is part of the RttT legacy from the first application where we scored 13th out of 16. Great application? Great partner?

    • Whenever I hear “21st century skills” I reach for Orwell. Seriously history is one of the most important subjects we can learn, if all we teach is math, science, and technology no one will read for pleasure, no one will have imagination, and everyone will repeat the mistakes of history and ignore the ethical lessons that are inherent in the humanities. Let alone the joys of composing art and creating using just your imagination. They want our society to be automatons for big business that don’t question authority and don’t ask ethical questions since they get in the way of efficiency. And we wonder why BP feels no culpability for the oil spill, why the feds could care less about Katrina victims, and why we keep involving ourselves in failed war after failed war. Science at its best allows you to explore the world of human possibilities, at its worst, and by itself, it teaches you that everything is controllable and science and technology and human reason can conquer any human passion. Its that logic that is leading us down a really dark path.

      • …but I could also spin knowledge of history as a “21st century skill” since I believe you need to know the past in order to envision the future.

  9. We have just turned our educational standards over to the Federal Government. What could go wrong?

    <

    p>The larger states will have more ability to influence these standards. I can hardly wait for our tests  to be designed by the educational establishment in Texas.

    <

    p>Isn’t this a classic story of selling oneself to the devil.

    <

    p>

  10. …someone is finally proposing federal standards PROVIDED THAT states are free to go above and beyond with their own standards.  I’ve believed all along that there are certain skills, abilities, and pieces of knowledge that everyone should have.

    <

    p>I also wish you had stated your objections in a nutshell.  I did follow the link and peruse the standards a bit and nothing popped out at me as being obviously objectionable.  I did, however, find a reference in grade 11-12 literature standards that require at least one work of Shakespeare whereas you seem to imply that the Bard is being cast aside.

      • Your comment definitely more deserving of a three than mine.  Though the comment was addressed to lightiris you can feel free to comment on your objections as well.

  11. Now that we are moving to a set of common standards for k – 12 how long will it be before we:

    <

    p>1) Have common graduation requirements?  Yes, everyone is saying MCAS is staying, for now.  Yes, standardized tests don’t measure everything that is being taught or how different students learn differently.  But, will NATIONAL standards and NATIONAL tests be an improvement?  I do not think so, we have given up control.

    <

    p>2) Have common text books? Some states already have common text books for use in their classrooms (see Texas and related controversy).  With national common standards, there will be a push by some (educational publishers) to have common textbooks.  Will be pushed as a way to save money and acheive common curiculum, but will also be a way to make enormous sums for the “winners”.  The battles in Texas will be small potatoes compared to what this could be like.  Politics would become nightmarish, fillibusters could abound and our children will suffer.

    <

    p>3) Have Common Teacher certification requirements?  Yes, now governed at the state level with local preferences for what a municipality stresses within its school district.  Could we soon have a national teachers’ exam to determine who qualifies to teach?

    <

    p>4) Eliminate exam schools?  Boston Latin and others across the country establish excellence in their students and are highly selective in who they admit based on entrance exams.  Could we see these schools drop by the wayside?

    <

    p>5) Community Involvement? School districts and individual schools make use of local volunteers to provide additional help, tutoring, etc.  Other districts utilize assistance from neighboring universities to expand teaching in certain areas.  Will these interactions suffer as common core replaces MA standards?

    <

    p>6) Regional School Districts?  Why do we need to have local school districts within each town, school committees in each town, etc.?  I could see these bodies and administrative functions becoming combined as we cede local control to the feds.  

    <

    p>These are concerns I have with switching from more local control to federal control.  I remember when MA started transitioning from local to more state control and there was howls of outrage from local school districts about giving up control.  Where is that outrage now?  

    <

    p>When NCLB was passed some cried out that it was an unfunded mandate and were largely proven correct.  Well we have now sold out to a new mandate for hope of a $250 million one time grant.  I call that unfunded as well.

    <

    p>I do not like the process for this change. I am wary of the outcome. I am concerned that many more changes are coming now that control of standards has been ceded to the feds.

    • Left that out of the list above:

      <

      p>How soon will it be that there is a common pay scale and benefits for ALL teachers?  They would be teaching to the same common core, potentially out of the same textbooks, so why wouldn’t there be a move to have similar compensation for ALL?

    • We would have to implement carefully, but I don’t see the factors above as necessarily bad.  In fact I lean toward nationalization as being on balance a positive good.

      • MA becomes the national standard not MS, but when you put politicians control over things they are going to have all sorts of bad ideas snuck in. This plan stinks, its not the kind of comprehensive, rigorous, national reform we need, but a piecemail reform that is actually punishing the states that do well with small potentialities of rewards.  

  12. Like Ryan, above, I’d like some more in-depth discussion of this, rather than the scathing criticisms with little to back them up.

    <

    p>For example, I’ve perused the PDFs from corestandards.org and I don’t see any evidence of there being “five strands”, and that literature is only one of them, or whatever the criticism is.

    <

    p>The best I’ve been able to see is a chart on page 5 where the chart says,

    <

    p>Distribution of Literary and Informational Passages by Grade in the 2009 NAEP Reading Framework

    GradeLiteraryInformational
    450%50%
    845%55%
    1230%70%

    <

    p>and then there is a footnote stating, “The percentages on the table reflect the sum of student reading, not just reading in [English] settings. Teachers of senior English classes, for example, are not required to devote 70 percent of reading to informational texts. Rather, 70 percent of student reading across the grade should be informational.”

    <

    p>This is just a quick perusal though. I do not have time to read all of the standards. So can somebody point me to where, exactly, in the standards, these criticisms are coming from?

    <

    p>It’s hard for me to stay informed with hundreds of pages of source material to read through, so I count on places like BMG to help me sort it out. And right now I still don’t feel like I have a handle on things… so any direction would be greatly appreciated.

    • The documents are poorly organized, filled with unnecessary jargon, and contradictory.  They have been roundly criticized for that.  (Indeed, they contain typos, as well.)

      <

      p>That said, there is no short cut.  Sorry.  If you don’t have time to read the standards themselves and the myriad reports that critique them, then the only thing to do is put the two sets of standards side-by-side and start there.   If you do that, you will see that literature is reduced drastically in the new standards.

      <

      p>Few people have an intimate familiarity with the current Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks, so it is hard to find a point of comparison with the new Common Core State Standards.  

      <

      p>And they were counting on that.

      <

      p>Short version:  the study of literature is not considered essential at any grade level.    

      <

      p>  

  13. But, entrusting the youth to the dysfunctional federal government that aspires only to the mediocre is cause for great alarm.  Bureaucrats always strike for the average.  “Look at my numbers:  I’m where everyone else is.” – is a victory.

    <

    p>Why are we trying to become a 3rd world nation?  

    <

    p>Do you ever feel you’ve awakened in an Ayn Rand novel?  

    <

    p>“In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad.”  — Friedrich Nietzsche  

    • The NE school town/city system works well, except for larger cities.

      <

      p>When I talk to family and friends in either rural or urban county wide school systems.  The general opinion is the schools stink. They are too large to be accountable.

      <

      p>The MTA has been complaining for years about the MCAS and now they support another test ?

      <

      p>

      • MCAS had the advantage of requiring a lot of things you really did want your kid to know in history and science. IN addition MCAS shined the light on some weak school districts who had skated by on reputation.

        <

        p>The MCAS experience in English looks pretty terrible to me. My kids’ school was one of the top high-schools in English, but the kids cannot write a decent essay. They were taught to present facts directly and style was eliminated. However this program seems to make the problem worse.

        <

        p>It is hard to defend the current vogue of teaching writing, probably where it’s done well, the teachers self-taught under the radar. It saddens me to say it, but fads in teaching of style and creative writing have left the humanities defenseless against assaults like this.  

        • As a substitute teacher I’ve proctored several practice long compositions and essays, so it seems to me that writing is still valued under the MCAS regime.

  14. I’m amazed at the apparent swiftness of this decision, especially after all the battles surrounding Ed Reform and the MCAS test — which now seems to have gained widespread, if grudging, acceptance.

    <

    p>Did the state really just throw away local curriculum control for a shot at one-time education grant money? Because that’s the way it looks.

    <

    p>So much discussion here about what the existing standards in Massachusetts vs. the current Common Core ones — But what concerns me more is how will Common Core change under future presidential administrations and future federal education secretaries. Is the state going to be vulnerable to meeting regulatory directives every year now, in order to access federal education money. Once that money is built into a budget, it is no longer optional.

    <

    p>Do we need to imagine going through an annual funding chase for education dollars similar to the federal health care budget chase we go through every year? Think of those Medicaid program exceptions, the approval of which has to be lobbied for, it seems,  year after year.

    <

    p>In Massachusetts, who’s going to pay for the curriculum switch, training, new books and materials? Is that what the grant money is supposed to cover, if so it’s not really going to help restore art or music or language classes at my daughter’s school.

    <

    p>All questions and no answers with me right now. But I am mystified by this.

    <

    p>The switch to Common Core standards is the subject of the Friday Throwdown, over on the Boston Herald’s website.

    <

    p>Easy to join in. There will be a live chat box tomorrow from 12-1. You can find it here:

    <

    p>http://www.bostonherald.com/ne…
     

Archives