You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Governor Markell’ category.
- State-Led vrs. Federal Control
- Cost To Taxpayers
- Data Mining and Affective Testing
(More on Common Core: Pros and Cons can be found here….)
The Common Core standards are lower than those existing in 48 of the 50 states. Only Indiana and California improve standards by joining Common Core. Delaware experienced backsliding, and will show a drastic faked crises when its SBAC tests results appear this summer.
The standards were compiled by 4 people and are copyrighted by two private organizations. As all 45 states begin testing on common core someone is going to make a lot of money.
Do standards improve student learning?
- 9 out of the lowest 10 performers on the OCED comparison, all use a centralized top down system of mandating standards.
- 8 out of the top 10 performers on the OCED comparison, all use a centralized top down system of mandating standards.
Standards make no difference in student learning.
Furthermore, none except one of the methods in Common Core have ever been tested. In fact, when presented for educational certification, even those educational experts hand-picked as friendly to corporate interests, refused to approve it. All are on record as being entirely unconvinced over Common Core’s merits and are in fact, fearful of the damage it may cause. The one tested concept which was for teaching geometry, was performed as a test on a segment of brilliant Russian students and it failed miserably.
Every Delaware class that was piloted on a test program run by Common Core, performed worse than their past year’s results according to DOE officials. The pilot programs did not work and were the leading cause for why Delaware’s 2013 scores did not show the promise expected after those of 2012. (Delaware score averages dropped 2013).
State led vrs. Federal Control:
This is the argument Common Core proponents try to drive. They use it to make fun of Tea Party types, and uses their national low-held esteem to deride all opponents of Common Core. However, from a legal perspective the distinction indeed has a valid point. For in its original inception, the Federal Department of Education was forbidden in the Federal Code to directly interfere with educational curricula.
So they delegated it.
Two non-profits with governmental names, were created with Gates Foundation’s money. One has the word “Governor” in it; the other has the words “School Officers”. That is their only connection to states and to education.
States had to accept Common Core or forgo Federal Funding. The states were required to sign on, even before Common Core was developed. States were mandated upon acceptance of these funds 1) to mine student data, 2) to align teacher education to common core, 3) to build a broadband computer system for computer testing to occur, and 4) to teach the standards exactly as they arrive….
Instead of the Fed’s killing off all state run development of curricula, they hired corporate mafia to do it for them. Price : half a billion dollars.
Cost To Taxpayers
Because of corporate secrecy, the true cost lies somewhere between $3 billion and $16 billion depending whether the price quoter is a proponent or an antagonist for Common Core. Those were the highest and lowest estimates I could find.
All Common Core tests are computerized. Therefore they require broadband, tech support, new equipment: switches, servers, and terminals. They require a paid-for curricula packet for each student. They require professional grading.
Of course this cost is above and beyond the normal educational costs required just to keep schools open.
Data Mining and Affective Testing
The creepy part. All Common Core states must create a profile of each student from the cradle to the grave. Part of Common Core’s requirements allows them to sell this data to cover some of the costs Common Core entails. Some states have opted out, but nine states remain still in.
This includes detailed psychological testing; exactly the same kind the CIA performs at Guantanamo to determine who is and who isn’t a terrorist. Psychological testing is psychological testing and children have no filters; they tell everything. This same testing is so private, clinical psychologists are not allowed to give out similar results except to a child’s trusted guardian or if required under court order. Data so private, they often choose fight the court order because disclosure will psychologically damage the child.
Under Common Core, it is now up for sale. If the pursuit of Common Core didn’t make sense to most of you up to now, this is the gold mine explaining why, private concerns, have footed hundred’s of millions of dollars to muscle it into law. They paid for the research. They paid for the results. They paid for the political bribes. They paid for the cheer-leaders. They paid for Dave Sokola. They paid for Rodel. They paid for Hefferman. They paid for Sweeney.
Against all this wealth, what you can do?
Opt out. You have that Constitutional right. if your child does not take the test, their data is not mined.
PISA attacks the Gate’s funded reform educational movement, and anticipating its misuse of their data, they prepared this rebuttal. Watch and then tell you REPRESENTATIVE that Sokola is full of crap… That goes for Murphy too… And Markell, too… And Arne Duncun… too…. And Obama… too…..
America would not have been smart enough to have done any of this mastery over our environment, if our curriculum had been based on the curriculum that will soon be in our schools as Common Core.
Common Core destroys imaginations. None of this could or would be possible.
Call your General Assembly representatives and tell them to say NO TO COMMON CORE
America deserves better. We need minds brighter than Common Core… Minds like those who learned back in the good old days before standardized testing, and could still do all of this……..
Rule Number 1 of Management 101….
Find someone who is doing it right. Then do what they do.
Japan as one of the top East Asian nation has consistently scored high in its testing. Even though test scores by themselves are not a great indicator of learning, they are somewhat of a guide, nevertheless. Someone who consistently gets higher scores without using one of Michele Rhee’s erasers, deserves inspection. The full report is here.
For decades Japan has remained at or near the top of international assessments of student learning. What makes Japanese schools successful?
“On the PISA questionnaires Japanese students reported the best disciplinary climate in their mathematics classes among in all other OECD countries. For example, 91% of Japanese students reported that students never or only in some classes don’t listen to what the teacher says (OECD average is 68%).”
“OECD countries allocate at least an equal, if not a larger, number of teachers per student to socio-economically disadvantaged schools as to advantaged schools; but disadvantaged schools tend to have great difficulty in attracting qualified teachers. By contrast, in Japan, the student-teacher ratio is 10 in disadvantaged schools and 13 in advantaged schools, meaning that there are more teachers per student in disadvantaged schools. (Delaware is at 22 students) In addition, the proportion of teachers with university-level qualifications does not substantially differ between advantaged and disadvantaged schools in Japan (it is 100% in advantaged schools and 99.8% in disadvantaged schools), and principals in disadvantaged schools reported the same extent of teacher shortage as principals in advantaged schools.”
“In Japan, there is no statistically significant difference between advantaged and disadvantaged schools in the amount of educational resources allocated, according to principals’ reports. However, advantaged schools tend to have better infrastructure and offer students more learning time than disadvantaged schools, as observed….”
“The proportion of Japanese students who attend after-class-tutoring by another venue is much larger than the OECD average: 70% compared to the OECD average of 38%. “
“Also Some 99% of students in Japan reported that they had attended pre-primary education, and 97% reported that they had attended for more than one year (the OECD average is 74%). The proportions in Japan have not changed since 2003.”
“On average across OECD countries, the difference in socio-economic status and the difference in mathematics performance between those who had attended pre-primary education and those who hadn’t widened between 2004 and 2012, but Japan’s did not.”
“Schools in Japan are given more discretion in establishing curricula and assessments than in most participating countries and economies. In Japan, 98% of students are in schools whose principals reported that only “principals and/or teachers”, have considerable responsibility for establishing student assessment polices (the OECD average is 47%); 90% are in schools that have the authority to decide which courses are offered (the OECD averag is 36%); and 89% are in schools that have responsibility for choosing which textbooks are used or for determining course content (the OECD averages are 65% and 40%, respectively) PISA also shows that schools with more autonomy tend to perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with more accountability and/or collaboration among principals and teachers.”
PISA results show that grade repetition tends to be negatively related to equity and is a costly policy. No Japanese student reported that he or she had repeated a grade in either elementary, lower secondary, or secondary school. (The OCED average is 12%)
“Across participating countries and economies, a strong negative relationship is observed between the levels of students’ motivation and the degree to which systems sort and group students into different schools and/or programmes. In the systems that separate students into different schools more, students tend to report less instrumental motivation to learn mathematics.”
“PISA shows that high-performing and equitable school systems tend to engage students in school evaluations and teacher appraisals to improve teaching and learning. The degree to which systems seek feedback from students regarding lessons, teachers or resources tends to be related to the school systems’ level of equity. Systems where more students attend schools with such practices tend to show a lesser impact of socio-ecommomic factors upon performance.”
As is easily seen, achievement in education can beat the odds that socio-economic factors create.
The focus needs to be on human interaction. Not testing. Japan uses human interaction better than the US in two places… Classrooms have half the student ratios common in US schools, And significant numbers of students receive tutoring after school hours…
This concentration of human capital and expertise is the sole reason Japan has consistently done well across the 45 years this test has been given….
IF the United States were to follow suit, and go with the proposed 11:1 student teacher ratio the scores would improve. Instead of using private concerns to take away from from public school resources, the allocation of additional recourses aimed at after school instruction could be better utilized for greater results….
It appears that every dollar thrown on testing is ill spent. The US should abandon the tests that have drained resources and focus on building the levels of human interactions, particularly in lower income area schools.
Jack Markell, Mark Murphy, Rodel, Hefferman, Sokola, Sweeney, Jenner, Jacques…..
No cakewalk this legislative session. Nope. Nope. Nope.
Reblogged From Common Core
As I leaked earlier, the PISA scores came out yesterday, Tuesday… A change in how they were announced was made by the powers that be.
Here is how the results are usually rolled out, from 2009 backwards….
“It is usual practice for research organizations (and in some cases, the government) to provide advance copies of their reports to objective journalists. That way, journalists have an opportunity to review the data and can write about them in a more informed fashion. Sometimes, journalists are permitted to share this embargoed information with diverse experts who can help the journalists understand possibly alternative interpretations.”
Oh, boy… not this year… this year it was given to public relations firms, the ones with “inside access”? You know, the kind that Jack Markell, Ted Cruz, Mark Rubio, Scott Walker, all hire to get exposure on national television and market their names around the country? In the old days, we use to call them Madison Avenue types, but now they reside on the lettered streets just down from the capitol in DC.
The organizations who have been provided with advance copies of this government report, and that are participating in the public release are: The Alliance for Excellent Education, Achieve, ACT, America Achieves, the Asia Society, the Business Roundtable, the Council of Chief State School Officers, the College Board, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, and the National Center on Education and the Economy. These organizations and their leaders have a history of bemoaning Americans’ performance on international tests and predicting tragic consequences for the nation that will follow.
Why would someone do that?
Why would a figure in our very own government, responsible for the accumulation of statistics in ones field, give the data first, to spin doctors and advertisers? Does he think he lives in a bubble of his own creation? Is he completely deluded to think that no one will notice that what we are getting is rubbish and not hard facts?
Would we trust Moody’s if it was owned by Fox News? Would we trust the Bureau of Labor Statistics if it was owned by Obama-haters? Would we trust the quote of CIGI stock if CIGI owned the Dow Jones Industrial Average? Would we trust Breitbart if it was run by the Democrat National Committee?
Of course not. Of course not. Of course not…
And he expects no one to notice that all those companies decrying the US is falling behind, have over $400 billion worth of public dollars spent every year in order to boost our educational rates a little higher? And want more?
Here is the master link for unfiltered data…
Of course, there will be more later…
One of the most amazing facts very rarely mentioned, is the intellectual breakthroughs that derived out of the American Public Schools of the 30 years prior to WWII… We call it classic education, and essentially, it borrowed its curriculum from Eton and the private privileged schools of Britain. Back then, the principle idea of public schools was to take the curriculum of the privileged, and make it available to all.
Common Core, attempts just the opposite. It waters down curriculum so all can pass… As if saying our standards are currently too high, so not everyone is graduating. Therefore let us lower all the standards so more can graduate, and if they wish, they can take remedial classes when they go onward in post secondary education. The founders of Common Core now argue that Algebra II is too hard, (Trig. Calc. and Geometry were already left out of Common Core). The founders of Common Core now argue that literature has no place in curriculum at all. Students should only study instructional texts.
Most do not know this, but there have been no major changes in either avionics or rocket delivery systems since the generation that fought WWII, retired.
All the new innovations are simple tweakings of plans already in place. In fact, despite hundreds of billions thrown at the issue, we can’t make a better plane than the Blackbird SR71. We just pulled it our of retirement again. We pull the A10′s out of retirement, every time we have a ground campaign. Our strategic air command, depends on B52′s… the last one was made in ’62… making them over 50 years old, every one of them…
How did these engineers design these magnificent designs out of thin air? There were no precedents from which to draw?
Their education played a big part. Classical education….
100 years ago we taught Greek and Latin in our high schools. Today we are teaching remedial classes in colleges.
What worked, works. All those “new” innovative ideas with which we are playing around, such as Common Core, don’t work very well at all…..
” Relying on leaders like Delaware’s secretary of education whose skills are based on many unproven theories rather than a proven effective leader with real world hands-on experience puts the academic health of our children at serious risk. “
Just think of who is in charge of education….
President Obama… Never worked in a public school and has no children in poor public school.
Arne Duncun… Never worked in a public school and has no children in poor public schools.
Jack Markell… Never worked in a public school and has no children in poor public schools.
Sec. of Education… Mark Murphy… Learned everything about public schools from teaching elementary gym three years. Own kids too young for school.
Dave Sokola… Never worked in a public school, and has no children in public school.
Earl Jacques… Never worked in a public school….and has no children in public school.
John Sweeney… Never worked in a public school, and has no children in public school.
Rodel Board of Directors and Advisory Board… Never worked in a public school…. Most do not have children in public school.
How clearer can things be?
“My basic question began…, ”how do you rate how well a child reads? What does that number score mean?”
The answer back, was that a child reads a passage, then repeats the words he read back to the teacher…. and those words are what are counted. “If he uses 18 words, he has a score of 18. If he uses 28 he has a score of 28…. “
I was confused. I said, “so a child reads a passage, and let us say it is about Antarctica. He has to memorize actual words he read, and then, list all the individual words he remembers? Do you count articles like “a” and “the”….?”
“Oh, no. He just repeats back what he read, the meaning of the passage in his own words, tells us everything he can remember from the passage which we count and record the number of words… We are not concerned so much with what he says or whether he comprehends; we just count the number of words he can string together….”
….in a minute.”
“In a minute?” I ask? ”Now I’m curious. What happens if a person has a disability with speaking, and talks much slower? I can see where they could completely understand the passage, but by the time they get the words out, they are rated complete failure. What happens if the person stutters, .. below standard?”
“The department of education wants us to record everyone the same. One standard for all. No exceptions. It is the number of words per minute”
“Well, I can see where it would be important to maintain the sanctity of the standard, but it is really making a mockery of the intelligence of the person who is being tested. Basically you are rating intelligence on how fast one talks… That would make people from Massachusetts and Minnesota, which are fast talking states, appear smarter than states in the South, like Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana, where they talk r-e-a-l slow…..
Oh, my goodness. That mirrors the NAEP… High reading scores where everyone grows up hearing language used quickly, and lower test scores where children grow up hearing it used slow…
“I’ll have to admit, it is not a perfect measure of one’s intelligence nor their knowledge. It is just the way the test is designed…. We’ve known this a long time, but no one on top really even cares…”
“But that would make black people appear dumber than whites, unless of course, they grew up in a house where language was spoken quickly, Southern Hillbillies would score low. And second language learners, of course are slower because they are translating as they go, and they are getting a lower score because of the time it takes for them to say something…. but yet all of these could pass a written test fine.
It looks like our entire rating system predominantly hinges on this one trait, speaking faster. That could explain why the North has higher averages than the South, the East averages are higher than the West’s.
But yet the old fashioned teaching way worked fine and was fair to all… We used to say: “read this passage and answer the questions about what you read to see if you comprehended what you were reading….”
The new fashioned way of… how many words can you repeat back to us, and does your repetition have a organized beginning, body, and an end.,, might be a good test for a game show on TV, one hinging on one certain skill, particularly how fast one’s tongue could move, but it is not a good measure of one’s intelligence. A lot of very intelligent people are circumspect and weigh each word carefully, and speak slow because of their intelligence.
So if we are using this to rate our children, and then using our children’s performance to rate our teachers, their schools, our districts. doesn’t that put the entire standardized testing system now being developed with a half a billion dollars for Common Core, in disrepute?
Really, how can we go forward when those leading us from high within the Department of Educations, have no clue of what they do? The speed at which people speak is determined on the language spoken around them while their brains developed between one and two years of age… Therefore, Judging a teacher’s performance based on this very arbitrary trait, needs to be stopped….
What is wrong with our DSEA?