- Image courtesy of shutterstock.com
According to recent polling, the biggest issues in the Arizona election will be education and the economy. It would be foolish to underestimate the power of immigrant bashing, but that could come in the guise of education and the economy as well.
The education debates can go in all kinds of directions, but Common Core is sure to be somewhere at the center of the battle. How that shapes up will be worth watching, since it could sway a significant number of votes in one direction or the other. Here are some of the variables in play, as I see them.
In the Ed Superintendent race, we’ve got a pretty dramatic split on Common Core. Diane Douglas is absolutely against it. Absolutely. At this point, that’s her whole campaign. David Garcia has been painted as pro-Common Core by the media, but that’s an oversimplification. He sees the actual standards as a good starting point, but he’s against the overuse of high stakes testing as an assessment tool for students, teachers, administrators and schools, and Common Core has the potential of making testing even more dominant than it is now.
In the governor’s race, Doug Ducey is against Common Core, but it looks like he’s left himself some wiggle room so he can take different stances in front of different audiences (“I’m all for high standards, but ….”). Fred DuVal is basically for the Core, but he’s been vague enough at this point that he can also play around with his message to suit the moment.
Then there’s the voters.
The doctrinaire right wing of the Republican Party hates Common Core with a deep, abiding passion which is mirrored in Diane Douglas’ position. However, the, for lack of a better term, “Jan Brewer Republicans” like the Core, though their views aren’t locked-in enough that they can’t be persuaded otherwise.
The left wing of the Democratic Party goes from an absolute dislike of Core to an acceptance of the idea that its standards are a good start but the high stakes testing and the linkage to Big Education Business are serious problems. The teachers unions, which originally signed onto the Core, have moved in a similar direction, as have many teachers. More moderate Democrats haven’t really made up their minds, though they’re more for the Core than against it.
The business community is a bit of a wild card here. Many of them tend to fit into the “Jan Brewer Republican” mold, and so they tend to follow her lead (I could as easily say she follows their lead) and support the Common Core. After all, Craig Barrett, the very rich ex-CEO of Intel and Brewer’s go-to guy on education, was one of the creators of the Common Core, and he has lots of influence in the state. We could see business leaders and Chambers of Commerce backing David Garcia over Douglas for that reason, but will they dump Ducey for DuVal over education? That would be a tougher sell.
Everything I’ve said here is a vast oversimplification, obviously, a starting point for my thinking on how education will figure in the election. It’s all subject to change.
The value of Common Core to Democrats and Republicans could come down to who wins the framing wars. The side that can make itself look like it’s for the children will have a definite edge.
This article appears in Aug 28 – Sep 3, 2014.
This reads like nobody really likes it. I still haven’t heard an accurate synopsis of what the good is from it.
The NEA has a pitiful track record when it comes to change.
The good news is that no one is really buying the whole enchilada and the Common Core with its associated testing programs will be dead by 2016 (there’s an election coming up). The bad new is that between CCSS and NCLB entire cohorts of students over the past dozen years have been shortchanged as guinea pigs in two failed experiments.
From my perspective as an unabashed and unapologetic supporter of public education Common Core while a good idea, is seriously flawed. Here’s why:
1. Too much Federal Government involvement waiving big checks to under-resourced school districts. To get the money the districts have to drink the Koolaid.
2. Too much involvement by big testing and big book companies. They stand to make a fortune out of supporting CC and will lobby and work to drive it their way so they can profit.
3. One form of high stakes testing will simply replace another form of high stakes testing but we will still have high stakes testing paralyzing our education system.
4. It has not been tested anywhere, instead Arne Duncan rolled it out. It’s a high risk and our kids will be the beta testers – first time out. Not smart. Our kids education is a one shot deal, I don’t think that we ought to be experimenting with it without having a reasonable assurance that the outcome will be positive- by testing it under controlled conditions in a few selected districts.
I still believe that we need to let teachers teach and stop messing with programs to “make things better” when we just increase the burden on those who struggle to make it work. Let’s take the money and put it into better pay and more classroom resources rather than launch yet another federal initiative, remember “no child left behind” or “race to the top” or any one of the initiatives of the month? They did not work either, my confidence is not with the feds on this.
Michael, I love the phrase, “Our kids will be the beta testers.” I may use that at some time, unless you want to invoke copyright privileges.
I would be honored to have you use my phrase. And, BTW, I enjoy your column and your writing. Let’s keep it up!
While I too like the phrase, “our kids will be beta testers,” I wonder if it is accurate. Standardized tests generally have to be “normed” so that they align with the curriculum in two different ways. The questions have to be aligned with the standards, and the questions can’t be either too hard or too easy. If the questions are not aligned with the standards kids will not be tested on whether they have learned what they were supposed to learn. If the questions are too hard then too many students will unfairly be labeled as “not meeting standards.” if the questions are too easy, too many students will have inflated scores that are not an adequate representation of how well they know the standards. The point of beta testing is to make sure that the tests are properly normed. It is certainly possible that an unethical company like Pearson will roll out tests that have not been adequately “normed,” but it is not likely that students will be given high stakes tests without the beta testing having already been done.
BTW, Arne Duncan does not get to select the tests each state is using. There are competing tests out there, and it is factually incorrect to say, “Arne Duncan rolled it out.” He has supported the Craig Barretts of the world in promoting a set of standards that is what the Chamber of Commerce wants rather than one that promotes critical thinking and an appreciation of literature, but I think it is just incorrect to say that whatever test Arizona students take will be one he has “rolled out.”
It’s no secret that schools that use the textbooks published by the Big Ed Monopoly Industry/Corporate Welfare guys who also create the tests have students that do far better on the tests. No brainer. But then this highlights economic disparity since these books naturally cost more. If we place so much faith in standardized testing, shouldn’t these resources be nationalized and not a for profit industry?
NJYD, All districts spend a fortune on textbooks. The ones they buy are the ones that align with the standards. One of the principal costs all districts experience is replacing textbooks aligned with the previous set of standards for new ones aligned with new standards any time states change their standards. I have taught in rich districts and in very poor districts. They all buy textbooks that are as aligned as they can be with whatever standards are current in the state.
The issue of how public schools are financed is complex and highly politicized. Different states do it very differently. The role of the federal government has never been terribly helpful. Congress has a history of being pretty free with mandates that require tons of money to fund…i.e. PL 94-142, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act cost most states hundreds of millions of dollars to implement and the federal government had never paid more than 10% of the increased funding until it became the poster child for “underfunded mandates.” Then they upped up their portion to close to 15%. Never mind that when Congress was debating the bill, proponents smoothed away funding concerns by promising the federal government would pick up 50% of the increase in costs.
Personally, I would not want a nationalized purchase of textbooks if it came with a nationalized course of study. First, it would violate the 10th amendment concept that items not enumerated in the US Constitution as powers belonging to the federal government are reserved for the states. Education has been reserved for the states. And, second, the determination of standards ought to be a state responsibility. So should adequate funding for schools. If Arizona under-funds its public schools we have only ourselves…and our electoral choices…to blame. Several states have been forced to pony up more state dollars for public education because all students are entitled to at least have the opportunity to “meet standards.” If kids are expected to pass a test in algebra and there is no teacher in a school who can teach algebra, then those students clearly lack the opportunity to meet standards. Whether the fault lies with state funding or district choices is a matter for the courts.
The UA is allowing professors to require purchase of their published books (at a major profit) for classroom textbooks.
That puts us back to teaching personal opinion as if it were fact.
Gimme a Pell Grant!
To be considered about all textbooks, especially college level: Professors do not make a huge profit from their published textbooks. Seldom are books authored by only one person in the textbook field. The pay is minimal and the profits are even more minimal for the authors and for the school bookstores. The publishers rake in the $$$ and even those do not equal best selling fiction/non-fiction writers. What is the scandal is the resistance to producing cheaper volumes, including e-book versions of the textbooks, which could save students many $$$$. Of course then the independent used bookstores will suffer since they will no longer be able to resell used copies.
As an English teacher, who has worked in both AZ and CA public schools, Common Core is the single best thing to happen to English Language Arts classrooms in my career. Standards as curriculum guidelines make sense, but both the pre-Common Core sets of standards in CA and AZ were far too specific and far too content driven. Common Core is skill driven and allows states, schools and teachers flexibility to find effective ways to teach students to master the skills outlined in CC. I understand the need for accountability in educational outcomes, but standardized testing is THE biggest element hurting education. They are far too costly in both dollars spent on their purchase and time spent administering them. And when states make test scores part of a teacher’s evaluation (instead of coming up with better measures of teacher effectiveness) then teachers will quite often “teach to the test” so that their students’ test scores increase and they keep their jobs. Common Core – at least in English Language Arts classrooms is a tremendous boon to teachers, students and the workplace. To (mis)quote a phrase – it’s NOT Common Core… it’s the tests, (that are) stupid.
Thanks for your input, Jim. I’ve heard similar good things about the standards elsewhere, and I agree, it’s the tests, stupid — or it’s the stupid tests, which is probably just as accurate.
Do you think the one-size-fits-all standards are appropriate for poor and rich students, northeast and deep south students, etc.? It may be if they don’t have to be aligned with tests, they can be shaped to fit the specific needs of the students in individual classrooms and schools. I don’t know the answer to this one, but it’s certainly one reason to back off on the testing so we can see how appropriate these standards, which have had only a little field testing, are to different students in different situations.
David,
I think that there can be some adjustments to the standards. Maybe. However, here is some of the wording from the AZ CCSS for reading in high school:
Key Ideas and Details
1. Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text.
2. Determine central ideas or themes of a text and analyze their development; summarize the key supporting details and ideas.
3. Analyze how and why individuals, events, and ideas develop and interact over the course of a text.
Craft and Structure
4. Interpret words and phrases as they are used in a text, including determining technical, connotative, and figurative meanings, and analyze how specific word choices shape meaning or tone.
5. Analyze the structure of texts, including how specific sentences, paragraphs, and larger portions of the text (e.g., a section, chapter, scene, or stanza) relate to each other and the whole.
6. Assess how point of view or purpose shapes the content and style of a text.
There are more, obviously, but I honestly don’t see how anyone can argue that these are bad in any way. I think we can AT LEAST expect that by graduation students can have facility with these skills.
I would love to know how many of the people who are “against” CC have actually read them.