Three Education Acts

Three Education Acts

I have read the summaries of three federal education acts. I have included the URL so you can download a copy of the summary if you want. I am providing my recommendation to support or not support each act. For some acts I make mention of some, but not all, of what the act allows or provides for. This is not exhaustive by any means and only includes those things of most importance and interest to me. You may have a different opinion.

H.R. 2218 Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act

The Student Success Act

Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act

H.R. 2218 Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act

http://edworkforce.house.gov/UploadedFiles/HR_2218_Bill_Summary.pdf

Currently, under ESEA, competitive grants have been awarded states or charter school developers to provide financial assistance for the planning, program design, and initial implementation of charter schools, and support the financing of charter school facilities. H.R.2218 will streamline and modernize the Charter School Program to support the start-up, replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools; streamline program funding and administration at the federal and state levels; and promote choice, innovation, and excellence in education.

Recommendation: Do not support. The federal government should not be promoting, supporting, or funding charter schools in any manner. This should be left entirely up to the states without influence of any kind from the federal government.

The Student Success Act

http://edworkforce.house.gov/UploadedFiles/The_Student_Success_Act_Summary.pdf

This act supports the protection of state and local autonomy and limits the authority of the Secretary of Education. This act would end the school improvement grants (SIG) that created and funded four unproven and ineffective turnaround models. This act does away with AYP and repeals federal requirements for highly qualified teacher designation.

Secretary’s Authority: The bill protects state and local autonomy over decisions in the classroom and limits the authority of the Secretary of Education. The legislation: (1) prevents the Secretary from creating additional burdens on states and districts through the regulatory process, particularly in the areas of standards, assessments, and state accountability plans; (2) prohibits the Secretary from supporting efforts around state standards and influencing and coercing states into entering partnerships with other states; and (3) outlines procedures the Secretary must follow when conducting a peer review process for grant applications that will bring greater transparency.

Recommendation: Support. This could be better but it is a move in the right direction.

Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act

http://edworkforce.house.gov/UploadedFiles/The_Encouraging_Innovation_and_Effective_Teachers_Act_Summary.pdf

The majority of the issues addressed in this act are ones the federal government should not be involved in. Many of these issues should be left to the states to address as they see fit. This act calls for making student achievement data a significant part of teacher evaluations. I do not support the use of student achievement data to evaluate teachers. While it sounds great, this is not a reliable way to evaluate teachers. Various reports and questionable research may recommend this but the solid research related to this issue does not recommend this practice. I am okay with this data being used to evaluate schools and districts. This act also calls for performance-based pay. I have been aware of a push for this for more than 25 years and have yet to see a plan or a plan in place that will work in the education arena, especially with teachers.

Recommendation: Do Not Support. Some of the issues in this act should not even be proposed or addressed. Many issues addressed in this act should be left entirely to the states without influence of any kind from the federal government.

Washington’s Charter School Value: Who Benefits?

Washington’s Charter School Value: Who Benefits?

Washington State voters have turned down charter schools three times in the past. Voters twice rejected charter school initiatives and repealed a charter school law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. The charter school issue is back like a persistent kid, not satisfied with an initial rejection of a request for something, who keeps asking until the parents wear down and give in.

The charter school issue is back in the form of HB 2428 and companion SB 6202: Establishing alternative forms of governance for certain public schools. What value is there to having charter schools in Washington State? Will the targeted educationally disadvantaged students across the state benefit from charter schools or will benefits lie elsewhere?

Section 115 of both bills addresses the number of charter schools allowed in the state should this legislation pass.

Sec. 115. NUMBER OF CHARTER SCHOOLS. (1) A maximum of fifty charter schools may be established statewide under this chapter. No more than ten charter schools may be established each calendar year. These annual allocations are cumulative so that if the maximum number of allowable new charters is not reached in any given year the maximums are increased accordingly for the successive years, but in no case may the total number exceed fifty without further legislative authorization.

What might these numbers mean in terms of serving the educationally disadvantaged students across the state and the benefits of having charter schools? Consider looking at this in three ways: 1) the number of schools, 2) the enrollment, and 3) the dollars per student.

There are about 1,900 schools in Washington state with an enrollment greater than 100. If 50 of those schools were charter schools, only 2.6% of the schools in the state would be charter schools established with the purpose of meeting the needs of the educationally disadvantaged students across the state.

Consider enrollment in terms of average school enrollment and well above average enrollment. The average enrollment of the nearly 1900 schools in WA is about 540. If each of 50 charter schools had an average enrollment they would serve 27,000 students, or 2.6% of the statewide enrollment of 1,024,711. A school enrollment of 1,500 is well above average with 74 schools in the state, or 4%, of Washington state schools having an enrollment this larger or larger. If each of 50 charter schools had an above average enrollment of 1,500 students, 7,500 students, or 7.3% of Washington students would be served. The estimate of 7.3% is on the high end. 2.6% is more realistic even though it could also be high. Will having charter schools serving a possible 2.6% of the state’s schools or students really address the needs of the educationally disadvantaged students in the state?

(Data in the OSPI Washington State Report Card 2011 Data Files Demographic Information by District was used for the calculations presented above. Schools with enrollment of less than 100 and their student enrollment figures were not used in the above calculations.)

If an approximate amount of $10,000 per student per year of taxpayer’s money is used, the estimated 27,000 students that may be served by charter schools will generate $270,000,000. Who will benefit?

(Washington State School Districts Per Pupil All Expenditure—Four-Year Average by County shows a per FTE expenditure of $9,982.69 for the school 2004-2005 fiscal year. An approximate $10,000 per student per year is used for the calculations presented above.)

President Obama and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan have called for states with charter schools to lift their caps on the number of charter schools allowed and not limit their growth. Will the pressure, and possible coercion, from the federal level result in a legislature that acquiesces in the future to these demands?

Are parents, voters, taxpayers, and local community members willing to have the state create more layers of bureaucracy without any opportunity for elected representation in the governance of charter schools that likely will serve 2.6% of our schools or students? The current legislation calls for the creation of a commission as a state agency. Commission members will be appointed. Charter schools will have their own appointed or selected board of directors. There is no provision in the legislation for the public to have elected representation in the governance of charter schools. School choice? It is possible that parents of 2.6% of the students in the state will have charter schools as a choice for their child. They will not have, even as a taxpayer and voter, a choice in the governance of a charter school in their local community.

What is the value of charter schools in Washington State? Is it the opportunity that may be provided to the state’s educationally disadvantaged students? Is it the opportunity for nonprofits to capitalize on a possible $10,000 per student? Is it the opportunity provided to for profit corporations? Charter schools’ appointed school boards are allowed to contract with for profit corporations to provide instructional services and manage and operate the schools. Who benefits? Or should the question be who benefits most?

HB 2428 - 2011-12 Establishing alternative forms of governance for certain public schools.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2012&bill=2428

SB 6202 - 2011-12 Establishing alternative forms of governance for certain public schools.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=6202&year=2012

Charter school feud to raise its head again in state

http://heraldnet.com/article/20120115/NEWS01/701159917/-1/NEWS02

Designing Smart Charter School Caps

http://www.educationsector.org/publications/designing-smart-charter-school-caps

OSPI Washington State Report Card 2011 Data Files Demographic Information by District

http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/DataDownload.aspx

Washington State School Districts Per Pupil All Expenditure—Four-Year Average by County

http://k12.wa.us/safs/PUB/FIN/0405/0405%20pdf%20reports/SDAllFndc.pdf

Click here to download a pdf of this article.

Originally posted at Seattle Education News and Commentary.

CBEO - Chronic Bad Educational Outcomes

CBEO - Chronic Bad Educational Outcomes

by

Charlie Hoff

Does our school district offer “Informed Consent?”

Recently there has been some passionate discussion about “Academic Acceleration” at Federal Way School Board meetings. All of this “Passion” seems to be coming from Jefferson parents which might suggest that parents of the other three high schools are not that involved in their children’s education or this process isn’t happening at these schools.

There are certainly good intentions in what the District is trying to do, but I think they have missed an important step. I would like to use a medical analogy to explain my point.

Suppose your child was not feeling well, so you decided to take him/her to the doctor. The doctor would perform tests which he felt might pin point the problem. Schools do this also.

Suppose that some of the tests the doctor performed suggested that surgery was the best solution. In this case the doctor would likely provide you, the parent, with a list of the options, risks and probable results; then ask you to sign a release form if you elected to have surgery performed.

This in the medical field is called, “Informed Consent.” Unfortunately this isn’t what the school district has done. They have given the tests and then started surgery without the parents’ consent! If a doctor were to do this he would probably face loss of license to practice medicine and a lawsuit!

Now, let’s take this one step further. Suppose you agreed with the doctor and signed the Informed Consent form and the surgery was performed. When you then visited your child in the recovery room you found that not only the surgery had been performed, but the child now has a tattoo of “Sponge Bob” on his forehead!

You ask, “Why?” The surgeon explains that when your child was recovering he/she asked them if they would like this and they said “Kool!” and so they complied. You might get just a little upset and seek a lawyer as you would feel that there was no “Informed Consent.”

Your child now has a ‘Chronic” disfigurement that is likely to have lifelong implications. The lawsuit shouldn’t take long.

Something similar to this is taking place in schools, not just in Federal Way, but in most schools.

1. Your child is tested and then a “Plan” (like a surgery) is undertaken. Informed Consent? Probably not! Possible long term (chronic) implications? Certainly!

2. If your child believes that this “Plan” isn’t right for them can they change it to make it more “fun,” or make it “easier,” or to get in the right lunch period, or avoid a “hard teacher. The school will probably be willing to do this. Implications that may be “chronic” could result but this isn’t a consideration. “Informed Consent?” I don’t think so.

Lawsuit in the making? Probably, but you wouldn’t want to try! Herein lies one of the greatest weaknesses of our education system. We aren’t looking at what goes on in schools with the same level of seriousness that we look for in a doctor’s office, yet the implications can be as serious to our children as medical neglect.

“Chronic bad educational outcomes” (CBEO) is a “disease that is in epidemic proportions in America!

The solution here in Federal Way is to INSIST ON INFORMED CONSENT! There are school districts in America that have done this and the results are spectacular.

Let us remember that our children entering high school are minors and therefore are not legally allowed to make major decisions. Decisions made by them, without vested adult consultation, can lead to “chronically” bad outcomes. (CBEO)

Let’s stamp out CBEO in Federal Way by insisting that all parents have full “Informed Consent!”

Published with permission of the author, Charlie Hoff.

What Parents, Taxpayers, and School Boards Should Know

What Parents, Taxpayers, and School Boards Should Know About

The Common Core $tate $tandards

…that perhaps they aren’t being told

What are the Common Core State Standards?

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are a set of learning standards in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics. These standards, if adopted by a state, will replace existing state standards in these subject areas.

Who developed the Common Core State Standards? When?

The National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) together formed the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) to develop a set of academic standards to be used in common across all states.

In Spring 2009, governors and chief state school officers (state superintendents) of all but two states signed a Common Core Standards Memorandum of Agreement. This committed their states to voluntary participation in a process leading to the development and adoption of the CCSS. In July 2009 the initiative released some names of people involved in developing the standards. Work on the standards did not involve the public, and some interested organizations were shut out of the process. In September, a draft of the College and Career Readiness Standards was released. The first and only public draft of the K-12 Common Core State Standards for ELA and math was released in March 2010. The final K-12 CCSS was released in June 2010.

With support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, private corporations--including assessment and publishing companies--funded the development of the standards. Do you suppose publishers have anything to gain?

The Common Core State Standards:

• · May not align with state adopted or recommended textbooks. $$$
• · May not align with textbooks already adopted, purchased, and in use by local school districts. $$$
• · Will require extensive expensive professional development. In most states, these costs will be borne by local school districts. $$$
• · Are not internationally benchmarked.
• · Have embedded pedagogy or “how to teach” information. That embedded pedagogy coupled with yet to be developed assessments will determine what and how teachers should teach.

The CCSS Mathematics Standards:

• · Delay development of some key concepts and skills.
• · Include significant mathematical sophistication written at a level beyond understanding of most parents, students, administrators, decision makers and many teachers.
• · Lack coherence and clarity to be consistently interpreted by students, parents, teachers, administrators, curriculum developers, textbook developers/publishers, and assessment developers. Will this lead to consistent expectations and equity?
• · Have standards inappropriately placed, including delayed requirement for standard algorithms, which will hinder student success and waste valuable instructional time.
• · Treat important topics unevenly. This will result in inefficient use of instructional and practice time.
• · Are not well organized at the high school level. Some important topics are insufficiently covered. The standards are not divided into defined courses.
• · Place emphasis on Standards for Mathematical Practice which supports a constructivist approach. This approach is typical of “reform” math programs to which many parents across the country object.
• · Publishers of reform programs are aligning them with the CCSS Standards for Mathematical Practice. The CCSS will not necessarily improve the math programs being used in many schools.

The Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (ELA):

• · Use confusing language in some standards.
• · Are not always clear or measureable on expected student outcomes.
• · Are not always organized in a logical way and are difficult to follow.
• · Treat literary elements inconsistently.
• · Have some writing standards that are general and do not specify what a student should be able to know or do.
• · Focus on skills over content in reading.
• · Do not address or require cursive writing.

Will the Adoption of the CCSS be Beneficial or Detrimental for Students, Parents, Taxpayers, and Local School Districts?

Adopting the CCSS takes control of educational content and standards away from parents, taxpayers, local school districts, and states. The CCSS were produced by a closed group and conditionally approved by many states without public review. The NGA and CCSSO, both non-government groups, own the copyright protected CCSS. Control over changes to the CCSS will lie in the hands of so called “experts” outside local school district, state, and the federal government jurisdiction.

Public education is a state responsibility. It is not the responsibility of the federal government. States should not turn over their rights or responsibilities to the direction and influence of non-government organizations or the federal government.

States have had state standards under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) for several years now. There is no evidence from this experience that this allowed students to move from one district to another with minimal interruption of their instructional program. Even with common standards, there will remain wide variances between classrooms, schools, districts, and states. Common standards within states under NCLB did not result in consistency and collaboration among districts within states. Why should we believe the CCSS would bring this about across district and state lines?

Adoption of the CCSS will result in greater turmoil and confusion for teachers and students. It will result in a loss of learning time and have a negative effect on test results. There will be a delay in students meeting new standards resulting in the possible need for a delay in graduation requirements.

The CCSS represents a massive unevaluated experiment with our students for which they and their parents have been ill informed and have had no opportunity for input. The CCSS are untested and unevaluated in the classroom. The proposed CCSS should undergo rigorous testing in a limited number of districts before adoption and implementation statewide or nationwide.

Some Validation Committee members would not sign off on the CCSS. Don’t you wonder why, especially when these standards have been promoted as being so wonderful?

Will the CCSS be Assessed?

The U.S. Department of Education (USED) has provided over $350 million in grant funds to two consortia for assessment development. The consortia are the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). States adopting the CCSS may belong to and use the assessment from one consortium.

Both consortia appear poised to develop subjective assessments rather than objective tests. SBAC plans to assess deep disciplinary understanding and higher-order thinking skills. Will either PARCC or SBAC test student content knowledge and skill?

The assessments will be computer based. The consortia claim this will reduce costs for states. While it may reduce state costs, it will increase costs for local school districts, as they will need to have adequate computer equipment and network capacity throughout the year for students to have frequent access and experience with the computer assessment interface.

Computer assessments may not have the same validity and reliability as paper and pencil tests. It will be several years before results will reflect what the assessment intends, rather than student ability to use the assessment technology.

High achieving students benefit more from computer assessments in terms of performance than low achieving students. This does not sound like it will help close the achievement gap.

Implementation Schedule for CCSS and Assessments

Some states may begin implementing the CCSS as early as the 2011-12 school year. Other states may have a multi-year process to phase in the implementation of the CCSS. In most cases, the CCSS will be implemented by the 2013-2014 school year.

The full administration of the assessments will take place in the 2014-15 school year. Some assessment field tests will begin in the 2012-2013 school year.

Check with your state education agency for your state’s implementation timeline.

The Common Core $tate $tandards Adoption and Implementation Costs

Local school districts and states must provide the funds to adopt and implement the CCSS. The federal government is not providing the necessary funds since states voluntarily make the decision as to whether they adopt or not. States receiving Race to the Top (RTTT) funds may use some of those funds to implement the CCSS.

Estimated implementation costs have been exorbitant. The estimated costs for California exceeded the amount the state would have received in RTTT funds. California was not awarded any RTTT funds.

Estimated implementation costs have ranged from $183 million in Washington State for approximately 1 million students to $1.6 billion in California for more than 6 million students.

Many states adopting the CCSS are only funding a small portion of the costs at the state level. Local school districts in Washington State will be responsible for 90.6% of the estimated statewide implementation costs.

Many local school districts and state governments are dealing with severe budget shortfalls. How can they justify making an ongoing costly commitment?

Local school districts will be responsible for the technology equipment, related personnel, and network capacity upgrade costs required for the CCSS assessments.

Is your state making a major commitment on behalf of local school boards without showing or ascertaining that funds are available to meet the fiscal obligation?

Is it fiscally responsible for states to make major financial commitments without first determining if they, and the local school districts, can meet the obligation? Can your state identify dedicated revenues equal to or greater than estimated adoption and implementation expenses?

It is your taxpayer dollar paying the implementation costs whether local, state, or federal money is used. Taxpayers need to guard their wallets and bank accounts. The local school districts and states may find it necessary to raise taxes.

What Can Parents, Taxpayers, and School Boards Do?

• · Inform yourself and make your voice heard at the local, state, and national level.
• · Talk to your local teachers about the CCSS. See when they became aware of the initiative and if they feel they had clear opportunities for input as the standards were developed.
• · Talk to community members. If they are not aware of the CCSS, inform them.
• · Show others the current state standards and the CCSS side by side for a given grade level. Have them compare and see which they prefer.
• · Campaign against and vote no on school bond and levy issues.
• · Attend and speak at school board meetings.
• · Establish websites and blogs to inform others.
• · Write opinion pieces and letters to the editor.
• · Opt your child out of state testing.
• · Opt your child out of any testing done on the computer. Request that tests/assessments for your child be paper and pencil.
• · Conduct community forums and town hall meetings.
• · Call in to radio talk shows. Host one if possible.
• · Request local school board and the state education agency to post check registers online so all can easily see and examine expenditures.
• · Find out how many school administrators, school board members, legislators, and elected officials send their children to private or charter schools.
• · Keep your child home from school on head count day if your state has such a day that determines funding based on attendance.
• · Question the constitutionality of RTTT/CCSS and other federal education reform measures at every opportunity.
• · Ask your school board to refuse to implement the CCSS and refuse to submit to the related assessments.
• · Ask local school board and state officials to show how they expect to pay the estimated cost of implementing the CCSS.

Act at the Local, State, and National Level

• · Contact state legislators and request legislation to revoke or delay the adoption and implementation of the CCSS.
• · Contact state legislators and request legislation banning your state from further participation in either assessment consortia.
• · Ask your state education officials to improve existing state standards if necessary, write new standards, or adopt excellent proven standards with corresponding assessments from Massachusetts, California, or Indiana.
• · Ask your State Attorney General to examine the legality of the government’s position.
• · Ask your U.S. Congressmen to stop funding Race to the Top and any other federal funding that may support the implementation of the CCSS,
• · Ask your U.S. Congressmen to not support the reauthorization of ESEA/NCLB.
• · Act legally and take action you are comfortable with to get your local, state, and national officials to stop the adoption and implementation of the CCSS.

Stop the CCSS Bus

Halt the push for federal and corporate control of our children’s public school classrooms.

Citizens United for Responsible Education of Washington State, Missouri Education Watchdog, Mathematically Sound Foundations, The Underground Parent, and the U.S. Coalition for World Class Math independently object to the adoption and implementation of the CCSS.

Download this as a colorful pdf by clicking here.

A Top Ten List of Unreasonable Reasons to Adopt The Common Core State Standards

A Top Ten List of Unreasonable Reasons to Adopt

The Common Core State Standards

The Partnership for Learning has provided a top ten list of reasons they say will accelerate student achievement and save the state money. They present this list as support for why Washington should adopt the Common Core Standards. Here is a look at those reasons one by one, with comments indented to consider with regard to each reason. Do any of these reasons lead you to believe they will accelerate student achievement and save the state money?

A Top Ten List That Will Accelerate Student Achievement and Save the State Money (0)

Reason 1: To date, 41 states have adopted the Common Core Standards. Washington is behind.

Many states planned to adopt the standards sight unseen before the standards were even written. Just because 41 states have adopted does not mean it is a good idea for Washington. Lemmings everyone?

Reason 2: Numerous education associations, businesses, nonprofits, and union groups support the Common Core, including: American Federation of Teachers, National Education Association, Council of Great City Schools, National PTA, U.S. Department of Education and many more.

Some groups jumped on board to support the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) before they were even written. Does it make the standards good because these groups support them? What reasons are behind their support? All too often, the reasons have nothing to do with what is in the best interests of students.

Reason 3: Washington teachers support the Common Core. A survey by the Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession indicates that 76 percent of Washington state National Board Certified Teachers support the state formally adopting the Common Core Standards.

The Center for Strengthening the Teacher Profession (CSTP) surveyed (1) 79 National Board Certified Teachers (NBCT) who participate on the CSTP Sounding Board (2). It appears 30 of these teachers indicated they read the English Language Arts standards and fewer read the math standards. Does it matter that less than half of the surveyed teachers read the standards? OSPI’s website (3) indicates WA had a total of 3,974 NBCT in 2009. Are the 79 NCBT Sounding Board teachers a representative sample or a convenience sample of all 3,974 NBCT teachers? The OSPI Washington State Report Card website (4) shows 59,487 classroom teachers in WA for the 2009-10 school year. Is this survey sample of 79 truly representative of all classroom teachers in WA? How about asking all of the teachers across the state? How about giving every elementary teacher a copy of the current 2008 WA math standards and the CCSS for their respective grade levels and ask which they prefer?

Reason 4. Washington voters support the Common Core. A 2011 poll by Partnership for Learning identified that 70 percent of Washington state voters support the state formally adopting the Common Core Standards. The Common Core Standards are similar to or higher than Washington’s current standards. According to the Fordham Foundation’s national study, The State of State Standards, Washington’s standards are only slightly higher than the Common Core Standards in math and much lower in English-language arts than the Common Core Standards.

A 2011 poll by the Partnership for Learning (PFL) could not be found on their website. (5). The Partnership for Learning is a part of the Excellent Schools Now Coalition (ESN). The poll or survey the PFL is referring to may be the one showing the results found on the ESN website. What questions were asked? Was the sample representative of the population? Were people asked if they were aware of the CCSS? Were they asked if they have read any of the standards? Were 70% of those who opted to participate in the survey already familiar with the CCSS? That would be surprising. If they were, it is doubtful they are a representative sample of the voters in the state. It is more likely that most voters have never heard of the CCSS.

Reason 5. The Common Core Standards are similar to or higher than Washington’s current standards. According to the Fordham Foundation’s national study, The State of State Standards, Washington’s standards are only slightly higher than the Common Core Standards in math and much lower in English-language arts than the Common Core Standards.

The CCSS English Language Arts standards did not receive an A rating. There is no reason WA cannot develop better standards or simply adopt proven and highly rated standards from CA or MA. As for math, why lower our standards. The CCSS A- and WA A math standards ratings may be close, but a lot of the similarities end there. The CCSS math standards are written in such a way that most teachers will find them difficult to interpret. This is in contrast to the WA standards that are very clear and written in plain language.

Reason 6. The Common Core will prepare Washington students for what’s next. The standards were developed to ensure students graduate college and work ready. They identify the knowledge and skills students need to succeed in post-secondary education and training.

Do we need the CCSS to identify the knowledge and skills students need? WA could not identify the knowledge and skills without the CCSS? Will knowledge and skills really be taught? The SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium is developing assessments oriented to assessing deep understanding and higher-order thinking skills (7) (subjective) rather than testing for knowledge and skills (objective). WA can do as good a job or better preparing students for what’s next without the CCSS.

Reason 7. The Common Core will prepare Washington students to compete: These standards are internationally-benchmarked against the standards of other nations and will help to ensure our students are globally competitive.

Statements and claims are commonly made that the CCSS are internationally benchmarked. This is a carry over from a promise that was made before the standards were written. The National Governors Association (NGA), the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) made this promise and it is often repeated as if true. The standards are not and were never internationally benchmarked. The CCSSI did not deliver on this promise and now says the standards “are informed by other top performing countries” (8). Maybe the CCSS will be internationally benchmarked in the future, but at present they are not internationally benchmarked.

Reason 8. The Common Core is equitable: The standards set expectations that are clear and consistent for all students.

Those promoting and making decisions about adoption that make the claim that the CCSS math sets clear expectations should read a whole grade level of math standards if they haven’t already. Everyone is encouraged to compare the CCSS math standards (9) for grades 4, 5, or 6 (math at a level most people understand) and compare it to the same grade level of our current WA math standards (10) adopted in 2008. Many elementary teachers will have great difficulty understanding the CCSS math standards because of how they are written. Even Phil Daro, one of the CCSS math standards authors who chaired the CCSS Mathematics Workgroup, has recognized and acknowledged with a group of others that teachers and schools will need help interpreting the CCSS for math (11). Due to lack of clarity, the math standards will be inconsistently implemented and teachers will require an inordinate amount of expensive professional development.

Reason 9. The Common Core will create economies of scale: The standards will allow Washington to work collaboratively with other states and districts, pooling resources and expertise for affordable instructional materials and supports, consistent and high-quality professional development, and aligned assessment systems.

If this is so great, why weren’t we doing these things already? Maybe we weren’t allowed to and now these standards will allow us to. These things will be a big financial drain on the school districts and will generate a nice profit for the publishers and others providing support services.

Reason 10. Adopting the Common Core will save Washington money: Curriculum costs will decline because national publishers will be developing common curriculum sets based on the Common Core Standards. Additionally, adopting the Common Core Assessments will cut the per student cost of the state’s assessment system in half (from $43 per student to $22 per student).

Save money? It appears it will cost a great deal of money for implementation of the CCSS and OSPI has not provided information about how local school districts will fund implementation. OSPI’s report, Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics: Analysis and Recommendations Report to the Legislature January 2011 (12) indicates estimated costs and fund sources and amounts related to implementing the CCSS. The total five year estimated state level and district level costs comes to $182,600,000. The state’s portion is $17,100,000, or 9.4%, and the local districts’ portion is $165,500,000, or 90.6%. OSPI identified fund sources and amounts covering all but $4,875,000 of the state’s portion. Potential fund sources are identified for local school districts; however, it is not possible to determine fund amounts from any given source that would be allocated to support the implementation of the CCSS. How will local school districts be able to afford the costs? Is it fiscally responsible to commit to this without knowing if funds are available to meet the incurred fiscal obligations? Will we really realize a savings with the assessments if they are given two times a year? The assessments are heavily dependent on technology. How much money will the state and local school districts have to invest in the required technology? No one seems to be asking about those costs. Parents, taxpayers, local school districts, legislators, and others---is this okay with you?

(0) A Top Ten List That Will Accelerate Student Achievement and Save the State Money

(1) ON COMMON CORE STANDARDS – SOUNDING BOARD SAYS…

(2) Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession

WA Teachers Weigh-In on Common Core Standards

(3) OSPI website

Washington Second in New National Board Certified Teachers

(4) OSPI Washington State Report Card website

(5) Partnership for Learning Opinion Polls

(6) What Voters Think about Excellent Schools Now’s Agenda for Improving Education in Washington

(7) SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium Application Executive Summary

(8) http://www.corestandards.org/articles/8-national-governors-association-and-state-education-chiefs-launch-common-state-academic-standards

Informed by other top performing countries, so that all students are prepared to succeed in our global economy and society;

(9) Common Core State Standards for Mathematics

(10) Washington State K-12 Mathematics Learning Standards

(11) Curriculum Design, Development, and Implementation in an Era of Common Core State Standards: Summary Report of a Conference

(12) Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics: Analysis and Recommendations Report to the Legislature January 2011

Download a pdf copy of this document by clicking here.