Tuesday, May 24, 2016

How Bill Gates pulled off the swift Common Core revolution

How Bill Gates pulled off the swift Common Core revolution

Five questions with Bill Gates

Play Video2:59

Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates is taking heat from education groups, which say the Gates Foundation’s philanthropic support comes with strings attached. Here, he responds to his critics in an interview with The Washington Post’s Lyndsey Layton. (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)

The pair of education advocates had a big idea, a new approach to transform every public-school classroom in America. By early 2008, many of the nation’s top politicians and education leaders had lined up in support.

But that wasn’t enough. The duo needed money — tens of millions of dollars, at least — and they needed a champion who could overcome the politics that had thwarted every previous attempt to institute national standards.

So they turned to the richest man in the world.

On a summer day in 2008, Gene Wilhoit, director of a national group of state school chiefs, and David Coleman, an emerging evangelist for the standards movement, spent hours in Bill Gates’s sleek headquarters near Seattle, trying to persuade him and his wife, Melinda, to turn their idea into reality.

Coleman and Wilhoit told the Gateses that academic standards varied so wildly between states that high school diplomas had lost all meaning, that as many as 40 percent of college freshmen needed remedial classes and that U.S. students were falling behind their foreign competitors.

The pair also argued that a fragmented education system stifled innovation because textbook publishers and software developers were catering to a large number of small markets instead of exploring breakthrough products. That seemed to resonate with the man who led the creation of the world’s dominant computer operating system.

“Can you do this?” Wilhoit recalled being asked. “Is there any proof that states are serious about this, because they haven’t been in the past?”

Wilhoit responded that he and Coleman could make no guarantees but that “we were going to give it the best shot we could.”

After the meeting, weeks passed with no word. Then Wilhoit got a call: Gates was in.

What followed was one of the swiftest and most remarkable shifts in education policy in U.S. history.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation didn’t just bankroll the development of what became known as the Common Core State Standards. With more than $200 million, the foundation also built political support across the country, persuading state governments to make systemic and costly changes.

Bill Gates was de facto organizer, providing the money and structure for states to work together on common standards in a way that avoided the usual collision between states’ rights and national interests that had undercut every previous effort, dating from the Eisenhower administration.

The Gates Foundation spread money across the political spectrum, to entities including the big teachers unions, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, and business organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — groups that have clashed in the past but became vocal backers of the standards.

Money flowed to policy groups on the right and left, funding research by scholars of varying political persuasions who promoted the idea of common standards. Liberals at the Center for American Progress and conservatives affiliated with the American Legislative Exchange Council who routinely disagree on nearly every issue accepted Gates money and found common ground on the Common Core.

One 2009 study, conducted by the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute with a $959,116 Gates grant, described the proposed standards as being “very, very strong” and “clearly superior” to many existing state standards.

Gates money went to state and local groups, as well, to help influence policymakers and civic leaders. And the idea found a major booster in President Obama, whose new administration was populated by former Gates Foundation staffers and associates. The administration designed a special contest using economic stimulus funds to reward states that accepted the standards.

The result was astounding: Within just two years of the 2008 Seattle meeting, 45 states and the District of Columbia had fully adopted the Common Core State Standards.

The math standards require students to learn multiple ways to solve problems and explain how they got their answers, while the English standards emphasize nonfiction and expect students to use evidence to back up oral and written arguments. The standards are not a curriculum but skills that students should acquire at each grade. How they are taught and materials used are decisions left to states and school districts.

The standards have become so pervasive that they also quickly spread through private Catholic schools. About 100 of 176 Catholic dioceses have adopted the standards because it is increasingly difficult to buy classroom materials and send teachers to professional development programs that are not influenced by the Common Core, Catholic educators said.

And yet, because of the way education policy is generally decided, the Common Core was instituted in many states without a single vote taken by an elected lawmaker. Kentucky even adopted the standards before the final draft had been made public.

States were responding to a “common belief system supported by widespread investments,” according to one former Gates employee who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing the foundation.

The movement grew so quickly and with so little public notice that opposition was initially almost nonexistent. That started to change last summer, when local tea party groups began protesting what they viewed as the latest intrusion by an overreaching federal government — even though the impetus had come from the states. In some circles, Common Core became known derisively as “Obamacore.”

Since then, anti-Common Core sentiment has intensified, to the extent that it has become a litmus test in the Republican Party ahead of the GOP’s 2016 presidential nomination process. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, whose nonprofit Foundation for Excellence in Education has received about $5.2 million from the Gates Foundation since 2010, is one of the Common Core’s most vocal supporters. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who, like Bush, is a potential Republican presidential candidate, led a repeal of the standards in his state. In the past week, Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R), a former advocate of the standards, signed a law pulling her state out, days after South Carolina’s Republican governor, Nikki Haley, did the same.

Some liberals are angry, too, with a few teacher groups questioning Gates’s influence and motives. Critics say Microsoft stands to benefit from the Common Core’s embrace of technology and data — a charge Gates vehemently rejects.

A group calling itself the “Badass Teachers Association,” citing opposition to what it considers market-based education reform, plans a June 26 protest outside the Gates Foundation’s headquarters in Seattle.

In an interview, Gates said his role is to fund the research and development of new tools, such as the Common Core, and offer them to decision-makers who are trying to improve education for millions of Americans. It’s up to the government to decide which tools to use, but someone has to invest in their creation, he said.

“The country as a whole has a huge problem that low-income kids get less good education than suburban kids get,” Gates said. “And that is a huge challenge. . . . Education can get better. Some people may not believe that. Education can change. We can do better.”

“There’s a lot of work that’s gone into making these [standards] good,” Gates continued. “I wish there was a lot of competition, in terms of [other] people who put tens of millions of dollars into how reading and writing could be improved, how math could be improved.”

Referring to opinion polls, he noted that most teachers like the Common Core standards and that those who are most familiar with them are the most positive.

Gates grew irritated in the interview when the political backlash against the standards was mentioned.

“These are not political things,” he said. “These are where people are trying to apply expertise to say, ‘Is this a way of making education better?’ ”

“At the end of the day, I don’t think wanting education to be better is a right-wing or left-wing thing,” Gates said. “We fund people to look into things. We don’t fund people to say, ‘Okay, we’ll pay you this if you say you like the Common Core.’ ”

Whether the Common Core will deliver on its promise is an open question.

Tom Loveless, a former Harvard professor who is an education policy expert at the Brookings Institution, said the Common Core was “built on a shaky theory.” He said he has found no correlation between quality standards and higher student achievement.

“Everyone who developed standards in the past has had a theory that standards will raise achievement, and that’s not happened,” Loveless said.

Jay P. Greene, head of the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas, says the Gates Foundation’s overall dominance in education policy has subtly muffled dissent.

“Really rich guys can come up with ideas that they think are great, but there is a danger that everyone will tell them they’re great, even if they’re not,” Greene said.

Common Core’s first win

The first victory for Common Core advocates came on a snowy evening in Kentucky in February 2010, when the state’s top education officials voted unanimously to accept the standards.

“There was no dissent,” said Terry Holliday, Kentucky’s education commissioner. “We had punch and cookies to celebrate.”

It was not by chance that Kentucky went first.

The state enjoyed a direct connection to the Common Core backers — Wilhoit, who had made the personal appeal to Bill and Melinda Gates during that pivotal 2008 meeting, is a former Kentucky education commissioner.

Kentucky was also in the market for new standards. Alarmed that as many as 80 percent of community college students were taking remedial classes, lawmakers had recently passed a bill that required Kentucky to write new, better K-12 standards and tests.

“All of our consultants and our college professors had reviewed the Common Core standards, and they really liked them,” Holliday said. “And there was no cost. We didn’t have any money to do this work, and here we were, able to tap into this national work and get the benefits of the best minds in the country.”

“Without the Gates money,” Holliday added, “we wouldn’t have been able to do this.”

Over time, at least $15 million in Gates money was directed both to the state — to train teachers in Common Core practices and purchase classroom materials — and to on-the-ground advocacy and business groups to help build public support.

Armed with $476,553 from Gates, the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce’s foundation produced a seven-minute video about the value and impact of the Common Core, a tool kit to guide employers in how to talk about its benefits with their employees, a list of key facts that could be stuffed into paycheck envelopes, and other promotional materials written by consultants.

The tool kit provided a sample e-mail that could be sent to workers describing “some exciting new developments underway in our schools” that “hold great promise for creating a more highly skilled workforce and for giving our students, community and state a better foundation on which to build a strong economic future.”

The chamber also recruited a prominent Louisville stockbroker to head a coalition of 75 company executives across the state who lent their names to ads placed in business publications that supported the Common Core.

“The notion that the business community was behind this, those seeds were planted across the state, and that reaped a nice harvest in terms of public opinion,” said David Adkisson, president and chief executive of the Kentucky chamber.

The foundation run by the National Education Association received $501,580 in 2013 to help put the Common Core in place in Kentucky.

Gates-backed groups built such strong support for the Common Core that critics, few and far between, were overwhelmed.

“They have so much money to throw around, they can impact the Kentucky Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Education, they can impact both the AFT and the NEA,” said Brent McKim, president of the teachers union in Jefferson County, Ky., whose early complaint that the standards were too numerous to be taught well earned him a rebuke by Holliday.

The foundation’s backing was crucial in other states, as well. Starting in 2009, it had begun ramping up its grant-giving to local nonprofit organizations and other Common Core advocates.

The foundation, for instance, gave more than $5 million to the University of North Carolina-affiliated Hunt Institute, led by the state’s former four-term Democratic governor, Jim Hunt, to advocate for the Common Core in statehouses around the country.

The grant was the institute’s largest source of income in 2009, more than 10 times the size of its next largest donation.

Full interview: Bill Gates on the Common Core

Play Video27:54

Bill Gates sat down with The Post’s Lyndsey Layton in March to defend the Gates Foundation’s pervasive presence in education and its support of the Common Core. Here is the full, sometimes tense, interview. (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)

With the Gates money, the Hunt Institute coordinated more than a dozen organizations — many of them also Gates grantees — including the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, National Council of La Raza, the Council of Chief State School Officers, National Governors Association, Achieve and the two national teachers unions.

The Hunt Institute held weekly conference calls between the players that were directed by Stefanie Sanford, who was in charge of policy and advocacy at the Gates Foundation. They talked about which states needed shoring up, the best person to respond to questions or criticisms and who needed to travel to which state capital to testify, according to those familiar with the conversations.

The Hunt Institute spent $437,000 to hire GMMB, a strategic communications firm owned by Jim Margolis, a top Democratic strategist and veteran of both of Obama’s presidential campaigns. GMMB conducted polling around standards, developed fact sheets, identified language that would be effective in winning support and prepared talking points, among other efforts.

The groups organized by Hunt developed a “messaging tool kit” that included sample letters to the editor, op-ed pieces that could be tailored to individuals depending on whether they were teachers, parents, business executives or civil rights leaders.

Later in the process, Gates and other foundations would pay for mock legislative hearings for classroom teachers, training educators on how to respond to questions from lawmakers.

The speed of adoption by the states was staggering by normal standards. A process that typically can take five years was collapsed into a matter of months.

“You had dozens of states adopting before the standards even existed, with little or no discussion, coverage or controversy,” said Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, which has received $4 million from the Gates Foundation since 2007 to study education policy, including the Common Core. “People weren’t paying attention. We were in the middle of an economic meltdown and the health-care fight, and states saw a chance to have a crack at a couple of million bucks if they made some promises.”

The decision by the Gates Foundation to simultaneously pay for the standards and their promotion is a departure from the way philanthropies typically operate, said Sarah Reckhow, an expert in philanthropy and education policy at Michigan State University.

“Usually, there’s a pilot test — something is tried on a small scale, outside researchers see if it works, and then it’s promoted on a broader scale,” Reckhow said. “That didn’t happen with the Common Core. Instead, they aligned the research with the advocacy. . . . At the end of the day, it’s going to be the states and local districts that pay for this.”

Working hand in hand

While the Gates Foundation created the burst of momentum behind the Common Core, the Obama administration picked up the cause and helped push states to act quickly.

There was so much cross-pollination between the foundation and the administration, it is difficult to determine the degree to which one may have influenced the other.

Several top players in Obama’s Education Department who shaped the administration’s policies came either straight from the Gates Foundation in 2009 or from organizations that received heavy funding from the foundation.

Before becoming education secretary in 2009, Arne Duncan was chief executive of the Chicago Public Schools, which received $20 million from Gates to break up several large high schools and create smaller versions, a move aimed at stemming the dropout rate.

As secretary, Duncan named as his chief of staff Margot Rogers, a top Gates official he got to know through that grant. He also hired James Shelton, a program officer at the foundation, to serve first as his head of innovation and most recently as the deputy secretary, responsible for a wide array of federal policy decisions.

Duncan and his team leveraged stimulus money to reward states that adopted common standards.

They created Race to the Top, a $4.3 billion contest for education grants. Under the contest rules, states that adopted high standards stood the best chance of winning. It was a clever way around federal laws that prohibit Washington from interfering in what takes place in classrooms. It was also a tantalizing incentive for cash-strapped states.

Heading the effort for Duncan was Joanne Weiss, previously the chief operating officer of the Gates-backed NewSchools Venture Fund.

As Race to the Top was being drafted, the administration and the Gates-led effort were in close coordination.

An early version highlighted the Common Core standards by name, saying that states that embraced those specific standards would be better positioned to win federal money. That worried Wilhoit, who feared that some states would consider that unwanted — and possibly illegal — interference from Washington. He took up the matter with Weiss.

“I told her to take it out, that we didn’t want the federal government involvement,” said Wilhoit, who was executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers. “Those kinds of things cause people to be real suspicious.”

The words “Common Core” were deleted.

The administration said states could develop their own “college and career ready” standards, as long as their public universities verified that those standards would prepare high school graduates for college-level work.

Still, most states eyeing Race to the Top money opted for the easiest route and signed onto the Common Core.

The Gates Foundation gave $2.7 million to help 24 states write their Race to the Top application, which ran an average of 300 pages, with as much as 500 pages for an appendix that included Gates-funded research.

Applications for the first round of Race to the Top were due in January 2010, even though the final draft of the Common Core wasn’t released until six months later. To get around this, the U.S. Department of Education told states they could apply as long as they promised they would officially adopt standards by August.

On the defensive

Now six years into his quest, Gates finds himself in an uncomfortable place — countering critics on the left and right who question whether the Common Core will have any impact or negative effects, whether it represents government intrusion, and whether the new policy will benefit technology firms such as Microsoft.

Gates is disdainful of the rhetoric from opponents. He sees himself as a technocrat trying to foster solutions to a profound social problem — gaping inequalities in U.S. public education — by investing in promising new ideas. 

Education lacks research and development, compared with other areas such as medicine and computer science. As a result, there is a paucity of information about methods of instruction that work.

“The guys who search for oil, they spend a lot of money researching new tools,” Gates said. “Medicine — they spend a lot of money finding new tools. Software is a very R and D-oriented industry. The funding, in general, of what works in education . . . is tiny. It’s the lowest in this field than any field of human endeavor. Yet you could argue it should be the highest.”

Gates is devoting some of his fortune to correct that. Since 1999, the Gates Foundation has spent approximately $3.4 billion on an array of measures to try to improve K-12 public education, with mixed results.

It spent about $650 million on a program to replace large urban high schools with smaller schools, on the theory that students at risk of dropping out would be more likely to stay in schools where they forged closer bonds with teachers and other students. That led to a modest increase in graduation rates, an outcome that underwhelmed Gates and prompted the foundation to pull the plug.

Gates has said that one of the benefits of common standards would be to open the classroom to digital learning, making it easier for software developers — including Microsoft — to develop new products for the country’s 15,000 school districts.

In February, Microsoft announced that it was joining Pearson, the world’s largest educational publisher, to load Pearson’s Common Core classroom materials on Microsoft’s tablet, the Surface. That product allows Microsoft to compete for school district spending with Apple, whose iPad is the dominant tablet in classrooms.

Gates dismissed any suggestion that he is motivated by self-interest.

“I believe in the Common Core because of its substance and what it will do to improve education,” he said. “And that’s the only reason I believe in the Common Core.”

Bill and Melinda Gates, Obama and Arne Duncan are parents of school-age children, although none of those children attend schools that use the Common Core standards. The Gates and Obama children attend private schools, while Duncan’s children go to public school in Virginia, one of four states that never adopted the Common Core.

Local Politics Alerts

Breaking news about local government in D.C., Md., Va.

Still, Gates said he wants his children to know a “superset” of the Common Core standards — everything in the standards and beyond.

“This is about giving money away,” he said of his support for the standards. “This is philanthropy. This is trying to make sure students have the kind of opportunity I had . . . and it’s almost outrageous to say otherwise, in my view.”

More from this series:

How Google is transforming power and politics

A powerhouse donor turned state bureaucrat



Sent from my iPhone

Sunday, April 3, 2016

Social studies school standards provoke debate among educators

Social studies school standards provoke debate among educators

The Georgia board of education on Thursday postponed implementing new social studies standards after teachers and others questioned changes made by the state superintendent.

A committee comprising teachers and other experts spent more than a year designing the proposed overhaul of the standards, which outline what students should know by the end of each grade. Superintendent Richard Woods, however, changed some of their recommendations without consulting them.

Some educators are upset over a letter written by a state senator to Woods and the school board requesting changes. Concerns raised by Sen. William T. Ligon, R-Brunswick, appear to be reflected in the changes by Woods. For instance, Ligon complained that the teacher committee wanted to call America a “representative democracy” rather than a “republican form of government.”

“If a few people are able to overturn the comments of thousands and the work of hundreds who were a part of the committees, then the whole process is called into question,” Eddie Bennett, executive director of the Georgia Council for the Social Studies, wrote in a statement published by the AJC Monday.

Woods and his team at the Georgia Department of Education wound up recommending that the state board go with “constitutional republic,” reasoning that is how the CIA Factbook describes the country. The department produced a document with reasons for his other amendments, which amounted to less than 4 percent of what the teachers had proposed.

Woods also added Christmas and Columbus Day to the national holidays studied in kindergarten, explaining that kindergartners are already studying other national holidays.

The history content selected for students to learn is often a politically-charged subject. Last year, the College Board changed its Advanced Placement U.S. History course after hearing criticism from Georgians, including lawmakers and Woods.

This time, Woods was on the receiving end.

“We all have heard the concerns,” state education board member Helen Rice said at Thursday’s board meeting. She recommended postponing final approval of the changes, perhaps until the board’s meeting in May, and the board agreed.

“I think we’re correct in calling a time out,” said board chairman Mike Royal. “We want to be crystal clear on what’s happened.”

Woods’ staff will now go back to the committee that had worked so long on the recommendations, inviting members to reconvene and review his changes.



Sent from my iPhone

Saturday, April 2, 2016

Social studies teachers: Politicians influencing new standards more than educators

Social studies teachers: Politicians influencing new standards more than educators

Who should write the state's social studies standards? Teachers or politicians?  (This is not a trick question, just a depressing one.)

Who should write the state’s social studies standards? Teachers or politicians? (This is not a trick question, just a depressing one.)

Georgia teachers asked to review and rewrite the k-12 social studies standards are expressing dismay over the draft released by the state Board of Education. Despite their hundreds of hours of work, teachers say they don’t recognize much of what has been put forth by the board.

They say the draft now speaks to a political agenda rather than an educational one.

Among the politicians seeking to shape the standards is state State Sen. William Ligon, R-Brunswick, who sent State School Superintendent Richard Woods and the state school board a detailed critique.

You can read Ligon’s letter here, but this is how it starts off:

Within the K-12 standards, the reorganization of the sequencing is now in better chronological order in Grades 3-‐5 than the previous standards. However, the historical roots of Western Civilization are nowhere to be seen. The previous standards gave some, although not enough, attention to this topic and even did so in the lower grades.

In addition, the shift away from these historical roots in Western Civilization is replaced with a focus on early American Indian cultures. Though important, we should recognize that the dominate features of our culture are no longer anchored in native American cultures, but in the Anglo-American traditions of Western Civilization, and therefore, the historical focus should major on the majors, not major in the minor themes of displaced cultures. This shift in focus reminds me far too much of the recent problems we addressed in the AP U.S. History Framework. We should not repeat the mistakes of the College Board in our own Social Studies standards.

Furthermore, there is a shift in language choices in how our nation is described. The previous standards clearly recognized that students needed to study our “foundations of a republican form of government.” The new description is that our nation is a “representative democracy.” This language shift starts in Grade 3. Though still a correct term, it does not reflect how our Founders most referred to this nation, which was as a “confederate Republic.” In fact, I never see the term “confederate Republic” anywhere, and only once do I see the term “Republic” mentioned in the high school standards.

Starting with Grade 1, I find no logical reason why President George Washington continues to be omitted from the standards. This should be corrected. He is not mentioned until Grade 4, and this is far too late to introduce our most preeminent Founding Father.

Grade 1 also needs to build on the American symbols learned in Kindergarten. For example, why not add the Liberty Bell and what it represents? Why not have the teaching of the Pledge of Allegiance or the introduction of the poem, The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere? Why not introduce the first 13 colonies and have the students identify the original 13 colonies on a map?

Also, in Grade 2, students should be introduced to another Economic Standard, SS2E5  — “Explain why private property rights are necessary for a free society.”

A disappointed teacher shared a letter with me that she wrote to state school board members:

I have been a Social Studies educator, teacher leader, and content specialist for over a decade. I, like thousands of my colleagues and fellow citizens, spent hours reviewing and providing feedback on the proposed Social Studies standards that were posted for public comment.

The set of standards provided to the Board do not reflect the feedback or approval of the stakeholders in the State of Georgia. There were additions and changes made to the standards after the committee approved the final draft on March 17, 2016.

If the Board moves forward and approves the standards as they have been submitted, you will be disregarding the time and commitment of over 9,000 educators and 2,000 other Georgia stakeholders. You will lose the trust and faith Georgia educators have placed in you.  We were told our voice is being heard. Is it?

Among the questions raised by the teacher:

•Why were the standards changed at the last-minute without public input?
•Why do the last-minute changes reflect the input of one legislator, as evidenced by his letter written to the Superintendent? Changes that were summarily voted against in committee?
•Where are the U.S. History and American Government standards, both of which went through the entire review process?
•Where is the data supporting the idea for a two-year hybrid of these two courses?

The executive director of the Georgia Council for the Social Studies alerted teachers to the discrepancies in the draft and urged them to contact the state board before its meeting Thursday.

Before you read the warning letter, I would like to explain why this bothers me and why it ought to bother you.

The Legislature spent a lot of time this session talking about how important it was to treat teachers as professionals and listen to what they have to say. This sort of political shenanigans negates all that rhetoric. It shows teachers their expertise is not valued and will be quickly discarded for political expediency.

Dear GCSS Member:

As you know, the social studies standards have been under review for over a year.  The Georgia Board of Education adopted a process that included four review committees. Each review committee was charged with the “process” which included the comments of over 9,000 Georgia educators and stakeholders.  The last committee review was held on Wednesday, March 16, 2016.

Those of us who have been carefully watching the review process unfold were very surprised to find  there are major discrepancies between the work of the 3/16/16 review committee and the now posted “draft” standards.

To see the draft standards, go here.

It seems that certain items were dropped into the curriculum after the 3/16/16 committee had completed their work and voted on the changes made to each grade level/course.

Here are a few examples of random additions:

Christmas and Columbus Day in Kindergarten

George Washington and several additional memorials in first grade as well as the reclassification of George Washington Carver from science to agriculture

King George III and government elements in third grade

An entire element concerning the arguments of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists in 4th grade

Mao Tse Tung and Nikita Khrushchev and details concerning the War on Terror in the 5th grade

Iran in 7th grade (despite specific debate agreeing to keeping the countries to be studied to a smaller number and of those studied to include history, geography, government and economics)

As well as the absence of the U.S. History and American Government standards with no posted explanation of why they were not present even though both had gone through the revision process.  (This is another issue entirely which is concerning.)

Teachers from all over Georgia took time away from their classrooms to spend very long days revising the GPS and using the comments of the 9,000 as a guide.  At each step along the way, teachers and others documented the changes and cited support and commentary from the surveys.  Another important component of the committee work was that the majority of teachers wanted a more conceptual framework.  Yet, the additions cited above would make the entire K-12 curriculum more fact-based than conceptual.

These last-minute changes appear to be out of line with the public and formal revision process that was adopted and followed. At the 3/16 review committee meeting, there were emails and letters from public figures that were not a part of the teacher surveys.  Furthermore, these emails and letters contain many of the random items listed above and were rarely supported in the teacher surveys.  Some of the information was used if appropriate in the revised document.

If a few people are able to overturn the comments of thousands and the work of hundreds who were a part of the committees, then the whole process is called into question.

In addition, Georgia Council for the Social Studies and other groups sent letters of support to the Georgia Department of Education.  Our support is certainly now in question.

If you are concerned about this issue, please contact your state board of education member before the State Board Meeting on Thursday. I believe it is vitally important that we let it be known that many of our members were intimately involved in the revision process and that ALL of our members will be involved in using the curriculum with our students.

Eddie Bennett, Ed.D.

Executive Director, Georgia Council for the Social Studies



Sent from my iPhone

Monday, March 7, 2016

U.S. Department of Education Names Committee Members to Draft Proposed Regulations for Every Student Succeeds Act

U.S. Department of Education Names Committee Members to Draft Proposed Regulations for Every Student Succeeds Act

The U.S. Department of Education today named committee members who will draft proposed regulations in two areas of Title I, Part A of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). This is the latest step in the process of implementing ESSA. 

“We look forward to working with the committee to promote equity and excellence for all students by providing states and school districts with timely regulations so that they can plan ahead and support students and educators,” said Ann Whalen, senior advisor to the secretary, delegated the duties of the assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education. 

ESSA replaces the outdated No Child Left Behind law and expands on the work this Administration, states, districts and schools across the country have already started. The new law will help build on key progress that we’ve made in education over recent years—including a record high school graduation rate of 82 percent, significant expansion of high-quality preschool, and a million more African American and Hispanic students enrolled in college than in 2008, when President Obama took office. 

ESSA promotes equitable access to educational opportunities in critical ways, such as asking states to hold all students to high academic standards to prepare them for college and careers and ensuring action in the lowest-performing schools, high schools with low graduation rates, and in schools that are consistently failing subgroups of students. Maintaining effective, high-quality assessments and ensuring that all states and districts know how to meet the updated “supplement not supplant” requirement are crucial to achieving these objectives. 

The Department hosted public forums, held meetings with stakeholders and received hundreds of written comments on how to best support states, districts and schools in the transition to the new law, which informed the negotiated rulemaking process that is now underway. The negotiators and alternative negotiators announced today represent the constituencies that are significantly affected by the topics proposed for negotiation, including state and local education administrators and board members, tribal leadership, parents and students, teachers, principals, other school leaders, and the civil rights and business communities. Negotiators were selected to represent all of the geographic regions of the country. In addition, the Department selected negotiators who would contribute to the diversity and expertise of the negotiating committee.

The committee will draft proposed regulations in the following two areas of Title I, Part A of ESSA: (1) the requirement that federal funds supplement, not supplant, non-federal funds in high-need schools and (2) assessments. The selected negotiators and their alternates have received background materials to help prepare for their discussions, including issue papers on key areas identified by the Department in the notice announcing formation of the committee. Those areas are:

1. Supplement not supplant

2. Assessments

  • Computer adaptive testing
  • The exception for advanced mathematics assessments in 8th grade
  • Locally selected, nationally recognized high school assessments
  • The inclusion of students with disabilities in academic assessments
  • State administration of alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, subject to a cap of 1 percent of students assessed in a subject
  • The inclusion of English learners in academic assessments
  • The inclusion of English learners in English language proficiency assessments 
  • Updating existing regulations to reflect statutory changes 

In some issue papers, the Department included draft regulatory language intended to facilitate discussion among the negotiators. The committee has ultimate authority over the content of its final recommendations to the Department and may use the materials as guides. To access the materials provided to the committee, please see our website: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/index.html

The committee will convene March 21-23 and April 6-8 with an optional session April 18-19 at its discretion. These meetings are open to the public, and more information on the time, location and other logistics for the meetings will be distributed at a later date.

Members of the ESSA Negotiated Rulemaking Committee:

Constituency

Negotiators

State administrators and state boards of education

Tony Evers, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

Marcus Cheeks, Mississippi Department of Education

Local administrators and local boards of education

Alvin Wilbanks, Gwinnett County Public Schools, Georgia

Derrick Chau, Los Angeles Unified School District, California

Thomas Ahart, Des Moines Public Schools, Iowa *

Tribal leadership

Aaron Payment, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe, Michigan

Leslie Harper, Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, Minnesota*

Parents and students, including historically underserved students

Lisa Mack, Ohio

Rita Pin Ahrens, District of Columbia

Teachers

Audrey Jackson, Boston Public Schools

Ryan Ruelas, Anaheim City School District, California

Mary Cathryn Ricker, St. Paul Public Schools/American Federation of Teachers, Minnesota*

Principals

Lara Evangelista, New York City Department of Education, New York

Aqueelha James, District of Columbia Public Schools*

Other school leaders, including charter school leaders

Eric Parker, Montgomery Public Schools, Alabama

Richard Pohlman, Thurgood Marshall Academy, District of Columbia*

Paraprofessionals

Lynn Goss, School District of the Menomonie, Wisconsin

Regina Goings, Clark County School District, Nevada*

Civil rights community, including representatives of students with disabilities, English learners, and other historically underserved students 

Delia Pompa, Migration Policy Institute, Texas

Ron Hager, National Disability Rights Network, District of Columbia

Liz King, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, District of Columbia* 

Janel George, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, District of Columbia*

Business community

Kerri Briggs, Exxon Mobil, Texas

Kenneth Bowen, Office Depot, North Carolina *

*Non-voting member



Sent from my iPhone

Data Driven Instruction vs. Passion Driven Learning

Data Driven Instruction vs. Passion Driven Learning

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. recognized the critical importance of mindfulness and emotional intelligence. He understood that discovery and mastery of self was just as important as mastery of informational text and that the appropriate and effective use of so-called "hard skills" is dependent on the acquisition and application of "soft skills".  

"We must remember that intelligence is not enough. Intelligence plus character--that is the goal of true education. The complete education gives one not only power of concentration, but worthy objectives upon which to concentrate. The broad education will, therefore, transmit to one not only the accumulated knowledge of the race but also the accumulated experience of social living."

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. "The Purpose of Education" , Morehouse College Student Paper, The Maroon Tiger, in 1947

David Coleman, a lead writer and chief architect of the Common Core State Standards has made it perfectly clear that teachers have more important things to do than designing learning activities that deal with such trivial matters as students’ thoughts, feelings, and personal reflections.

Reformers may claim that establishing emotion-free zones in Common Core classrooms will improve the college and career readiness of students, but there is ample evidence that what employees think and feel has a direct impact on worker engagement and job satisfaction.

“Best places to work” companies don’t just have ping pong tables and free lunch, they have a “ soul” which makes work exciting and energizing.

They invest in great management and leadership. They train and develop people so they can grow. And they define their business in a way that brings meaning and purpose to the organization…

Now is the time to think holistically about your company’s work environment and consider what you can do to create passion, engagement, and commitment. It may be “the issue” we face in business over the next few years.”

Josh Bersin, “Why Companies Fail To Engage Today’s Workforce: The Overwhelmed Employee” Forbes, 3/15/14

Perhaps now is not the best time to roll out rigorous lessons and data driven instruction developed from a passionless set of standards when a record number of employees are reporting feeling disengaged and dispassionate about their jobs…

“Gallup’s data shows 30% of employees Engaged, 52% Disengaged, 18% Actively Disengaged.  “These latest findings indicate that 70% of American workers are ‘not engaged’ or ‘actively disengaged’ and are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and less likely to be productive,” states the report.

“Gallup estimates that these actively disengaged employees cost the U.S. between $450 billion to $550 billion each year in lost productivity.  They are more likely to steal from their companies, negatively influence their coworkers, miss workdays, and drive customers away…

Though higher education generally leads to higher earnings, it by no means guarantees higher engagement.  Consider the data: College graduates in the survey were 28% Engaged, 55% Not Engaged, 17% Actively Disengaged.  High school graduates were 32% Engaged, 49% Not Engaged, 19% Actively Disengaged.”

Victor Lipman, “Surprising, Disturbing Facts From The Mother Of All Employee Engagement Surveys” Forbes 9/23/13

The Common Core ELA standards require students to provide evidence when making a claim, so one would expect reformers to value the research and evidence cited by Daniel Goleman (not to be confused with David Coleman) that thoughts and feelings do matter in life and have a significant impact on the performance of students and employees.

"An inner focus lets us understand and handle our inner world, even when rocked by disturbing feelings. This is a life skill that keeps us on track throughout the years, and helps children become better learners. For instance, when children tune in to what engages them, they connect with the intrinsic motivation that drives them…

In our life and career this can blossom into “good work” – a potent combination of what engages us, what matters to us, and what we can accomplish successfully. In the school years, the equivalent is “good learning” – being engaged with what enthuses us and what feels important…”

Daniel Goleman, “The Case for Teaching Emotional Literacy in Schools” 8/10/14

“A 30-year longitudinal study of more than a thousand kids – the gold standard for uncovering relationships between behavioral variables – found that those children with the best cognitive control had the greatest financial success in their 30s. Cognitive control predicted success better than a child’s IQ, and better than the wealth of the family they grew up in…

These human skills include, for instance, confidence, striving for goals despite setbacks, staying cool under pressure, harmony and collaboration, persuasion and influence.

Those are the competencies companies use to identify their star performers about twice as often as do purely cognitive skills (IQ or technical abilities) for jobs of all kinds.

The higher you go up the ladder, the more emotional intelligence matters: for top leadership positions they are about 80 to 90 percent of distinguishing competences…”

Daniel Goleman, “What Predicts Success? It’s Not Your IQ” 7/17/14

K-12 education programs that claim to prepare students for college and careers should be more concerned with cultivating a wide array of social and emotional competencies along with  transferable workforce skills, rather than continually measuring a narrow set of standardized and testable math and literacy skills.

Many students’ academic and content area skills will actually flourish if they are given the opportunity to enroll in hands-on trade or vocational programs.

“Math used to be a struggle for 14-year-old Kathryn, until she fell in love with cars and started a hands-on project to build her own. Now the math matters and makes sense, and a whole new world of learning has opened up for her.”

Edutopia: How Building a Car Can Drive Deeper Learning 6/11/13

Learning should be a self-directed journey of discovery. Students should be “free to learn” as they explore their interests and pursue their passions rather than simply following a curriculum map and data driven route to each Common Core learning standard.

Learning occurs when students engage in meaningful and purposeful activities that respect the interests and needs of students rather than simply serve the "needs" of the standards and the tests.

Classroom learning activities should be individualized rather than standardized and provide numerous opportunities for students to express and connect with their dreams, feelings and other people, rather than demand that students read closely and stay connected to the text.

Standardized data driven education programs focus primarily on measuring student knowledge and skills, while customized passion driven programs are focused on cultivating student curiosity and creativity.

The following excerpt from a 2010 valedictory speech reveals the negative consequences of data driven education programs if a student becomes more focused on preparing for tests, than preparing for life...

“…While others sat in class and doodled to later become great artists, I sat in class to take notes and become a great test-taker. While others would come to class without their homework done because they were reading about an interest of theirs, I never missed an assignment. 

While others were creating music and writing lyrics, I decided to do extra credit, even though I never needed it. So, I wonder, why did I even want this position? Sure, I earned it, but what will come of it? When I leave educational institutionalism, will I be successful or forever lost?

I have no clue about what I want to do with my life; I have no interests because I saw every subject of study as work, and I excelled at every subject just for the purpose of excelling, not learning.

And quite frankly, now I’m scared…”

Erica Goldson, “Here I Stand” 6/25/10 Valedictory Speech

 

"School should be a place to find yourself, 

not lose your identity"

~ Scarsdale student  (video below)

 ( "Losing Ourselves" by Rachel Wolfe )

In 2014 Jim Carrey gave the commencement speech at Maharishi University of Management that challenged students to overcome their fears and follow their hearts…

"So many of us choose our path out of fear disguised as practicality. What we really want seems impossibly out of reach and ridiculous to expect, so we never dare to ask the universe for it. I’m saying, I’m the proof that you can ask the universe for it — please!…

I learned many great lessons from my father, not the least of which was that you can fail at what you don’t want, so you might as well take a chance on doing what you love

You are ready and able to do beautiful things in this world and after you walk through those doors today, you will only ever have two choices: love or fear. Choose love, and don’t ever let fear turn you against your playful heart.”

 

"What we want is to see the child in pursuit of knowledge,

and not knowledge in pursuit of the child."

~ George Bernard Shaw

Originally posted; WagTheDog Blog 7/24/14



Sent from my iPhone

Michelle Malkin, CPAC 2016 On Common Core

Michelle Malkin, CPAC 2016
On Common Core