In Difficult Times Good People gravitate towards Absolute Truth
Public School Forum Declares Book Closed On Common Core, Whistles Past Many Shortcomings
Publisher's note: This post, by Bob Luebke, was originally published in the Issues section of Civitas's online edition.
In his article "Maintaining rigor and listening to teachers in the debate over academic standards," Keith Poston argues against revisions to the current Common Core standards and the importance of ensuring teachers have a voice in this discussion. In a two-part response, I argue, in part one, that significant changes are needed to the standards, and, in part two, that teacher's surveys can provide important information — as long as the instruments are valid and reliable.
"Maintaining rigor and listening to teachers in the debate over academic standards" is an article by Keith Poston, President and Executive Director of the Public School Forum, that recently appeared on the website EducationNC. Poston thinks members of the Academic Standards Review Commission (ASRC) — the Commission established by the North Carolina legislature to review English and Math Common Core Standards — need to be reminded of what he believes to be the potentially harmful consequences of their actions. And Poston urges ASRC to heed his warnings.
Keith Poston is a friend. However, that friendship doesn't stop me from saying I strongly disagree with the comments he made on both topics, comments that I believe to be wrong and misleading.
Shouldn't all students be held to the same standards? That's a question Poston rhetorically asks readers in response to comments made by Jeannie Metcalf and Tammy Covil, two ASRC members who made comments that imply students of lesser ability may not be able to achieve some of the higher-level expectations of the Common Core. Both Covil and Metcalf have questioned whether certain standards were age-appropriate. Poston fears that if the Common Core Standards are not right for all students, any changes will automatically result in standards that are less rigorous and challenging.
In my opinion, Poston is not asking the right question. His concern for high standards might on first blush be admirable. However, such a view presents a one-size-fits-all view of education that denies differences in background and ability. It also ignores the larger and more significant issue with which ASRC must wrestle: Are the Common Core Standards age appropriate?
Poston falsely believes changes by Commission members automatically lead to a decline in rigor. Rigor — properly understood — assumes age-appropriate materials and instruction. If Commission members fail to fully consider rigor and age-appropriate instruction, they are failing to fulfill their responsibilities.
Session Law 2014-78 established the Academic Standards Review Commission. ASRC was established to:
Conduct a comprehensive review of all English Language Arts and Mathematics standards adopted under G.S. 115C-12(9c) and propose modifications to ensure that those standards meet all of the following criteria:
Notice the legislation specifically states the commission shall "conduct a comprehensive review." The legislation continues ASRC is to "propose modifications to ensure that those standards . . . are age-level and developmentally appropriate."
Implicit in such a review is addressing the question of whether existing standards are appropriate for grade, age and ability levels.
I agree with the statement that all children, no matter their background, can learn. However, I also believe the current review process must determine whether the Math and English Common Core Standards are the best tools for educating students.
Many people believe the Common Core standards — while they may aspire to a laudable goal — have significant problems. Keith Poston questions commissioners who raise concerns about whether students can meet the standards laid out by Common Core. Mr. Poston and other Common Core advocates believe children should all be treated the same and be held to the same standard.
Anyone familiar with the public discussion over Common Core knows that one of the major criticisms parents, teachers and other educators have about it is that many of the standards are not age-appropriate. This is particularly true for the early childhood grades, K-3.
It's a criticism Common Core advocates have successfully avoided. Still it bears repeating, especially, in light of Poston's claim "Common Core foes want badly to avoid engaging directly with the current standards."
A statement could not be more wrong. As time is limited, let's talk specifically about criticisms surrounding the K-3 Common Core Standards. Two articles in the Washington Post (see here and here) help to summarize the major criticism of the K-3 Common Core Standards. In one, education experts Edward Miller and Nancy Carlsson-Paige wrote:
If the standards are so great, why wasn't a single person of the 135 people on the panels who developed the K-3 Common Core Standards a teacher or early childhood professional? Such oversights are hard to understand especially in light of the repeated claims that those who developed the standards had constant feedback from teachers and education professionals.
In March 2010 more than 500 early childhood professionals signed the Joint Statement of Early Childhood Health and Education Professionals on the Common Core Standards Initiative. The statement read:
The experts went on to call on the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers — the two who help to develop and implement the Common Core Standards — to suspend the drafting of Common Core standards from kindergarten through grade three. Obviously, that hasn't happened.
Members of the early childhood profession spelled out other objections to Common Core in a document called Defending the Early Years. Briefly, the document asserts CCSS is not supported by substantive research, fails to take into account what children need (i.e., play and good teachers), and falsely implies that CCSS will counteract the effect of poverty and help to create equal opportunity for all.
Most recently project scholars associated with the Defending the Early Years Project published "Reading Instruction in Kindergarten, Little to Gain and Much to Lose." The article takes aim at Common Core's requirement that kindergartners learn to read:
Keith Poston and other Common Core supporters say that we need to hold all students to the same standards. Such comments ignore the question of appropriateness and misconstrue the position of Common Core critics.
Why is this important? Why should we care that Common Core Standards are age-appropriate and take into account a child's needs and developmental abilities?
In her presentation at the Notre Dame Common Core Conference in September 2013, Child Psychologist, Dr. Meghan Koshnick answered that question in one word — stress. [3]
Is this stress real? Parents who have a child in K-3 know what I'm talking about. Anyone who attended last year's public hearing on Common Core remembers the high number of parents who shared their frustrations with how their children were being affected by the Common Core Standards. Common Core math and English standards were clearly becoming a growing source of stress for children and parents alike.
I ask: Is this what we want school to be? Do we want standards that fail to consider the age, abilities and background of our students and treat all students the same? Public School Forum and other pro-Common Core organizations think so. They say changing the standards will diminish rigor.
Keith Poston and others fail to understand that implicit in rigor is the concept of appropriateness. Ensuring standards are age-appropriate is one of the tasks the Legislature delegated to the Academic Standards and Review Commission. The statutes say "conduct a comprehensive review and propose modifications to ensure ..." [4] meaning the legislature expected changes (i.e., repeal and revisions) to the standards to be part of the normal process.
Yes, students should be held to the same standards. However, it's assumed that those standards are rigorous, understandable and age-appropriate.
To assert that ASRC members shouldn't contemplate changes to the standards is to misread the legislation that created the commission. Such thinking disregards the opinions of hundreds of child development professionals who are deeply troubled by how much Common Core asks K-3 children to master. Worst of all, those who advocate such a position ignore the very real academic and emotional harm Common Core inflicts on students of all ages, especially those in grades K through 3. These consequences should make us all stop and ask: Is this the type of education we want for our children?
Go Back
In his article "Maintaining rigor and listening to teachers in the debate over academic standards," Keith Poston argues against revisions to the current Common Core standards and the importance of ensuring teachers have a voice in this discussion. In a two-part response, I argue, in part one, that significant changes are needed to the standards, and, in part two, that teacher's surveys can provide important information — as long as the instruments are valid and reliable.
"Maintaining rigor and listening to teachers in the debate over academic standards" is an article by Keith Poston, President and Executive Director of the Public School Forum, that recently appeared on the website EducationNC. Poston thinks members of the Academic Standards Review Commission (ASRC) — the Commission established by the North Carolina legislature to review English and Math Common Core Standards — need to be reminded of what he believes to be the potentially harmful consequences of their actions. And Poston urges ASRC to heed his warnings.
Keith Poston is a friend. However, that friendship doesn't stop me from saying I strongly disagree with the comments he made on both topics, comments that I believe to be wrong and misleading.
Shouldn't all students be held to the same standards? That's a question Poston rhetorically asks readers in response to comments made by Jeannie Metcalf and Tammy Covil, two ASRC members who made comments that imply students of lesser ability may not be able to achieve some of the higher-level expectations of the Common Core. Both Covil and Metcalf have questioned whether certain standards were age-appropriate. Poston fears that if the Common Core Standards are not right for all students, any changes will automatically result in standards that are less rigorous and challenging.
In my opinion, Poston is not asking the right question. His concern for high standards might on first blush be admirable. However, such a view presents a one-size-fits-all view of education that denies differences in background and ability. It also ignores the larger and more significant issue with which ASRC must wrestle: Are the Common Core Standards age appropriate?
Poston falsely believes changes by Commission members automatically lead to a decline in rigor. Rigor — properly understood — assumes age-appropriate materials and instruction. If Commission members fail to fully consider rigor and age-appropriate instruction, they are failing to fulfill their responsibilities.
Session Law 2014-78 established the Academic Standards Review Commission. ASRC was established to:
Conduct a comprehensive review of all English Language Arts and Mathematics standards adopted under G.S. 115C-12(9c) and propose modifications to ensure that those standards meet all of the following criteria:
- Increase students' level of academic achievement.
- Meet and reflect North Carolina's priorities.
- Are age-level and developmentally appropriate.
- Are understandable to parents and teachers.
- Are among the highest standards in the nation."[1]
Notice the legislation specifically states the commission shall "conduct a comprehensive review." The legislation continues ASRC is to "propose modifications to ensure that those standards . . . are age-level and developmentally appropriate."
Implicit in such a review is addressing the question of whether existing standards are appropriate for grade, age and ability levels.
I agree with the statement that all children, no matter their background, can learn. However, I also believe the current review process must determine whether the Math and English Common Core Standards are the best tools for educating students.
Many people believe the Common Core standards — while they may aspire to a laudable goal — have significant problems. Keith Poston questions commissioners who raise concerns about whether students can meet the standards laid out by Common Core. Mr. Poston and other Common Core advocates believe children should all be treated the same and be held to the same standard.
Anyone familiar with the public discussion over Common Core knows that one of the major criticisms parents, teachers and other educators have about it is that many of the standards are not age-appropriate. This is particularly true for the early childhood grades, K-3.
It's a criticism Common Core advocates have successfully avoided. Still it bears repeating, especially, in light of Poston's claim "Common Core foes want badly to avoid engaging directly with the current standards."
A statement could not be more wrong. As time is limited, let's talk specifically about criticisms surrounding the K-3 Common Core Standards. Two articles in the Washington Post (see here and here) help to summarize the major criticism of the K-3 Common Core Standards. In one, education experts Edward Miller and Nancy Carlsson-Paige wrote:
When the standards were first revealed in March 2010, many early childhood educators and researchers were shocked. "The people who wrote these standards do not appear to have any background in child development or early childhood education," wrote Stephanie Feeney of the University of Hawaii, chair of the Advocacy Committee of the National Association of Early Childhood Teacher Educators. . .
The promoters of the standards claim they are based in research. They are not. There is no convincing research, for example, showing that certain skills or bits of knowledge (such as counting to 100 or being able to read a certain number of words) if mastered in kindergarten will lead to later success in school. ... At best, the standards reflect guesswork, not cognitive or developmental science. . .
Moreover, the Common Core Standards do not provide for ongoing research or review of the outcomes of their adoption-a bedrock principle of any truly research-based endeavor.
The promoters of the standards claim they are based in research. They are not. There is no convincing research, for example, showing that certain skills or bits of knowledge (such as counting to 100 or being able to read a certain number of words) if mastered in kindergarten will lead to later success in school. ... At best, the standards reflect guesswork, not cognitive or developmental science. . .
Moreover, the Common Core Standards do not provide for ongoing research or review of the outcomes of their adoption-a bedrock principle of any truly research-based endeavor.
If the standards are so great, why wasn't a single person of the 135 people on the panels who developed the K-3 Common Core Standards a teacher or early childhood professional? Such oversights are hard to understand especially in light of the repeated claims that those who developed the standards had constant feedback from teachers and education professionals.
In March 2010 more than 500 early childhood professionals signed the Joint Statement of Early Childhood Health and Education Professionals on the Common Core Standards Initiative. The statement read:
We have grave concerns about the core standards for our young children... The proposed standards conflict with compelling new research in cognitive science, neuroscience, child development, and early childhood education about how young children learn, what they need to learn and how best to teach them in kindergarten and the early grades..."
There is little evidence that such standards for young children lead to later success. While an introduction to books in early childhood is vital, research on the links between the intensive teaching of discrete reading skills in kindergarten and later success is inconclusive at best.
There is little evidence that such standards for young children lead to later success. While an introduction to books in early childhood is vital, research on the links between the intensive teaching of discrete reading skills in kindergarten and later success is inconclusive at best.
The experts went on to call on the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers — the two who help to develop and implement the Common Core Standards — to suspend the drafting of Common Core standards from kindergarten through grade three. Obviously, that hasn't happened.
Members of the early childhood profession spelled out other objections to Common Core in a document called Defending the Early Years. Briefly, the document asserts CCSS is not supported by substantive research, fails to take into account what children need (i.e., play and good teachers), and falsely implies that CCSS will counteract the effect of poverty and help to create equal opportunity for all.
Most recently project scholars associated with the Defending the Early Years Project published "Reading Instruction in Kindergarten, Little to Gain and Much to Lose." The article takes aim at Common Core's requirement that kindergartners learn to read:
Many children are not developmentally ready to read in kindergarten, yet the Common Core State Standards require them to do just that. This is leading to inappropriate classroom practices.
When children have educational experiences that are not geared to their developmental level or in tune with their learning and cultures, it can cause them great harm, including feelings of inadequacy and confusion. [2]
When children have educational experiences that are not geared to their developmental level or in tune with their learning and cultures, it can cause them great harm, including feelings of inadequacy and confusion. [2]
Keith Poston and other Common Core supporters say that we need to hold all students to the same standards. Such comments ignore the question of appropriateness and misconstrue the position of Common Core critics.
Why is this important? Why should we care that Common Core Standards are age-appropriate and take into account a child's needs and developmental abilities?
In her presentation at the Notre Dame Common Core Conference in September 2013, Child Psychologist, Dr. Meghan Koshnick answered that question in one word — stress. [3]
Instead of thinking about what's developmentally appropriate for kindergartners, they are thinking [college] is where we want kindergarteners to end up, so let's back track down to kindergarten and have kindergarteners work on these skills from an early age. This can cause major stress for the child because they are not prepared for this level of education.
Is this stress real? Parents who have a child in K-3 know what I'm talking about. Anyone who attended last year's public hearing on Common Core remembers the high number of parents who shared their frustrations with how their children were being affected by the Common Core Standards. Common Core math and English standards were clearly becoming a growing source of stress for children and parents alike.
I ask: Is this what we want school to be? Do we want standards that fail to consider the age, abilities and background of our students and treat all students the same? Public School Forum and other pro-Common Core organizations think so. They say changing the standards will diminish rigor.
Keith Poston and others fail to understand that implicit in rigor is the concept of appropriateness. Ensuring standards are age-appropriate is one of the tasks the Legislature delegated to the Academic Standards and Review Commission. The statutes say "conduct a comprehensive review and propose modifications to ensure ..." [4] meaning the legislature expected changes (i.e., repeal and revisions) to the standards to be part of the normal process.
Yes, students should be held to the same standards. However, it's assumed that those standards are rigorous, understandable and age-appropriate.
To assert that ASRC members shouldn't contemplate changes to the standards is to misread the legislation that created the commission. Such thinking disregards the opinions of hundreds of child development professionals who are deeply troubled by how much Common Core asks K-3 children to master. Worst of all, those who advocate such a position ignore the very real academic and emotional harm Common Core inflicts on students of all ages, especially those in grades K through 3. These consequences should make us all stop and ask: Is this the type of education we want for our children?
- [1] See Session Law 2014-78, Senate Bill 812, North Carolina General Assembly. Available at: http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/Senate/PDF/S812v7.pdf
- [2] See New Reading Instruction in Kindergarten: Little to Gain and Much to Lose, Defending the Early Years Project. Document Available at: http://deyproject.org/
- [3] See the Dr. Koshnick's presentation at the Notre Dame Common Core Conference (September 2013) at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrQbJlmVJZo
- [4] See Session Law 2014-78, Senate Bill 812, North Carolina General Assembly. Available at: http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/Senate/PDF/S812v7.pdf
| CommenTerry: Volume Forty-Nine | Civitas Institute, Editorials, Op-Ed & Politics | Why Business Incentives Won't Help NC |
Home
Contact
About
Service Rates
Privacy Policy
Follow on Facebook
Subscribe to Newsletters
Rss Feed
Keywords
Eastern NC Now & ENC NOW © Copyright 1998-2024 All Rights Reserved.
