Advertisement
What People are Reading
Recent
Popular Alltime
Recent Comments
- This is the view from the
11 hours 6 min ago - Just picked up the Portland
12 hours 45 min ago - So, Halsey, why aren't you
18 hours 36 min ago - The university is designed
22 hours 37 min ago - Funny, I've lived in or
1 day 14 hours ago - Nice piece, Edgar. As we
1 day 15 hours ago - The City is determined to
2 days 8 hours ago - Amen!
2 days 16 hours ago - If you don't trust your town
1 week 5 days ago - It's a bit rich for a
1 week 6 days ago
Advertisement
Forecaster Forum: Connecting the dots in public education
Most people aren’t fans of No Child Left Behind or federal government intervention in public education. Often one hears that NCLB had caused “teaching to the test” and narrowing of the curriculum. Strangely, the state government is poised to enact national testing, and the public is oddly silent on this huge transformation in public education.
Maine is considering the adoption of the Common Core State Standards. These will replace our current state standards and once again, change the testing in Maine’s public schools. There is no doubt that our standards need improvement. They received a C grade from the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. The point is that local school boards and the state are free to improve upon our state standards, without signing onto the Common Core State Standards. Massachusetts has some of the best state standards. They are free to the public for any state to adopt.
Initially, I was in favor of the Common Core State Standards, until I started connecting the dots.
The federal government is making it clear that the adoption of the state standards is a state initiative. But is it really? The U.S. Department of Education tied Race to the Top federal money to the adoption of the CCSS. And then there is the “nationalizing of testing” to come in 2014. Suddenly, states like Maine are passing legislation to request that parents provide the schools with their child’s Social Security number.
There are clear benefits to collecting data and analyzing it, but do we risk having our children’s testing data attached to their Social Security number? Will this data be used to track individual teacher performance? Will “nationalized testing” cause an explosion of teaching to the test? Is a nationalized curriculum in other subjects around the corner? Will parents need to go to the federal government with concerns about curriculum, instead of to their local school board? Will home-schoolers and private schools need to adhere to nationalized testing if they take government funding? What will the long-term cost of the transition to national standards be? Who is writing these national exams?
The adoption of the CCSS made headlines in Massachusetts because many felt it was a mistake. Gov. Patrick didn’t reappoint state board members who planned to vote against the adoption of the CCSS. Some states have made it clear that they will not adopt the standards. What do they know that we don’t?
For those of you who love to compare the U.S. to Canada, take a look at their education system. Few know how well they outperform us on international testing. The 2006 PISA mathematics testing results have Canada ranked fifth out of 57, while the U.S. ranked 32nd. In 2006, Canada ranked third in Science, while the U.S. ranked 24th.
Canada must spend more than us on education, right? No, they spend less. They must have “nationalized” education like their health care? No again. While the U.S. has seen decades of increasing federal intervention and control of education policy, the federal government in Canada has essentially no role in K-12 education. Control of public education is left to the individual provinces. Many provinces have a publicly supported private school system (including vouchers for religious and private schools that adhere to the provincial curriculum).
Before Maine adopts the Common Core State Standards, the public should ask if there are safeguards in place to prevent increased national control of public education.
The public has until Sept. 10 to share their views on Maine’s adoption of these standards. I encourage parents to contact your state legislators, including the governor, to discuss this issue with them. Ask our gubernatorial candidates about their position on the issue.
Public comments regarding the Common Core State Standards can be submitted by e-mail to the Department of Education at jaci.holmes@maine.gov or wanda.monthey@maine.gov.
Beth Schultz lives in Woolwich and is co-founder of the Maine Coalition for World Class Math.
Comments
I agree with Ms. Schultz about the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI). It is most unfortunate that the American public has been left out of the most drastic change ever in public education; even most school board members have been kept in the dark when it comes to details. School boards in about 37 states have already voted to adopt CCSSI even though they have not been able to see exactly what they are voting for. For instance, the assessments which are being developed by TWO consortia (funded by federal dollars) will be used to evaluate teachers yet state school board members have no idea what the assessments will be like. Will they resemble Kentucky's controversial assessments from the 1990's based on "outcome based education" or will they be more like NAEP, TIMMS, or PISA? Who knows! CCSSI is not about math and English content standards (with science and social studies currently being developed); those two sets of standards are simply the bait to draw in the state school boards. CCSSI is about NATIONALIZING public education, a concept which is still (as far as I know) unconstitutional.
If the states (through their governors, chief state school officers and state school boards) approve this initiative, America will end up with national assessments of students, nationally approved professional development of teachers, national pre-service teacher tests, nationalized ed school standards, a huge linking national data base for both student and teacher data, national teacher evaluations, national technology standards, national curriculum, fewer and more powerful vendors, and so on.
One result will be much less local and state control. At least one of the ringleaders of this plan, Lou Gerstner (Chairman Emeritus of ACHIEVE, one of the 3 primary partners of CCSSI), is on record (Dec. 1, 2008 WSJ) advocating for elimination of local school boards and replacing them with 20 regional ones. Very little media coverage has been given to this very important topic other than announcements of which states won "Race to the Top" grant dollars. Anything this drastic should have been the focus of numerous public forums, lenthy public discussions, extensive media coverage, and verifiable pilot programs. Instead, this Bill Gates-funded stealth approach to "reform" has eluded the attention even of media conservatives isuch as Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and OReilly.
I do have to hand it to Marc Tucker. Although he and Hillary ran into numerous roadblocks in their attempt to federalize education during the Clinton administration, the Gates grant money has silently and quite cleverly greased the way this time. Tucker is still around as a major partner, heading one of the two consortia groups which are developing the assessments. For more information, check out this website which has extensive coverage on this topic: www.peytonwolcott.com. Especially note the check register section of the website; this may seem off-topic but it's really connected and is an excellent way to get accountability.

I would like to add to my post above that I am elected member of the Alabama State School Board, which will be voting on this issue in November.
Betty Peters