Advancing New Hampshire Public Education

Home » Common Core » Rep. Cyndy Chase on the Common Core – Keene Sentinel

Rep. Cyndy Chase on the Common Core – Keene Sentinel

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

Former teacher Rep. Cindy Chase (D-Keene) has given education issues and the Common Core a lot of thought and had a great piece in yesterday’s Keene Sentinel.  Here’s a sample:

The Common Core, officially known as Common Core State Standards (CCSS), is coming to New Hampshire. In fact, it is already here and is causing something of an uproar in various educational circles. Whether that uproar is a good thing or a bad thing depends upon where on the sidelines you sit.

A bit of history: In 1965 Congress established the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Its purpose was to assist school districts impacted by a significant population of students living at or near the poverty level. Determination of poverty impact was made by the number of free or reduced-price lunches served in each school.

ESEA was routinely renewed by Congress every eight years, until 2000, when Sen. Edward Kennedy and President George Bush decided it needed to be fixed. Enter No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the name given to this renewal of ESEA.

It was an unmitigated disaster for students, schools and teachers. Among other things, it stated that “every child will be ‘on grade level’ by 2014,” something that is statistically impossible. It directed schools away from the idea of educating the whole child and focused instead on test preparation skills. It has raised test scores, but it has also labeled many good schools as “failing,” because if even one subgroup, such as those with developmental disabilities, was not on target to be on grade level by 2014, the school was considered as failing.

NCLB was set to be renewed in 2008, but had become too controversial. The number of schools labeled “failing” was rising … fast. Something had to be done. That something was the Common Core State Standards. It is worth pointing out that the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that any authority not specifically given to the federal government is reserved to the states. Because the Constitution does not mention education, some of the federal mandates of NCLB could be construed as unconstitutional. With this in mind, the National Governors Association, with the financial support of the Gates Foundation, set out to write Common Core Standards. Specifically inserted in the name was the word “state” to make perfectly clear that these standards were written by states, not by the federal government.

The need for some sort of federal benchmarking of expectations has been obvious for some time. A student who completes 3rd grade in Keene and moves to Olatha, Kan., for 4th grade should have the basic skills s/he needs to succeed there. Reality is that there has been no nationally agreed upon guidelines of what should be taught at each grade level.

….

read the rest here: Introducing the Common Core – SentinelSource.com.


2 Comments

  1. TavernKeepers says:

    Common core while well meaning will also be an unmitigated disaster. As a rebuttal I encourage you to read http://tavernkeepers.com/the-common-core-agenda-part-2a-architects-and-profiteers/. It discusses the education without representation aspect of Common Core and looks at the people pushing this curriculum and what they stand to gain.

    • Bill Duncan says:

      The points you make here on TavernKeepers, Angela, are the well-ventilated, oft-repeated political charges: if these bad guys like (and funded) CCSS, how could CCSS be good? That’s why I look at the classroom experience rather than the political debates to form an opinion about the efficacy of CCSS. I oppose current “education reform” policies, as this site makes clear, but I don’t think the fact that some ed reformers support the Common Core is sufficient reason to oppose it.

      Btw, I think Carol Burris is wonderful. I would not purport to know everything about her analysis of CCSS but from what I have seen (including her interview on American Radio Works and various Diane Ravitch posts), her critique is entirely (though this is not always obvious) about the New York State implementation of CCSS. NYS has done a lousy job, as I have said many times on this site, but the problems are not with CCSS. The problems are with over-testing, punitive high-stakes testing and scripted curricula.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s