Round Two In the Bay State’s Battle Over the Common Core

One of the big mysteries of the education-reform movement is why Massachusetts, the gold-standard of American education, jettisoned its highly successful education standards for the untested Common Core State Standards. One reason was a much-needed, post-recession cash infusion via Race to the Top.

The Bay State’s first bid for RTTT funds failed—the commonwealth came in a miserable 13th—because it had not adopted the Common Core. “There’s a lot of disappointment and anger in Massachusetts that our outstanding track record in education reform was not recognized,” said Paul Reville, the state’s education secretary at the time.

Massachusetts finally won $250 million in RTTT funding, in 2010, after agreeing to adopt the Common Core. That “win” would usher in a series of changes to the state’s highly regarded, two-decade old education system.

Massachusetts’s poor showing in its first RTTT sweepstakes—and the Federal government’s apparent willingness to tie funding to the adoption of the Common Core, even for the country’s most advanced education system—troubled many experts on both sides of the ed-reform divide. Beginning in 2005, Massachusetts kids had the highest performing test scores in every subject tested by the National Assessment of Education Progress, which is known as the Nation’s Report Card. It has also outscored kids around the world on a range of international tests (More on Massachusetts’ test scores below.)

Now the Massachusetts reforms are once again under assault by Common-Core enthusiasts. Strangely, many of those attacking the reforms are its erstwhile defenders. In February, the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education, a leading advocacy group for the 1993 Massachusetts Education Reform Act, issued the first of several reports that found, or are expected to find, the Bay State standards and an accompanying high-stakes test, the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System or MCAS, wanting when compared to the still-untested “Common-Core aligned” PARCC tests (PARCC stands for Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers.)

“The current MCAS high school tests do not identify students who are college- and career-ready, and they do not contain the right content to measure college- and career-readiness,” concludes the MBAE study.

By contrast, the MBAE cautiously endorses the PARCC test: “As we are preparing this report in early 2015, the PARCC tests hold the promise of being a good indicator of college- and career-readiness.” (Emphasis added.)

In response, researchers from the Pioneer Institute, a market-oriented Massachusetts think thank, argue that money, once again, is playing an outsized role in the latest anti-MCAS research. The turncoats, according to Pioneer, include MBAE, which was cofounded by the aforementioned Paul Reville, as well as the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and Achieve Inc., both national Common-Core advocates. What these organizations all have in common is that they have receive funding– lots of it—from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which also invested over $200 million in developing the Common Core.

The most recent Massachusetts skirmish over the Common Core is no coincidence. This year, Massachusetts elementary and middle schools had the choice of taking the PARCC test or the MCAS. In the fall, Massachusetts will make a final decision about whether to ditch the MCAS entirely in favor of PARCC, at a time when half the states that initially agreed to adopt the Common-Core aligned test have since backed out.

In their OpEd, Charles Chieppo and Jamie Gass, detail the tangled web of relationships that tie the critics of the Massachusetts reforms to the Gates foundation, the PARCC tests and the Common Core. The OpEd is particularly scathing about the role of the MBAE:

The Mass. Business Alliance study’s credibility was further compromised by the fact that its author is an adviser to PARCC. An earlier report from the Alliance — written by the senior education adviser to the giant testing company Pearson, which is near the top of a long list of entities that stand to gain from the switch to Common Core — was so bereft of intellectual integrity that it lifted an entire purported “case study” from The Boston Globe without attribution.

However, the winner of the “conflict-of-interest derby,” according to Chieppo and Gass, is Teach Plus, a Boston-based national education-reform organization, which published a pro-PARCC report, “Massachusetts Teachers Examine PARCC“, in March:

The group recently released a study in which 23 of its fellows conclude that the commonwealth should ditch MCAS for PARCC. Teach Plus has received over $17 million from the Gates Foundation, including stipends for each of those 23 fellows.

While Pioneer Institute says it has neither solicited nor received funding from the Gates foundation, it has been approached by the Gates foundation. “The more noise we made the more they seemed interested in ‘working with’ us,” Gass wrote me in an email.

Like major philanthropists before him, Gates’s foundation has done a great deal of good around the world—for example, in joining the fight against the Ebola outbreak in Africa. However, the Gates foundation’s work in education reform illustrates the danger of allowing a single individual (or foundation)—no matter how well intentioned—to have too much influence on public policy. Gates brings his own data-driven world view to education—one that values STEM subjects over literature, history and the arts. There is no countervailing force with comparably deep pockets to argue that children would be better off, say, producing Shakespeare plays and studying violin instead of focusing on high-stakes tests.

By controlling the purse strings and the megaphone, the Gates foundation engineered “the swiftest and most remarkable shifts in education policy in U.S. history,” according to a Washington Post analysis.

That story is now replaying itself in Massachusetts; the only difference is that in Massachusetts, there’s a real danger that by jettisoning the Bay State’s reforms, the Common Core could turn a widely recognized success into a failure. Like a bio-engineered super plant nurtured by Gates and bred for the arid conditions of ed-reform soil–and to be bug-resistant and uniform—the Common Core is threatening to crowd out the healthiest varietals.

Among the local ed-reform crop, none is sturdier than the Massachusetts standard and the MCAS. Beginning in 2005, the scores of kids in Massachusetts surpassed those of every other state, in every subject, at every grade tested on the NAEP. The state also outscored kids from around the world on international tests. Based on the latest PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) results, if Massachusetts were a country, it would rank ninth in the world in math proficiency, tied with Japan; fourth in reading, tied with Hong Kong. Moreover, Massachusetts eighth graders ranked second only to Singapore in science competency, according to the TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Social Studies) tests.

MBAE essentially argues that the “proficiency” cut-off score on the MCAS is set too low. In Massachusetts, other arguments for adopting the Common Core range from a 21st century penchant for all things new and shiny to an educational vision of “national citizenship”—as one Common Core advocate put it: “If we’re going to develop this country and thrive as a democracy” national standards will help lift states like Mississippi, which have the lowest education performance in the nation.

MCAS advocates counter that low-performing states will exert “downward pressure on PARCC’s rigor” eventually dumbing down both the test and the standards.

Indeed, in Massachusetts, even the Common Core’s staunchest advocates couch their support in conditional terms. “[I]t it is not possible to know how much” of the “promise” of the PARCC tests “will be fulfilled,” concedes the MBAE report. Reville meanwhile says: “Our hope is that they’re a more sophisticated generation of tests, they’ll be aligned with the Common Core and will generate information more quickly and in a more useful fashion than we’ve been able to do in the past.” (Emphasis added.)

Long-time Massachusetts educators disagree. Sue Szachowicz the recently retired principal of Brockton High, the largest high school in Massachusetts, says she “cringed” when she saw the MBAE report, which she says compared “apples” and “oranges.” Says Szachowicz: “MCAS was never ever” intended to test college and career readiness. “It’s a 10th grade test designed to be a check in, to see if our kids’ reading and math proficiency is where we need it to be.”

“I’m a strong supporter of MBAE,” adds Szachowicz who led a one of the Bay State’s most heralded and enduring turnaround efforts in response to the Massachusetts Reforms. But the report, she says, “is wrong,” noting that studies have found a strong correlation between MCAS performance and college success.

Tom Birmingham, a key architect of the Massachusetts reforms who recently joined the Pioneer Institute, is now also weighing in with his own series of OpEds, arguing that the Common Core, and thus PARCC, is inferior to Massachusetts standards. Most recently he wrote: “A distinguished presidential panel found that Algebra I is the key to advanced math study and recommended that students study it in 8th grade, as currently occurs under Massachusetts’ state standards. But Common Core would delay Algebra I until early in 10th grade, preventing students from reaching high levels of math in high school… Common Core ends with ‘Algebra II lite,’ which is insufficient for students aiming for college majors in science, technology, engineering or math.”

Advocates of the Common-Core and PARCC also miss a key ingredient that made the Massachusetts standards and the MCAS a success: They were the result of a dynamic democratic process, that solicited input from a wide range of constituencies. “We developed traveling groups of educators to go around the state and find out what should be included in the curriculum frameworks,” recalls Sandra Stotsky, who then served as senior associate commissioner of the state’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. By the time the accountability piece of the reforms kicked in 2001—the MCAS results would determine whether kids received a high school diploma kicked—there was widespread acceptance of the process.

And after each MCAS testing period, the state released the MCAS questions and results, allowing teachers and administrators to pour over the tested material. Recalls Szachowicz: “We used the information, to see what areas we were strong on and where we were weak. It was a very open process.”

The MCAS continued to be updated and improved each year for more than a decade.

PARCC, by contrast, is a locked box, entirely controlled by Pearson, the testing giant that is developing the PARCC tests. It isn’t designed to be improved by educators over time, nor to help educators use the test to improve what or how they teach.

For now, at least in Massachusetts, the war over the Common Core will continue for at least a few months. Fordham Institute is expected to produce a study this summer examining the MCAS’s alignment to the Common Core; if its earlier support for the PARCC test is any indication, it too is likely to find against MCAS.

In Massachusetts, a final decision will be made by Mitchell Chester, the current education commissioner. Chester, it must be noted, also chairs PARCC’s governing board.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Education and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Round Two In the Bay State’s Battle Over the Common Core

  1. Mike Hullinger says:

    The deviousness employed in the promotion of PARCC and CCSS is manifold. The accusation that MCAS doesn’t measure the right content for college and career readiness is a red herring argument. MCAS is not a college readiness exam, it is an exam to assess student progress and whether or not a student meets the state graduation requirements. Colleges don’t ask for your MCAS score.There are existing college readiness assessments such as PSAT, SAT, and ACT. Unlike PARCC, these exams are taken voluntarily. PARCC seeks to be mandatory, at every grade level, twice a year. Further, there is no outcry from college admissions officers demanding a student’s PARCC score. There are many other problems with PARCC, CCCS and the methods used to force this on our State, including the Federal RTTT money which amounted to a one time payment of about $261 per student. A small price to disrupt the proven standards and assessments used by the State and implement an untested standards and assessments regimen that will yield large financial rewards to Pearson and others, at the cost of education in Massachusetts. Lastly, the adoption of CCSS violated Massachusetts state law and its Constitution regarding control over education and how standards are to be developed by the State. These are but a few of the issues, add to it control over student data, access to student data by parents, access to data by third parties, and the whole thing needs to be halted, immediately. Slick marketing and feel good talking points used to get PARCC and CCCS do not tell the whole story.

  2. mathteacher says:

    I’m not sure where Birmingham gets the idea that CCSS has Algebra I starting in 10th grade. The 8th graders at my school are taking it.

  3. Greg Goodknight says:

    When discussing Common Core math, most focus on the content standard, which isn’t bad, and ignore the process standard which is one long Whole Math constructivist dog whistle.

    http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Practice/

    The fellow hired (by who, I’ve not a clue) circa 2008 to be the chairman of the CCSS math standards development is one Phil Daro, and this wasn’t his first math standards gig… he directed the 1992 “Mathematics Framework for California Public Schools” which poured the constructivist 1989 NCTM “Standards” (they didn’t specify what math should be learned, only the practices to be adopted by all math teachers) into California’s schools and igniting what came to be called “The Math Wars” and it took years to roll it back, though the NCTM vision constantly pushed against it.

    California’s ’92 Framework is out of print and not readable online, but used copies are available, including from Amazon. Daro is revealed to be the director of the project in the Acknowlegements (page xiii).

    Daro remained the CCSSM chairman until a review of his work (and the work of the other two lead authors, Zimba and McCallum) was undertaken with external stakeholders, mathematicians and math teachers, and apparently there was a bit of a pushback against national math standards being driven by someone without any math credentials (Daro’s only degree is a BA in English) and the chairmanship transferred to the only one of the three who was a mathematician. It’s unclear what real change that might have been… Daro became a co-chair (as did Zimba) when McCallum became the chair, and all three were the lead authors.

    Daro is also employed by Pearson, and has been for years:
    http://www.pearsoned.com/news/pearson-hosts-free-webinar-on-common-core-state-standards-for-mathematics/

    How much does Common Core math really have in common with the Whole Math of the 1990’s? Ground zero for Whole Math in California was arguably the misnamed “College Preparatory Math” curriculum out of Davis, California, and it was a CPM Parent’s Night that spawned the group, Mathematically Correct when some parents in attendance with real mathematics competence smelled a disaster in the making. CPM claims their programs, going back to the very first in 1989 (the release date of the NCTM “Standards” that CC math practice standards pay homage to), is aligned with the brand new Common Core standards with only minor content updates.
    http://www.cpm.org/teachers/CCSS_Practices.htm

    Student competence in mathematics plummeted everywhere in California where whole math took hold. Expecting anything different in 2015 is delusional and I doubt the good people of Massachussetts and their educators had Phil Daro Math version 2 in mind when bowing to the Common Core assault.

  4. Katherine M. Martin, Esq. says:

    What is missing here is the effect on students with disabilities. 85% of students who receive special education services are as capable as their non disabled peers yet they have a 47% gapin achievement on MCAS. That is not acceptable. However the PARCC testing would be far worse since it eliminates many fundamental accommodations provided for in MCAS. We need to take for profit business out of educational policy.

    I am not a fan of MCAS but at least there are some safeguards for students with disabilities. PARCC changes everything and not for the better.

    My understanding is that it is the governor and the Great and General Court which has the last say whether MCAS is scraped. Parents need to be loud and consistent in their opposition to PARCC.

  5. Donna says:

    Governor Baker has directed Paul Sagan the Board of Ed Chair to hold a series of public hearings around the state, which will solicit feedback from educators, parents, students and local officials on the PARCC exam and the real-world impact of Common Core standards on teaching and learning. The dates and locations are as follows. This is your opportunity to let our voices be heard.

    * Tuesday, April 28, 2015, Fitchburg State University, Hammond Hall, 3:00–6:00 p.m. (following the regular Board meeting)

     Monday, May 18, 2015, Bunker Hill Community College, A300 Auditorium, 4:00–7:00 p.m. (in lieu of the special Board meeting)

     Wednesday, June 10, 2015, Bridgewater State University, Rondileau Campus Center Ballroom, 4:00–7:00 p.m.

     Monday, June 22, 2015, North Shore Community College – Lynn Campus, Gymnasium, 4:00–7:00 p.m. (in lieu of the special Board meeting)

     Tuesday, July 7, 2015, Springfield Technical Community College, Top of Our City Conference Center, 4:00–7:00 p.m.

  6. “The MCAS continued to be updated and improved each year for more than a decade.” might I add that we had a good decade of experience building and testing out the MEAP before MCAS so that staff development was available; in workshops teachers of English learned holistic scoring, analytic scoring, standard setting using achievement test like Stanford, Iowa, California and the NOVA achievement test.. This takes a lot of R&D and Massachuetts used federal funds wisely in creating a firm foundation — this was in addition to the work of the Curriculum Frameworks (which are widely available, accessible, and much better than any superficial listing of “objectives” such as Common Core implies — please notice that I refuse to call the CC anything like “standards” because they absolutely are not.

    • everyonesfacts says:

      I have to strongly disagree with your history here, Jean, as a history teacher the Frameworks, especially in world history were outdated on the date of publication. They have not been updated – in a field – history – undergoing tremendous changes.

      Then new CC social studies standards – the C3 Framework (http://www.socialstudies.org/system/files/c3/C3-Framework-for-Social-Studies.pdf) are much better, unfortunately the CCSSO dropped out in the final months for political reasons.

      The 3C are the best standards I have ever seen produced in the field of social studies. Kudos to all who helped!

      • the curriculum frameworks are better than anything that the other states have (with the exception of one or two states)… my experience was in the decades long training it took to develop for the MEAP and the holistic and analytic scoring and the standard setting process at that time… You can’t superimpose this amount of R&D on a state overnight. The social studies group was not treated appropriately by the state; they said there was not enough money to implement the approach (and they found money for Pearson, instead). I am not referring to the canon wars in literature, in math or in history because they have been going on for decades also and you are entitled to your opinion in your specialty and I don’t have anything to say about that except (a) the frameworks are better than the “objectives” lists because there have been tens of thousands of those over he decades… and they have been parsed from hither to yon in university courses (beginning with the New Math that BC taught us in the 70s; they did a good job by the way and they had some sensible people who could evaluate the work in the schools — not this current crop of “thinky tanks”))….

  7. Pingback: Andrea Gabor: Why Did Massachusetts Drop Its Successful Standards for Common Core? | Diane Ravitch's blog

  8. johna says:

    Is there not a key issue that is absent in this discussion? Given the documented evidence of the interlocking and overlapping financial arrangements between Massachusetts educational officials, especially Mitchell Chester, and the advocates for the PARCC tests, why has not been any oversight hearings into possible conflicts of iterest? Why hasen’t the Governor demanded that Mitchell Chester recuse himself from any decision making power in the choice of tests? Moreover, given the distinct possibility that Chester may be legally barred from holding a decision making position in state government duie to his relatiobship with PARCC, why hasen’t thre Governor taken action? If the Governor refuses to become involvers, which is understandible given his political affiliation, is there no independent legislative oversight that can be effectuated.

  9. mathman says:

    I believe that Mr. Chester’s obvious conflict of interest was indeed brought before the state ethics board after complaints from school committees somewhere in or around Worcester. He survived their scrutiny and was cleared. I couldn’t believe it!

  10. Pingback: Salon Writer Jeff Bryant Gets Arne Duncan Exactly Right | deutsch29

  11. Pingback: Why Arne Duncan Has Been A Monumental Flop As Education Secretary

  12. Pingback: Will Massachusetts Learn from Michigan’s Charter Calamity? | Andrea Gabor

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