Threats to the Common Core

Posted on May 22, 2013 by coreeducation

Anne Hyslop at the New America Foundation has pointed out the new partisan tone of debate that has emerged around the Common Core Standards. Hyslop makes clear that the Common Core state initiative is just that—a state led initiative. While the Obama Administration has indeed supported Common Core and has tied its Race to the Top Grant money to college- and career-ready standards in states, Hyslop believes this is hardly enough to justify right-wing attacks on Common Core.

While many of the attacks have come from the usual suspects of conservative media, some of the critiques have come from more publicly recognized sources. The Republican National Committee recently adopted an anti-Common Core resolution, and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Ia) is calling for the federal government to eliminate all Department of Education funding that supports or prioritizes the Common Core.

Hyslop does not buy these arguments; however, she does admit that a possible upcoming law might add more credence to conservative arguments against Common Core:

The problem may be about to get worse. As noted in our Key Questions on the Obama Administration’s 2014 Education Budget Request, federal funding for the assessment consortia is set to expire before the tests are fully launched. To provide continued support, President Obama’s latest budget includes a $9 million competitive grant initiative that could finance some of their ongoing work. The other $380 million of the “Assessing Achievement” program would provide states with formula grants for their current assessment programs, although leftover funds could go toward Common Core implementation.

However, a significant change would occur in fiscal year 2015: Assessing Achievement formula funding would be available “only to States that have adopted college- and career-ready standards that are common to a significant number of States” (emphasis added). While Race to the Top included a similar requirement, that program was a competition, where states could opt-out. NCLB waivers also require states to adopt college- and career-ready standards, but they do not have to be common ones. The Assessing Achievement program would mark the first time federal formula funding – typically available to all states – required adoption of common standards. If enacted, this requirement will undoubtedly add fuel to the “Obamacore” fire.

Hyslop concludes:

The important difference between the practical (those… who are concerned about successful Common Core implementation) and political (conservatives who see Common Core as a big-government move) critiques is that states deciding to use the ACT system are not necessarily backing away from their commitment to the Common Core altogether. Yes, the assessment consortia should do as much as possible to allay the concerns of wavering states. And yes, policymakers and stakeholders should closely monitor all of the emerging for-profit and non-profit ventures to ensure their assessments, curricula, textbooks, and other resources accurately reflect the new standards. But in the end, any damage done to the Common Core from these pragmatic objections to the consortia is far less severe than what would happen in the unlikely, but not out of the question, case that “Obamacore” goes mainstream. Common Core supporters would do well to distinguish between the two.

For more information, please visit these websites:

http://edmoney.newamerica.net/blogposts/2013/college_ready_wars_assessing_threats_to_the_common_core-82595

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/04/24/is-the-common-core-standards-initiative-in-trouble/

California: Hot Seat for Contentious Education Issues

Posted on May 7, 2013 by coreeducation

Last month, the Democratic Party in California held a three day convention. The convention, at which the California Teachers Association was prominently represented, sparked a wave of rhetoric that reveals at least a temporary rift among some members and former members of the Democratic Party in California. The rift concerns how much school choice and student testing as part of teacher evaluations should be part of the Democratic platform for education reform.

On one side, those who disagree with both of these movements, stand the younger leaders of the Democratic Party in California, such as Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris, and the California Teachers Association. On the other side, those who favor school choice and teacher evaluations that include student test scores, stand prominent education groups StudentsFirst and Democrats for Education Reform.

The first group, which had the chance to make its views known at the recent California Democratic Party Convention, charges the latter two education groups with being fronts for Republican and corporate interests because of their agenda which supposedly jeopardizes public schools and its teachers.

The second group, represented most prominently by Michelle Rhee, charges the first group with not being true to their Democratic ideals because they seek to obstruct measures that focus on helping students, especially minority students, have access to better education.

Below are some selected sections from a Los Angeles Times article about the debate:

“People can call themselves Democrats for Education Reform – it’s a free country – but if your agenda is to shut teachers and school employees out of the political process and not lift a finger to prevent cuts in education, in my book you’re not a reformer, you’re not helping education, and you’re sure not much of a Democrat,” said state Supt. of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, a registered Democrat whose office is nonpartisan.

California Teachers Assn. President Dean Vogel argued that the organizations are working to eliminate workers’ rights and “hellbent on turning students into test-taking machines. I’ll tell you right now, they want to do that, they have to come through us,” Vogel said. ”Let’s be perfectly clear,” he added. “These organizations are backed by moneyed interests, Republican operatives and out-of-state Wall Street billionaires dedicated to school privatization and trampling on teacher and worker rights.”

Gloria Romero, a former Democratic majority leader in the state Senate who leads the California chapter of Democrats for Education Reform, called the Sunday resolution “stupid.” ”They drank some Kool-Aid that has been fresh squeezed for them by the most powerful political interest in California, the California Teachers Assn.,” she said, adding that improving schools for minorities and the poor should be a priority for the party. ”They beat their chest,” she continued, “they get some money into their campaign coffers, but they walk away having abandoned the call for quality education for children of color.”

The clash over education had been building throughout the three-day convention, underscoring a larger debate taking place in education circles. A spokeswoman for StudentsFirst said the party failed over the weekend to discuss any concrete steps to improve education.

“The heated rhetoric … is especially disappointing because it reveals an abject refusal to tackle the most important issue: ensuring that every California student goes to a great school and has a great teacher,” said the spokeswoman, Jessica Ng.

StudentsFirst, founded by former Washington, D.C., schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, has spent nearly $1.5 million since 2012 on efforts to elect Democrats. Rhee is married to Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson. An early hint of the convention controversy came when party officials, who had initially approved Johnson’s request that his advocacy group have a booth at the convention, reversed course and said no.

A spokesman for the party said the decision not to provide space for the Democratic mayor of the host city had nothing to do with his group’s message. ”We simply experienced a higher demand for exhibitor booths than initially anticipated,” Tenoch Flores said.

For more information, please visit:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-democrats-20130415,0,2919125.story?utm_source=feedly

How helpful are “state grade” reports really?

Posted on March 12, 2013 by coreeducation

The Think Twice Think Tank charges that “state grades” reports are mainly helpful to understand the policy agenda of those creating the grades, not as a means to understand the policies of state education departments.

The Think Twice think tank review project, part of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, asserts that while the grades may be generally reflective of the particular policy item about which they are concerned, these grades are predictable based on the agenda of the organization creating the grades. Because of this fact and their very general nature, these grades act as an attractive eye-catcher in the media more than a helpful tool for those involved in policy-making.

The Think Twice Think Tank was responding specifically to the StudentsFirst 2013 State Policy Report Card, which this blog wrote about recently.

Furthermore, when each state grade is analyzed for the StudentsFirst report, every state but three received an A or a B in some category, and every state received at least one D or F in some category.

Here is NEPC’s explanation:

More interesting than the biases of the genre is the broader discourse of “grading” states: the issuing of report cards has become a tool for satisfying key constituencies. Each report garners attention during a few news cycles, satisfying organization funders, and on occasion is part of what drives policy change where the focus is narrow (such as the Fordham Institute’s focus on science curriculum standards, especially in its handing out Fs for anti-evolution standards). But the more reports that appear, the more the news cycle dilutes the impact of any one such report and the more that state policymakers and advocates might be able to cherry-pick grades for their own purposes. The release of “grading” reports shortly before the start of many legislative sessions highlights the potential use of the grades as a way to shape current policy debate. Whether any individual attempt to grade states contributes to serious policy discussion is doubtful when a report issued the first week of January is followed by several other attempts to “grade the states” before the end of the month.

An illustration of this dynamic appears in the table below, which identifies the highest and lowest grade received by each state and the District of Columbia over several cycles of report cards from a number of organizations. The range of grades received by each state is partly due to the variety of policies examined, but also a reflection of the values and interests of sponsoring organizations.

The short-term publicity advantage of the state “grade” as a news hook is diluted every time that an additional organization uses the tactic of applying grades to states. Regardless of the publicity garnered by an individual report, the dynamic is tilted towards increasing dilution and gamesmanship. In the name of rigor, “grading the states” reports have become the fodder by which most states can claim a good grade in something while others can claim that almost all states fail at something else.

Here is the table that corresponds to this discussion:

For more information, please visit this website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-Students-First-Grades

Federal Education Funding: What do we know?

Posted on February 18, 2013 by coreeducation

Jason Delisle and Clare McCann at Ed Money Watch have put together a very helpful breakdown of what all of the Congressional complications surrounding the budget mean for education.

We have shortened their summary into a few definitions of key terms to understand:

Continuing Resolution: As of now, the US budget is functioning under a continuing resolution, which Congress approved for the first half of fiscal year, up to March 27. The CR means that the budget stays at the same level as last year. The CR cannot be approved again beyond March 27.

Sequestration: One method Congress implemented to control spending is known as sequestration. This means that each element of domestic discretionary spending, which includes most aspects of education funding, would be cut independently by 8.2%. This number was reduced to 5.1% by the deal reached at the turn of the new year. This cut of 5.1% will take place on March 1, unless a new deal is reached.

Spending Caps: The second method Congress enacted to control spending is known as spending caps. These are caps on annual appropriations funding, which includes most aspects of education funding, which will be ongoing until 2021. What this means in effect is that “Congress cannot under current law appropriate funding for domestic discretionary programs – including education – above post-sequestration levels. In other words, after the sequester, the appropriations pie is shrunk under that new cap to a level that resembles the year 2008.” There is the possibility, however, that Congress could shift funding for each domestic program such that education is not hurt because the Caps allow for funding shifts, provided that the total number is not over the previous sequestration levels.

In conclusion, there is always the chance for a new deal that averts many of these possibilities. At this stage, however, education stands to lose 5.1% of funding on March 1 and possibly a good bit more on March 27, unless that deal is reached.

For more information, please visit: http://edmoney.newamerica.net/blogposts/2013/why_march_27_maters_for_education_and_sequestration_doesnt-78514

December Issue Brief: Education and the Election

Posted on December 21, 2012 by coreeducation

Last month’s election results mean four more years of the Obama Administration, with an Education Department headed by Secretary Arne Duncan. But what exactly does that mean for funding, federal policy and local implementation related to education? In this month’s issue brief, we explore the meaning for both K-12 and higher education.

We’d like to hear from you! What are your hopes and fears for the next four years? Please respond to our call for commentary. We’d love to hear from you!

To check out this month’s newsletter and access these resources, please follow this link:
http://us5.campaign-archive1.com/?u=a4ae2b1b129b9f8a29d50b80f&id=3d0c20b46d&e=19cfa03b4e

To ensure you do not miss future issues, we encourage you to subscribe to the monthly newsletter by clicking following this link: http://coreeducationllc.us5.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=a4ae2b1b129b9f8a29d50b80f&id=32608711ef

Election Day puts Education in the Spotlight

Posted on November 4, 2012 by coreeducation

The upcoming election day of November 6, 2012 promises to have a significant impact on education policy around the country. Under the larger discussion of fiscal policy, which has consumed much of the Presidential campaigns of both President Obama and Governor Romney, the issue of education has risen to the fore multiple times. While neither candidate has offered many specifics, Governor Romney has expressed agreement with plans to cut domestic discretionary spending, which includes education, but Governor Romney has also denied any desire to cut education spending. President Obama has employed his record on Race to the Top and efforts to reform underperforming schools as initiatives deserving of voter support, while Governor Romney has mentioned his desire to expand various school choice options as a key platform goal.

Beyond the Presidential discussion of education, state and local political races and ballot initiatives concerning educational issues consume less of the headlines, yet in reality are much more likely to impact education in United States in a significant way. For example, 44 out of 50 states are holding legislative races this year. Republicans look to hold onto the majority of those positions, meaning that increased levels of school choice and continued decreases to the ability of teachers’ unions to employ collective bargaining may be in store. Furthermore, many state ballots contain ballot initiatives related directly to issues of funding and education.

For further details, Education Week has created a breakdown of candidates’ views on education as well as a voter’s guide for the educationally conscious voter. For more, see http://www.edweek.org/ew/collections/election2012/candidates-on-education.html and http://www.edweek.org/ew/collections/election2012/voters-guide.html

Left Out of No Child Left Behind

Posted on October 18, 2012 by coreeducation

In a new report from the American Enterprise Institute, author Alexander Russo reflects on Teach For America’s struggles in the era of NCLB. The key points of Left out of No Child Behind: Teach for America’s Outsized Influence on Alternative Certification are below.

Teach for America, one of the nation’s foremost education reform organizations, was one of the first to build a lobbying presence on Capitol Hill; however, it almost failed to do so in time to protect its interests during passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in the early 2000s.

NCLB held significant provisions that directly affected TFA — in particular, defining what it meant for a teacher to be “highly qualified” and mandating that every student have a highly qualified teacher by 2014. Initially, TFA teachers did not meet this standard; it was by only a combination of luck and increasingly aggressive lobbying that the law was amended to allow TFA teachers to be considered highly qualified.

As education reform groups have proliferated nationwide, an increasing number are realizing the importance of the policymaking process to their own survival and accordingly expanding their policy and lobbying arms to influence legislation surrounding school choice, teacher quality, teacher evaluations, and other federal education issues.

To read the full report, please visit http://www.aei.org/paper/education/k-12/left-out-of-no-child-left-behind-teach-for-americas-outsized-influence-on-alternative-certification/

Education Nation: Year Three

Posted on October 9, 2012 by coreeducation

In a recent blog post, John Merrow reflects on this year’s “Education Nation” summit, an annual conference organized and hosted by NBC News:

NBC News put on its third iteration of Education Nation earlier this week and did an even better job this year. I suppose that could be considered faint praise, because year one was pretty bad and year two was only fair-to-middling. I’d give the 2012 version a B or maybe a B- for “performance,” but NBC News deserves an A for effort, because no one else is even attempting to create a national dialogue about what has to be recognized as our country’s greatest challenge.

For those who weren’t there or following events online, on NBC, MSNBC or CNBC, here’s some basic information:

Three days of activities, including a couple of “Town Hall” meetings, dinner with General Colin Powell, interviews with former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Governor Romney, the President on video, three former Secretaries of Education and the current Secretary; the premiere of “Won’t Back Down,” and dozens of short and generally tightly focused panel discussions.

A superb venue: the elegant New York Public Library.

Hundreds of eager and capable folks there to make sure we got to the right places.

In short, Education Nation is now a “must attend” event for wonks like me, and a lot of us were there.

To read Merrow’s full post and see video clips of the event, please visit http://takingnote.learningmatters.tv/?p=5926

Arne Duncan Speaks at National Press Club

Posted on October 8, 2012 by coreeducation

Last week, Education Secretary Arne Duncan addressed an audience at the National Press Club. His remarks were focused on current education reforms and the estimated success of programs already in place.

“Today, we are asking much more of ourselves and much more of each other – and everyone is stepping up – parents, teachers, administrators, community leaders – and, of course, students,” Duncan said. He highlighted ongoing reform activity across the entire educational continuum: early learning, K-12, higher education and adult education.

Duncan and his senior staff just completed a cross-country bus tour, “Education Drives America,” that took them to 12 states for more than 100 separate events. In his remarks, the Secretary explicitly linked education with the economy saying, “People everywhere understand that the path to the middle class runs right through our classrooms.”

Duncan discussed major education reforms underway, including:

College and career-ready standards in 45 states and D.C.
State-designed accountability systems in 33 states serving more than 60 percent of students; more local decision-making around interventions in low-performing schools.
Nearly 10 million students attending college with Pell grants – up from 6 million; rising college enrollment and completion.
Greater labor-management collaboration around issues like teacher and principal evaluation, compensation, and career pathways for teachers.

Duncan acknowledged budget pressures affecting states and districts across the country and highlighted the administration’s effort to protect 400,000 education jobs through the Recovery Act and the American Jobs Act. He also raised concerns about cuts to education in Congress.

“The choice facing the country is pretty clear: some people see education as an expense government can cut to help balance our budgets. The President sees education as an investment in our future,” Duncan said.

Vowing to “double down on what we know is working,” Duncan outlined several educational priorities for the country:

High quality early education for more low-income children.
State-driven accountability that demands progress for all kids.
More local decision-making and fewer mandates from Washington.
More support for principals and teachers to translate high standards into practice.
More personalization in the classroom and greater student engagement.
A stronger partnership between teachers and technology.
A new generation of math and science teachers recruited from America’s top universities.
Passage of the DREAM Act.
Reforming career education programs in high schools and community colleges.
Closing the skills gap for millions of unemployed or underemployed adults.
Reforming and simplifying student aid to help drive college affordability and completion.

Duncan closed his remarks with an urgent appeal for bipartisan commitment to education reform, saying: “America must unite behind the cause of public education and recognize that the solutions don’t come from one party or one ideology. They come from all of us – you and me – challenging ourselves and holding ourselves accountable. We don’t have a minute to waste.”

To read his full remarks, please visit http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/moving-forward-staying-focused

Investing in Our Future: Returning Teachers to the Classroom

Posted on August 20, 2012 by coreeducation

Since the end of the recession three years ago, 300,000 educators have lost their jobs—7,000 in the last month alone, according to a new White House report. These startling numbers have led the Obama administration to sound the alarm on education spending cuts across the country.

In Investing in Our Future: Returning Teachers to the Classroom, the White House highlights some of the financial woes of many school systems: 292 took drastic measures, such as shortening the school week to 4 days, eliminating full-day kindergarten, and laying off hundreds of thousands of teachers to remain financially solvent.

This report is the first to comprehensively tally the cumulative effects of teacher layoffs on class size over the last few years. In his remarks about the report, President Obama reflected on how these changes have negatively impacted America’s competitive advantage: “At a time when the rest of the world is racing to out-educate America, these cuts force our kids into crowded classrooms, cancel programs for preschoolers and kindergarteners, and shorten the school week and the school year. That’s the opposite of what we should be doing as a country.”

Education Secretary Arne Duncan has noted that in re-writing NCLB, the administration supports “shirting away from class-sized based reduction that is not evidence-based,” and noted that high-performing school systems in Asia have larger class sizes.

Some are questioning whether the Administration’s rhetoric stems from campaign-consciousness, or whether education is coming into its own as an important social and political issue that the next administration will be willing to address.

To read Investing in Our Future, please visit http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/Investing_in_Our_Future_Report.pdf

The "Core" of Education

Tag Archives: politics