Truth in American Education

Fighting to stop the Common Core State Standards, their Assessments and Student Data Mining.

  • Home
  • About Us
    • TAE Advocates
    • Network Participants
    • Related Websites
  • Common Core State Standards
    • National Education Standards
    • Gates Foundation & NCEE Influence
    • State Costs for Adopting and Implementing the Common Core State Standards
    • National Curriculum
    • Common Core State Standards Content
      • Standard Algorithms in the Common Core State Standards
    • Myths Versus Facts
    • States Fighting Back Map
    • Closing the Door on Innovation
    • CCSSI Development Teams
  • Common Core Assessments
    • Opt Out Info
  • Race To The Top
    • District-Level Race to the Top–Race to the Top IV
  • Resources
    • Legislative Bills Against CCSS
    • Pioneer Institute White Papers
    • Model Resolutions
    • Parents’ & Educators’ Executive Order
    • CC = Conditions + Coercion + Conflict of Interest
  • Audio & Video
  • Privacy Issues and State Longitudinal Data Systems
    • Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems
  • ESEA/NCLB
    • Statements and Proposed Plans
    • Every Child Achieves Act July 2015
    • Student Success Act
    • Every Child Ready for College or Career Act
    • No Child Left Behind Waivers
    • ESEA Blueprint, Briefing Book, and Position Paper
  • Home School/Private School
  • Action Center
    • Parent and Community Action Plan
    • Stop CCSSI ToolKit
    • Sign Up or Contact TAE

Academics Find Common Standards Fit for College

August 25, 2011 By J.R. Wilson

Academics Find Common Standards Fit for College
By Catherine Gewertz   August 25, 2011   Education Week

Ze’ev Wurman comments about this report in the comments section:

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I suspect the celebration is premature. The study is problematically designed and, even then, the results are not as reassuring as David Conley would have us believe. There are many issues with this study, and I will mention here only three.

1) While the sample of institutions was randomized, the responder within each institution was not. He or she was hand-picked by the institution’s liaison person. Nobody has any idea what biases this process introduced into the respondent pool — we only know that it was a truly terrible study design. And, of these hand-picked responders, only about 50% actually replied.

2) The study was very careful not to ask the $64,000 questions: (a) Do the standards reflect a sufficient level of preparation for your course, and (b) do the standards reflect a better, or a worse, level of preparation as compared to your current requirements? Instead the study asked about “coherent representation” of the subject, and about a “level of cognitive demand.” One can have a coherent representation of any subject, and even at a reasonable depth in certain areas, yet miss whole chunks of material. The form of the questions in the study seems targeted to maximize positive responses, as some coherence and depth is almost always present.

3) The study does not provide a breakdown by different type of institutions (2-year vs. 4-year) and courses, which makes the conclusions premature and probably misleading. For example, over 90% of responders answered the “coherence” question about the math standards, yet more than one third of them teach language and literature courses that have nothing to do with mathematics. Moreover, if one takes the almost 40%(!) that did not find the math standards “coherent,” and if we assume that the literature instructors are probably not those who mostly found the math standards incoherent, then the fraction of instructors of math-related courses who found the math standards incoherent jumps to somewhere between 55% and 60%! Not a resounding vote of confidence by anyone’s measure. The study avoids breaking down the results by course-type and college-type, which make crisp answers to such questions impossible.

Overall, however, I am not very surprised. This study was designed from the beginning to validate the Common Core standards, rather than to inquire after the appropriate meaning of being “college ready.” After all, the Common Core’s “college readiness” was pre-defined already two years ago (with little empirical evidence, I may add), the Common Core standards have been already written, the federal kitty for them already handed out and the train has already left the station. What other results would one expect under these circumstances?

Filed Under: Common Core State Standards

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Phone
  • Twitter

States Fighting Back

https://app.box.com/s/10nl1409mkaf00zzzuyf

CCSS Opt-Out Form

  • Click here to download the CCSS Opt-Out Form

Campbell’s Law

"The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor."

- Donald Campbell

Copyright © 2021 Truth in American Education · Developed & Hosted by 4:15 Communications, LLC.