Common Core: We Hardly Knew Ye

Will the SS Common Core make it?
Tune in next legislative session.
Figure 1. (Wallpaperpin.com, 2013)

If you have been an educator for at least a year (less in some districts), you understand that the proverbial pendulum swings with a steadfast resolve in one direction, only to abruptly retreat. If education were a ship, everyone aboard would be seasick. If education were a business, it would be out of business, or apologizing to its customers for its trespasses, like many companies in the past. Flip-flopping is common—people and organizations make mistakes—, but the race to accept the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) juxtaposed to the growing cry to repeal them makes for some interesting policy shifts, and educators are just along for the ride. Is this flip flop the right one?

Education Week created a "Bill Status Tracker" to track introduced, passed, and defeated bills in states considering a repeal of the CCSS. While one would assume that the states considering a repeal are Southern, several are Midwestern: Indiana, Missouri, and Michigan (Minnesota and Nebraska never adopted the standards). The only Southern state actively attempting to repeal the CCSS is Alabama (Texas and Virginia never adopted the standards).

If you want to understand the growing interest in repealing the CCSS, you must look to the early years of the United States. Since McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), determining where federal authority ends and states' rights begin is a matter of interpretation (some call it opinion). Using the CCSS as a states' rights issue is a growing trend in many state houses around the country.

Proof that the dismantling of the CCSS is about states' rights and not directed toward the substantive parts of the standards, look no further than Alabama State Senator Dick Brewbaker, who said he favored the repeal of the CCSS because they placed "far too much reliance on other people developing our content standards" (Belanger, 2013). Although Alabama is a unique state, it is difficult to imagine that the CCSS does not focus on the needs of Alabama students.

The CCSS provides convenient ammunition for politicians who want to use education to fight an ideological battle. The difficult truth for most politicians is that the CCSS were overwhelmingly approved. "Forty-five states, the District of Columbia, four territories, and the Department of Defense Education Activity have adopted the [CCSS]" (Common Core, 2012). The misguided attack on the CCSS should be directed at Race to the Top (RttT).

It is RttT, not the CCSS, that has created a multitude of tests and an evaluation system that does not evaluate as much as it punishes. The strings, held mostly by the US Department of Education, are leveraged with money (NC received $400 million). As a result of accepting the money, many conditions had to be met by the state:

• Measures of Student Learning (Common Assessments) in all subjects,
• evaluations with an accountability component,
• among other conditions.

The loser, among this political game, are the students. While the CCSS are not perfect, they do represent an improvement in what most states developed as their curriculum. Perhaps most important are the critical thinking skills inherent in the standards, which are important, no matter the state. 

If states' rights seems like a flimsy excuse, consider the history: states' rights was used by Southern states to justify slavery and deny people their civil rights. It's only fitting that this argument be used to deny students in public schools an education.

References

Belanger, E. (2013, June 3). Common core: Roby proposal not enough to stop local repeal efforts, state senator says. Retrieved from http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/06/common_core_roby_proposal_not.html

Common Core State Standards Initiative (2012). In the states. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states

Wallpaperpin.com (2013, April 22). Waves best size wild in fantasy world. Retrieved from http://www.wallpaperpin.com/wallpaper/1280x1024/waves-best-size-wild-in-fantasy-world-15898.html

Bait and Switch: NC's Proposed Private School Voucher Bill

More noise, less substance. Figure 1. (Broome, 2013) 

Ideas about how to "fix" public education in North Carolina are as numerous as the cicadas this year and twice as loud. Tax credits for students with disabilities, evaluations tied to students' test scores, and the ending of teacher tenure are examples of some major overhauls proposed during the 2013-2014 legislative session. The latest in the ongoing effort to privatize education, under the guise of personal choice, is the private school voucher bill (House Bill 944) being considered by the General Assembly. Proponents say it's all about choice and outcomes, but opponents, like Rep. Chris Whitmire, say "it robs Peter to pay Paul" (Bonner, 2013).

If you are not aware of the private school voucher bill, below are the major provisions:

• qualifying parents receive a yearly $4200 voucher to be used at a private school of their choosing (H.R. 944, 2013)
• the voucher funds per-pupil spending at half the state public school per-pupil average (the state average is approximately $8400 per-pupil, at 2012-2013 levels) (H.R. 944, 2013 & Stephens, 2012)
• a two year program providing $10 million in funding the first year (vouchers for 2,000 students) and $40 million the second year (vouchers for an additional 7,000 students) (H.R. 944, 2013)
• only schools with 70 or more students must submit to a state audit (H.R. 944, 2013)
• no criminal background checks required for instructors as long as the highest ranking official submits to and passes a criminal background check (H.R. 944, 2013)
• no instructor is required to be Highly Qualified per Department of Public Instruction standards or licensed in the subject they teach (H.R. 944, 2013)
• enrolled students are not required to pass or prove proficiency in state-mandated tests (End-of-Grade, End-of-Course, or the Measures of Student Learning) (H.R. 944, 2013)

A cursory glance at the bill's provisions appear to provide impoverished families with some powerful options when it comes to their child's education. In essence, a parent can remove their child from a public school and place them in a private school.

This notion assumes three inherently destructive notions:

• private schools are better than public schools (only a private school can educate someone in poverty)
• a $4200 voucher is enough to cover the tuition of an accredited private school
• limited accountability makes for better outcomes

A long-held notion among the public is that private schools are better than public schools. This notion stems from the relationship we have with money. When we spend, we develop expectations. It is in a consumer's nature to demand value, to get the maximum return on every dollar spent. This being the case, one can assume that something one pays for must inherently be better than what one gets for free. This is true of clothes, food, and, in this case, education; however, the logic becomes unhinged when applied to public education. What appears free to most people is, of course, funded by tax dollars that averages to $8400 per pupil. If a family had to pay this out of pocket, the expectations and attitudes would be vastly different. The failing public school would become the expensive private school.

Private elementary, middle, and high schools also carry a currency that, on some level, mimics that of a private university. Private universities command a level of respect beyond that of  their public counterparts, regardless of any empirical data on ultimate educational outcomes of their graduates. If the importance of the term "private" seems disputable, consider the value our culture places on ivy league universities.

When operating under generalities and stereotypes, it is easy to assume that the excellence of any one private school extends to any private school. In the same regard, it is easy to assume that any failing public school must imply that all public schools are failures. This is part of a larger shift that assumes private enterprise can do anything faster, better, and cheaper than a public equivalent.

The bill makes additional assumptions in terms of cost. A sampling of 30 private schools' tuition in Forsyth County range from "several thousand dollars a year to more than $20,000" (Herron, 2013). Obviously, a family in poverty cannot afford to cover the difference.

Figure 2. (Barsotti, 2002)

Generalities concerning the value of a private school education combined with a voucher program that under funds the cost of a private school education creates an environment ripe for opportunist. The lure of $4200 per student, combined with minimal accountability, creates an opportunity for anyone with a notion to open a school a viable reason to do so.

While the detriment to public schools and students is a real possibility, what is perhaps worse is that a study of Florida's voucher program (the oldest in the nation) shows that those enrolled perform no better than those who stay in a traditional public school (Figlio, 2009). 

The real agenda being advanced by the private school voucher bill is much more sinister, despite the outward appearance of equity. The bill simply provides a means to remove students who are poor performers (usually those in poverty), place the students in unvetted schools, and slash per-pupil spending by half. This bill is founded on a false premise (private schools are better than public) and constructed with a false sense of choice. Who would have thought that education could become a bait-and-switch scam?

References

Barsotti, C. (Artist). (2002, July 15). I'm taking my voucher and going to circus school [Web Drawing]. Retrieved from http://www.condenaststore.com/-sp/I-m-taking-my-voucher-and-going-to-circus-school-New-Yorker-Cartoon-Prints_i8544117_.htm

Bonner, L. (2013, June 12). Private school vouchers at center of house budget debate. Retrieved from http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/06/12/2959542/private-school-vouchers-at-center.html

Broome, G. (Photographer). (2013, May 14). [Cicada peering at camera] [Web Photo]. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/05/14/science/14zimmer-span.html

Figlio, D. (2010, June). Competitive effects of means-tested school vouchers. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w16056

Herron, A. (2013, May 30). Questions remain over N.C. school voucher bill. Retrieved from http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/article_4a57b1b6-c8bc-11e2-8742-0019bb30f31a.html

Stephens, D. (2012, June 21). North Carolina ranks 45th in per-student spending on public schools. Retrieved from http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/06/21/2152602/north-carolina-ranks-45th-in-per.html

Online Learning: Evolving Niche or Hype?

Home sweet home. (2013)

Diogenes of Sinope, an ancient Greek philosopher, made it his life's mission to challenge customs, values, and social constructs. He purportedly lived in a giant jar or barrel to demonstrate his disgust for Greek values. While a homeless educator, like Diogenes, is not far from our current economic reality, what about a classroom-less educator? Do we currently live in a time when it is viable to challenge the operation of an institution deeply entrenched in our culture, to challenge the notion that you have to be in the classroom to learn? If a classroom-less education is a technical reality, does that make it culturally acceptable, or will proponents be steamrolled, like Diogenes, by conventions?

A recent blog post by Larry Cuban (2013), featured in the Washington Post, highlights the current divide between the traditional and the online education. Cuban (2013) suggests that the promise of online learning is similar to the "history of exaggerated claims for earlier technology." Cuban remarks that online learning tauts promise, but advocates of online learning offer no concrete proof such learning provides an advantage to the traditional classroom. Cuban (2013) reminds us to consider the hype of yore: "distance education, instructional television, and desktop computers."

It is not difficult to imagine that Larry Cuban has an antagonist. Michael Horn (2013), a contributor to Forbes, points out that Cuban's astute observations of technological hype plays no significant role in the current and future promise of online learning. Horn (2013) sees online learning as a supplement to teaching in the lower grades, with its full implications being felt in the secondary and postsecondary levels during the next decade, providing a student-centric approach that will "reinvent the learning model as we know it." Some of the shift is already here, according to Horn (2013), and more is on the way.

Cuban and Horn can agree on one aspect of the debate: how do we separate the chaff from the wheat when it comes to online education? Cuban (2013) suggests more study, while Horn (2013) assumes a marketplace approach with the best ideas winning. Both approaches sound laissez-faire.

It makes more sense to consider the issue from the middle rather than either extreme. Doing nothing is not an option since the online world has arrived in many classrooms. Committing limited resources to expensive and unproven technology seems equally illogical. The obvious solution lies in the hybrid or blended environment.

As Horn (2013) acknowledges, online learning is best done under the right conditions. It is difficult to imagine that a young child could be solely educated with present technology or without intense parental support. The parent must also be acutely aware of socialization. A traditional education provides a level of interaction hard to duplicate in an online environment that approximates a homeschool environment.

In the secondary and postsecondary environment, the necessity for socialization is somewhat negated by the assumption that prior schooling has provided needed interactions with peers; however, there is importance in collaboration that mimics the corporate or nonprofit world. Will online environments leave students unprepared for the "real world?"

Is our educational future like Spock's? (Abrams, 2009)

There are, however, advantages to an online education under certain circumstances. It should always be assumed that technology is not a panacea; it does not and can not solve all educational problems. For the student having problems in a traditional high school, an online education may provide an environment conducive to success. For the college student unable to afford a traditional college education, the price may be right, but are the skills equivalent?

Certain subjects seem conducive to the online classroom: could all the core subjects be taught online? Do you really need to be in a physical classroom to learn English, math, or science? Only time will prove or disprove the theory that an online environment is equal or superior to the traditional classroom. We can assume, however, that with current technology, many of the subjects requiring hands-on interactions are best accomplished in a real classroom. Reality, as we know it, cannot be simulated, yet.

Maybe the day will come when we put our children into pods, and computers will simulate learning experiences similar to the education a youthful Spock received in the Star Trek reboot. Maybe. To say this is the future might be akin to deciding that a giant jar makes for a good home. Until then, online learning will provide an important niche in the continuing evolution of education, but it does not provide all our educational needs.

References

(2013, June 7). [Web photo]. Retrieved from http://www.beyond-the-pale.co.uk/diogenes.htm

Abrams, J. (Producer), and Abrams, J. (Director). (2009). Star trek [Motion picture]. United States: Paramount Pictures.

Cuban, L. (2013, June 1). Online instruction for k-12 [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/online-instruction-for-k-12-part-1/

Horn, M. (2013, June 6). Avoid the hype: Online learning's transformational potential [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhorn/2013/06/06/avoid-the-hype-online-learnings-transformational-potential/