Core vs. BS Tests
In US News, Robert Pondiscio of the Fordham thinky tank offers some reactions to the recentEducation Trust report on teacher assignments.
Pondiscio is no dummy-- he knows the report is essentially bunk, and he says so. The report, icymi, was a survey of assignments in six middle school classrooms in two urban districts, so not really a representative sample of much of anything. The report finds that mostly teachers are not giving assignments that "reflect the higher, more rigorous standards set by Common Core," and while the "research" is tissue-thin, the conclusion feels right to Pondiscio and others.
We could have a whole other discussion about whether or not the Core standards are higher or more rigorous (as well as a discussion about what those terms even mean). But for today, I'm going to let that go so that we can talk of why classrooms have not been transformed into the wonderland of higher order deep critical thinking that Core supporters were sure we'd have by now.
Pondiscio himself hits paydirt with this:
One veteran public school teacher and staff developer worries that we are paying the price for years of "de-professionalizing" the teacher work force. "'Do these things, use these moves and you'll be successful' – that's been the message to teachers for the past 15 years," she says. "Many teachers throw up their hands and say, 'Just tell me what you want me to do' or, 'Is this the right way?'"
Well, yes. One of the Fellow Travelers of Common Core has been the notion that classrooms can be teacher-proofed, and so we've had giant pieces of poo like EngageNY and it's "If It's Tuesday, You Must Be on Page Twelve" tightly wound instructional pacing.
This has been exacerbated by the sales approach taken by Core promoters, which can be CURMUDGUCATION: Core vs. BS Tests:
Do No Excuses Affect Academics?
Last week at the Fordham blogsite, Kevin Mahnken touted some meta-research about "No Excuses" schools and their affect on the math and language scores on the Common Core Big Standardized Test. Well, actually they claimed to be researching “’No Excuses’ Charter Schools: A Meta-Analysis of the Experimental Evidence on Student Achievement,” but when we're looking at this kind of research, it's important to always remember that "student achievement" just means "test scores on that one high stakes test that narrowly covers a standardized test version of math and reading."
I took a swipe at the research paper itself, because you know I would do almost anything for you guys. But it is tough going for those of us not schooled in the subtle art of meta-research. But I did manage to pull out a few bits.
First, although the meta-researchers started with what I believe is technically known as "a whole buttload" of research papers, through a long and laborious process, they narrowed those down to ten papers. Of those ten, four were only about no excuses schools, two were about types of charters including no excuses, and four weren't about no excuses at all. So, six paper in the meta-analysis? I'm no meta-analyst, but that seems meta-thin.
What conclusions did they reach?
No excuse schools do better than other charters at raising math and reading test scores. They are