Common Core

I wrote a year ago about the Common Core: One More Year; that's the Common Core described as

The Common Core State Standards Initiative is an education initiative in the United States that details what K-12 students should know in English language arts and mathematics at the end of each grade. The initiative is sponsored by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and seeks to establish consistent education standards across the states as well as ensure that students graduating from high school are prepared to enter two- or four-year college programs or enter the workforce.

My concern has basically been that well-intentioned centralization tends to have consistent results -- as Larry Cuban (teacher/superintendent/blogger) puts it in giving what I think of as a Common Core context, On Centralization

Teachers have felt pressured to drop student-centered activities such as small group work, discussions, learning centers, and writing portfolios because such activities take away precious classroom time from standards-based curriculum and test preparation.

That was in October; I didn't even realize that in October, our own Superintendent Bowers was testifying that with Common Core prep, We are heading into the storm. Interesting. The terminology she's using is from Tuckman's stages of group development:

The Forming – Storming – Norming – Performing model of group development was first proposed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965, who maintained that these phases are all necessary and inevitable in order for the team to grow, to face up to challenges, to tackle problems, to find solutions, to plan work, and to deliver results. This model has become the basis for subsequent models.

Some of the fuss is simply the awkwardness of a big new set of mandates that will take time and lots of money to work out in detail; I doubt their value, I think the money (including the continuing expense of "performing") will be mostly wasted, but I wouldn't put too much stress on articles like Bizarrely complex Common Core math for America's children | The Daily Caller

Still, I do think Diana's phrasing showed prescience, and not just about the fact that we really don't know what we're doing (specifically we don't understand the world that we're educating our kids to live in): the storm has arrived, in more than Tuckman's terms. Common Core Curriculum Now Has Critics on the Left - NYTimes.com

Carol Burris, an acclaimed high school principal on Long Island, calls the Common Core a “disaster.”

“We see kids,” she said, “they don’t want to go to school anymore.”

Leaders of both parties in the New York Legislature want to rethink how the state uses the Common Core.

The statewide teachers’ union withdrew its support for the standards last month until “major course corrections” took place.

Centralized decision making might be great if the center had access to the necessary information. Perhaps someday it will, but I don't think we're there yet -- if we were, we'd probably be trying to develop something entrepreneur-oriented, something far from the Common Core as it now stands. For now, I'd just say that Hayek was right.

Enrollment Projections and Merger Alternatives

Downloaded today, December 8th, from the Cornell Program on Applied Demographics, is our problem (click for enlarged view):

As you can see, our school has been shrinking...but Cornell thinks that our shrinkage has pretty much reached an end, for the next several years. I don't know that they're including our currently most-since-1997 elementary enrollment or the Colgate-funded expansion of the nursery school, but I look at that graph and I think: that's a problem, yes. (At least it's a problem for the kind of school we now have, which I expect to be drastically modified in the next decade or two but not right now.) It's a problem. Are we desperate? No. Will we become desperate? We don't know...the graph doesn't go that far into the future, but we're sort-of-okay for a while. Do we have time to work on alternatives which (unlike the currently proposed merger) would actually save money? Yes.
And of course some of those alternatives would be mergers, possibly with Morrisville-Eaton under different circumstances (as I've proposed before) or possibly not -- or possibly with a couple of other schools at once, as Stanley Roe was reminding us in his letter to the Mid-York Weekly this week. None of those merger proposals would make me bubble over with happiness, but if they saved money, if they saved money in the long run, then I would almost certainly stop fussing with this blog.

same-day update: Carolyn looks more carefully and is confident that the recent expansion data is not included, so the graph should probably be given an uptick. Separately, Ken points out that if you go to the Cornell source and check the Madison and Morrisville-Eaton districts, you find that Madison's predicted to have more stable enrollment than M-E. Indeed, we should keep the whole region in mind for all the plans we consider, and I wasn't. Thanks!

Notes on Mid-York and NextDoor

  Yesterday (Thursday December 4) the Mid-York Weekly came out, with an advertisement version of the ABCs of HCS. There were also letters to the editor: our continuing commenter Wanda Berry; Alice & Peter Klepeis; Charlie Naef; Susanne Farrington; Stanley Roe.  In no particular order:

  Charlie, as former mayor, notes (as I have various times on this blog and elsewhere) that it would be possible to vote "yes" now and still vote against the merger later, concluding that "I haven't made up my mind how I would vote next February, but I don't want a determined minority to deny me and others that choice before we see a final proposal." I don't know who is in the minority here, I really just don't know -- but in fact we have seen the final proposal. The final proposal is to merge and have a single Board of Education which will then decide where all the students will go, how much in local taxes they'll ask for from all members of the combined community, and so forth. (We've also seen a "merger plan" which will very likely be followed for the first year or so, which doesn't save money because there doesn't seem to be any way to do that while complying with state mandates.) If there's some detail that Charlie wants to wait for, something which the DoE would provide but only after our December 10th vote, then now is the time to say so. His letter is the first time I've seen anyone suggesting that some such detail might exist, and I have no idea what that detail might be. (I would be happy to put up guest posts from him or from other merger supporters explaining this.)

  Alicia & Peter, like Stanley and like Susanne, are concerned with transportation both in terms of cost and in terms of quality of life. Well, yes -- if Morrisville and Hamilton were in walking distance, we'd have merged. :-) And if transportation were cheaper, so that the merger proposal represented an actual opportunity to save on costs and therefore improve district financial stability and long-run student opportunities, then I personally would still be regretfully supporting the merger, despite the quality-of-life and community damage and loss of real estate value and blah blah blah. But transportation is a big cost, in financial and in human terms, much bigger than I thought at the beginning -- so I'm with them on this.

  And back we go to Wanda, who says that HCS was "too small a social pool" for her daughters, and I sympathize...but I don't think this would help much. My three adult sons seem to have formed life-long friendships at HCS, friendships based on year after year of shared experiences of classes and athletics and music and theatre, experiences linked by walking (e.g., to after-school music lessons), by bikes, by (short) car rides to bring groups together. A week ago, walking back from PriceChopper, I was offered "a ride and an update" which included the information that my daughter-in-law, graduate of a high school in Athens, will soon be visiting his daughter on the west coast; HCS friendships don't just last, they spread. (They did attend one another's weddings, in Greece and in Hamilton.) Would my kids be better off if we'd been merged with Morrisville? Maybe, but I don't think so. As Carolyn Hsu (I think) was noting at ABCs of HCS (A), research indicates that the merged district "would be more likely to segregate internally into cliques." We get enough of that already.

  Wanda also objects to the thought that Hamilton and Morrisville-Eaton voters have made different choices, calling it "exceptionalism". She wants centralization, so that everybody has to make the same choices. Well, sure: people who want to make everybody makes the same choices should generally vote for centralization. I am not that confident that my choices are right for everybody else -- and I'm not that confident that my views will prevail in a more centralized district, where (from the CAC experience) about half the voters would apparently want the high school inside Hamilton and the other half would want it 3.5 miles north of Morrisville and one side has to win and the other side has to lose and in the end it depends on turnout. I don't like win/lose, even when it's me winning and the other guys losing. And I really, really, really don't care that the merged district would include the geographical center of the state. I'm sorry, I just don't care. People who care a lot about that should certainly consider voting for the merger.

  On nextdoor.com, Wanda comments on the Ellen Larson letter that also appeared here, saying "Perhaps our main difference is that I am less frightened of democracy." I was a bit distressed; the two-district system that Ellen supports is exactly as democratic as the one-district system she opposes, so this comes off as a piece of gratuitous nastiness. Ellen is probably opposed to motherhood and apple pie, as well. Well, perhaps it's a typo: perhaps Wanda meant to say "Perhaps our main difference is that I am less frightened of centralization." That would be true. Centralization is good and bad, and it's an issue that pervades almost everything we do. It was the center, so to speak, of one of my first blog posts, years ago. My ideal school system might have no administrators on-site because all those functions can be centralized right out of the building...even some teaching functions can be centralized. But most can't, or at least shouldn't be. If we centralize in the sense of this merger, then the new school board will do its democratic best, but it will no longer be possible for different communities to make different choices...and we won't be saving money, either. So I'm agin it, personally....and Wanda's not. (Would it be better to say Professor Wanda Berry and of course Professor Charles Naef, and similarly refer to my co-bloggers Professor Carolyn Hsu and Professor Heather Roller along with Dr. Ellen Larson on the other side? I don't think so, indeed Carolyn is the only one with relevant qualifications, but then my own PhuD is surely more irrelevant than any of theirs; I've never understood people very well. Let it be noted that many of us, with and without academic credentials, are thinking hard, and each of us has a vote. Hooray for democracy! (No, I'm not being sarcastic. May we collectively do the right thing.))

Timeline for Votes &c

A new page on the Google site: Centralization Schedule (Hamilton Central Options)

If the merger goes through, here is the schedule for it, downloaded from the Superintendent's blog...

Many people may want to refer to that schedule more than once; it's easier as an HTML file at "https://sites.google.com/site/hamiltoncentraloptions/home/centralization-schedule" than as a doc file to download.
At least for some of us.

On Centralization

Larry Cuban's teacher blog, which often discusses historical trends in teaching, notes the context of the Common Core at Competing Traditions of Teaching: An Old Story Written Anew | Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice

Since the early 1990s, however, states have embraced standards-based reforms, accountability measures, and mandated testing peaking with No Child Left Behind in 2001. How, then, in the past two accountability-driven decades have most teachers organized instruction, grouped students, and taught lessons?

For those who listen to teachers, the answer is self-evident. Classroom stories and teacher surveys have reported again and again that more lesson time is spent preparing students for high-stakes tests. And what is taught has narrowed to what appears on tests.

Such stories and surveys describe classroom instruction, particularly in largely poor and minority schools, as more teacher-centered, focused on meeting prescribed state standards and raising test scores. Teachers have felt pressured to drop student-centered activities such as small group work, discussions, learning centers, and writing portfolios because such activities take away precious classroom time from standards-based curriculum and test preparation.

I think this is in line with Yong Zhao's discussion; centralization (and the high-stakes testing which holds it together) tends to conflict with letting students develop as self-directed learners/citizens.

Or then again, maybe not.

The US is Not Really #1 Yet...Fortunately

More on Yong Zhao's case against US educational "reform" trends (I've mentioned him here and here) at Be Glad for Our Failure to Catch up With China in Education | Psychology Today

Our schools are better than China’s because ours don’t work as well as theirs.

For more than 20 years we’ve had national educational goals aimed at emulating the Chinese (and Japanese and Korean) educational system. We’ve been working toward more centralization of control, more standardization of curricula and methods, and more student time in the classroom and at homework, all in an effort to produce higher scores on standardized tests. ...

You might think the Chinese educational leaders would be happy that their kids are scoring so high on these international competitions. But they’re not. ... At the same time that we are continuing to try to be more like them, they are trying—though without much success so far—to be more like us, or like we were before we began trying so hard to be like them. They see that their system is quashing creativity and initiative, with the result that it produces decent bureaucrats and number crunchers, but very few inventors and entrepreneurs.

The columnist is psychologist Peter Gray; his alternative reform direction is interesting, to put it mildly. I should write about that.

The Industrial-Factory Model

A large part of what I've learned over the past year is that when it comes to education, we really really don't know what we're doing, but we can be pretty sure that it's not the right thing. Last week I saw the NY Times with Teachers - Will We Ever Learn? - NYTimes.com

Call it the industrial-factory model: power resides at the top, with state and district officials setting goals, providing money and holding teachers accountable for realizing predetermined ends. While rational on its face, in practice this system does not work well because teaching is a complex activity that is hard to direct and improve from afar. The factory model is appropriate to simple work that is easy to standardize; it is ill suited to disciplines like teaching that require considerable skill and discretion.

I'm not sure I agree with most of that essay, but the part I've quoted should go further...the factory model is ill-suited to teaching and to learning, and top-down direction and incentives are based on a theory of motivation which is not just unsupported but discredited by experimental data available since before I was born. (I'm 60.)

Federal yes-and-no

The American Enterprise Institute has interesting opinions and lengthy arguments on What Uncle Sam can (and cannot) do to improve K–12 schooling: Lessons for the next four years

We believe that federal policymakers are uniquely well-suited to put particular education issues on the national agenda, tackle discriminatory practices that violate constitutional protections, push states to adopt cut-and-dried policies like annual assessment or data disaggregation, and promote transparency by collecting data and requiring states to report on student achievement. At the same time, Washington is ill-suited to change what happens in schools or classrooms and to compel state and local officials to conscientiously do things they are not inclined to do. Attempts to mandate school improvement models, teacher evaluation frameworks, professional development, or other interventions that depend on the skill and commitment with which they are implemented are likely to disappoint for the same reasons that have hampered even the best-laid federal plans for “fixing” schools.

I'm not convinced by much of it -- in fact it's not at all the infrastructure focus I'd choose for Federal policy, but it's worth reading.

Common Core: One More Year

I've mentioned Yong Zhao and his book, and his thesis that American entrepreneurial success (in business and in science) has been in substantial part a result of our schools' failure in the perpetual institutional quest to squelch creativity. He has Five Questions to Ask about the Common Core, and he fears that

the world of American education may end in 2014, when the Common Core is scheduled to march into thousands of schools in the United States and end a “chaotic, fragmented, unequal, obsolete, and failing” system that has accompanied the rise of a nation with the largest economy, most scientific discoveries and technological inventions, best universities, and largest collection of Nobel laureates in the world today. In place will be a new world of education where all American children are exposed to the same content, delivered by highly standardized teachers, watched over by their equally standardized principals, and monitored by governments armed with sophisticated data tools.

I doubt that the chaos will end, but he has convinced me that the Common Core is likely to do somewhat more harm than good. In educational practice as in home repair, it's all too easy to fix something so that it never quite works again.
Or then again, maybe not.