WYBI: CCSS’s Ego Issues

We know the U.S. Dept. of Ed loves the CCSS, but find out how bloated their ego really is these days.
We know the U.S. Dept. of Ed loves the CCSS, but find out how bloated their ego really is these days.

What if I told you the U.S. Dept. of Ed had just completed studies to support MORE federal education overreach? Would you believe it?! Let’s find out how CCSS and the Next Generation stack up in this bloated ego atmosphere.

The Group Responsible:

I am not sure if you know this or not, but tucked into the U.S. Dept. of Ed. is an Institute for Evaluation pertaining to American education (just recently an international evaluation was published as well, but that’s another story). The official name of the Institute is the “Institute of Education Sciences”. Their website for today’s post: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/index.asp

The Tweet That Sent Me Off the Cliff:

Being an avid researcher, I get all kinds of Twitter news. One of Monday morning’s was a doozy. See for yourselves:

As seen on my CCDiva Twitter account 3/2/15.
As seen on my CCDiva Twitter account 3/2/15.

The Studies:

After seeing this bloated ego of a tweet, I HAD to find out what exactly I could discover about the continued overreach of the federal gov’t in education. So, using the above website address, I discovered the following:
NCEE (National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance) has come up with a “Next Generation of Rigorous Evaluations” The purpose? So schools and school leaders can raise student achievement levels. You’ll need to access the website for today’s post (above) to read for yourselves the other things that are stated. However, here’s one excerpt that will send you over the edge of that cliff, “In particular, the NCEE focuses on conducting rigorous impact studies of promising educational programs and practices that are supported through federal funds.”  Guiding the studies? Three questions. Yes, that’s right 3 questions. Those questions are:“What is the impact of the federal program on the intended outcomes?”; “Is the program model effective?”; and “Is a specific intervention (or class of interventions) effective?” By reading the rest of what the IES has been bragging about, you’ll find over 30 studies have been completed.

Directly related to CCSS and have been studied (or are in the process of) are:
1) Pathways to College and or Career, especially through the federally funded GEAR UP (see my previously published article from 11/14 about GEAR UP: https://commoncorediva.wordpress.com/tag/gear-up/) Conducting this study? Oh, another bloated CCSS ego group, AIR (as in American Institutes for Research) The amount of federal funds to support this study (which doesn’t expire until 2018) is over $6 million! (for all the details, http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/pathways_gearup.asp)

2) Striving Readers Program, especially as awarded to states for raising literacy through curriculum. I found a NV based You Tube tutorial demonstrating the ties of CC to SR. Watch it below:

If you’d like to see the 2010 Webinar for the Striving Readers and how funding was not only awarded, but CC thrown in the mix: webinar8262010  To see more about the NCEE’s study for SR, go to: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/assistance_readers.asp Be sure to take note of the amount of federal funding and how it’s split up.

3) Evaluation the “Nation’s Report Card” or NAEP. See: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_naep.asp This study’s all about the data collection and how achievement levels are treated. Study will expire in 2016.

4) Title I and II especially under the ESEA. See: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_titleI.asp

Over $13 million dedicated to studying what standards states are using, what assessments, and how even more data can be used, collected. All approved and funded by Congress. This study ends in 2018. Three different contractors got this study. I dare you to google them to see how ties to CCSS they are! For example, EdCount, LLC was the organization which created the accountability guides the CCSSO (Council of Chief State School Officers) used in each of the 50 states between 2003-2007. Partners include Pearson Publishing, AIR, and many others. (to see EdCount, LLC’s website for their partners/clients, visit: http://edcount.com/index.php/about/clients-and-partners Be sure to look at their ‘Services’ pages. You’ll be amazed at how much they do.

5) Implementing Assessments for Special Needs Students. See: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/disabilities_ideaimp.asp This study ended in 2011, cost the taxpayers of America, just over $2 million. Results? More outcome based education and ‘high standards’. I’ve included the final study report. You’ll especially need pages 72 and following where it is discussed that mandated standards are more common that IEPs. Get it: IDEAreport

For the Others:

There are other studies you’ll want to look at for yourselves. Try the Literacy Studies, the Math Studies, and the Teacher Studies. You won’t believe what you see! For example, in the Literacy Studies, under the “Evaluation for Reading Comprehension”. This Study was over $17 million to discover during its first year the reading curricula, “Reading for Knowledge”, showed NO positive growth. The Study’s quick to add that things did improve after the first year. When I searched for the said curricula I got the pro CCSS group “Amplify”. Gee whiz, another bloated ego. To access this Study and the others, use the same website address as in the beginning of this article and select your choice from the left hand menu.

Want to See More of the U.S. Dept. of Ed’s  Bloated Ego?

Then you’ll need to access their “What Works Clearinghouse”. The website: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

Begin with the “Practice Guides”, then “Interventions” (especially the one titled “Fast Track”, for emotionally disturbed little ones), if you want to see reviews of the absolute latest in research, go for the “Quick Reviews”, you’ll find studies for charter schools and college/career readiness and other ‘blasts of ego’. To get to all these, just use the left hand menu.

Closing:
When I searched for an appropriate image to start this article off with, I found the teacher at the chalk board to be excellent. However, the caption it should have attached is the original one which reads, “An inflated ego is like a balloon. Over fill it and it will explode.” Can’t say I’d mind seeing CCSS explode altogether.

On your mark, get set, explode!!
On your mark, get set, explode!!
Advertisements

2 thoughts on “WYBI: CCSS’s Ego Issues

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s