Tag Archives: AERA

A Monumental “Crush”

Anti Fed Ed Warriors, as promised in my last article, a close up look at Maryland’s education system. Remember, Marc Tucker dropped a huge hint about this in that 4/23/19 seminar promoting his new book.
I highlighted his comments about it below:
423roundBefore we get too much further, I wanted to see if MD was about the size of any of the “Tucker approved” Top Performing Countries he’s so convinced we need to copy.

After all, since the CCSS Machine is going to such lengths to make us global, we will need to see what’s in store. Can we find any clues as to HOW Maryland is about to become a national show-off?

Estonia:

I found Estonia is about the size of MD. (Estonia is #2 on the Tucker list). If you aren’t sure about Estonia’s education system, I found out it’s a ministry of the government.
Officially called the Republic of Estonia’s Ministry of Education and Research.
If you’re curious about how their school system works, the Ministry has put together a ‘cutesy’ video.

If you look around their website, a bit, the Estonian Ministry has more information. Like their ‘lifelong learning’ plan.

estlife
Warriors, if you notice, ages 65 and up are not included in this 2020 Plan. Why? Those older than 64 are encouraged to become ‘working pensioners’. According to their plan for seniors, you’ll need to still be a productive and contributing member of society, but the government will provide some of your income. You are still expected to go to school, too.
(If you look in the Estonia 2020 Plan’s definitions, you’ll find out all the difference locations the country counts as ‘schools’.)
The Plan for seniors is NOT a Estonia one, my followers. This ‘senior plan’ is called the Madrid International Plan of Action on Aging (MIPAA). The UN adopted this back in 2002.

Going back to education in Estonia and what possibly could be found in Maryland, ‘the village’ concept is applied there. I didn’t see a school board mentioned once. I did see a village/community based commission. These are designed to keep school creative and learning centered.

You’ll also find that Estonia is big on ‘school choice’. The ‘choice’ is largely funded by the government. Will we find this in Maryland, too? Warriors, we know the federal government, here in the US, is pushing for billions of taxpayer dollars for funding ‘choice’.

Maryland And Estonia: 

MDES
Warriors, you’re seeing correctly. MD and Estonia have been partners since the early days following The Cold War.

In 2009, The MEEC (Maryland/Estonia Exchange Council) increased its efforts in education.

(*Note: if you wish to see the long list of overreaches into many school choices the OTHER MEEC (Maryland Education Enterprise Consortium) has, go here.)
************************************
Not too terribly long before America was given the WIOA of 2014, (Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014), MD and Estonia signed an agreement to mutually share education and workforce programs.

2013meec
(Source)

Maryland And Marc Tucker:

Warriors, Tucker, himself, was bragging (just the other day) on how MD is soon to be in the national news.
So, when did he visit MD? EdWeek has a 2017 article Marc Tucker wrote about his appearance in their legislature. His entire point? Revolutionizing education funding for the 21st Century.

In this 2018 Report from the Commission on Innovation and Excellence in EducationTucker’s name appears 16 times. You’ll also see Linda Darling- Hammond and Dr. Chester Finn’s names, too. If you search the over 100 pages, you’ll see that Tucker spoke on every one of his 9 Blocks for Maryland. (see below in “Related Resources”, I illustrated the 9 Blocks). From this Report, it appears the Commission had been meeting since 2016.

In 2018, the Baltimore Sun published an article where the Commission on Innovation and Excellence in Education was struggling with how to address ‘at risk’ students. Among the ‘solutions’ was RtI, Response to Intervention. RtI is part of the mental health grab you’ll find in ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act). Tucker’s name appeared in this article as well.

Also from 2018, Johns Hopkins School of Education published a 16 page report on how flawed Tucker’s system was (and still is). The irony is that Johns Hopkins is also in the CCSS Machine.

The EPI (Economic Policy Institute) heavily criticized Marc Tucker’s earlier workforce based reform system for education. This Report is from 2007.

Below, is a screen shot of the MD Advocates for Children and Youth organization. They featured regular updates on the Commission Tucker was a consultant for. They even have a 2019 Legislative look at all the Commission’s findings which have passed in their State legislature. No wonder Marc Tucker’s excited MD is about the ‘rock the nation’.
mdadvocate

Related Resources:

1) From 2018, Seattle Education shared Missouri Education Watchdog’s article all about Marc Tucker’s design for ‘education’ in America.

2) If, you’re like me and won’t be buying Tucker’s new book, but wonder what his ‘9 Blocks’ for ‘high performance’ education are: 

blockhead

3) From MD, their 2018 education accomplishments. If you watched to Estonia video, what you’ll read here, sounds very close. The MEEC (Ed Enterprise) is on Page 21, Estonia is on Page 4, among the countries MD students virtually interact with. The grant for this came from the Humanities arm of the Maryland government. You’ll see here that one county in MD (Montgomery) allotted $25,000.00 in FY 2019 for the Sister States School Linkage Program”. (*Note: look on page 67-11. Does your State have a “Sister States program? Does it have a “Sister Cities” program? DYK?Sister Cities International was founded in 1956 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower as an adaptation of the popular European concept of “twinning” that emerged after World War II. It was established as a way of promoting good will and creating enduring peace between formerly warring countries.’ Source)

4) From 2007, Tucker’s paper on increasing workforce based education. It was published by ASCD.

5) American Educational Research Assoc. (AERA) interviewed Tucker in 2015 (about a month before ESSA became law) take a look back at his words & compare to where we are now, in 2019.

6) WIOA (Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act) embedded 21 different instances for CTE (Career Tech Education) and its CPs (Career Paths), it also embedded the Dept. of Defense 16 times. Why? Funds for workforce education to be extended to the military.
The same military which, not only, aligned itself to the CCSS Machine, but STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and, Math). STEM is a UN (United Nations) tool to create global workforce, education, and, economy.
How does this impact our topic for today’s article? The National Guard Distance Learning Program is funded through WIOA. The National Guard is also part of the MD/Estonia partnership.

meec

7) If you’ve heard of the ERI (European Reassurance Initiative), it was originally proposed back in 2014. Part of the funding for ERI (which a portion goes to Estonia) is used for ‘support in programs, activities, and assist the government’.

While education is not mentioned, workforce training isn’t either. However, we have no documentation to show HOW the funds are divided, once they get to the intended country. So, the question is: does any of our federal funding go to be used for aligning education and workforce somewhere else to be returned to us in educratic reform campaigns by the likes of Marc Tucker?! Long-time Anti Fed Ed Warrior, Charlotte Iserbyt sounded the “NO! Marc Tucker” alert in this article.

8) From 2015, Marc Tucker’s ‘love’ for Estonia shows his true colors: Russian and Germanic education models. Warriors, read the article, and you’ll see it’s not simply education we should be concerned about, it’s our entire nation. If data mining in education bothers you, read how Estonia’s a master at using all that data.

9) Dr. Karen Salmon celebrated MD’s alignment to global education in this Feb. 2019 update:


salmon

In this Aug. 2018 MD Dept. of Education meeting notes, you’ll see Dr. Salmon’s future plan for use of data on Page 3.

The “Lead Higher Initiative” is in place to create “Next Generation High Schools”.

10) Warriors, any guess as to how much Tucker’s influence in MD’s education will cost the taxpayers (State wide and Nationally)? $725 million dollars…and the Plan is being fast-tracked through the MD legislators.

11) If you missed Gov. Hogan’s 2020 Presidential information, go here.

Closing:

Warriors, that’s it. My two-day look at one of the worst Americans I can happily say I will never meet in person. He is dangerous to our children, to us, and to our nation. We know he is not alone in the destruction of our land. He’s not alone in his quest to kill real education. We’ve got somewhat of a leg up on beating the news Tucker’s been gloating about as ‘the other half of the bigger picture’ in American education reform.

fire
We need to roar, Warriors!

Now, let’s EXPOSE it, so we can steal his thunder. If any of you know someone in MD, let’s get the word to them. 

Advertisements

Hiding Behind the Tests

Warriors Against the Core, with school back in session (or just about to be back in session), we know assessments are on everyone’s minds.

Tests, assessments, check-ups, quizzes, and whatever else these measurement tools are being called have been the bane of our educational system since Outcome Based Education via the Common Core State Standards rolled out.

We’ve read countless headlines, participated in numerous opt-out movements, held our children as they cried about these ‘wicked weapons’ used against them, and cursed the CCSS Machine for being so cruel.

So, what more could I possible share with you that might help our efforts to END the mindful abuse?

In digging through some ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act) resources, I found an organization which has been researching not only assessments, but education in America for the past 100 years. That’s right, since 1916, our education has been studied by an organization not too far removed from the federal government.

**What follows is an in-depth look at one mammoth organization.

Enter, American Educational Research Association (AERA):

Website: http://www.aera.net/
From their “About Us” page, this excerpt, “founded in 1916, is concerned with improving the educational process by encouraging scholarly inquiry related to education and evaluation and by promoting the dissemination and practical application of research results.”

Look at bit further into who is involved with AERA and you will find a mixed bag of public-private groups, testing companies, non-profits, federal and state agencies, as well as international organizations. (see the rest: http://www.aera.net/About-AERA/Who-We-Are) (If you would like to see some of the AERA members and their accomplishments, see:
http://www.aera.net/Membership-Achievements) *Note, you need to not only look at the names but what these folks are doing in education. For example, Linda Darling-Hammond was among 3 educational women to be named as one of the 2015 “18 Women Everyone Should Know in K-12 Education”.

As far as the leadership behind AERA? Currently, the ties extend to the NSF (National Science Foundation, a huge CCSS/STEM supporter); The American Bar Foundation (yes, I have found CCSS ties to the American Bar Association); the University of PA; and the University of Michigan. In the recent past, the leadership has been from the Ford Foundation ( a huge CCSS, CTE, STEM financer). Even further back in the leadership, you will find Linda Darling-Hammond (1995-96), Harvard University ties (2000-2001), and a host of other universities we now know which have been a part of the CCSS Machine. Oh, and AERA has lots of SIGs (Special Interest Groups).

The programs AERA has? Those include educational research communications, advocacy, making sure any government legislation impacting education has their input (especially to preserve the scientific parts), professional development for educators, AND social justice issues. See: http://www.aera.net/About-AERA/Key-Programs

As far as AERA and the future of educational research? Here is an excerpt I found on their 2017 Annual Conference theme page, “As we begin AERA’s second century, the theme of the 2017 Annual Meeting is a call to examine these critical dimensions of educational opportunity and rigor in research as they pertain to the diversity of issues, populations, and contexts served in and by educational inquiry. These range from young children to their parents and families, from PreK-12 to postsecondary education and adult learning, from affluent districts to financially struggling schools, and from immigrant to low-income communities within urban and rural settings alike. They are studied in large datasets and in field studies, and through multiple methods, including qualitative approaches, experimental designs, and discourse analyses. They are investigated in both vastly different and complementary theories of learning, human development, literacy, sociolinguistics, and culture, and within different contexts. They are connected to race, language, and gender, and are embedded in systemic inequalities. Finally, they exist alongside enormous technological innovation, new approaches to studying diverse and historically underserved populations, refinement of existing methodologies, recurrent policy revisions, and the wide reach of global exchanges.” To see the rest (and you really should):
http://www.aera.net/Events-Meetings/Annual-Meeting

Bring on the Assessments Research!

Among the SIGs (Special Interest Groups), you will find the following organizations:
a) SIG #18, Classroom Assessments, their website: http://www.aera.net/SIG018/Classroom-Assessment-SIG-18 (Key contact, University at Albany – SUNY)

b) SIG #167, Cognition and Assessment, their website:
http://www.aera.net/SIG167/Cognition-and-Assessment-SIG-167 (Key contact, University of Georgia)

c) SIG #22, Computer and Internet Applications in Education, their website:
http://www.aera.net/SIG022/-Computer-and-Internet-Applications-in-Educ-SIG-22
(Key contact, the University of South Florida)

d) SIG #179, Data-Driven Decision Making in Education, their website:
http://www.aera.net/SIG179/Data-Driven-Decision-Making-in-Education-SIG-179
(Key contact, WestEd)

e) SIG #56, The John Dewey Project, their website:
http://www.aera.net/SIG056/Dewey-Studies-SIG-56

f) SIG #96, Inclusion & Accommodation in Educational Assessment, their website:
http://www.aera.net/SIG096/IAEA-SIG-96
(Key contact, Anne Davidson)

g) SIG #141, Large Scale Assessment, no website or contact information. The purpose, however, ‘To provide a forum for discussion of the status, issues, and concerns related to large-scale assessment, including practices and innovations in state assessment programs.’

h) SIG #63, Longitudinal Studies, their website:
http://www.aera.net/SIG063/Longitudinal-Studies-SIG-63
(Key Contact, CA State University, Los Angeles at Long Beach)

i) SIG #64, Measurement and Assessment in Higher Education, their website:
http://www.aera.net/SIG064/Measurement-and-Assessment-in-Higher-Education-SIG-64
(Key contact, University of IL at Urbana-Champaign)

j) SIG #99, NAEP Studies, no website information. Key contact, the California Dept. of Education. However, the purpose is as follows, “To facilitate secondary analysis of the National Assessment of Educational Progress ongoing surveys regarding U.S. students knowledge, attitudes and experiences in diverse learning areas.”

k) SIG #83, Rasch Measurement, their website: http://www.raschsig.org/
(Key contact, University of Memphis)

l) SIG #90, Research on Evaluation, their website: http://www.aera.net/SIG090/Research-on-Evaluation-SIG-90
(Key contact, University of TX at El Paso)

m) SIG #151, Technology as an Agent of Change  in Teaching and Learning, their website:
http://www.aera.net/SIG151/SIG-By-Laws *Note: be sure to click on the “By-Laws” to see exactly what purpose this SIG is seeking to accomplish.
(Key contact, George Mason University)

n) SIG #72, Test Validity Research and Evaluation, their website:
http://www.aera.net/SIG072/Test-Validity-Research-and-Evaluation-SIG-72
(Key contact, University of Nebraska at Lincoln)

Warriors, I urge you to investigate AERA’s SIG list on your own. Why? Social emotional learning research, whole school reform research, workforce learning research, special needs education research, and so much more! See: http://www.aera.net/About-AERA/Member-Constituents/SIGs/SIG-Directory/First/A/Last/Z

So Are There CCSS Machine/ESSA Ties to AERA?

Absolutely! From an undated AERA Press Release, this excerpt, “Among the AERA members who contributed their research perspectives and expertise were Bridget Hamre, University of Virginia; Steve Hurlburt, American Institutes for Research; Steven Tozer, University of Illinois at Chicago; Mark Schneider, American Institutes for Research; Shaun Harper, University of Pennsylvania; Robert Balfanz, Johns Hopkins University; Gary Miron, Western Michigan University; Laura Perna, University of Pennsylvania; Michael Olivas, University of Houston Law Center; Yasmin Kafai, University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education; Richard Ingersoll, University of Pennsylvania; Deborah Loewenberg Ball, University of Michigan; Anthony Bryk, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; and Bryan Hassel, Public Impact.”

What about all those universities? Aren’t they part of the CCSS Machine? Warriors, from my research I have been able to connect several colleges and universities across America as part of the CCSS Machine in one way or another.

I invite you to contribute any anti CCSS Warrior knowledge about ANY of the colleges/universities in this article. A simple way to see if an educational institution you suspect as tied to the CCSS Machine, is to get to their main website page (or, in the case of it being a university, go to their college of education’s main page). Type in ‘Common Core’ (or any of the code phrases you know are connected).

For example, my favorite college football team is from the University of GA (you saw them above in the SIG projects). In less than 1 minutes, I found almost 2,000 resources on GA’s main search page.

These public universities are perfect hiding places for the CCSS Machine to ‘improve’ the CCSS into the now famous CCR (College and Career Readiness); the “Next Generation”; the STEM to STEAM; the CTE (Career Tech Education), and on and on. Many privately funded educational post-secondary institutions are also in this mix. No educational offering should be considered safe anymore.

Remember, the public-private partnerships and their money grease the cogs in the CCSS Machine. It is our job to find as many wrenches to throw into those cogs!

To see what OTHER CCSS Machine member groups AERA works with, belongs to, contributes among: http://www.aera.net/Research-Policy-Advocacy/Coalition-Partners

To see AERA’s Position Paper on High Stakes Assessmentshttp://www.aera.net/About-AERA/AERA-Rules-Policies/Association-Policies/Position-Statement-on-High-Stakes-Testing
*Note, their position is based on a 2000 publication.

To see how AERA is supportive of the ESSA, AERA ESEA Rulemaking Comments
*Note: Much of AERA’s comments circle around the States and Title One. In the ESSA language, Title One is definitely tied to the assessments and these assessments are mandates from the Federal government.

Mentioned in the AERA comments is the “Common Rule”, to see what AERA is doing for the “Common Rule” for researching education (as well as their other research pet projects in the ESSA era), http://www.aera.net/Research-Policy-Advocacy/Issues-and-Initiatives

aeraessa

If you would like to see a recent AERA Research Report on how ‘great’ measuring non academic skills is and should be, see: http://www.aera.net/Newsroom/Recent-AERA-Research/Measurement-Matters-Assessing-Personal-Qualities-Other-Than-Cognitive-Ability-for-Educational-Purposes  *Note: be sure to delve into their OTHER recent research, you’ll need to see the alignment to the CCSS Machine.

Our last tie to the CCSS Machine? You had to know this Foundation would show up at some point:
The Gates Foundation, 2013, granted AERA $250,000.00. See the purpose of the grant: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2013/05/OPP1091034

Closing:

Anti CCSS/ESSA Warriors, there is plenty here to use as weapons of truth in our local fights. Use only what you need, share the other portions. It may seem a bit overwhelming, but when you divide a mammoth organization’s CCSS Machine ties among several like-minded Warriors, it makes light work.

We MUST use this information! Assessments, data mining, and using our educators and students as guinea pigs for research is unacceptable.

exittest

Sic’ ‘Em Saturday: Using Community Colleges for More ‘Core’

It’s not new news that community colleges are Common Core aligned via either their ‘dual enrollment’ courses (which serve high school students) or the Career Pathways/Career Clusters tracks. However, I have found a new document that gives 21 ways to make the bonds of the CC even STRONGER.

SREB, Southern Regional Education Board:

“The Southern Regional Education Board works with 16 member states to improve public education at every level, from pre-K through Ph.D. A nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, SREB was created in 1948 by Southern governors and legislatures to advance education and improve the social and economic life of the region. Member states are Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.”

I’ve written about SREB a few times before. so I know how supportive of CCSS they are. Recently, the entity has published a Community College Report. Titled “Community Colleges in the South: Strengthening Readiness and Pathways” The work going into this is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

As I normally do, I’ll only give you the highlights from the document. You can access the entire document from here to research on your own. What if you live outside of the SREB’s domain? I’ll be sure to show you how to find the Regional Education entity in your area by the time we’re through.

Point #1:
Community colleges are essential to achieving state goals — increasing educational achievement of the population, increasing access and completion, eliminating achievement gaps, closing opportunity gaps, and addressing workforce and economic development objectives. These complex institutions are also flexible, adaptable, affordable, community-based, user friendly and proximate to the state’s population.”

Point #2:
“Community colleges serve students, employers and communities.” (think P3 involvement on hyper-drive)

Point #3:
“SREB’s Community College Commission met several times during 2013 and 2014 to recommend policies and practices to increase students’ college and career readiness through effective community college and K-12 pathways. Composed of community college system leaders, legislators, national experts and others.” Below, are the numbers the Report provided:
SREBcommunitycollege

Point #4:
“In an effort to tighten the connection between state goals and funding, approximately half of the states in the nation are moving to outcomes-based funding. In states such as Ohio, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, Tennessee and Washington, state support — all or in part — is derived from a funding formula with metrics specifically designed for community colleges. Program designs in most states would reward institutions on a range of measures, including rewards for students who reach momentum points such as successful completion of a specified number of credits, transfers, success with underserved populations and at-risk students, completion of STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) programs, as well as completion of certificates and degrees. Programs with higher rates of completion receive incentive funding for contributing to a state’s educational attainment goal. Although now used widely, outcomes-based funding is still controversial…”

Point #5:
Addressing the admittance policies that could be changed, “The urgency to redesign both placement and developmental education is fueled recently by the impending, new college- and career-readiness standards and associated assessments being implemented by most states. These nationwide standards and assessments are more rigorous, especially with respect to reading and writing, and the more demanding assessments most likely will publicly reveal a much more severe readiness problem. To these points, the recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 12th grade achievement-level results for literacy and math — which apply performance expectations empirically linked to college success and to the new common readiness standards — show that only 38 percent of students perform at or above the Proficient level in reading, and 26 percent perform at the Proficient level in math. Hence, these placement and remedial challenges must be addressed so that colleges and students come closer to meeting the postsecondary completion goals set by most states…” 

Point #6:
“….emphases in the emerging new common college readiness standards, there is a growing call to address the fundamental and logical importance of students being able to read with comprehension moderately complex texts across a variety of content areas.”

Point #7:

Regarding math readiness, “In fact, numerous examples in postsecondary education (public and independent) have resolved this issue by requiring math other than college algebra (or precalculus) as a free-standing degree requirement. For non-STEM majors, many institutions accept, for degree credit, math courses such as finite math, introductory statistics, contemporary math and quantitative reasoning. It is thought that the logical and critical reasoning and thinking skills required for a degree — for future careers and perhaps for successful study in other areas of the curriculum — can be nurtured through rigorous engagement in these courses. The four major math associations (American Mathematical Society, American Statistical Association, Mathematical Association of America, and Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics) will issue recommendations this year that college algebra no longer be a general education course requirement.” Not much further down the page the discussion of which math areas would be considered as alternatives, “The construction and implementation of these new approaches to developmental education centering on these courses is proceeding through the work of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching’s Quantway and Statway projects and the New Mathways Project from the Charles A. Dana Center at the University of Texas.”

Point #8:
“…placement and readiness evaluation tend to identify and assess literacy skills based on students’ abilities to read texts of moderate- to lower-level complexity, within a narrow range of academic disciplines. Too often, these evaluations do not challenge students’ abilities to read and understand academic or technical texts, or to analyze and explain their meaning in writing. This ability to read more complex text in many subjects is critical to students’ abilities to succeed in postsecondary education. For example, the most commonly used placement tests, Accuplacer and Compass, use relatively simple texts and writing prompts. The lack of challenging literacy readiness standards and assessments explain why math skills have been viewed as the area which most contributes to the readiness problem.” Not too far down the page, “Moreover, many state K-12 systems have adopted new literacy standards, such as the Common Core State Standards and others, that are based on the deep and effective reading of complex information texts across different disciplines and the ability to engage in expository writing that parallels the higher text complexity.”

Point #9:
“Public schools need the direct support of community colleges to meet the immense readiness challenge. Community colleges need to lead in making more students ready for postsecondary education, especially in supporting systematic high school efforts to raise achievement in literacy and math skills. Community colleges need to engage in the following activities jointly with local public schools:  *Send specific, concrete messages about the literacy and math readiness skills needed.  *Support the need for junior-year readiness assessments based on specific readiness skills and standards*Support the provision and required enrollment of students in 12th grade bridge or transition courses based on the literacy and math readiness skills. These courses should be taken by students assessed as not ready by the junior-year assessments and provide a way to move developmental education from the community colleges to K-12.  *Provide concrete, actual examples of first-year community college course work to high schools. SREB will use its convening and advocacy capacity to bring together groups of states to address these recommendations; in light of the controversial nature of the recommendations…”
Point #10:
“One of the most underutilized strategies to support student degree completion is the emphasis on a well-defined, rather narrow pathway that students should adhere to in order to complete an associate or bachelor’s degree in a timely manner.” Not long after you read this, you’ll read this, “A structured guided pathway is an academic program map where faculty have sequenced the courses and identified well-defined learning outcomes. Pathways imply structure and guidance toward timely completion and next steps along the path. Structure and guidance are both important and costly. They include adequate and appropriate advising that focuses on careers and programs, rather than courses, and keeps students on track, requiring them to have a plan and declare a major early. Pathways help students build credit toward a certificate or skill base, should they leave the institution before completing a certificate or degree. They provide the opportunity to take accelerated courses such as dual enrollment and Advanced Placement.” Wait, there’s this as well, “While the definition of a structured or guided pathway may vary somewhat, policy-makers, educators and business leaders agree that postsecondary programs of study that lead to certificates and associate degrees must be better aligned with local, regional, and state workforce needs. Additionally, the programs and courses should be regularly evaluated against workforce needs.”

There is SO much more you need to read in this report! Access it: CommCollegeCom_2015
Of interest: The SREB upcoming College/Career Readiness Conference! Set for July 2015 in Atlanta. (see: http://www.sreb.org/page/1615/CCSSConference.html)
Who funds SREB? Here’s the list of CCSS funders we’ve seen so many times before:
*Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
*Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
*Consolidated Management Resources
*Lamar Plunkett Family
*Lumina Foundation
*National Board of Professional Teaching Standards
*National Research Center for Career and Technical Education, University of Louisville
*National Institutes of Health
*National Science Foundation
*The Pearson Foundation
*U.S. Department of Education

Want to learn more about SREB’s preK-PhD work? http://www.sreb.org/page/1068/about_SREB.html

Other regional Education Boards:
WICHE, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education: http://www.wiche.edu/
MSC, Multi-State Collaborative: http://www.sheeo.org/projects/msc-multi-state-collaborative-advance-learning-outcomes-assessment#What
NEBHE, New England Board of Higher Education: http://www.nebhe.org/
MHEC, Midwestern Higher Education Compact: http://www.mhec.org/
Consortium of State and Regional Education Research Associations: http://www.srera.org/
American Educational Research Association: http://www.aera.net/

FTF: Creating Common Core Minions

The Common Core Machine loves to create minions to do its bidding.
The Common Core Machine loves to create minions to do its bidding.

“Create” (Consortium for Research on Educational Assessment and Teacher Effectiveness). Common Core is all over this Consortium. Here are their own words about their vision, “The vision of the Consortium for Research on Educational Assessment and Teaching Effectiveness (CREATE) is improved student learning, development, and achievement in PK-12 schools, institutes of higher education, and other educational settings.”

Heading up CREATE is a lady from the College of William and Mary. Sounds innocent, but looking into W & M, Common Core Standards are supported by them. How? Through their Gifted Education program. See the screen shot below:

wmgiftedcc

While I was looking into William and Mary, I found that other educational interests of school entwine the global movement. See this screen shot below. One of the professors there had this document in his resume. If you’d like the document I found this in: 

http://www.trincoll.edu/UrbanGlobal/CUGS/students/Documents/Chen%20article%20in%20IIE%20Networker%20Spring%202014.pdf

Other William/Mary education interests include globalizing U S citizens.
Other William/Mary education interests include globalizing US citizens.

Other Ties to CC Which CREATE Has:

1) Western KY University, where another board member is from has huge CCSS ties! They had a writing project which helped create the Standards. see: http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/resource/3669

Here’s an excerpt from 2011: “The NWP’s Common Core Initiative will help develop and test lesson plans to meet the literacy goal of the new common core standards Kentucky adopted last year.”

2) Rutgers University is also represented on the board of CREATE. Their CC tie is training librarians to align with the Standards. See: http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/library-and-information-science-features/rutgers-takes-the-lead-on-training-future-librarians-for-the-common-core.html

3) SREB (Southern Regional Education Board) is also represented on the Board for CREATE. If you haven’t already seen my articles about how much into CC the SREB is, see: from 10/14: https://commoncorediva.wordpress.com/2014/10/10/fridays-post-breaking-news-you-need-to-know/ then, https://commoncorediva.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/wybi-wednesday-icaps-common-core-and-more/

4) To see the rest of the Board and who’s who OR so you can continue taking a deeper look into how each are connected (if they are) to CC, see: http://www.createconference.org/officers—directors.html

CREATE Can Link You To:

“Leaning Foward”http://learningforward.org/, read their 2012 award Gates Foundation gave them for CCSS work: http://learningforward.org/publications/blog-landing/press-releases/2012/01/23/learning-forward-receives-$1-million-grant-to-develop-professional-learning-tools-for-common-core-state-standards#.VN__PvnF-hQ

*Note: Be sure to look at their “Innovation Configurations” to see the work LF is doing to reach out to the community to embrace the Standards, private schools, and more.

“AERA” (American Educational Research Association)http://www.aera.net/, you’ll want to see their growing research file on all things CCSS. Visit, http://www.aera.net/Newsroom/TrendingResearchTopics/TrendingTopicResearchFileCommonCoreStateStandards/tabid/15329/Default.aspx

You’ll want to see the AERA video below to see how they were (at the time) so excited about CC/Research.

“JCSEE”, (Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation) :

Their website: http://www.jcsee.org/, I introduced you to JCSEE a few months ago, but let’s assume you don’t know JCSEE. From their ‘about’ website page, “Created in 1975, the Joint Committee is a coalition of major professional associations concerned with the quality of evaluation. The Joint Committee is housed at the Center for Evaluation and Assessment, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.” It’s a 501(c) 3 public charity. Two of its many sponsors are the NEA (National Educators Association) and the CCSS (Council of Chief State School Officers), both are huge fans of CCSS. Here’s the link to my original article I wrote. Notice between that one and this, the differences in a few months. https://commoncorediva.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/ftf-create-they-know-your-school-do-you-know-them/

Back to CREATE:

Presently, the folks at CREATE are busy readying themselves for the 2015 CREATE Conference. It’s to be held in Charleston, SC sometime in the fall. If you look at the conference from last year (since nothing for this one is viable on the website yet) you can see they love to talk about assessments. From the 2013 Conference there was plenty to be heard on CTE (Career Tech Education), as well. See the Conference  program: CREATE13. (*Note: if you click on the link for 2014’s Conference, you are taken to 2013’s automatically. See the other years and their information: http://www.createconference.org/past-conferences.html )

Related to CREATE:

The National Council of Measurement in Education, http://ncme.org/index.cfm , their upcoming conference is in April 2015. Since all these folks do is assessment related, you’ll want to see their tie to the high stakes assessing CC has going on. Pearson Publishing and College Board both have seats around the Board of Directors. Two of the 3 officers belong to ACT, Inc. and CTB MacGraw-Hill Publishing. My warrior friends, did you catch that? Four positions belong to known and identified CCSS profit makers. When you visit any of the above links, note how they are all somehow related. Note the NCME’s assessment dictionary. You’ll want to see how they define high stakes assessments. They certainly plan to have some jesting about assessments during the upcoming conference in April. Click the screen shot below and enlarge it.

Aren't you thrilled to know that the NCME has time to joke about assessments?!
Aren’t you thrilled to know that the NCME has time to joke about assessments?!

According to the NCME’s Conference website, you’ll be able to get the lowdown on PARCC, SBAC, and more. See the program: 2015_NCME_Preliminary_Program_H You’ll be happy to see one of the keynote speakers is NY’s John King. As an added bonus for today, I was able to find a 2010 NCME newsletter discussing their involvement with the development of PARCC and SBAC high stakes assessments. Get the download: NCME2010. Finally, you might find the 2014 December newsletter eye opening in regards to PARCC and SBAC. Get it: NCME_Newsletter_December_2014 (*Note, be sure to look for SBAC, Act, Inc., AIR, and more)

FTF: “Create”, “Jcsee”, and the rest of the gang

I only recently heard of “CREATE” and if I’d not really been paying attention, I would of just glossed over it. However, knowing the Common Core Machine has so many overreaching parts, it’s worth a look.

What most pro CCSS groups would like us to look like and believe.
What most pro CCSS groups would like us to look like and believe.

CREATE:

The acronym for “Consortium for Research on Educational Assessment and Teaching Effectiveness”.  Their goals? Improving student outcomes aka ‘student learning, development, and achievement in PK-12 schools, institutes of higher education, and other educational settings.

The group is a members only, with paid dues, elected officers, and this year, a more global agenda. They are a part of the JCSEE (Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation).

The current  President of the CREATE team is a professor from Australia who recently spent much time here in NC, at least according to his letter to the rest of the group. See this excerpt from the 2014 newsletter, “We all are part of many organizations that overlap in interest. We hope that CREATE provides you a place to continue to evolve your teaching, professional development and/or research around classroom and school effectiveness.
My last few years in North Carolina and Louisiana have demonstrated to me that
we have some work to do to help those who make the policy decisions about
what works for learning and to “get” what research-based best practice is. As
the Common Core evolves it may be neither if we don’t use the knowledge base
to guide us.”  Access the entire letter by clicking: http://nebula.wsimg.com/44c8325e0a574501948b41c5f59f5850?AccessKeyId=CB845348BE9F79999C38&disposition=0&alloworigin=1 NOTE: to access even more archived CREATE newsletter issues,
http://www.createconference.org/publications.html

Where I found JCSEE and CREATE connecting:

 From a 2010 CREATE newsletter, the following excerpt: “CREATE has offered invaluable networking opportunities to professionals across the country since its inception over two decades ago. It continues in that tradition. CREATE, as a member organization of the Joint Committee for Standards in Educational Evaluation (JCSEE), involves its membership directly in the important work of development and revision of three sets of standards issued by the JCSEE – student, personnel, and program. This year, the emphasis will be on the revision of the current Student Evaluation Standards. A core Task Force of writers representing the United States and Canada has begun the arduous task of totally revising the standards for student evaluation to reflect more appropriately the process of assessment of student learning by teachers in the classroom. Rather than tweaking current standards, this Task Force considered radical changes to the format, language, and audience of these standards.”

JCSEE on its own:

Begun in 1975, it is currently housed in the University of Iowa’s Center of Evaluation and Assessment (ever hear of the Iowa Basic Skills Test or the ACT? They both were created at the University of Iowa, but that’s another article altogether). Among JCSEE’s sponsors are CREATE, the NEA, the CCSSO, the National School Boards Association and many others, including some from Canada. (see the entire list: http://www.jcsee.org/sponsoring-organizations) Considering the JCSEE has these known pro CCSS supporters AND that is is accredited by the ANSI (American National Standards Institute). JCSEE’s sponsors are those organizations which align with the vision, work, and standards set. See the latest operational guide, complete with how educational standards are set, which groups get to decide, etc. Operating-Procedures-May-1-2014-fnl

Since assessments are SO vital to the existence of the flexibility waivers up for renewal, the SBAC, PARCC, and other CCSS related components, we REALLY need to look into the next website page, that of the How the Assessment Standards are presented in a free form (but know they really want you to buy the complete book), http://www.jcsee.org/program-evaluation-standards-statements

Two other related groups to CREATE:

First, “Learning Forward”, “The Professional Learning Association.” Their Common Core Publications List is quite large, so I’ve given you the link to the entire page where you can see the state workbooks. Most of their Policy briefs are titled “Meet the Promise..”. See for yourselves, http://learningforward.org/publications/implementing-common-core#.VHyjjzHF-hQ 

You might find it interesting that “LF” was begun in 1969 as a way for school staff developers to connect. You’ll also want to note that Linda Darling-Hammond is among the National Advisors. (Does anyone need a reminder of how into CCSS she is?)

Then, there’s “AERA”, The American Educational Research Association(http://www.aera.net/). They’ve been around since 1916 and are “concerned with improving the educational process by encouraging scholarly inquiry related to education and evaluation and by promoting the dissemination and practical application of research results.  AERA’s more than 25,000 members are faculty, researchers, graduate students, and other distinguished professionals with rich and diverse expertise in education research. They work in a range of settings from universities and other academic institutions to research institutes, federal and state agencies, school systems, testing companies, and nonprofit organizations. Based on their research, they produce and disseminate knowledge, refine methods and measures, and stimulate translation and practical application of research results. AERA is international in scope.  Nearly 5% of members, representing over 85 countries, reside outside the United States. Over 28% of AERA members are studentsapproximately 6,500 graduate students and 600 undergraduate students. Over 74% of AERA members report that education is their primary discipline. Other disciplines represented by AERA members include psychology, statistics, sociology, history, economics, philosophy, anthropology, and political science.”

You’ll want to note that not only does this organization have a finger on education matters, but government AND social justice. They are working with the National Science Foundation as well (huge funders for CCSS, STEM, and other fed led ed programs). See all their research projects by genre, http://www.aera.net/EducationResearch/AERAEducationResearch/tabid/15727/Default.aspx

Finally, do any of these groups connect to the education waivers?

With the inter-connectedness of the CCSSO (Council of Chief State School Officers) to CREATE and JCSEE, I would have to answer ‘yes’. It appears all of the above are tied to the waivers. Especially when you consider HOW many of these are involved in the assessment end of education. We know the Flexibility waivers will heavily restrict states via not only student outcome based assessments, but the teachers and principals as well.  With that said, what does the CCSSO have on the ESEA Flexibility Waivers? More than you can shake a stick at.

CCSSO:

I found their ESEA Flexibility information under the ‘Educator Effectiveness’ page. (see: http://scee.groupsite.com/page/esea-flexibility-toolkit) There you’ll find ‘fact sheets’, links the the US Dept of Ed, you’ll be able to see which state is up to what, and you’ll get the language resources to understand HOW your state worded their applications for the flexibility/opportunity we were promised (see yesterday’s post). For instance, if you wanted to see how a state gave an visual graphic for “Theory of Action” in applying for a flexibility waiver, you would get a downloadable guide from 2012. It’s complete with several colorful shapes, sizes, and information. Then, after the states examples, CCSSO has many measures for educators to have to adhere to; at least that’s what it looked like to me.

See the “Theory of Action” examples: THEORY OF ACTION Examples

Another interesting set of examples the CCSSO has are those which impact the ‘stakeholders’ in all this.. You know, the local businesses, the legislators, civic groups, non profits, advocacy groups, all sprinkled in with the REAL stakeholders..the schools, students, staffers, and districts. Not as much information will be available here and you will have to click on each of the states which provided information separately. Since I didn’t see NC, I chose a neighboring state to see what was available. On pages 10 and 11 of their ESEA Waiver, you can see the stakeholders involved in this application. It is from a couple of years ago, so it could be some stakeholders have been alerted to the truth and walked away. http://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaflex/ga.pdf

Why I share this is so you can see it isn’t only education minded folks involved, but somehow I think I knew you already knew that. What we CAN do with this type of information is USE it. Remember, as we found out yesterday, those in charge are assuming we won’t find this information out in time to do something.

Remember..flexibility/opportunity do NOT equal the Common Core Machine!
Remember..flexibility/opportunity do NOT equal the Common Core Machine!