Sunday, September 09, 2018



BOOK REVIEW of "Common Core: National Education Standards and the Threat to Democracy" by Nicholas Tampio. Reviewer: Charles E. Phelps

The Common Core Initiative’s (CCI) success (in getting implemented, that is, not necessarily in improving achievement) owes much to a mass suspension of disbelief among many education researchers and most nationally focused education journalists. Just a few examples to buttress the point: Hundreds, if not thousands, of education policy influentials were paid to promote the Common Core Initiative but, to my observation, their conflict of interest was seldom noted in media interviews. Meanwhile, CCI opponents were left to contend with a near total absence of resources with which to project their counterpoint.

Moreover, virtually all the promises for CCI were accepted with little scrutiny by leaders of both education establishments, the stand-pat traditional public school establishment, and the education reform establishment. Long division and Algebra I were pushed up to fifth and ninth grades, respectively, yet CCI was routinely labeled “more rigorous.” The CCI-aligned consortium tests (PARCC and SBAC) promised to produce several outcomes that very different types of tests are normally designed for, and to do all of it better in a single test. Yet, no valid validation studies were produced to support any of the claims.

I share with Sandra Stotsky (“Classroom Choice Could Relieve Many Parents’ Education Concerns,” Heartland Institute, 2016. ) one other puzzlement. Why have so many school choice advocates supported the undemocratic and “choice-less” imposition of a single, national set of content and instructional standards? Yes, I know, some CCI proponents claim that nothing in their standards prevents teachers from employing, say, direct instruction, inside the classroom. But, whether they were right in principle (some of us would disagree), they have not been right in practice (see Barry Garelick, “The Pedagogical Agenda of Common Core Math Standards,” Education News, 2012). The unworkable constructivism that citizens successfully fought against in California, Kentucky, and Maryland in the 1990s and early 2000s came barging in through the back door in forty-five states between 2007 and 2010, encouraged by massive funding from the federal government and some of the country’s largest foundations.

Many citizens fought back this time too, but proponents were better prepared. In anticipation of popular discontent, the Gates, Hewlett, and dozens of other foundations rounded up all the opinion leaders in education research and policy that their money could buy to advocate for CCI (and to conduct “independent research”). This set up the perhaps inevitable and sometimes nasty juxtaposition of academics, think tankers, and high government officials ridiculing the objections of parents and classroom teachers with first-hand knowledge of CCI implementation, but lacking in lofty credentials. The most prominent example is probably U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s exasperated putdown of “white, suburban moms,” but there were others (see Michelle Malkin, “Arne Duncan’s War on Women and Children,” National Review, 2013).

One review of six books critical of the Common Core Initiative declared only the one among them written by academics to be worth any reader’s time (Robert Pondiscio, “Lessons on Common Core: Critical Books Offer More Folly Than Wisdom,” Education Next, 2017). Academic nose-thumbing condescension toward citizen activists should not be possible in the case of Nicholas Tampio’s Common Core: National Education Standards and the Threat to Democracy. A professor of political science at Fordham University, Tampio specializes in political theory and philosophy, and he applies that background knowledge to his new subject, incorporating discussions on such topics as the Founders’ fear of factions and their belief in the inherent good of democratic participation.

“My goal is to help readers appreciate both sides of the debate and raise questions that demand looking at actual standards to see whether it makes sense to nationalize them or not,” writes Tampio (p. 10).

Common Core is one of the most thoughtfully organized books I have ever read. A six-page overview—“A map of the argument”—concludes the Introduction. Each chapter then presents a neatly categorized theme and concludes with a brief reiteration of the main points, just as a textbook might. The first two chapters summarize several mainline arguments for and against national education standards. The next five summarize existing or proposed national standards by subject field: English, mathematics, science, history, and sexuality. Tampio saves his summary judgments for the last chapter, only after he has granted two-thirds of the book’s length to explaining both sides’ best evidence and arguments.

His conclusions, however, derive not so much from the merits, or lack thereof, of Common Core content, as from the character of its implementation. Some proponents like to argue that the CCI is a done deal, whether one likes it or not, and opponents should just learn to deal with it. Tampio holds little patience for this line of argument. The manner in which we decide things as a community matters, and may even matter most, he argues. Policies implemented by skirting democratic processes are not valid policies, should never get a pass, and remain tainted and questionable so long as they remain in force.

Some other aspects of the book I appreciate include:

Incorporating his own personal experience of initial exposure to Common Core at his child’s public school and the ensuing frustrations of dealing with a tone-deaf, or disempowered, local bureaucracy rigidly adhering to standard operating procedures and talking points.

Another potty-mouthed quotation from David Coleman (p. 55). It remains difficult to comprehend how someone with so little relevant training and experience became our nation’s chief curriculum and instruction designer and CEO of the College Board, overseeing the work of hundreds of Ph.D.-level trained psychometricians.

More exposure for opinion leaders who jumped on the CCI bandwagon early, probably without understanding most of it, and who may now be scrubbing their curriculum vitae to remove all traces. One choice quote: “When the history of this period is written, I am convinced that David Coleman will be at the very center of the account of educational reform in this country” (p. 9). The speaker apparently meant this in a good way.

It is perhaps also worth noting that Nicholas Tampio is an unapologetic political progressive. In a public lecture covered by CSPAN on March 19, 2018, for example, he says as much. He also characterizes systemwide standardized testing, which I have advocated throughout my career, as education’s “death star.” He and I probably disagree on other education policies, too. But, his treatment of the Common Core Initiative is fair and convincing, in my opinion. If his Common Core receives just a fraction of the media attention freely granted to paid CCI promoters, the public will be much better informed on the issue.

SOURCE 






Elite London schools draw foreign home buyers to capital

Wealthy foreigners are spending billions of pounds on homes near London’s top private schools, even as demand for prime property in the British capital falters, new research has found.

Overseas parents spent about 2 billion pounds ($2.6 billion) on prime property near London schools over the past year, according to a report published on Wednesday by global property firm Knight Frank. Most were from China or Russia.

“Our analysis shows just how important the standard of top London schools is to wealthy international individuals and the demand this contributes to the London property market,” said Liam Bailey, global head of research at Knight Frank.

Property prices in London have long been swollen by foreign investment, making living in the city unaffordable for those on lower incomes, although price growth has slowed since Britain voted in a 2016 referendum to leave the European Union.

Anthony Breach, analyst with the British think-tank Centre for Cities, said foreign ownership was exacerbating a broader lack of affordable housing in Britain’s capital.

“We need to build more housing, then more people could benefit from London’s strong economy and schools,” said Breach. “The supply of housing is not matching the demand.”

Knight Frank said political pressures coupled with an increase in taxation on high-value properties had put significant pressure on London’s luxury housing market.

But parents were still purchasing property in the capital while their children attend school. “Education is the driver,” Bailey told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

“This is a sector which in terms of its appeal to a global market appears to be pretty much unaffected by Brexit ... and has remained very robust,” he said.

Prices have fallen by between 10 and 20 percent over the past three years at the top of the London market, according to Knight Frank’s report.

Bailey said lower property prices and a weakened pound may be attracting foreign parents to buy in London.

“Given the potential 10-year span of education for children that come over as young as 11 or 13, many of these parents are looking at a longer term commitment as opposed to a short term investment,” he said.

Knight Frank said the motivations for parents included the quality of education in Britain and the perceived boost to university and job prospects offered by attending prestigious London schools.

The most popular countries to send children to school after Britain were the United States followed by Canada and other European Union countries, the report found.

SOURCE 






Are Australian school leavers prepared for university?

About one in four Australian university students drop out and don’t complete their degree. One of the questions this raises is: are schools adequately preparing students for higher education?

This question was tackled by a panel I was on at the Australian Financial Review Higher Education Summit (Kevin Rudd’s notorious ‘2020 Summit’ may have given summits a bad name, but this one was actually serious and worthwhile).

I was joined on the panel by Emeritus Professor John Halsey and school principal Joanne Wastle. We agreed that in many cases schools do a great job of preparing students for university, but it’s inconsistent across the country. Professor Halsey emphasised the struggle for students from rural areas, while Ms Wastle highlighted the importance of having qualified secondary teachers in maths and science. And we all agreed that more technology by itself isn’t the answer.

Ultimately, if students leave school without proficiency in literacy and numeracy, university will always be very difficult.

University certainly isn’t the best option for everyone, and one common concern at the Summit was the growing pressure on high-school students to go to university even if they don’t have the necessary academic ability or motivation. However, ensuring students leave school with a sound and well-rounded knowledge of all the core disciplines, at least gives them a viable option of going to university.

For example, school students without adequate maths and reading ability will find science in Years 7-10 much more difficult, which significantly affects motivation and ability to continue with science subjects in Years 11 and 12. This may then obstruct them from enrolling in science or engineering degrees, even if they would like to.

Developing core literacy and numeracy skills in the early years of school, is necessary for students to have good university prospects. And what happens in the classroom 10 or even 12 years before students leave school can affect their higher education prospects.

SOURCE 





No comments: