Common Core standards bring dramatic changes to elementary school math

Subject: The three required components of an educational standard explains why the proposed “Common Core Standards” model will be ineffective. Secondly, why STAR evaluation system in California was ineffective, but should be retained. 1/23/2014 By E kangas; ekangas@juno.com

Research and common sense suggests that there are three required components of a true standard.

There in much comments on new innovations in K-12 education such as “Common Core Standards”. However, this researcher has not seen any discussion about what a meaningful standard involves to become a true standard. Here are some details applying what a true standard measures, when done correctly in this researcher’s opinion. For example, when one purchases a gallon of gas anywhere in the USA, one receives an accurate measure of a gallon of gas. If you think about it, three factors are necessary to allow this uniform gallon of gas to be delivered to the customer. (Part #1) You pick the type the grade of gas you desire: be it regular, a mix, high test or diesel. (Part #2) You receive a true gallon of gas. (Part #3) The county and state checks and certifies that each gallon of gas that is pumped, is a gallon of gas. If the gallon is not a true gallon, the pump is shut down and the station can not pump gas until the pumped gallon meets the certification of the county/state testing measure. In summary, the three parts of a standard include:(Part #1) defining what is being measured; (Part #2) the standard of measure; (Part #3) and the certification that the measure is correct and enforced. All three components must be present before the true standard exists and the results are effective.

Next, apply these three components to K-12 education for each GRADE being evaluated. (Part #1) The federal test, NAEP- our national report card-; the state NCLB STAR evaluation system; and “Common Core Standards” each have a list of of the areas to be evaluated in math and English at specific grades. (Part #2) In NAEP and NCLB STAR have levels of mastery are defined in which the top two- advanced and proficient- are the required mastery level for promotion to the next grade level. However, Common Core Standards in California do NOT have a mastery evaluation component in their model nor have (Part #3), that students must be held accountable to a mastery level of proficiency, before promotion to the next level. Both NAEP and NCLB have the accountability component, but “Common Core Standards” do not. Since All three parts of a standard must be effectively implemented, before a true and meaningful standard occurs, only NAEP and NCLB STAR have this potential, but “Common Core Standards” does not. Does anyone disagree and comment that three parts of a true standard is necessary before a true standard is possible? Secondly, the “Common Core Standard” is currently NOT a true educational standard based upon the criteria.

California’s NCLB STAR( Systematic Testing Assessment Report) evaluation system did complete parts # 1 and #2, but not part three, the enforcement of the law. Since much research documents that education achievement has at least 10 components including that the learning process is (1) linear, (2) slow, (3) additive, (4) interactive, (5) comprehensive(*),(6) Inductive; and independent of (7) gender, (8) social-economic conditions,(9) ethnicity; and ()10 age. The state STAR data clearly documents that only SOME students in SOME schools are meeting all three requirements for a standard beginning in grade 2 and continuing until grade 11, but many K-12 students and schools do not! Therefore, the STATE research data clearly documents, then that the major reason NCLB failed in California and other states was that the third component of the standard, the enforcement of the standard, was not implemented uniformly to all students at the local district, school and student level.

One study explains empirically why the K-12 STAR system was ineffective to improve student learning especially as it relates to the educationally disadvantaged students. In this study, two eighth grade classes( 61 students), one class, honors algebra and the other pre-algebra were evaluated at the end of the school years applying a test based upon five areas defined to 6th grade skills and five areas defined to 7th grade skills. When the traditional 80% proficiency standard was defined as a measure of proficiency, the mean proficient student in both classes was compared to the non-proficient students. The results documented that the mean difference between the proficient and non proficient student in the ten areas was 39%. When this 39% difference is compared to norm reference learning gain of 9.1%/years, the difference in proficiency between the two groups is four years. In other words, most 8th grade teachers were required to teach 8th grade material to the non-proficient students, who had skills of a fourth grade student. In addition, the time required on norm reference test to go from no proficiency, 20% correct, to the beginning of proficiency of 80%, was six years in the current K-12 system. The four year discrepancy between the proficiency and non-proficient student in applying the pre-requisite skills required to learn the material and the lack of time required to make the correction explains why the STAR system was not effective in educating the non-proficient student. A strong argument could be made that the major reason for the failure of the STAR system to promote students by proficiency mandated by the NCLB law was that the K-12 LOCAL administration and counselors did not place students into the appropriate classes based upon proficiency, as the NCLB law mandated. In addition, students failure to achieve proficiency was blamed many times on the teacher by educational critics, such as Michelle Rhee, the media and politicians. When in reality, many 8th grade math students, had entering skills of a fourth grader.

In California, the newly proposed K-12 “Common Core Standards” is simply a list of what is to be taught(Standard, part #1), but does not state how to evaluate each member on the list(Standard part #2) and has no enforcement component(Standard part #3). Therefore, parts two and three of a true standard are missing in the “Common Core Standards” model, so the model is not a true standard, but simply a list of what is being taught and nothing more. Therefore, if there are five components to a “Common Core Standard” at a specific grade, a teacher can teach one day on each of the five “common core standards” and meet the requirement of the “standard”. Since there is no outside evaluation of “Common Core Standards”, neither the student, parent, teacher, school, board members nor the public will have any information on how to evaluate if the student is learning the required information or not. Without meaningful outside verification, how can there be any trust of the model’s validity at the classroom/ school level? Another important failure of the “Common Core Standards” is that the model will not evaluate the important science discipline- especially lab based areas of each discipline. Research suggests that if science is not formally evaluated by the “Common Core Standards” model in K-12, the emphasis of science and the STEM disciplines will decrease at many grade levels. Does the public and industry desire the decrease in emphasis in the STEM disciplines? Secondly, no student in any discipline and grade is scheduled to be evaluated in K-12, this year using the “Common Core Standards” model. Since the failure to evaluate K-12 proficiency is against the federal NCLB and state (AB1626) law, may result in lawsuits, eliminates student / school evaluation, and has no proof of improving K-12 achievement, why implement without verification this year?

Ironically, experience(*), empirical research, and common sense suggests that If all three components of the NCLB/NAEP STAR standard was applied to all students uniformly, a true standard would occur and then possibly all students could become proficient . Research and experience(*) suggests that sufficient “direct instruction” and student proficiency on what is to be learned is the “rate determining step” to maximize student learning and achievement! In other words, if correct entrance and exit placement of students into the appropriate level BY PROFICIENCY is implemented, as required by the NCLB law, most students will learn the required material to this proficiency level.

At the post secondary level(generally college), only part three of a true standard occurs, but not parts #1( what is being evaluated) and #2( what the standard measures) generally. The result at the college level is that many students are excluded from a successful college education in their desired field and drop out of college without understanding the specific reasons and skill information why they failed the placement test nor how to correct their deficiencies, effectively. In addition , the colleges without information gained from parts #1 and #2 of an effective standard, do not have the information NOR TIME on how to help the student correct this problem. Therefore, an effective learning mechanism to help failing college students correct their achievement problems does not occur at the post secondary level. An effective solution for colleges to correct the student lack of preparation is to work with the K-12 system and help them promote students by proficiency by the NCLB ,STAR law!

Will any educator or anyone else challenge these remarks publically- written, verbally or TV- that the “Common Core Standards” model is not a true standard CURRENTLY and will fail to improve K-12 student learning and achievement. One argument made in California by the “Common Core Standards” advocates is that this new model is more rigorous than the current California NCLB STAR model evaluating grades 2-11. However, if you examine the STAR 2012 data by grade 11, only 24% of all math and 49% of all English disciplines are proficient- or 76 % in math and 51% in English are not meeting the NCLB mandate of proficiency(*). Therefore, if the “Common Core Standards” are more rigorous that the current STAR standard, what percent of these students will be now be proficient? Since educators and the public demand that students are to be better “ critical thinkers” , without effective evaluation how do “critical thinkers” evaluate the merits and rigor of the new “Common Core Standards” model? Obviously, without meaningful outside evaluation, that the STAR provides, effective student, school district, and district achievement and evaluation is impossible to measure.

Finally, documented research(*) suggests that if the three part standard is effectively implemented, applying many of the innovative programs, tools and expertise now available to teachers and schools at the K-12 level, the NCLB STAR proficiency law can be met and K-12 student learning- independent of social- economic- ethnic- gender and age considerations seems possible at a rate 7-9 times the CTBS-Standard Norm reference rate of 9.1%/year(*).

In summary this retired instructor and current independent researcher is NOT against the “Common Core Standards” model and with its interactive computerize testing “tool”. However, research suggests that there are many “tools”, programs, models and expertise that are also required to improve the learning process of ALL K-12 students. Research suggest that both the STAR and Common Core Standards are “TOOLS” that serve differ needs and evaluate important, but different purposes. Until each evaluation “tool’s” effectiveness is evaluated over time- both the positives and negatives- then appropriate changes can be effectively made. In other words, do not “throw the baby out with the bath water”. Why not use both evaluations, the STAR and “common core standards” to ascertain how the “Common Core Standards” model will eventually help to improve student achievement and learning, once evaluated over a sufficient time period and population . (*) Documentation available from the researcher at ekangas@ Juno.com

I have read all the comments from these articles and found them very enlightening. Although I don’t consider myself and expert, I have a few thoughts. First, after teaching for many years, not once did I see the memorization of facts lead to deeper understanding in math. Conversely, I have seen multiple times it leading to confusion and misconceptions. I’m not saying that automaticity is not important, it’s just not foundational. Building the understanding of number and how it works is the foundational. The debate on methodology will never cease. However, I can speak from experience as one who has taught using both approaches. I have found that my students who have been allowed to “discover” mathematical principals and apply them in new situations have far exceeded those in previous years that just imparted information. In my kindergarten classroom, I now have students that are not only reaching for automaticity in addition, but are now working on understanding the commutative property. There are even some that are now starting to have the beginning conceptual understanding of multiplication. The students may know an addition fact, but more importantly explain what it mean. However, it is all meaningless unless they can apply it in new situations-which they can do.

My Second thought is the education is not finite. That means as a K teacher, I am not limited by the standards that are assigned to me. I view my job more as taking a student form where they are to where they are going. Sound nebulous, but I am not bound to keep a student in kindergarten standards if they are ready higher standards. The idea that learning material of a particular grade is confined to that grade is not teaching. I think most teachers, if not all, would agree with that. “Sorry Johnny. I know you are ready for third grade math, but you are in second grade. I can only teach you second grade math.”

My final thought, I think, There are standards for automaticity in kindergarten. The State of California has never had those type of standards in kindergarten. I remember when I started teaching this grade 28 years ago. The standard was only having the students know and count to 12. We have come along since then. I would venture to guess that if I gave my current students the assessment from 28 years ago they would “ace the test.” The whole point here is that standards that are established are high throughout the grades. Students are learning today in elementary school what we all were learning in middle school. If you look at other nations in the world that we would like to be like (Japan) they are using the very methods that are being advocated in CCSS.

Finally, the need for divergent thinking in the business place is paramount. CCSS was established in part as a result of CEOs saying that students are coming out without the ability to think and solve problems. They can tell you that 2+3=5, but they couldn’t design or create. As a result businesses are going to countries that have people who can and hiring them. If the education of a child is to ultimately make them career ready, we need to start changing and adapting they way we teach to better prepare students.