What do the letters
CCSS and CAL mean? If you are a parent who was asked to assist your 3rd grade
student with math homework and ended up frustrated, you might know. However if
you are like most of us the letters are more alphabet soup in an already full
bowl. Or perhaps you have heard the terms Common Core School Standards (CCSS)
and Computerized Assessments and Learning (CAL). These terms replaced
respectively the Essential Academic Learning Requirements (EALR’s), or state
curriculum, standards, and the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL),
or state mandated achievement test.
If you are still with me, a more direct
question is: Are you aware that Governor Gregoire and Superintendent of Public
Instruction (SPI) Dorn advocate legislation that will require Washington adopt a
national—one size fits all states—curriculum? And do you know that Dorn
supported ESSS Bill 6696, which was adopted June 10, 2010, and further that he
provisionally adopted these mandated national curriculum standards for
Washington state on July 19, 2010? Believe it or not 41 states have adopted
these standards. Many did so before the standards were developed and put in
writing. Talk about buying a pig in a poke! As parents and taxpayers you also
should know that paper and pencil tests of proficiency are being replaced by the
on-line CAL. That little item will require each local district to have a
sufficient number of computers and adequately wired computer labs to handle
large numbers of students at the same time. Pity the children who are not
computer literate.
CAL proponents claim that “all the on-line tests have
been reviewed, tested and validated using state approved test development
specifications and control standards”. Have the results of those reviews, tests
and validation techniques been made available to local district parents? I do
not believe so. Proponents of the CCSS also claim that Washington state
teachers support them. How do they know that? Let’s see now. In 2009 there
were 59,487 Washington classroom teachers with 3,974 (6.68%) of them National
Board Certified Teachers. Seventy-nine (1.98%) of the 3,974 were surveyed and
this resulted in .132% of the total number of classroom teachers who were
surveyed. If those 79 teachers who were surveyed were not selected randomly no
generalizations of the results can be made beyond those 79 who were surveyed.
Even if the 79 teachers were randomly selected, and assuming all other
statistical requirements were met, the results could only be generalized to the
population of 3,974 National Board Certified teachers from which they were
selected. So much for the claim that “Washington state teachers support the
CCSS”. Proponents also claim Washington citizens support the nationalized
common core curriculum. Do they really? In 2009, Washington’s estimated
population was 6,664,195. Of these 500 (.000075%) were interviewed by
telephone. Statistically if this were a probability, stratifiedand randomly
selected sample—which it most likely was not—an acceptable randomly selected
sample size would have been 600 given the confidence levels and intervals
claimed. These basic questions regarding methodology cast major doubts on any
claims based on the studies made by the proponents.
Do you know anyone who
is familiar with the proposed nationalized curriculum standards? Ask your
neighbors. Ask local teachers. Ask members of the local School Board. Ask
them if they know states must agree to adopt CCSS word for word and must comply
with the requirement that at a minimum 85% of the state’s standards will be the
CCSS. Are you comfortable with a nationalized core curriculum
“informed”--whatever that means--by other states’ curricula and by foreign
countries? If so, a direct result of that “sense of comfort” is the continued
diminution and subjugation of states’ rights and local parental influence and
control of the education of their children to a central government. But don’t
forget you still will have to pay for that sense of comfort. It has been
estimated the cost of implementing the CCSS and CAL over five years in
Washington State is $182,600,000. The state’s share is estimated to be
$17,100,000 (9.4%). Costs to local districts total $165,500,000 (90.6%). Given
the necessary number of in-service days that will be required to bring classroom
teachers up to speed and foradditional staff to assist special needs students
(Special Education, non-English speakers, non-computer literate and other
disadvantaged students) the personnel costs will be much higher. When the
necessary school infrastructure costs for computer labs and equipment are
factored in, hold on to your wallets and purses! Aren’t you glad Washington
State is financially solvent?
There appears to be no question that proponents
of the CCSS and CAL were keeping their fingers crossed no one would “look a gift
horse in the mouth”. However after having done so, my response is “No Way”! I
value and support local control and state’s rights, especially where the
education of children in a democratic republic is concerned.
No comments:
Post a Comment