Christie, Like His Pal Cuomo, Is Full Of Shit On Common Core

Chris Christie, once a great supporter of Common Core, turned on the standards as he started to gear up for a run for president in a Republican Party where the Core is disdained.

Christie, as on other issues like gun control or Planned Parenthood, likes to muddy the waters on just how much support he has had for the Core in the past and continues to have for the Core now.

For example:

During Thursday night's Republican debate in South Carolina, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was attacked on several fronts for an allegedly left-leaning past, including his supposed support for Common Core education standards, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Planned Parenthood.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio called out his rival for propping up Common Core, the reading and math standards implemented in 42 states, plus the District of Columbia, and widely reviled by conservatives as acts of federal overreach.

"I like Chris Christie, but we can not afford to have a president of the United States that supports Common Core," Rubio said on the main stage.

Christie refuted that: "Common Core has been eliminated in New Jersey."

But Christie, who once supported the education standards, has flipped on the issue since last year.

In May, the governor asked New Jersey's department of education to review the implementation of Common Core in the state's school system.

But according to NJ.com, earlier this week, the panel charged with reviewing the standards recommended that 84 percent of them remain in place, with slight revisions to the rest. Common Core, the news site reported, does "still have a place in New Jersey classrooms."

Common Core has been eliminated in New Jersey?

Hardly.

Not if 84% of the standards remain in place, with slight revisions to the rest, and the state tests still based upon the Core (and the opt-out option for the test soon to be eliminated.)

The same game is happening in New York, where Christie's Port Authority-pal Andrew Cuomo is playing similar deceptions on New Yorkers, claiming Common Core is going to get a "total reboot" when his Common Core Task Force actually recommended that the "instructional focus" of the Core remain in place.

In short, New York's going to get a similar 16% or so tweaking to the Core, where most of the standards remain in place and the others get minor changes so that Cuomo can say the Core no longer exists in New York State.

Christie and Cuomo are full of shit together on education, full of shit together on Common Core, and full of shit together on a lot of other issues (including the Port Authority.)

Quite frankly, the emblems for both the Christie Presidential campaign and the Cuomo 2018 re-election campaign ought to be two big piles of shit.

And if that's a little too crass, well, so is the shit these two crooks are looking to get away with on a whole host of things - including Common Core.

Many Students Return To School Without Their Common Core Test Results

You know how educrats, education reformers and civil rights activists living off the Gates/Broad Foundation dole like to say we must have standardized testing or otherwise we'll never know how the kids are doing in school?

This past spring saw the rollout of new tests based on the Common Core standards. The reading and math tests replace traditional spring standardized tests. About 12 million students in 29 states and the District of Columbia took the tests developed by two groups — the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC).

According to Smarter Balanced, only a few states have released scores from the spring — Connecticut, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Missouri, West Virginia, and Vermont. Most states have not been able to put out test scores before the start of classes. The delay was expected in the exam's first year, but it's still frustrating for some teachers and parents.

Scores for the almost 5 million students who took the PARCC tests still have yet to be released. PAARC is still setting benchmarks for each performance level. The partnership says they're due for release this fall, and that the goal in future years of the tests is to release the results as close to the end of the school year as possible.

Just as with the New York Common Core tests, the benchmarks aren't set until long after the students  take their tests.

With the old New York State Regents exams, the benchmark scores were set before students took their tests and were posted right after the test ended.

That seems like a fair and honest way to do things - set the passing mark before students take the test.

But in the Era of Common Core, when educrats and reformers wanted to rig the tests for 70% failure rates, all of these Common Core tests, including the high school tests, are benchmarked long after students take their tests and the results are in.

Rigged?

You betcha!

If not, why not set the benchmarks before, the way they used to with the Regents exams?

Simple - they're playing with the numbers, manipulating them for their own political ends.

But as we've seen with the opposition to testing growing over the past few years, the more games the educrats and reformers play with the Endless Testing regime, the more the opposition to testing grows.

So keep playing games, folks.

You are fooling fewer and fewer with the manipulation and lies.

PDK/Gallup Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Reject Test-Based School Accountability

Lyndsey Layton in the Washington Post:

Americans overwhelmingly think there is too much emphasis on standardized testing in public schools and that test scores are not the best way to judge schools, teachers or students, according to a national poll.

The results released Sunday come from the 47th annual PDK/Gallup poll of attitudes toward public schools, the longest-running survey of Americans’ views on public education.

 The survey showed that the public rejects school accountability built on standardized tests, which has been federal policy through No Child Left Behind, the signature education initiative of President George W. Bush.

64% say there is too much emphasis on standardized testing in schools.

That's nearly two-thirds of respondents.

Here's an interesting finding on teacher evaluations and test scores:

A majority of respondents — regardless of political affiliation — opposed the notion of evaluating teachers based in part on test scores, an idea heavily promoted by the Obama administration and fought by teachers unions.

As Americans move away from the idea that tying teacher ratings to test scores is a practical way to evaluate teachers, Andrew Cuomo is moving toward it.

Until he is made to pay a political price for pushing what is clearly an unpopular education policy, he'll continue to do it, of course. 

As for Regents Chancellor Tisch and NYSED Commissioner Elia, they say they're going to get the opt out numbers down next year by convincing parents that standardized testing is swell and a civil right and schools just cannot function without them.

The PDK/Gallup poll shows they're going to have an uphill climb.

Same goes for Common Core - 54% oppose it according to the PDK/Gallup poll.

Also there's this interesting tidbit that goes right to the core of the testing issue:

In a rebuttal to those who say states should use common tests so that the public can compare how students perform across state boundaries, fewer than one in five public school parents said it was important to know how children in their communities performed on standardized tests compared with students in other districts, states or countries.

The rationale for the PARCC and SBAC tests was just that - to give the public the ability to compare how students perform in different states.

At less than 20% support, not so much on this tenet of the education reform agenda either.

So let's see, the public doesn't like standardized testing, doesn't think teachers should be evaluated using test scores, doesn't care about the PARCC/SBAC comparisons, and opposes Common Core.

Quite a victory for education reform, eh?

Oh, and one last thing - 57% of the respondents gave the public schools in their own communities (you know, the one's they're familiar with) either an A or B for performance.

So much for the "failing schools" crisis.

Chris Christie: Districts With High Opt-Out Rates On PARCC Will Likely Face Funding Cuts And Tax Hikes

This is certainly ratcheting up the counter attack on the opt-out movement:

During a Town Hall appearance on Thursday in Cedar Grove, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie told a packed auditorium that the PARCC opt-out movement will have ramifications beyond his control.

“It’s their right if they want to opt out… There’s nothing I can do to stop them,” Christie said, suggesting that the likely consequences are funding cuts and higher taxes. “But then don’t come later and complain you don’t get the money that you’re used to.”

Politicians and educrats in many states are making vague threats about cuts in federal aid to school districts but Christie, with his usual bluster, has gone a bit further.

High opt-out rates will result in higher taxes.

That's a potent threat from a governor who refuses to support an increase to the gas tax in New Jersey even as the state's infrastructure falls apart (literally in some cases) and the public rail system faces tens of millions of dollars in short falls.

An increase in the gas tax would raise money to keep New Jersey bridges from falling into the water and NJ Transit from fare hikes and service cuts 5 years after a 22% fare hike and cuts to service.

But Christie refuses to support a gas tax hike because he's looking to run for president touting himself as a governor who doesn't raise taxes in a Republican primary where raising any tax is heresy to conservative voters.

Yet he's willing to raise taxes on school districts with high opt-out rates.

This says a lot about Chris Christie and where he stands on the Endless Testing regime.

No taxes can ever be raised in New Jersey, even if that means part of the Pulaski Skyway falls into the river - but if too many parents opt their kids out of the PARCC tests (He's looking at you, Montclair!), tax hikes are coming!

Merryl Tisch Threatens "National Test" If Too Many Parents Opt Their Children Out Of The State Tests

Regents Chancellor Tisch gets more and more shrill these days over the Opt-Out movement:

ALBANY—If too many students "opt out" of Common Core-aligned state exams later this month, New York might be forced to administer national tests instead, Board of Regents chancellor Merryl Tisch said during a public radio interview on Tuesday.

“New York is in a unique position,” Tisch said on WNYC’s “The Brian Lehrer Show.” “Most other states in this country are being forced into two national tests. New York State took the opportunity over these last several years to build our own state tests, and that is exactly why I am particularly interested in curtailing this ‘opt out’ movement. Because in order for us to be able to have viable state test, we need a viable number of students in every district showing up to be tested. We need to have valid, reliable state assessments.

“In the absence of that critical number we will be forced, unfortunately—and I truly believe unfortunately—to adopt a national test,” she said.

The desperation Tisch and the other educrats are feeling comes out in their apocalyptic rhetoric.

She likes to make believe she's the "adult" in the room:

“I listened very carefully to the language of the legislative leaders, particularly Assemblywoman [Catherine] Nolan and chairman [John] Flanagan on the Senate side,” Tisch said. “I think, quite frankly, everyone is all over the map here. They are looking to us to bring a grown up’s perspective to a very complicated issue, and as I said before, I am going to tune out the political noise.”

Looking for the Regents to bring a grown up's perspective?

That's a laugh.

Merryl Tisch is such a petulant child who refused to take responsibility when the Board of Regents handed a charter school over to "Dr" Ted J Morris Jr., MA, Ph.D, MSW and Morris was revealed to be a fraud.

In my experience, grown ups take responsibility for their actions.

Tisch, on the other and, sounds a lot like a petulant child blaming others of or her own mistakes and lashing out when things happen she doesn't like.

Vote NO On Cuomo's Smart Schools Bond Act

Gary Stern at LoHud does a great job of giving both sides of the Smart Schools Bond Act story.

Here's why critics are opposed to Cuomo's technology bond for schools:

Opponents of the bond act say that borrowing $2 billion to pay for computers and other items with limited life spans would be an unprecedented move that has not been supported by analysis.

Nicholas Tampio of Mamaroneck, an associate professor of political science at Fordham University who has tried to incite opposition to the bond act, said money from the bond act will ultimately tie districts to the state's agenda. The state Education Department's goal, he said, is for districts to prepare for online tests aligned to the Common Core.

"School districts face a choice: Submit investment plans that (state Education Commissioner) John King wants or relinquish any chance of having the plan approved," Tampio said. "And what John King wants is the technological infrastructure to support online Common Core testing."

If the bond act is approved, each district would be eligible to receive a set amount based on the state's aid formula. But districts would need to have spending plans approved by a high-powered review board consisting of King, SUNY Chancellor Nancy Zimpher and state Budget Director Robert Megna.

And:

E.J. McMahon, president of the Empire Center, a conservative think tank in Albany, has been the most prominent critic of the bond act. He said Cuomo has no research that proves New York needs to borrow $2 billion for school tech.

"There was no assessment of need and no one asked for this," he said. "This is the most ill-conceived and wasteful bond act to be put in front of New York voters in 30 or 40 years."

He noted that the state Board of Regents, which sets educational policy, has not endorsed the bond act.

"The governor treats the need for this as self-evident: Tech is good," McMahon said.

Why in the world would anybody want to vote for a $2 billion dollar boondoggle bond act that gives John King and Nancy Zimpher the right to approve or reject what districts do with the money?

You can be sure King and Zimpher, staunch Common Core proponents and testing advocates, will want every district to use the money for infrastructure for the PARCC (or some other online tests) to grade students, rate teachers and evaluate schools.

We ought to call this the Infrastructure For Online Computerized Testing Bond Act, because that's exactly what it is.

Don't be fooled, thinking much (or any, for that matter) of this money will go to building schools or getting rid of trailers in the city schools.

This is tech bond, pure and simple, meant to get the state up and running for the coming online PARCC tests.

Vote NO on the Proposition 3 on Tuesday.

Common Core Proponents Change Bar For Success

Remember when Common Core proponents used to brag about having 45 states and D.C. on the Common Core bandwagon?

Now they say they'd be happy with far fewer states using CCSS and the CCSS tests:

“The politics have reached the point where they’re getting in the way of actually implementing” the standards, says Andrew Rotherham, cofounder of Bellwether Education Partners, an education research and policy group based in Sudbury, Mass.

“The perception is one of momentum [for the anti-Common Core people], and politics is a game of perception,” he says. “If you end up with 25 states doing [Common Core] in a meaningful way, that’s an enormous victory, but it won’t be perceived that way.”

From 45 states + D.C. to 25 states.

How the might have fallen.

In the end, if 20 states stop using Common Core, the CCSS testing consortia are sure to die (especially now that the federal money is drying up) and once the CCSS tests die, there is little for reformers to use to ensure that the standards are being taught even in the 25 states that nominally will still be on the CCSS bandwagon.

There was a reason why reformers pushed Common Core, tests based on Common Core and teacher evaluations tied to tests scores all at the same time all across the nation.

It was to ensure that the standards were taught in every school and they were going to force this through the tests and the evaluations.

But the more states that drop CCSS and the ancillary CCSS tests, the less powerful the sticks to enforce CCSS in other states become, especially if the PARCC and Smarter Balanced testing consortia go the way of the dinosaurs.

Nice try by Eduwonk trying to put a winning face on a loss, but if 20 states drop off the CCSS bandwagon, that's disastrous for CCSS proponents and supporters.

The Hubris, Arrogance And Authoritarianism Of Common Core Proponents

Some of the comments on Jay Greene's Common Core Political Naivete and the Enemies List post get at this:

"The main problem has not been intention, I think, but strategy. I have no doubt many Core supporters really think national standards are educationally important. The problem is, to get what they thought was good, they adopted a strategy that was — and is — highly destructive: Drive adoption through stealth and federal coercion, likely to avoid the ignominious fate of open national standards efforts in the 1990s. Demean opponents, as Jay so rightly points out, as kooks and extremists worthy only of derision, not engagement. Perhaps worst of all, refuse to forthrightly acknowledge crucial facts once the public was fully confronted with the Core, including that Core-ites wanted federal coercion, got federal coercion, and that the Core intentionally has a major influence on curricula. 

People may think I am obsessed with the federal role in Core adoption because I constantly repeat the facts about it. And, of course, by itself the federal role is a crucial issue, invoking major constitutional questions, legal questions, and federalism concerns. But what is especially disturbing about the federal role is that Washington’s coercion essentially ensured that we would never get to have a substantive debate — a debate I, I think among many people, would like to have — about the merits of national standards, national tests, etc. Instead, the goal seemed to be to stick the public with nationalization without any public debate. In other words, we never got to have the more substantive national standards discussion because the federal government, at the urging of Core supporters, made having it irrelevant." -- Neal McCluskey

 ...

"I don’t agree with the notion that the Common Core advocates were ever naive. They were simply never honest about what they were trying to do–and didn’t think honesty would get them most of the K-12 system, public and private (remember, they went after Catholic parish schools right away–and Christian Day schools). They wanted control–the power to push buttons as they saw fit–because they thought so highly of themselves–with nothing to show for it in education (which is a good part of the problem.) Duncan didn’t accomplish anything in Chicago, Fordham has never accomplished anything in education that’s been academically effective. And Gates couldn’t discern the difference between third-rate minds in education and first-rate minds in technology, which is why he ended up with hiring third-rate minds for his Foundation. I doubt he ever read a book by Jacques Barzun, for example or reflected on the questions raised by Great Books writers to develop some insight into human behavior.

The first draft of the “anchor” reading standards that came out (sneaked out in July 2009 but changed before its official September debut), the membership of the standards development work group in sprint 2009 (mostly in test development), and the first draft Jim Milgram ever saw of the math standards with Algebra I as the “college readiness level” revealed designer intentions to anyone spending time pondering what was going on. The intentions behind CC were never academic–to upgrade the public schools in K-12 for all kids–even though that was what was needed, and still is. It’s not a “trahison des clercs” for most of them because that would credit Gate, Duncan, Finn, Petrilli, et al with more intelligence than they have. It’s a kind of hubris, but not of the Greek tragic mode." -- Sandra Stotsky

Both McCluskey and Stotsky make important points here.

The people behind Common Core believe they're geniuses and everybody else are morons - you can see that in the arrogance of David Coleman and Arne Duncan, the certitude of Bill Gates.

They decided that only their genius could save the country from the rest of us morons and decided to "save us" without actually asking us if we wanted to be, you know, saved.

They devised their strategies in secret and decided that their plans would be need to be implemented as quickly and as quietly as possible for maximum impact.

Previous incarnations of national standards died when there was pushback from states and localities - so this time, the geniuses decided the whole thing would happen so fast, there would be no time for pushback.

The '08 financial collapse became a convenient cover and excuse to push through what they wanted to push through - national standards connected to national tests that would be used to evaluate teachers, thus ensuring the standards were taught (and driving curriculum as well, since what gets tested is ultimately what gets taught.)

Race to the Top was the carrot, No Child Left Behind waivers were the stick and the USDOE was the driver of it all.

It's all falling apart for a number of reasons, not least of which are, the CCSS standards themselves are half-baked (because they were rushed and not tested anywhere), the ancillary testing that goes with CCSS is facing a mounting opposition from all political sides and the data programs that were supposed to track all the stats are under assault from parents and privacy advocacy groups.

But perhaps the biggest reason it's all falling apart is the hubris, arrogance and authoritarianism of the people behind the movement itself - this coterie of oligarchs and their functionaries thought they could get what they wanted quickly and quietly, with no muss and no fuss, by developing it in secret, pushing it through while everyone else was paying attention to the financial crisis of 2008/2009 and attacking anybody who criticized their genius as crooks or kooks.

They've created the pushback themselves through the strategies they developed to push through their agenda.

Greene calls that "naivete," though Stotsky disagrees and calls it "dishonesty."

I think it's a little of both.

At the core, the Core proponents are dishonest people - Gates, Duncan, Coleman, et al will lie and cheat to get what they want, the last few years shows that quite clearly.

But they were also naive to believe that there wouldn't be a significant counterattack to their agenda and they've been amateurish (as Greene notes in his post) in their own pushback.

Witness Duncan's ill-advised "Soccer moms are pissed to find out their kids are stupid" comments or Gates whining in the Washington Post about how he's just trying to save the world if only people would let him.

Instead of engaging critics and opponents on point, CCSS proponents attacks and dismiss.

They've sowed the seeds of the demise of their agenda themselves, first through through the authoritarian way they pushed it through, then through the amateurish way they've tried to deal with critics and opponents.

As Stotsky notes, this isn't hubris on a grand, Greek tragedy scale, but it is hubris.

And in the end, it's what's going to do the Common Core and the ancillary other reforms that came with them in.

No Wonder The Parcc Consortium Has Lost So Many States

A comment left at the Worcester Telegram and Gazette:

Why it may not be a great idea to take PARCC this year:

41% of students who took the pilot reported it was hard to type their answers.
46% of students reported technology problems when taking the math test

teachers reported that 72% of students needed more time than the test recommended (suggesting a gross misjudgment of the time requirement)

72% of schools need more devices to administer the PARCC, so paper and pencil tests an option (but they cost 9 dollars more per test)
(source: Massachusetts DESE, except info in parentheses)

Also:

Paper/pencil test cost estimates(not including technology and maintenance! Billions of our tax money will take care of that.) increased from costing $3-$4 more than computer test to $9 per test more.

Essays written by students who took the pilot will be used to train an automated essay scoring (AES) tool. No humans will be needed to read your child's writing.

MCAS data is owned by the state, but ownership of PARCC data is unclear. (Who will have access to your child's test scores?)

Now is the time to stand up for what little remains of local control before we give away the rest of our children's futures.

Jim Horn at Schools Matter writes that with Tennessee's withdrawal from PARCC, there are now 15 states left in the consortium.

Unless something changes soon, PARCCis going to go the way of inBloom.

The Problem With Education Reform Centers On The Education Reformers Themselves

An editorial in The Worcester Telegram and Gazette:

We're all for quality and high standards in public education. But the taxpayers of Massachusetts should be asking some hard questions about the cost of and need for revamping the state's standardized testing system.

For the coming year, at least, school districts will be permitted to choose between the familiar Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, or MCAS exams, and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for Colleges and Career tests.

So far, according to Mitchell Chester, state commissioner of elementary and secondary education, 57 percent of school districts have opted for PARCC tests next spring.

Whatever the final numbers prove to be, it's clear that Massachusetts public schools will be running an experiment in 2014-15, with lots of debate and feedback.

But has anyone paused to consider whether any change was needed? Has anyone considered whether it makes any sense to spend millions to prepare for new tests, when Massachusetts has made solid progress for 20 years with MCAS?

We know that Mr. Chester chairs the PARCC consortium that developed the new tests, and that PARCC tests are designed to work with the Common Core curriculum that Massachusetts has accepted — even while some critics charge it represents a retreat in quality.

Mr. Chester insists no decision has been made on whether the state will ultimately choose PARCC or stay with MCAS, but it's hard to believe he doesn't have a preference, and harder still to accept that education officials would embrace Common Core without PARCC.

The more fundamental question is what has changed that requires new curriculum guidelines or tests. Did the elements of geometry change? Were rules for the use of the subjunctive suspended? Did the periodic table decay or expand?

And why would the state introduce a new testing regimen that may soon require taxpayers to invest at least $75 million in connectivity and equipment upgrades so that schools not currently up to technological snuff can take PARCC tests?

No doubt many schools could use better technology, but such needs ought to be met as needed for providing basic instruction today, not driven by a testing regime that comes wrapped in the Common Core.

Anyone who studies the curriculum frameworks that were at the heart of the 1993 Massachusetts education reform effort can see that they were built for performance and built to last.

A generation later, a new set of educational bureaucrats may perceive an expiration date where none exists. If unquestioned and unchecked, their experiment is likely to cost Massachusetts taxpayers many millions of dollars for bells and whistles, IT experts, consultants, retrofits, and, yes, more bureaucrats.

But will it yield any gains in education achievement? And, with MCAS in the rearview mirror, and Common Core and PARCC likely in the near future, will anyone be able to offer a meaningful comparison and draw useful conclusions about where public education in Massachusetts should head next?

Probably not, which means more studies, more research, and more time and treasure expended on arguing over the forms of education, rather than mastering its contents.

We're beginning to suspect that that's the whole idea behind these changes, and that the problem with education reform in Massachusetts today is the educator reformers themselves.

Common Core Opponents Give It To Idaho Governor/Common Core Shill Tom Luna

Idaho governor Tom Luna has long been a proponent of corporate education reform - and given the money he has received from testing companies, why wouldn't he be?

Yesterday Luna, a Republican, heard from people who are from his own party why they are suspicious of the Common Core State (Sic) Standards:

COEUR d'ALENE - A group of North Idaho opponents of the Common Core initiative went head-to-head Thursday in Coeur d'Alene with one of the effort's leading proponents, Idaho public schools chief Tom Luna.

The event, an informational meeting organized by Tea Party leader Pam Stout of Bonner County, attracted about 35 people to the Coeur d'Alene Public Library.

...

Throughout Luna's presentation, he was confronted by people in the crowd who shouted out comments, often challenging what Luna, the highest elected education official in Idaho was saying about the core standards.

"Everything about this is by Bill Gates," yelled a man.

He interrupted Luna at a point when Luna was telling the group that Idaho's higher education leaders say that with the new standards in place, they believe the state's high school graduates will be college-ready and will not require remedial course work before they are able to take college-level classes. About 50 percent of college entrants in the state now require remediation before they can earn college credits.

Stout asked the audience members to withhold their comments and questions until Luna finished his presentation.

Luna tried to address one of the core standards' detractors chief complaints - a perception that the standards are heavily influenced and controlled by the federal government, that they represent a federal curriculum. Luna told the group that under the Constitution the federal government has no role or authority over education.

"Then explain the U.S. Department of Education," shouted out an audience member.

Audience members said the standards are too low, that they don't aim high enough.

Some people at the meeting indicated they believe textbook publishers are in collusion with the developers of the Common Core, that corporate interests are driving the effort and the curriculum.

Several times, Luna asked the audience members to review the standards, which can be found on the state education department's website, and tell him which ones they think are too high or too low. He said he has asked various groups this question, and has never heard a specific complaint about any of the standards.

Maureen Paterson, from outside Priest River in Bonner County, handed out fliers at the start of the meeting. The headline topping a list of "documented facts" handed out by Paterson was "Common Core = Obama Core."

During the meeting, Paterson shared a concern of many core standards opponents.
She said that if teachers are being evaluated based on student assessments connected with the core standards, the curriculum will ultimately be driven by the standards. Therefore, Paterson reasoned, local control of curriculum is affected by the core standards.

Another woman said businesses that develop curriculum are already aligning themselves with the standards.

"They've always aligned their curriculum to state standards," Luna said.

He said that Idaho is too small, that it doesn't have the funding to develop an assessment as robust as the one that accompanies the core standards. The test has been developed by the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, represented by a group of Common Core states, including Idaho.

Luna said several times that local districts retain control over their curriculum under the standards.

Linda Yergler, a trustee in the Kellogg School District, said she sits on her district's curriculum committee.

"When I ask if we can pick our own textbooks, they say we can't," Yergler said. "If we have local control, I would be a really happy camper, but it's less and less."

A person complained that the standards haven't been tested, that they don't know if they'll be good for students.

"What we do know is that every time we raise standards, performance goes up," Luna said.

Before raising similar complaints to those previously discussed, a man who spoke late in the meeting described himself as a Tea Party member.

"I'm a fan," said Luna, a Republican, before the man continued.

At the end of the meeting, Luna told the group he was sorry if he "got a little defensive" during the presentation, and said he appreciates that they came out and shared their opinions.

Some things of interest in this.

First, notice how these are Tea Party people - some of whom are "fans" of Luna - who nonetheless do not like Common Core are attacking Luna over it.

It is becoming more and more difficult for the Republican Party to hold together their constituencies - the corporate education reformers like Luna and Bush and Christie are getting more and more challenges from their own right flanks.

Second, notice the complaints people were raising - they're legitimate ones. 

Teachers will have to teach to the standards because they will be evaluated with tests that use the standards.  Textbooks and curriculum can no longer be chosen locally. The tests will be national tests since Idaho cannot afford to make its own. 

The main critique here is that since the standards have been promoted from Washington, they constitute a national curriculum that destroys local control.

It's hard for Common Core supporters to argue that the CCFS do not constitute the nationalizing of the curricula when these new standards force teachers to teach only what they will be evaluated on (i.e., the standards), local boards lose control of the curricula and textbook choices, and the state cannot give its own test but must join a consortia of other states and give a national test.

It doesn't seem like Luna won too many people over to his side at that meeting - indeed, when he apologizes for being "defensive" over the Common Core, you know he's feeling pressure over it.

With the news that Ohio is looking to repeal the Common Core, with Indiana and Michigan putting a stop to Common Core implementation, and with Tony Bennett - Common Core proponent extraordinaire - out of his job in Florida for cheating over test scores, things are starting to get rough for Common Core supporters.

I asked last night where we'll be in five years with these Common Core standards.

As we see more and more attacks mounted from both right and left on the standards, it's hard to see how many states are still using them five years down the road - especially as more and more states pull out the assessments tied to the standards too.

Education Reformers And Hubris

Valerie Strauss reports some members of the GOP in Florida want the state to pull out of the PARCC consortium:

Florida had joined the PARCC consortium but now, Senate President Don Gaetz and Florida House Speaker Will Weatherford, both Republicans, are urging Bennett to withdraw. The letter cites numerous problems with the PARCC, including cost and security as well as these points:

*PARCC assessments will take 20 days of testing plus extra time for students to “demonstrate knowledge and skills,” eating up more instructional time than does the current testing regime in the state, the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test.

*PARCC exams will all be given on the computer, but no district in the state yet has the required amount.

*PARCC “does not have a plan for the timely return of assessment data” that is supposed to be used to provide teachers with information on their students, to determine whether a student can be promoted or put in remedial classes, and to evaluate teachers.

(It is worth noting that critics of the process by which the Core was developed and implemented have long warned about the development of these problems, but reformers went ahead anyway without thinking through all of the ramifications of their rushed actions.)

I think reformers went along with the PARCC testing plan because they figured once the train left the station, it couldn't be brought back. 

But they were wrong.

And as the general public becomes more aware of the problems inherent in the Common Core and the testing consortia plans, the reform train is slowing down.

We're not at the point yet where it's being brought back to the station, but the half-baked job reformers did on their supposed "state of the art" CC assessments may get us back there just yet.

By pushing through so many changes so fast because they had the political muscle to do so, reformers have sowed the seeds of destruction of both the Core and the testing consortia.

There are so many problems and resistance is increasing.

Perhaps we're lucky the reform movement is as arrogant as it is.

Remember what we learn about hubris from the Greeks.