Good news! The second hearing on S 826 to Repeal and Replace Common Core is scheduled for April 26, 2016 in the Farnum Bldg at 8 AM. Even better news is that Dr. Sandra Stotsky will testify via teleconference. Dr. Stotsky is well-qualified for the task given her key role in developing the highly praised Massachusetts standards that were eventually replaced by the Common Core. She became an out-spoken critic of the Common Core after refusing to validate them as a member of the Common Core National Validation Committee. We are eager to hear what Dr. Stotsky has to say given that S 826 seeks to replace Common Core, science, and social studies with the pre-common core Massachussetts standards.
Many have asked “Why Massachussetts?” It is a good question and also asked by Senator Kznezek in the first hearing in a question to Senator Colbeck. Here is an excerpt,
In 2010 when they [MA] produced a report they found that for the math standards in Massachusetts they were aligned ninety-four percent to common core. For the English language English Language Arts standards they were in alliance 74% to common core. I think after struggling to process why we’re saying we’re opposed common core on one hand they want to adopt standards they’re 94% alligned to common core.”
Senator Colbeck, the sponsor of S 826, did a great job answering Senator Knezek’s question. (See video below at 39 min mark.) Dr. Stotsky will likely add more key details in her remarks next Tuesday. For additional insight, we asked Dr. Ze’ev Wurman to answer the concern
. Dr. Wurman served on the California Academic Content Standards Commission that evaluated the suitability of Common Core’s standards for California, and is coauthor with Sandra Stotsky of “Common Core’s Standards Still Don’t Make the Grade” (Pioneer Institute) Here is his response sent via email to us,
The issue regarding what makes an alignment is an excellent one. The answer is somewhat broad and I will try to address its multiple aspects. It turns around these points when comparing standards set A to set B.
1. Is the content present in both standards?
2. Is the content present in both standards at the same precise grade, rather than 1/2 grades above or below?
3. Is the “same” content is explicitly stated, or is it implied?
4. Is the content present without specifying pedagogy, or is it present in one of the standards wrapped in specific pedagogy?
5. Does the “percent alignment” refer only to content that is found in both A and B at the same grade as compared to A, or as compared to A + B?Answers to these questions will dictate the result of “alignment” to a large degree. Let me explain.
– If one wants to find maximum alignment, one would simply take option (1) and argue that since, say, addition of fractions is present in both A and B, addition of fractions is aligned.
– It could be, however, that addition of fractions is found in A in grade 5 and in B in grade 4. People trying to prove maximum alignment will take option (2) and count them as aligned. That is what California bureaucrats tried to do in 2010, when they argued to accept content within +/- one grade as “aligned.”
– Suppose set A clearly states “students add and subtract fractions with different denominators finding common denominators when needed,” while set B says “students add and subtract simple fractions.” Are those the same, or are those different, as per case (3)? It depends how one wants to interpret “simple fractions.” If you want to show that set B has everything that set A has, you will argue they are the same. If you are more objective, the answer generally is that it is not the same. Similarly if set B says “students perform operations with fractions” it is unclear whether it matches set A, unless one sees the test item specification for this standard.
– Suppose set A says, as before, “students add and subtract fractions with different denominators finding common denominators when needed,” while set B says “students add and subtract fractions using area models and visual fraction models.” This is an example of case (4) where the second standard is loaded with pedagogy and generally implies simple (and often common) denominators, but if one wants to see them as equal, one can. This is often the case with Common Core that is infused with a lot of pedagogy, while the content is “kind of” there, but not really.
– Finally, case (5) refers to the denominator of the calculation, even after one agrees about the amount of “aligned” content. Consider set A that has 5 standards — let’s call them 1,2,3,4,5 — and set be has 8 standards, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. Standards 3,4,5 are common and aligned. What is the “percent alignment”? Is it 3/5 (60%) based on set A? Is it 3/8 (37.5%) based on set B? Or is it 3/10 (30%) based on both sets A and B? Again, depending on how one wants to make the results look one can choose the methodology.
But the biggest flaw in this whole “94% aligned” rubbish was not even mentioned. It simply counts in a seemingly-precise bureaucratic manner alignment between standard sets, yet it completely ignores the relative importance of the standards. Some standards at each grade level are of key importance, other standards are peripheral and fall under “nice to have but nobody really cares” category. Pretending that every standard carries the same weight, and is of the same criticality, is beyond foolish. That is why alignment studies should not be carried out by novices or by subject-matter ignorant bureaucrats but by highly trained and trusted experts, ideally a group of at least 2-3 of them.
Bottom line, alignment studies have limited value, can be easily manipulated, and generally should not be used to anything beyond a general sense of alignment. Only if they are done by a trusted team of experts they may carry a little bit more value.
Let me give you an example: “chimps and bonobos in particular take pride of place as our nearest living relatives, sharing approximately 99 percent of our DNA, with gorillas trailing at 98 percent” (Scientific American, 2014). This is clearly better than 94%, so would anyone argue that we can easily exchange our DNA for a chimp DNA as it will have no real effect?
Massachusetts’ standards have proven themselves raising its students to the top of the nation. From mathematicians’ abstract point of view they may be slightly worse than California’s, yet they have the huge advantage of having proven themselves more than the California standards (which also pushed Calif. forward, but not as much). The only “proof” of Common Core that we have so far is the first-ever sharp nationwide drop on NAEP math in 2015, including in Massachusetts in both grade 4 and 8. For any honest person the choice should be a no brainer.
We look forward to next week’s hearing we hope you can join us. Please continue to contact your State Senator and Represenative and tell them to vote “yes” on S 826.