Jay P. Greene's Blog

(guest post by Ze’ev Wurman & Bill Evers)

Some people who favor national standards have pointed to the variability among states as making comparisons difficult and have been quick to point to national standards and tests as a consistent, nationwide, uniform system to judge all schools in the same way.  No one has been more outspoken on those points than the Fordham Institute, whose 2007 The Proficiency Illusion report was touted far and wide. It was followed in 2009 by another Fordham report, The Accountability Illusion, that took states to task not only for having distinct definitions of proficiency, but also with fuzzing the issue even more by playing with other NCLB accountability rules. Checker Finn came out on its publication declaring:

“This report’s crucial finding is that – contrary to what the average American likely believes – there is no common, nationwide accountability system for measuring school performance under NCLB. The AYP system is idiosyncratic, even random and opaque. Without a common standard to help determine whether a given school is successful or not, its fate under NCLB is determined by a set of arcane rules created by each state…”

 And:

“It looks like a school’s ability to clear the NCLB bar depends as much on the state in which it’s located as on how its students perform. No Child Left Behind’s image suggests that schools across America are being judged in a consistent, fair and transparent way—but that turns out to be an illusion.”

Hence it is a small wonder that Fordham has been on the forefront of the push in recent years for uniform national standards, and the recent alliance between it and the Gates Foundation and AFT, with the support of another dozens of “independent” organizations paid for by Gates, pitched for a national curriculum built on top of the federally pushed “voluntary” Common Core standards. From its reports, it is clear that Fordham believes in a single set of content standards with a single set of performance standards (cut-scores) as pitched in its Proficiency Illusion.

Yet, interestingly enough, in 1995 Albert Shanker came out against a single set of cuts scores across the nation. As he wrote (p. 79):

A recent and popular slogan in American education is that all children can learn to the same high levels. This is news to parents, teachers, and the public; it defies everything we know and appreciate about human differences. But reformers are nonetheless insisting that we establish a single set of “world-class”  performance standards and that schools be held accountable for getting all their students to achieve at that level.…

If we set a single standard, we essentially have two choices. One is to set the standard high. That is desirable, especially since we are talking about “world-class.” Unfortunately, most of our students would not reach it. … [It] would produce intense pressure to lower the standard, and we would effectively be back where we started.

The other choice is to set the standard low, perhaps slightly higher than the minimum competency standard we now have but at a level that would be attainable by virtually all of our students. We could then congratulate ourselves for raising the floor of achievement, but we will have missed an opportunity to raise the ceiling and to move up the middle as well. If we can do better by all students by acknowledging that they, like all human beings, differ in their capacities, motivations, and interests, then why settle for a new minimum competency standard disguised in “world-class” rhetoric?

This issue is not solved by just having a single set of standards, or by a single test. To have the same meaning for “proficiency,” the test must also have a uniform definition of cut scores for all states that define the various achievement levels. Yet the national assessment consortia have been notably mealy mouthed on this issue — in their presentations to the California State Board of Education this March, both consortia indicated a flexibility to allow each state to set its own cut scores.

Makes one wonder how the new ideological partners, Fordham and AFT, will resolve this underlying tension between them.

[Ze'ev Wurman is an executive at a Silicon Valley start-up and was a senior policy adviser in the U.S. Department of Education.  Bill Evers is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a member of the institution's Koret Task Force on K-12 Education.]

It is now clear, according to the U.S. Department of Education’s own description, that the Department is in violation of the law by which it was created.

Our criticism of the nationalization of standards, curriculum, and assessments elicited the following statement from Peter Cunningham, spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Education: “Just for the record: we are for high standards, not national standards and we are for a well-rounded curriculum, not a national curriculum. There is a big difference between funding development of curriculum—which is something we have always done—and mandating a national curriculum—which is something we have never done. And yes—we believe in using incentives to advance our agenda.”

Let’s leave aside the double-speak of how incentivizing is somehow different from mandating.  Instead, let’s focus on his admission that the Department is “funding development of curriculum” and is “using incentives to advance our agenda.”

The 1979 law by which the U.S. Department of Education is authorized in its current form clearly prohibits these activities.  It states (in section 103b): “No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law.” (emphasis added)

So, the spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Education says that they are funding development of curriculum, but the Department is expressly not authorized to direct, supervise, or control curriculum.  They are are also prohibited from directing, supervising, or controlling textbooks or other instructional materials.

The Department seems to think that it is on solid footing as long as it does not mandate or control curriculum.  But the 1979 law restricts the Department more broadly.  It may not even direct or supervise curriculum.  I have no idea how the Department could fund the development of curriculum without also exercising some direction and supervision over that curriculum.

Nor can the Department justify its current activities by claiming that they are only funding the development of curricular frameworks and instructional materials.  The Department is also explicitly prohibited from directing, supervising, or controlling the content of instructional materials.

As far as I know, no law has specifically authorized the Department to engage in these activities from which they are otherwise prohibited.

I think they have been caught red-handed.

(edited for clarity)

Checker Finn and Mike Petrilli responded today to the criticism over a nationalized set of standards, curriculum, and assessments.

Charles Miller, the former chair of the Board of Regents of the University of Texas and one of the chief architects of Texas’ accountability system, sent me the following note.  He observed the extensive use of passive voice in the Fordham reply, which serves to conceal who is supposed to be doing the described actions.  He wrote:

So much of the discussion by the advocates of Common Core Standards is filled with references to steps which have to be taken or events which have to take place without identifying specifically how and by whom it happens.  Almost always, there is the implication that some set of elite experts or the federal government will handle what’s necessary with the utmost competence…and virtue—and no unintended consequences, the bane of central planners.  For my own satisfaction, I took this paragraph below from the Gadfly’s response to the Counter-Manifesto [it should always be in [bold]] and tried to fill in specifically who the implementing agents of change will or should be.

 Here’s what I came up with:

 ”So here’s where we stand: First, states should be encouraged [by the federal government's funding lever] to stay the course with the Common Core standards and assessments, at least until we [the federal government] see what the tests look like. While the standards aren’t perfect, they are vastly better than what they are replacing in most states [as judged by the federal government]. Second, à la the Shanker manifesto, efforts should be made [by the federal government] to develop all manner of tools, materials, lesson plans, professional development, curricula, and more that [the federal government determines] will help teachers implement the standards in their classrooms—and to help students master them [as determined by the federal government]. We have no particular concern with the federal government—or philanthropists and venture capitalists, big and small—helping to pay for those activities, as has been done so often in the past [because the federal government never exercises control or significant influence when it spends money]. But, third, it should be made crystal clear  [by the federal government] that the use of all such materials will be completely voluntary for states and, we would argue, for districts within states, schools within districts, and teachers within schools. And fourth, the two consortia now building new Common Core assessments should take pains [with perhaps a loyalty oath to the federal government] not to cross the Rubicon into micromanaging schools’ curricular and instructional decisions.”

I would also add that Fordham’s continued assertion that this entire nationalization project is voluntary is getting downright annoying.  The adoption of the national standards was coerced by making state receipt of federal funds at least partially dependent  on endorsing them.  Fordham did not lift a finger to object to this federal coercion on standards, so why would we believe their new-found conviction that all of this should “be completely voluntary for states”?

Fordham’s credibility in claiming that this nationalization project is voluntary is further undermined by the fact that they recommended that the reauthorized ESEA should:

Require states to back-map achievement standards down to at least third grade, so that passing the state assessment in each grade indicates that a student is on track to graduate from twelfth grade ready for college or a career. States that opt out of the state assessment consortia funded by Race to the Top (RTT) would have their standards peer reviewed at the federal level by a panel of state officials and content-matter experts.

Of course, standards, curriculum, and assessment are all connected.  Once the federal government coerces states to adopt a set of standards, as it has already done without Fordham’s objection, and once states are compelled to adopt a particular set of assessments, as Fordham proposes the federal government should do, then we have a de facto national curriculum regardless of whatever else is done.

The signers of the Counter-Manifesto do not necessarily agree with each other about whether standards, curriculum, and assessments are best handled at the school, district, or state level, but we all agree that centralization to the federal level is undesirable.  Fordham’s facile suggestion that we should find centralization to the federal government acceptable because some of us find centralization to the state level acceptable, assumes that centralization is the same regardless of the level to which power is allocated.  If Fordham is so comfortable with centralization and finds the “hodge-podge of standards, tests, textbooks, curricular guides, lesson plans” so bothersome because it lacks “coherence,” then why wouldn’t they support centralization to the U.N.?  Why should math be any different in Mexico than it is in the U.S.?  A fair number of children cross the border.

The point is that some level of centralization involves the delegation of power to people who are too far removed from the circumstances to be effective, even if they were perfectly benevolent in their exercise of power (which we generally trust less as power is aggregated further).  The signers of the Counter-Manifesto are consistent with the sentiments of the Founders, the legislative authorizers of the Department of Education, and the American people in understanding that education standards, curriculum, and high-stakes assessments should not be done at the national level.

Fordham, in coalition with its friends at Gates, Pearson, AFT, and the US Department of Education are trying to subvert this historical and legal consensus against federal control by failing to be candid about what they are proposing.  That’s why they love the passive voice so much in addition to the use of weasel words.  And that’s why Charles Miller’s clarification of the actor in each sentence is so useful.

Tight/Loose Management in Action

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

As Jay predicted, the nationalizers want you to believe that what they’re asking for won’t actually, really, truly transfer all that much control to the central command bunker in DC.

Let’s climb into the Wayback Machine for a second. Poking around some old posts on this topic, I found this.

Checker argued:

Remember, it’s liberals who believe that people should be held to different standards.

To which I responded:

Right. Because if Johnny learns long division in fourth grade and Suzy learns it in third grade, that’s the moral equivalent of a racial quota.

A commenter objected:

Is that a fair characterization of this debate? Deciding whether long division is presented to kids in 3rd or 4th grade?

I thought the national standards seem to be a way to ultimate get a national test. And that’s what Checker seems to be signing onto. Because in some states, Johnny can NEVER learn long division and still get a high school in diploma.

Seems like Checker is fighting against states setting low cut marks on tests, thereby deceiving Johnny and fooling his parents into trusting the schools that all is okay.

I responded:

On this “national test” you pine for, will long division be on the third grade test? Yes or no? If yes, Johnny will have to learn it before he’s ready. If no, Suzy will waste a year of math classes waiting for Johnny to catch up. Or do you plan to custom-build a test for each student?

This way of framing the argument, of course, brings me to Neal’s point that the national standards debate and the school choice debate are interconnected. I hope to write a longer response to Neal on that soon. For now, let me just observe the following:

1. Events have now confirmed that Checker was, indeed, signing on for a national test to be taken by all students. Or if you want you can call it a national choice between two tests, both created behind closed doors by agents of the national government - huge difference!
2. If we have a national test for all students, or a national choice between two tests both of which were created by the national government, that testing regime will obviously drive what gets taught and how.

Sorry, nationalizers, but…

If advocates of the nationalization of education had greater intellectual integrity, they would openly declare that they favor nationally uniform standards, curriculum, and assessments, and that producing greater uniformity was desirable.  But “intellectual” and “integrity” are not the first things that come to mind when thinking of the U.S. Department of Education-Gates-AFT-Fordham coalition pushing nationalization.

Instead of a straightforward and open defense of their agenda, I anticipate that the U.S. Department of Education-Gates-AFT-Fordham coalition (along with their two hired assessment consortia and corporate backers) will respond with weasel words.  We’ve already seen some hints of their response, so my predictions will not be as impressive as those in the Fordham Report Drinking Game, but feel free to drink nevertheless.

They’ll say that they are not actually advocating a national curriculum.  Instead, they will say that they are only developing  “curricular roadmaps,” “multiple curriculum resources,” ”instructional materials,” “content frameworks,” “model instructional units, “content modules” or similar such weasel words.  Their talking points clearly instruct them to 1) use curriculum as an adjective instead of a noun since “curricular [whatever]” sounds like less than “curriculum,” 2) emphasize the plural so it sounds less uniform, 3) substitute a synonym for curriculum, such as “framework” or “model” so that you avoid clearly stating what you are developing.  Credulous reporters may sometimes buy the claim that these weasel words represent important distinctions, but I suspect that members of Congress are less likely to be as easily fooled when Department of Ed officials are called for hearings to explain the legislative authority by which they are developing a national curriculum.  And I suspect those hearings are not too far in the future.

The nationalization folks may also hide behind the fact that there are two consortia, so clearly they do not desire a single national set of curriculum and assessments.  Having a choice among two federally funded products is a bit like the old joke where you have a choice between death and roo roo.  If you haven’t heard it, you might guess or check this out, but I think you’ll agree that this is hardly a choice.

Or perhaps the U.S. Department of Education-Gates-AFT-Fordham coalition will respond that the consortia are primarily devoted to developing new assessments, not curriculum (or curricular [whatever]).  Just remember that assessment can drive everything else.  Once you have high stakes national assessments you have a de facto national curriculum.

And I am certain that we will hear that the entire enterprise is voluntary.  Of course, there is nothing voluntary about mandating that states and localities comply if they wish to receive Title I funds when ESEA is re-authorized.  If U.S. Department of Education-Gates-AFT-Fordham pledge to do nothing in the ESEA re-authorization or future Race to the Top to reward, incentivize, encourage or otherwise coerce states and localities to adopt the national curriculum and assessments that are being developed, then this claim might have some credibility.  But they haven’t declared this as their position and they won’t do so precisely because they are not seeking a voluntary arrangement.  We have already seen fiscal coercion from the previous round of Race to the Top to get states to adopt the Common Core national standards.  Expect more of this.  And saying that states and localities can choose to forgo federal funds if they don’t wish to comply sounds about as voluntary as saying that paying your income tax is completely voluntary because you can always refuse and choose to go to jail.  Taking money from people and only offering them a share back if they comply is coercion.

The nationalizing coalition uses weasel words because their entire project depends on stealth.  If we have an open and vigorous debate about whether it is desirable for our large, diverse country to have a uniform national set of standards, curriculum, and assessments, I am confident that they would lose.  Time and time again the American people through their political and educational leaders have rejected nationalization of education when it has been proposed in a straightforward way.  Having learned from those failures  the U.S. Department of Education-Gates-AFT-Fordham coalition is trying to advance nationalization with piece-meal steps disguised in weasel words.  With the new Manifesto against nationalization I think we have brought the debate out into the open and the U.S. Department of Education-Gates-AFT-Fordham‘s agenda cannot survive in the open.

(edited for typos)