CCSSI's self-assessment is entirely analogous to "I have faith, you are superstitious, and he is a member of a cult".  UCLA's CRESST has put out some ridiculous "data based" studies in support of its deeply held convictions.

Good advice regarding any new reform efforts is to start with their assessments.  If new ones are prepared and they are in cahoots - often funded by exactly the same people - were funding reform efforts, expect the obvious or, if you like, bet that the instant replay will have a same result again.  Lots of claims of improved performance objectively demonstrated to be even worse.  Once again, "Dance with the guy what brung ya"; use the ITBS.  They are cheap, effective, and consistent over time.  What a deal. 


Consorting with consortia

Common Core sets the standards, and two consortia, PARCC and SBAC, will write and grade the tests that assess whether those standards were attained.  It’s a very cosy, profitable arrangement where the heaviest burdens and risks fall on the educators.

UCLA’s National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) has published this month a report called On the Road to Assessing Deeper Learning: The Status of Smarter Balanced and PARCC Assessment Consortia.

The report gives a general stamp of imprimatur to ongoing progress (what did you honestly expect?) cloaked in the usual hedged language:
Study results indicate that PARCC and Smarter Balanced summative assessments are likely to represent important goals for deeper learning, particularly those related to mastering and being able to apply core academic content and cognitive strategies related to complex thinking, communication, and problem solving.

Any challenges in implementation, the report foresees, will not be substantive but rather ``technical, fiscal, and political’’.

The CRESST report sounds one note of caution: ``Absent strong representation in the new assessments, students' deeper learning likely will be compromised.’’  Therein lies the rub: will the ``assessments call for deeper learning and reflect 21st century competencies’’?  (CRESST report, p.5)

As we at are also interested in the assessments being developed by PARCC and SBAC, we thought we’d follow CRESST’s lead and release our own status report.

At 09:57 AM 1/29/2013, GS Chandy wrote:
CCSSI Math Jan 29, 2013 10:47 PM:
> Our (frequently negative) comments about Common Core
> at are not based on
> ideology.  We're attempting to look at the standards
> solely from a sound math practices point of view.
I'm glad your critiques of 'Common Core' are not based/ founded on ideology. 

In my opinion, a focus on ideological issues could significantly detract from the math issues that you'd want to have clarified.  The best way (IMHO) is to restrict the ideology just to the comments from readers and (if essential) to your responses to those comments - but minimize it in any case for most productive results (and possible conversions of opinions) over the long term.

I've not seen your blog earlier - but I shall certainly try to follow it in future.

Best wishes