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
The report gives a general stamp of imprimatur to ongoing progress (what
did you honestly expect?) cloaked in the usual hedged language:
Any challenges in implementation, the report foresees, will not be
substantive but rather ``technical, fiscal, and political’’.
- 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.
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 ccssimath.blogspot.com 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
> Our (frequently negative) comments about Common Core
http://ccssimath.blogspot.com 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
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