Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Written Testimony of Joy Pullman to Oklahoma Common Core Interim Study - 11-5-2013

Written Testimony of Joy Pullman to Oklahoma Common Core Interim Study - 11-5-2013

Ratings: (0)|Views: 8|Likes:
Published by RestoreOKPublicEd
Joy Pullmann (jpullmann@heartland.org) is a research fellow of The Heartland Institute and managing editor of School Reform News, a national monthly publication. In that capacity, she has interviewed and produced podcasts with many of the leading figures in school reform. She previously was the assistant editor for American Magazine at the American Enterprise Institute.

She is also the 2013 recipient of a Robert Novak journalism fellowship for in-depth reporting on Common Core national education standards.
http://heartland.org/joy-pullmann
Joy Pullmann (jpullmann@heartland.org) is a research fellow of The Heartland Institute and managing editor of School Reform News, a national monthly publication. In that capacity, she has interviewed and produced podcasts with many of the leading figures in school reform. She previously was the assistant editor for American Magazine at the American Enterprise Institute.

She is also the 2013 recipient of a Robert Novak journalism fellowship for in-depth reporting on Common Core national education standards.
http://heartland.org/joy-pullmann

More info:

Published by: RestoreOKPublicEd on Nov 12, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/27/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Testimony to Oklahoma Interim Committee on Common Core By Joy Pullmann  November 5, 2013 Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and especially Rep. Gus Blackwell, for the invitation to speak
today. I’m Joy Pullmann, a mother of three and education research
fellow at The Heartland Institute, a state-focused think tank with the mission to research and promote ideas that empower individuals. Because the institute believes in academic freedom, I speak for myself and not everyone affiliated with it. I believe you have and will continue to receive specific testimony on many of the details of Common Core, such as its lack of academic content, inappropriateness for small children, slipshod construction, connections to massive data-mining programs, and so forth. So, today I am here to discuss the broader context of Common Core, or what history, experience, and research tells us about its likelihood of benefitting children. The short answer is that we have no reason to believe Common Core will have positive effects, and many reasons to believe it will damage children, teachers, and families. Samuel Johnson,
upon hearing of an acquaintance’s remarriage,
apparently
criticized that decision as “the triumph of hope over experience.” The same phrase applies to central planni
ng and standards-based education, one of its offspring, because every experience with both demonstrates their grave dangers. If you think back to Economics 101, you may recall a fellow named Ludwig von Mises, a great economist who emphasized that government intervention begets troublesome unintended consequences, which increases the demand for more government intervention, which creates worse unintended consequences, and so on until in whatever sector the government intervened you have socialism or communism, with its high economic costs, low-quality results, and grave restrictions on human freedom.
1
 
We see that with the United States’ march towards socialist
healthcare, which began with World War II wage and price controls. And the same is true of U.S. education, which has slid steadily away from local control and individual responsibility to low-quality, frustration-filled nationalization. Common Core is only the next step down that  path, and its existence is the result of federal intrusion into education, which so far has gotten children and taxpayers literally nothing for all its expense, micromanagement, and bluster.
2
 We are all now used to states creating standards, or goals for what children should learn in certain subjects, and corresponding tests to measure whether children actually have learned what the central planners wanted. But this way of managing education is relatively new. It began in
1
 See
 Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition
 
2
 
"The Impact of Federal Involvement in America’s Classrooms," Andrew Coulson, testimony to Committee on Education & the
Workforce, United States House of Representatives, February 10, 2011: http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/impact-federal-involvement-americas-classrooms.
 
the late 1980s and early 1990s, with
fervor created by President Reagan’s 1983 report,
 A Nation  At Risk 
, transforming a few years thereafter demands from politicians and special interest groups that the federal government set national goals for education.
3
 From the beginning of the standards movement, the federal government and special interest groups set forth national standards and testing models for states to copy, gradually increasing the level of coercion involved.
4
 Ever since then, standards-based education has yielded no positive results for children, and battles over state and national standards then have been essentially on the same topics as they are today: reoccurring horror that special interest groups have somehow managed to water down education content in favor of failed education theories and political activism, a lack of content experts involved in developing standards and curriculum, monkey business with state tests, and broad social strife.
5
  Now we have Common Core, whose proponents say bests those rotten old state standards that have been created and coerced by essentially the same process Common Core has and will be. They ignore that the entire idea is compromised because it relies on inherently faulty central  planning, and the research bears this out. A series of data analyses from the Brookings Institution, for example,
find no link between state standards and student achievement. “Every
state already has standards placing all districts and schools within its borders under a common regime. And despite that, every state has tremendous within-
state variation in achievement,” says
the latest such report.
6
 The same is true of our international competitors: Many high-performers have national standards and tests, but so do many low performers.
7
 Research from Stanford University economist Eric Hanushek shows that states with higher standards tend to have lower student performance, when compared on the same test.
8
 So why do we keep hearing that Common Core is the magic tonic
America’s
 lackluster
schoolchildren desperately need? Dr. Jay Greene of the University of Arkansas explains: “The
only evidence in support of Common Core consists of projects funded directly or indirectly by the Gates Foundation in which panels of selected experts are asked to offer their opinion on the quality of Common Core standards. Not surprisingly, panels organized by the backers of
Common Core believe that Common Core is good… The few independent evaluations of
Common Core that exist suggest that its standards are mediocre and represent little change from
what most states already have.”
9
 When Seton Hall University professor Christopher Tienken
reviewed the purportedly “large and growing body of knowledge” that
supports Common Core,
3
 
 National Standards in American Education: A Citizen’s Guide
, Diane Ravitch (Brookings Institution, Washington DC): 1995.
4
 "Standards-Based Education Reform in the United States since 'A Nation at Risk,'" Boyce Brown, University of Hawaii, June 1, 2009: http://www.hawaii.edu/hepc/pdf/Reports/FINAL-History_of_Standards-Based_Education_Reform.pdf.
5
 See, for example,
What’s at Stake in the K 
-12 Standards Wars
, ed. Sandra Stotsky, (Peter Lang, New York): 2000.
6
 
“How Well Are American Students Learning?” Tom Loveless, Brookings Institution, Volume III, Number 1 (February 2012):
7
 
“One Size Fits None,” Jay Greene,
 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
 
8
 
“Is the Common Core Just a Distraction?” Eric Hanushek,
 Education Next 
9
 Testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives, Jay Greene, September 21, 2011: http://jaypgreene.com/2011/09/21/my-testimony-on-national-standards-before-us-house/. 
 
he said “I found that it w
as not large, and in fact built mostly on one report,
 Benchmarking for Success
, created by the [organizations that wrote Common Core]
… Only four of the cited pieces
of evidence could be considered empirical studies related directly to the topic of national
standards and student achievement.”
10
 He further discusses research showing there is no link  between test scores and economic competitiveness. There is simply no robust evidence that Common Core, or any Rube Goldberg-esque system of central planning, will improve student achievement. Reform proponents once again prefer hope to experience. For this foolishness, not they but
the nation’s children will pay. Here’s yet another outrageous absurdity: No one, anywhere, has ever tried Common Core before.
We have no track record of its effectiveness, yet we are supposed to believe it will work magic. People turn to superstition when they have no evidence to back what they want to believe. The same is true of the experimental Common Core tests. No one has ever conducted computer-adaptive testing with many open-ended questions on children at a large scale before,
11
 but apparently the whole nation is to plunge into such activities, whether you get your tests from the federally funded national Common Core consortia or off the shelf from a vendor like ACT. Oklahoma, among many states, experienced reams of trouble with your attempts at statewide online testing this spring. Those problems will only be compounded in myriad ways by attempts to micromanage instruction, testing, and curriculum through Common Core, just as similar attempts were during the era of No Child Left Behind. The question is not whether Common Core will fail, but what federal intervention statists will demand when it does.
It’s not hard to guess. Aft
er the failure of ObamaCare, we will see increased pressure for entirely socialized healthcare. After the failure of Common Core, we will see demands for even more nationalized education.  Now is the time to stop ignoring history, research, and experience, and turn away from several decades of education theories and machinations that have proven themselves a waste of energy,
resources, and children’s precious time.
Our nation is still at risk 
 — 
in fact, the risk has increased,
yet our remedies so far aren’t w
orking. The answer is not a double dose of what made the patient
even sicker. It’s to change the medicine.
Central planning creates social tension by demanding that everyone follow not his or her own  plans, but one plan decided through the political process. This is why you see such fury on Common Core
 —those who like it can’t do it if you make other standards mandatory, and those who don’t like it must live with it if you continue on the present path. Central planning also
makes it more likely for special interests to control what happens, because they have the money, time, and resources to constantly devote, while parents and ordinary citizens do not.
10
 
“Common Core State Standards: An Example of Data
-
less Decision Making,” Christopher Tienken,
 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice
11
 Gary Thompson, testimony to Wisconsin legislative committee on Common Core, October 23, 2013: http://vimeo.com/77988848. 

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->