Here are some take aways from the discussion:

- Some objectives for evaluating a "good" standard should be to: Raise the capability of all, not merely "close the achievement gap" (which can be done by retarding high achievers instead of bringing up the lower achievers). Should increase content knowledge - not decrease content so that it is easier for all to master. And should increase the academic competence of teachers. CC does none of these.

- Dr. Stotsky while developing/implementing the standard in Mass increased their standardized test scores every subsequent test. So she seems to know something about how to craft standards that actually help students learn.

- All the members of the CC development had to sign confidentiality agreements. This is curious, as it is purportedly a governmentally derived standard - so should be available to all. All of the meetings have been in secret, and since this development is not actually a government entity, you cannot obtain info via FOIA. Nothing about how these standards were determined, the basis for them, if or with whom they were benchmarked, comments/feedback on the standards and whether that feedback was incorporated into the standards - nothing is available.

- While purportedly being a standard to prepare students for college, the graduation standard for CC math originally maxxed out at Algegra I, and was eventually increased to a weak Algebra II level. There is no Calculus, pre-Calc, or Trigonometry at all.

- The weak math standard does not provide the mathematical understanding for several science courses. The draft for the next deployment of CC, in science and social studies drops chemistry totally (conjecture is that the math does not provide sufficient foundation for chemical reaction understanding).

- The lower math standards will require college courses to either implement remedial math for nearly all freshmen, or more likely will just lower their 100 level math curriculum, which in turn will lengthen the coursework to achieve a BS in any STEM area even longer than it is now.

- The English Language Arts standards aren't really even standards, rather they are a compilation of skills to be learned. Standards should have a knowledge and comprehension aspect to them, CC ELA stds only specify skills that need to be achieved - ex: Identify the protagonist in a story. These can be done with any level of literature from the three little pigs to AS (my example).

- CC ELA stds concentrate on writing and diminishes reading. This reduces the important competencies of vocabulary, exposure to wide ranging thoughts, critical thinking and analysis skills.

- Who is driving these stds? It seems that it is the testing companies and the Gates Foundation (Bill and Melinda Gates). What is their agenda? Nobody knows as they are unaccountable to any public entity.

- Who was not part of the CC development group? No actual teachers, no parents (at least no participants that were specifically representative of the parents), no college professors (or at least someone designated as representing the expectations of colleges). Nor was this "college ready" curriculum vetted by any body representing colleges and the expectations for incoming freshmen.

-FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) has been turned on its head. It used to basically tell what few pieces of info that were reportable, and now they "re-interpretation" is that if it is not specifically prohibited, it is fair game. This means that the fed gov is now requesting info on innumerable aspects of students and families. Dr. Stotsky said that even though the school dist itself may have a contract with a testing organization that prohibits certain info being released, this can probably be superseded by the fed interpretation of FERPA (she added that she's not a lawyer, so wasn't offering a legal opinion, but had spoken with some lawyers who gave her that interpretation) and that they would then get the info from the testing organization and never even tell the school district.

- There is only one standardized testing organization that has not "dumbed down" their tests to meet the CC standards. That is the TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study). This is an international testing organization, and has little to gain by following CC stds. They do not provide individual student or even school district statistics, but if a state registers as an independent nation (this has been done by several states) TIMSS will provide overall evaluation of the students of the state in math and science achievement.

- What Dr. Stotsky has learned about the new social studies standards is that there are no required readings - not the Declaration of Independence, nor the Constitution among others. This in the stds for American Civics.

That's what Dr. Stotsky had to say. Why was she in Wisconsin? She is advising the only Wisconsin school board that has fully rejected CC and is developing their own standards. If you are interested in what they are doing, you can follow their progress at www.germantownschools.org You will see info on the presentation by Dr. Stotsky as well as a video of the presentation (will be added by Fri 11 Apr) and at the very bottom of the page you can find a link to the development of the local standards.

One point - our schools already have standards. They may not be perfect, but they are in place. Why this headlong rush by every state and school board (OK, 45 states, and nearly all school boards in those states)? When implementing something new, it is best practice to implement in a limited way, monitor and evaluate the implementation and adjust as necessary to address weaknesses before rolling out more widely. So, this is either being done by ignorant and incompetent people that do not understand change management, or by those all too understanding of change management and are seeking to ram in unwanted change as fast and forcefully as possible to overcome all resistance in order to "fundamentally change" the system. I think it is the latter. What say you?