When designing accountability systems, we need to find the sweet spot between defeatism and utopianism. In my view, that’s exactly what the states are trying to do. They deserve our praise, not our derision.
It’s probably time for education reformers and policymakers to admit that just pushing harder on test-driven accountability as the primary tool for changing our creaky old public school system is apt to yield more backlash than accomplishment
These measures help to offer a more holistic take on the quality of a state’s school system.
Those who see Common Core as a curricular monoculture, a boondoggle for publishers, or a violation of local control would do well to come to Reno.
Before receiving a federal grant that never needs to be repaid (as is the case with Pell grants and some loans), the recipient should demonstrate that they are worthy of support by passing an appropriate set of examinations.
Never Diet Without a Bathroom Scale and Mirror: The Case for Combining Teacher Evaluation and the Common Core
Schools should seize this window of transition—when it is safest for teachers to ask for help (and for instructional leaders to offer it)—to completely reinvent the teacher evaluation process.
The moderating of the debate over the Common Core seems to be mirroring the field’s increased focus on implementation.
Nationalizing standards and tests would eliminate them as differentiated school-reform instruments that could be used by states in competition over educational attainment.
A raucous debate has emerged over the Common Core, a debate been marked by acrimony rather than analysis, but there is hope that both sides want a reset.
Despite state policy changes, many districts still don’t factor student growth into teacher evaluation ratings in a meaningful way.
I was part of a team of 14 teachers from across New York City that put the typical rhetoric aside and paired our collective experience with the existing body of research about standardized assessment to create a series of recommendations.
Secretary Duncan’s reflective take on testing can delay, but cannot resolve, the reckoning that seems to be at hand.
The bottom line: the tests are hard, as expected, but the choice of texts needs work.
Monday’s Politico story on the messaging battle over the Common Core has kicked up another round of recriminations, particularly on the Right.
State education leaders will have to decide if their states are ready to move forward with consequences based on Common Core assessments.
The Gates Foundation announced Tuesday that it would support a two-year moratorium on attaching any consequences, for teachers or for students, to scores on new tests aligned with the Common Core State Standards.
AP exams are a distinctly American solution to the problem that standards in American education are subjective and vary widely from school to school.
Once educators and local (and state) officials see how poorly their kids do on tougher assessments and what the standards really require, they will start looking for better curricular materials and training.
One of the great unanswered questions in American education policy is why the major gains we’ve seen on the Nation’s Report Card in the fourth and eighth grades evaporate once students reach the twelfth grade.
Given the news coverage, you’d think Common Core’s fate was daily hanging in the balance—that pro and con forces were trading massive victories, swapping gains with each successive battle. But that’s emphatically not happening.
When it comes to the Common Core State Standards, Peggy Noonan is only about 60 percent right.
What happens when opponents of the Common Core State Standards finally succeed in getting a state’s policymakers to “repeal” the education initiative?
It’s important to offer solutions, not just complaints.
If NCLB represented the farthest point of the testing pendulum’s swing to the right, many forces beyond gravity alone are now pulling it leftward.