Washington State & the Common Core State StandardsThis is a featured page


This page is devoted to Washington State and the Common Core State Standards. Other information about the Common Core State Standards can be found on the following pages:





Washington State and the Common Core State Standards

Senate Bill 6696 was passed by the Washington State legislature in the spring of 2010. This bill basically was a reform bill to help the state apply and qualify for Race to the Top funds. Section 601 of the bill authorized the superintendent of public instruction to provisionally adopt the Common Core State Standards. Unless otherwise directed by the legislature, the superintendent may implement the new standards after the 2011 legislative seession.

The link above links to a page where the SB 6696 can be downloaded. The text of SEction 601 has been included below.


Superintendent Dorn Provisionally Adopts Common Core State Standards
OLYMPIA — July 19, 2010


OSPI CCSS Related Webpages

Common Core State Standards

Compare & Review with Washington State Standards


OSPI has Hanover Research do an Alignment Analysis August 2010

Alignment Analysis: Common Core and Washington State Reading, Writing and Communications Grade Level Expectations

Alignment Analysis: Common Core and Washington State Mathematics Standards

Washington Alignment Analysis, facilitated by OSPI

Washington Alignment Analysis: Mathematics
Washington State and Common Core State Standards
November 2010

Washington Alignment Analysis: English Language Arts
Washington State and Common Core State Standards
November 2010


Download the statement at the above link. The text of the statement is below.

Where’s the Math? A Comparative Match Up of the CCSS and WA
State Math Standards K - 8


Where’s the Math? A Comparative Match Up of the CCSS with WA
State Math Standards for Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II




Where’s the Math? Washington State Legislature Should Vote Against Adoption
of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics

October 12, 2010
Download the statement at the above link. The text of the statement is below.


October 2010 OSPI Conducted Information Forums around the State. Forums were held in Yakima, Spokane, Tacoma, Vancouver, and Shoreline. A couple of webinars were also held.

Download a pdf of a powerpoint used at the forums and webinar.

OSPI’s four public forums around the state were not well publicized nor were they well attended. WA has over 1 million students that will be affected if these standards are adopted, yet about only 200 people attended the forums. OSPI has done a poor job of informing the public about the CCSS from the early stages of development to the present time. OSPI has shepherded this effort to the point the CCSS have been provisionally adopted for the state, yet the vast majority of the public, including teachers, have at best, been poorly informed.
Approximate attendance:
Yakima ?
Spokane 20
Tacoma 25
Vancouver 30
Shoreline 58

Select Slides from OSPI's Powerpoint Slideshow used at the Forum with comments added can be found below.


Superintendent Dorn requests $2,165,000 million to implement the common core academic learning standards. (the document as received did say million---that is believed to be in error)
Download the funding request document.




Articles and Blogs

Because of CCSS, district not replacing math materials for two more years
Laurie H. Rogers MARCH 27, 2011 Education News


Washington Legislature is poised to give away their legislative control over Education
Bob Dean March 12, 2011
The Columbian

Washington should stick to proven state math standards
Clifford F. Mass February 25, 2011 The Seattle Times

A Top Ten List of Unreasonable Reasons to Adopt
The Common Core State Standards

February 19, 2011
THE UNDERGROUND PARENT

Where’s the Money?
February 12, 2011 THE UNDERGROUND PARENT

Democracy Denied (so far)
Bob Dean February 12, 2011
The Columbian

Common K-12 standards are rigorous, used in many states
PETER CALLAGHAM 02/10/1112 The News Tribune

Cliff Mass Feb. 8, 2011 Cliff Mass Weather Blog

The CCSS and Politics as a Blood Sport
Feb. 8, 2011 THE UNDERGROUND PARENT

Washington Does Not Need or Want the Common Core State StandardsJANUARY 30, 2011 The Underground Parent

Urgent! Tell your Legislators to vote No on HB1443Bob Dean January 29, 2011 The Columbian

Adoption of the Common Core State Standards: Debunking the Myths
By Laurie H. Rogers January 28, 2011 Betrayed - Why Public Education Is Failing

WA Governor Prescribes More Disease as the Cure for Schools
Gary Wiram | 1/23/11 Red County

CCSS: Ask legislators to BLOCK permanent adoption

Block the Permanent Adoption of the Common Core State Standards in Washington State
Laurie H. Rogers January 21, 2011 Betrayed - Why Public Education Is Failing

Common Core Math Standards: Worse for Our Kids and Millions of Dollars Wasted?
Cliff Mass Jan. 2, 2011 Cliff Mass Weather Blog

Can You Hear Me Now?
Bob Dean November 3, 2010
The Columbian

Common Core Standards aren't really very Common
Bob Dean October 19, 2010 The Columbian

WTM: WA legislators should vote against CCSS adoption
October 13, 2010 Betrayed - Why Public Education Is Failing


OSPI launches statewide Common Core tour; no Whatcom County stops
October 6th, 2010 The Bellingham Herald

The Perfect Storm: National Education Standards
Bob Dean August 17, 2010
The Columbian


Text of documents mentioned above.

SB 6696 Section 601
PART VI
p. 45 E2SSB 6696.PL
1 COMMON CORE STANDARDS
2 NEW SECTION. Sec. 601. A new section is added to chapter 28A.655
3 RCW to read as follows:
4 (1) By August 2, 2010, the superintendent of public instruction may
5 revise the state essential academic learning requirements authorized
6 under RCW 28A.655.070 for mathematics, reading, writing, and
7 communication by provisionally adopting a common set of standards for
8 students in grades kindergarten through twelve. The revised state
9 essential academic learning requirements may be substantially identical
10 with the standards developed by a multistate consortium in which
11 Washington participated, must be consistent with the requirements of
12 RCW 28A.655.070, and may include additional standards if the additional
13 standards do not exceed fifteen percent of the standards for each
14 content area. However, the superintendent of public instruction shall
15 not take steps to implement the provisionally adopted standards until
16 the education committees of the house of representatives and the senate
17 have an opportunity to review the standards.
18 (2) By January 1, 2011, the superintendent of public instruction
19 shall submit to the education committees of the house of
20 representatives and the senate:
21 (a) A detailed comparison of the provisionally adopted standards
22 and the state essential academic learning requirements as of the
23 effective date of this section, including the comparative level of
24 rigor and specificity of the standards and the implications of any
25 identified differences; and
26 (b) An estimated timeline and costs to the state and to school
27 districts to implement the provisionally adopted standards, including
28 providing necessary training, realignment of curriculum, adjustment of
29 state assessments, and other actions.
30 (3) The superintendent may implement the revisions to the essential
31 academic learning requirements under this section after the 2011
32 legislative session unless otherwise directed by the legislature.






Where’s the Math?
Statement on Common Core State Standards for Mathematics

August 11, 2010

Washington State is poised to formally adopt a set of nationally developed education guidelines, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for reading, writing, and mathematics. These standards will replace Washington’s existing locally-developed standards but allow up to 15% addition of state-specific content.

Where’s The Math? (WTM) has taken an active role over the last five years in advocating for rigorous, coherent, and internationally competitive mathematics education for all of Washington’s students. More recently, WTM members have volunteered hundreds of hours to review the CCSS documents and compare these national standards against the new mathematics standards Washington adopted in 2008. This work has provided the basis for this statement.

Where’s the Math? does not support the adoption of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.

  • Washington’s current math standards are clearer, more detailed and explicit, and more coherent. WA standards are rigorous with critical content well prioritized, and were given an “A” rating in 2010 by the Fordham Foundation, exceeding the CCSS rating of “A-“(1)
  • These standards will not align with Washington’s current textbook recommendations, recently purchased and implemented by many districts statewide. (2)
  • The financial cost and momentum lost to implement these new standards is not justified, especially in light of the continuing rollout and training underway with Washington’s 2008 math standards. (3) (4)

The detailed study completed by WTM experts identified the following deficiencies with the CCSS mathematics standards.

  • These standards are not internationally benchmarked and delay development of some key concepts and skills compared to the highest achieving nations.
  • These standards are not stakeholder friendly. They include significant mathematical sophistication, but are written at a level beyond the understanding of most parents, students, administrators, decision makers and many teachers.
  • The lack of clarity, specificity, and coherence will lead to a lack of uniformity in instruction and assessment.
  • The inappropriate placement of standards, including the delayed requirement for standard algorithms, will hinder student success and waste valuable instructional time.
  • The uneven treatment of important topics will result in an inefficient use of instructional and practice time with too much effort devoted to some topics and not enough time devoted to others.
  • The high school standards are not well organized and some important topics are insufficiently covered. The standards have not been divided into clearly defined courses.

(1) Washington State’s math standards receive an “A” grade, higher than the CCSS math standards. http://www.edexcellence.net/index.cfm/news_the-state-of-state-standards-and-the-common-core-in-2010
(2) In 2008, over 50% of Washington districts planned to adopt new mathematics instructional materials in the next 2 years. http://www.k12.wa.us/LegisGov/2008documents/SchoolDistrictMathCurriculaAdoptionandUsage-FINAL.pdf
(3) Starting with the 2009-10 school year, Washington’s recently adopted standards will be in use for K-9, Alg1, & Int1. https://www.k12.wa.us/mathematics/Standards.aspx
(4) OSPI’s 2007-2009 Biennial budget includes over $50M to support the development and adoption of new math/science standards. This cost does not include assessment costs, textbook adoptions or specialized professional development expenses for local school districts. http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/budget/lbns/2007ps.pdf
(Pg 304)

Where’s The Math? (WTM) is a statewide math advocacy group comprised of concerned citizens seeking a balanced and rigorous mathematics education for Washington’s kids. Our mission is to ensure that all Washington State students have an equal opportunity to compete successfully in the international economy by aligning our state math standards, assessments and curricula to those of top performing nations in the world. WTM chapters are organized across the state, with members volunteering in schools, on local PTAs, as elected school board directors, and lobbying elected officials to make Washington the mathematics role model for the country.






Where’s the Math?
Washington State Legislature Should Vote Against Adoption
of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics

October 12, 2010
During the upcoming legislative session, Washington State must decide whether to replace our State’s recently improved math standards with a new and evolving set of national education guidelines, the Common Core State Standards. Over the past five years, Where’s The Math? (WTM) has advocated for rigorous, coherent, and internationally competitive mathematics education for all Washington students. WTM has carefully compared the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) against the mathematics standards Washington State adopted in 2008. The CCSS for mathematics possess significant weaknesses and are not ready for adoption in Washington State or nationwide.

Where’s the Math? urges the WA State Legislature to NOT ADOPT the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, based on a number of concerns:

  • The CCSS have major weaknesses compared to existing Washington State math standards. Reviews of both standards by the Fordham Foundation and WTM have noted the superior clarity and organization of the current Washington standards. The CCSS delays teaching important mathematics skills. Throwing out current state standards in favor of the CCSS would waste an investment of tens of millions of dollars in curricula, training, and assessment.
  • There is no funding for the adoption of the CCSS in Washington State. Washington is unlikely to receive any near-term funding through Race to the Top grants, and any awards received would only cover a small portion of adoption costs. The costly implementation of these standards must be absorbed by the state and cash-strapped districts.
  • Adopting the CCSS takes control of standards away from Washington State. The CCSS was produced by a closed group, and conditionally approved by many states without review. States have been pressured with financial incentives and no consideration for possible consequences of nationwide adoption prior to rigorous evaluation in actual classrooms. The limited local discretion permitted by the CCSS process (15%), and the necessity for states to pay for any additional assessments, make significant local enhancements to the CCSS impractical.

  • The CCSS represents an unevaluated work-in-process. The CCSS is untested and unevaluated in the classroom. A proposed national standard should undergo rigorous testing in a limited number of districts or states before it is adopted nationally. Furthermore, an associated assessment exam has not been created. Clearly, there should be no commitment to the CCSS until it is thoroughly reviewed and tested, and an assessment exam is completed and evaluated.
WTMrecommends:

  • The WA Legislature should vote against adoption of the CCSS. The legislature should introduce and pass a bill during the 2010-11 session refusing the adoption of the Common Core State Standards.
  • Washington State should remain engaged in the CCSS process at the national level, including making recommendations for improvements in the standards and their assessment. This process should be modified to give states the latitude to use the CCSS to improve existing standards rather than requiring that the CCSS be adopted in their entirety.
  • The WA Legislature should encourage public input. Any future consideration of the CCSS should be open to public scrutiny and comment. The legislature should establish multiple opportunities for community members to interact with local and state officials in public forums where their questions and concerns can be aired and addressed.
There is little to gain from the adoption of untested national standards, and potentially much to lose.

Where’s The Math? (WTM)
is a statewide math advocacy group comprised of concerned citizens seeking a balanced and rigorous mathematics education for Washington’s kids. Our mission is to ensure that all Washington State students have an equal opportunity to compete successfully in the international economy by aligning our state math standards, assessments and curricula to those of top performing nations in the world. WTM chapters are organized across the state, with members volunteering in schools, on local PTAs, as elected school board directors, and lobbying elected officials to make Washington State the mathematics role model for the country. Visit http://www.wheresthemath.com for more information.






Select Slides from OSPI's Powerpoint Slideshow used at the Forum.

Why Common Core State Standards?






Select Slides from OSPI's Powerpoint Slideshow used at the Forums.
Text in black is the text of the slide. Comments about OSPI's information is provided in red.
Why Common Core State Standards?


Competition: The standards are internationally benchmarked.
These standards are not internationally benchmarked. The CCSSO, NGA, and CCSSI started out with the following promise:
The standards will be research- and evidence-based, aligned with college and work expectations, include rigorous content and skills, and be internationally benchmarked.
They are now saying that the standards “Are informed by other top performing countries, so that all students are prepared to succeed in our global economy and society”.


Clarity: The standards are focused, coherent, and clear. Clearer standards help students (and parents and teachers) understand what is expected of them. These standards are not coherent and clear. These CCSS math standards are written in such as way that many K=8 teachers across the state will not be able to readily understand them. As a result, these standards will be ineffective in bringing about the desired improvement. The state spent over $30 million in training teachers how to read the current coherent and clear 2008 Washington math standards. The cost of interpreting the CCSS math standards and providing professional development for teachers will be prohibitive. No amount of professional development will guarantee consistent interpretation and implementation.

The CCSS math standards are not coherent and clear enough for administrators, teachers, student, parents, textbook developers/publishers, curriculum developers, assessment developers, or the public to interpret in the same way.

Equity: Expectations are consistent for all – and not dependent on a student’s state of residence. What advantage is it for Washington State to have equity with states like Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana?

The CCSS math standards lack the coherency and clarity to be consistently interpreted by teachers, administrators, curriculum developers, textbook developers/publishers. How will this lead to consistent expectations and equity?
States have time to consider what state-specific additions to the standards might look like States bear the burden of cost to assess any state-specific additions to the standards. Can Washington State absorb the cost of developing, field testing, administering, and scoring yet another assessment?
Opportunities for ALIGNED and CONNECTED SYSTEMS:
“Common standards” is a common thread among current and evolving national initiatives and opportunities
Standards – Instruction – Assessment
What will Washington State gain in regard to this that we don’t already have? Our standards—instruction—assessment are already aligned and connected systems, aren’t they? If they aren’t, what makes you think these will be any better aligned?
Common Core State Standards Design
Building on the strength of current standards across many states, the CCSS are designed to be:

Focused, coherent, clear and rigorous
These standards are not coherent and clear. These CCSS math standards are written in such as way that many K=8 teachers across the state will not be able to readily understand them. As a result, these standards will be ineffective in bringing about the desired improvement. The state spent over $30 million in training teachers how to read the current coherent and clear 2008 Washington math standards. The cost of interpreting the CCSS math standards and providing professional development for teachers will be prohibitive. No amount of professional development will guarantee consistent interpretation and implementation.

The CCSS math standards are not coherent and clear enough for administrators, teachers, student, parents, textbook developers/publishers, curriculum developers, assessment developers, or the public to interpret in the same way.

Internationally benchmarked These standards are not internationally benchmarked. The CCSSO, NGA, and CCSSI started out with the following promise:
The standards will be research- and evidence-based, aligned with college and work expectations, include rigorous content and skills, and be internationally benchmarked.
They are now saying that the standards “Are informed by other top performing countries, so that all students are prepared to succeed in our global economy and society”.
Anchored in college and career readiness* This sounds great. Specifically, how are they anchored in college and career readiness so that students will be ready for first-year credit-bearing, postsecondary coursework in mathematics and English without the need for remediation? Where’s the proof?
Evidence and research based
This sounds great. Have you seen any evidence and research justifying these standards over the current 2008 Washington State math standards? Ask if they can please show the evidence and research they refer to and how it specifically connects to and justifies these standards. The Sample of Works provided as a list of references does not present information showing how these standards are evidence and research based.
Intentional Design Limitations
What the Standards do NOT define:
How teachers should teach
Does this mean teachers should ignore the embedded pedagogy? If so, why is the pedagogy embedded in the standards to begin with? The pedagogy embedded within many of these standards will dictate how teachers will have to teach.
Nationwide Feedback and Review for ELA and Mathematics Standards
External and State Feedback teams included:
K-12 teachers
How many teachers across the state were involved? Who were these teachers? Were all teachers informed these standards were being developed? Were all teachers informed of and provided access to the teachers on the state feedback teams so they could provide input? With the exception of the March draft, the various drafts were not made public so teachers or anyone else not on the feedback teams had no opportunity for input. Most were probably not even informed the standards development process was taking place.
Higher ed. faculty
State curriculum and assessments experts
Researchers
National organizations (including, but not limited, to:
How were these organizations selected for involvement? Where there organizations that asked to be involved and were excluded? Yes, there were.
National Process and Timeline
K-12 Common Standards:
Core writing teams in English Language Arts and Mathematics (See www.corestandards.org for list of team members) drafted standards
External and state feedback teams provided on-going feedback to writing teams throughout the process
…And the public was not provided the opportunity to be involved. The public was not informed this process was taking place.
Draft K-12 standards were released for public comment on March 10, 2010; 9,600 comments received nationwide (~ 900 from WA) That is an indication there is substantial interest and concern about these standards, especially considering how poor the publicity has been and very few people were even aware the standards were being developed.
Validation Committee of leading experts reviewed standards Some Validation Committee members would not sign off on these standards. Don’t you wonder why, especially when these standards are promoted as being so wonderful?
Final standards were released June 2, 2010

Washington’s Considerations
for Adoption and Implementation
Adoption ≠ Implementation
State Superintendent has authority to adopt –
Following collaboration, input, and buy-in from key partners and stakeholder groups (State Board, Legislature, state curriculum advisors, content experts, etc.)
What about the teachers? Has anyone taken a poll asking them if they are ready to make yet another change in math standards? Teachers should be key partners, yet they have been left out. Their buy-in is more important than any of the other listed “key partners and stakeholder groups”. Did anyone even bother to ask teachers (not talking about the WEA, but talking about teachers on their feet in the classrooms) on the front end if they thought we should be involved in a process to develop standards to replace recently adopted 2008 Washington State math standards?

When considering adoption, States must adopt 100% of the CCSS, but may adopt additional standards (“up to” 15%)
States responsible for setting the criteria and assessing the additions
States bear the burden of cost to assess any state-specific additions to the standards. Can Washington state absorb the cost of developing, field testing, administering, and scoring yet another assessment?
"Benefits for Washington?
Comparisons
- We'll have better picture of how our students perform compared to other states"
The ITBS gave a picture of how our students performed compared to students across the country. WA dropped the ITBS. The USED has provided $350 million in taxpayer dollars in grant funds to develop assessments. Existing assessments could be used. There is a good chance the assessments that will be developed will be no better than a super WASL.

"Benefits for Washington
Mobile students/families
- Aligned systems means easier transition for students coming from other states (e.g. military families)
This sounds great. Like WA, other states have had standards now for several years. There is no evidence having common standards within a state has eases the transition from one school to another or from one district to another. Why should we think this will be different from state to state.

The lack of clarity, specificity, and coherence will lead to a lack of uniformity in instruction and assessment and will not achieve desired consistency and collaboration among school districts and states. Claims made about unified standards leading to greater collaboration, shared curriculum and assessments across district and state lines is unfounded. No evidence shows greater collaboration in states with unified standards and assessments.
"Benefits for Washington?
Savings of time and money
If this is going to save money for the state then OSPI should not need to request funding for any related activities.

WA developed, adopted, and implemented new math standards in 2008. The financial cost and momentum lost to implement the Common Core State Standards for math is not justified, especially in light of the continuing rollout and training underway with Washington’s 2008 math standards. Adoption of the Common Core State Standards allows states to add standards of their choice up to 15%. Any added standards must be assessed at the state’s expense.

OSPI had over $30 million to provide professional development for the new WA math standards in 2008. OSPI is requesting $2.1 million for professional development for the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). There is a discrepancy. OSPI's plan is for local school districts to do their professional development training without being given any money. School districts across the state will probably absorb, with out any accounting, over $30 million in professional development costs. Conservatively, figure the costs to be $30 per student.

If school districts are willing to absorb professional development and other hidden costs, they should not ask voters to pass bond and levy issues.


End of Powerpoint Slide information and comments.








Reasons Washington State should NOT Adopt the Common Core State Standards

Washington’s current math standards are clearer, more detailed, more explicit, and more coherent. The WA standards are rigorous with critical content well prioritized, and were given an “A” rating in 2010 Fordham Institute review, exceeding the “A-“ rating the Common Core State Standards for math received.
Cost. The Common Core State Standards for math will not align with Washington’s current textbook recommendations, recently purchased and implemented by many districts statewide.
Cost. WA developed, adopted, and implemented new math standards in 2008. The financial cost and momentum lost to implement the Common Core State Standards for math is not justified, especially in light of the continuing rollout and training underway with Washington’s 2008 math standards. Adoption of the Common Core State Standards allows states to add standards of their choice up to 15%. Any added standards must be assessed at the state’s expense.
The US Coalition for World Class Math, the Fordham Institute, Where’s the Math?, and Stanford Math Professor James Milgram are among many groups and individuals who have completed detailed studies of the Common Core State Standards for math. In very general terms, here are some of the deficiencies they found.
These standards are not internationally benchmarked and delay development of some key concepts and skills compared to the highest achieving nations.

To get states to sign on board with these standards prior to their development, this promise was made: “The standards will be research- and evidence-based, aligned with college and work expectations, include rigorous content and skills, and be internationally benchmarked.” Upon the release of the standards this promise was toned down to now say the standards “Are informed by other top performing countries, so that all students are prepared to succeed in our global economy and society”. There is a considerable and significant difference between being internationally benchmarked and being informed by. Most media, states, and organizations still use the initial propaganda and claim the standards are internationally benchmarked when in fact they aren’t.
These standards are not stakeholder friendly. They include significant mathematical sophistication, but are written at a level beyond the understanding of most parents, students, administrators, decision makers and many teachers. Try reading some standards for yourself.
The lack of clarity, specificity, and coherence will lead to a lack of uniformity in instruction and assessment and will not achieve desired consistency and collaboration among school districts and states. Claims made about unified standards leading to greater collaboration, shared curriculum and assessments across district and state lines is unfounded. No evidence shows greater collaboration in states with unified standards and assessments.
The inappropriate placement of standards, including the delayed requirement for standard algorithms, will hinder student success and waste valuable instructional time.
The uneven treatment of important topics will result in an inefficient use of instructional and practice time with too much effort devoted to some topics and not enough time devoted to others.
The high school standards are not well organized and some important topics are not sufficiently covered. The standards have not been divided into clearly defined courses that we may understand.

The legislators need to be ready to further delay math graduation requirements as a result of the change in standards and assessments if the Common Core Standards are adopted.

Adoption of the CCSS will result in the loss of control over content at the local district and state level. Control over changes to the CCSS will lie in hands of so called “experts” outside of Washington State and outside of the federal government.
Cost. OSPI had over $30 million to provide professional development for the new WA math standards in 2008. OSPI is requesting $2.1 million for professional development for the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). There is a discrepancy. OSPI's plan is for local school districts to do their professional development training without being given any money. School districts across the state will probably absorb, with out any accounting, over $30 million in professional development costs. Conservatively, figure the costs to be $30 per student.




The majority of decision makers, including those with the authority to decide whether the Common Core State Standards will be adopted, have not read the standards themselves. Instead they rely on the advice of "experts". Sometimes even these "experts" who promote these standards haven't read them either.

LInks to the current 2008 WA State math standards and the CCSS for math are provided below. Select a grade level, say grade 4, and look at the standards for that grade level in both sets. Show them to a teacher of that grade level. Ask them which they prefer or which they would rather use to guide their teaching.


Washington State K-12 Mathematics Learning Standards


Common Core State Standards for Mathematics




From the Common Core State Standards Website

Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer:

THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS ARE PROVIDED AS-IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, AND NGA CENTER/CCSSO MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTIBILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT DISCOVERABLE.

Limitation on Liability:

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL NGA CENTER OR CCSSO, INDIVIDUALLY OR JOINTLY, BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY LEGAL THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER FOR CONTRACT, TORT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR A COMBINATION THEREOF (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH RISK AND POTENTIAL DAMAGE. WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, LICENSEE WAIVES THE RIGHT TO SEEK LEGAL REDRESS AGAINST, AND RELEASES FROM ALL LIABILITY AND COVENANTS NOT TO SUE, NGA CENTER AND CCSSO.




Now is the time to redouble commitment to education funding
Though the state's budget deficit is daunting, Washington state lawmakers and members of the education community must decide some important issues, writes Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn. Among them, ample funding, reform and what a diploma actually means.
By Randy Dorn Special to The Times November 29, 2010

Here are some comments left about the above article in The Seattle Times.

Let’s consider the Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 6696 Supt. Dorn supported. This is a bill that the upcoming legislature should revoke. This bill was passed to pave the way for WA to apply for Race To The Top (RTTT) grant funds. Fortunately, WA was not awarded these funds. I understand it does not look good for politicians to turn down the opportunity to receive money but in this case the commitments would cost the local districts and state more money than the grant would have brought into the state.

The RTTT would have brought in $250 million to WA. Nearly half of that would have stayed in Olympia. About $137 million would go out to local school districts. This would provide an average of about $35 per student per year for four years. WA spends nearly $10,000 per student per year. The RTTT commitments and administrivia would cost more than $35 per student with the obligations going well beyond four years of funding. Many of the RTTT reform measures, and many of the measures in ESSSB 6696, are unproven.

ESSSB 6696 authorized Supt. Dorn to provisionally adopt the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). He did so. The CCSS would replace the current state standards in English/Language Arts and math. If the legislature does not revoke the entire ESSSB, Sec. 601 should be revoked to nullify the adoption of the CCSS. Without such nullification the change in standards and assessments may necessitate further delay of math graduation requirements.

Adoption of the CCSS will result in the loss of control over content at the local district and state level. Control over changes to the CCSS will lie in hands of so called “experts” outside of Washington State and outside of the federal government.

OSPI had over $30 million to provide professional development for the new WA math standards in 2008. OSPI is requesting $2.1 million for professional development for the CCSS. There is a discrepancy. OSPI's plan is for local school districts to do their own professional development training without being given any money. School districts across the state will probably absorb, with out any accounting, over $30 million in professional development costs. Conservatively, figure the costs to be $30 per student. If school districts are willing and able to absorb these hidden costs, should they really be asking the public to support bond and levy issues?

Supt. Dorn did start to move the state away from the WASL. What many may not be aware of is that he has involved WA in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). The SBAC will be developing the assessments for the CCSS. At this point, it sounds, looks, and feels like the assessments will be a super WASL.

As a parent, taxpayer, and voter, I cannot support the direction education in this state is going. WA needs to get back to local control and providing a good solid basic education.




To share relevant information or if you have a question, you may send an email to MSFSoundMath at gmail dot com. If you are looking for information or resources we can sometimes point you in the right direction. There is no guarantee that your email will receive a response, but you never know.




SoundMath
SoundMath
Latest page update: made by SoundMath , Mar 27 2011, 6:23 AM EDT (about this update About This Update SoundMath Edited by SoundMath

20 words added

view changes

- complete history)
Keyword tags: None
More Info: links to this page
There are no threads for this page.  Be the first to start a new thread.