Examining How Common Core and Indiana's Draft Standards Differ

Examining How Common Core and Indiana's Draft Standards Differ - State EdWatch - Education Week _hbEvent = function(param){}; function _hbSend(){} function _hbLink(p1, p2){} function _hbPageView(p1, p2){} Education WeekTeacherDigital DirectionsIndustry & InnovationTopSchoolJobsShop Annual ReportsBooksBack IssuesEdweek SpotlightsSubscriptionsSite LicensesReprintsAdvertise Recruitment AdvertisingDisplay AdvertisingWhite PapersProfessional Development DirectoryAdvanced Search March 4, 2014 Login | Register | Subscribe
Sign Up for FREE E-Newsletters Current Issue Topics   Assessment and TestingBudget and FinanceBullyingCharter SchoolsCommon StandardsCurriculum and InstructionE-Learning English-Language LearnersFederal PolicyHigh SchoolsLaw and CourtsLeadership and ManagementNo Child Left BehindProfessional Development Race to the TopResearchSpecial EducationState News by StateTeaching ProfessionTechnologyUnionsSee All TopicsBlogs  Reports & Data   Leaders to Learn FromQuality CountsDiplomas CountTechnology CountsSpecial Reporting SeriesState Highlights Reports EdCounts DatabaseEdWeek MapsEPE Research CenterERS Practical Tools for District TransformationEvents   PD WebinarsWebinarsChatsLeaders to Learn FromLive EventsLive Events VideosCalendarDiscussions   ForumsChatsTeacher Book ClubWebinarsOpinion  Multimedia   VideosInfographicsPhoto GalleriesAudio Galleries

Education Week's blogs > State EdWatchSee our States news coverage
Andrew Ujifusa

Andrew Ujifusa covers state education policy for Education Week, from new legislation and trends to eye-catching political battles. He previously worked at newspapers in Maryland and Mississippi, and taught high school English in Japan. 3769437694 « Calling Common-Core Implementation 'Botched' NEA Calls for Changes |Main| Bipartisan Support Clear for Early Education at Governors' Gathering »

Examining How Common Core and Indiana's Draft Standards DifferBy Andrew Ujifusa on February 20, 2014 11:25 AM Tweet

Now that Indiana has released the draft version of English/language arts and math standards intended to replace the Common Core State Standards, we can try to discern where the standards actually differ.

As a sample, let's look at the youngest students—kindergarteners—and see how the two sets of standards handle the teaching of measurement and data. I chose this area in part because the language and concepts will be as basic (and therefore, hopefully, as clear) as possible. Here's a screenshot of the standards in the Indiana College and Career Ready Standards:

In those draft Indiana standards, the three standards above the grey bar are for measurement, the three below are for data.

Now, here's how the Common Core State Standards deal with measurement and data for kindergarteners:

Some initial, superficial observations are that there are only three discrete standards in the common core in this area, while there are a total of six in Indiana's draft standards. This isn't surprising, since one of common core's main selling points is that it requires teachers to address fewer content standards across the board, but allows them to address each standard that is included in more detail in their classrooms. 

One other thing that jumps out quickly is that the third standard from Indiana is the same, word for word, as the first standard from common core: "Describe measurable attributes of objects, such as length or weight. Describe several measurable attributes of a single object."

Now, look at the first standard from Indiana. It asks students to make direct comparisons between two objects and recognize the differences between them. It specifies a number of ways the two objects can be distinguished, such as length, weight, and temperature. Now contrast it to the second standard from common core, which also asks students to compare two objects, but doesn't ennumerate the different categories through which the objects can be distinguished. It provides an example and asks students to describe the difference, which the Indiana standard doesn't explicitly do. The common core standard also seems to leave more latitude in terms of how the objects can be compared.

One notable contrast is the second Hoosier standard, which requires students to understand concepts of time, such as morning and afternoon, and also to recognize that calendars and clocks measure time. You won't find the concept of time addressed in the common core standards in question. This is in the same vein as something I wrote about recently, when the Florida state school board altered the common core to require that basic and practical financial concepts be taught. There's an emphasis on every-day life in the shifts Florida has made and that Indiana is now considering. Here's the new Florida standard on money that was added:

Another Indiana standard not found in common core standards is having students formulate questions that they must answer by organizing data using pictures, graphs, and objects. And a separate standard requires Indiana student to "record and organize information using objects and pictures." (CLARIFICATION: The common core does contain these two standards regarding pictures and organizing information, but in later grades and not in kindergarten.) So the authors of these draft Indiana standards have taken pains to spell out some specific examples of how the standards could actually be taught in classrooms.

Now, that's just one comparison of one area of the standards in one grade. But perhaps some of the differences and similarities identified are instructive. 

I asked Marc Porter Magee, a supporter of the common core standards and the president of 50CAN, a nationwide K-12 advocacy group, how important the gap between the Indiana standards and the common core is for the state's public schools. He said that while states can make some alterations or additions to the standards and still keep them essentially at the same level of quality, at some point, major deviations from the common core will make the new standards into a lesser product overall.

"If Indiana went back to their old standards, that would be a step backwards," he said. 

Categories:Standards State Boards State PolicyTags:common core common-core pushback indiana kindergarten mathPrint Email TweetYou must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.

Get 10 free stories, e-newsletters, and more!Email
Password

Select your primary connection to education District Superintendent, Deputy/Asst. Superintendent District Leadership - Technology District Leadership - Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment, PD District Leadership - Business, Communications, HR District Personnel - Other (Admin., Specialist, etc.) School-based Leadership (Principal, Asst. Principal) Teacher - Early Childhood/Elementary Teacher - Middle School Teacher - High School School-based Technology Coordinator School-based Personnel - Other (Admin., Specialist, etc.) Library Personnel/Media Specialist University or College Faculty/Administration Federal Government Personnel State Government Personnel Education Product/Service Provider (including Consultants) Investment Community Association/Advocacy Organization Philanthropy Education Research/Analysis Media Education Services Agency School Board Member Student Parent/Community Member

Send me Edweek Update e-newsletter (Daily)

By clicking "Register" you are agreeing to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Follow This Blog Follow This Blog Recent Entries Draft Indiana Standards Get Chilly Response at Public Hearing Bipartisan Support Clear for Early Education at Governors' Gathering Examining How Common Core and Indiana's Draft Standards Differ Calling Common-Core Implementation 'Botched' NEA Calls for Changes Indiana Releases Draft of New Academic Standards to Replace Common Core Advertisement

Most Viewed on Education Week Categories--- Select a Category ---Academic Achievement (80)Arne Duncan (39)Budgets (130)Charters (52)Elections (112)Foundations (8)Governors (475)Lawsuits (62)Legislatures (341)Misconduct (23)Race to the Top (88)School Choice (62)School Finance (138)Standards (132)State Boards (102)State Policy (465)State superintendents (218)Stimulus (24)Taxes (39)Teachers unions (119)Title One (3)Turnarounds (29) Archives Select a Month... February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 Recent Comments Principal School District of Clayton, Clayton, MO Superintendent Ridgefield Public Schools, Ridgefield, CT Director of Bilingual Programs and Instructional Equity Verona Area School District, Verona, WI Middle School Director of Curriculum & Instruction Cornerstone Preparatory School, Memphis, TN Superintendent of Schools Community Consolidated School District 181, Hinsdale, IL Principal - Landrum Middle School: District-Charter Collaboration SKY Partnership - School Year 2014 Spring Branch ISD, Houston, TX 77024, TX MORE EDUCATION JOBS >> Post a Job >> Powered by Movable Type Pro Account Management •Register or Subscribe •Online Account •Print Subscription •Manage E-Newsletters/
Preferences •Site Licenses Contact Us •Help/FAQ •Customer Service •Editor Feedback •Letters
to the Editor Policies •User Agreement •Privacy •Reprints Advertise with Us •Display Advertising •Recruitment
Advertising EPE Info •About Us •Staff •Work@EPE •Mission and History Education Week Publications •Education Week •Teacher •Digital Directions •Industry & Innovation •PD Directory •TopSchoolJobs

© 2014 Editorial Projects in Education

6935 Arlington Road, Bethesda MD 20814 1-800-346-1834 (Main Office) 1-800-445-8250 (Customer Service)

[MESSAGE]

UserID:

iCustID:

IsLogged: false

IsSiteLicense: false

UserType: anonymous

DisplayName:

TrialsLeft: 3

Trials:

Tier Preview Log:

Exception pages ( /edweek/state_edwatch/2014/02/examining_how_common_core_and_indianas_draft_standards_differ.html ) = NO

Internal request ( 39.55.57.158 ) = NO

Open House ( 2014-03-04 12:16:50 ) = NO

Site Licence : ( 39.55.57.158 ) = NO

ACL Free A vs U ( 2100 vs 0 ) = NO

Token Free (NO TOKEN FOUND) = NO

Blog authoring preview = NO

Search Robot ( unknown ) = NO

Purchased ( 0 ) = NO

Monthly ( : 0 / 3 ) = NO

Can add to monthly ( /edweek/state_edwatch/2014/02/examining_how_common_core_and_indianas_draft_standards_differ.html ) = YES

Add to monthly ( ) = NO

Access granted ( 7 ) = YES

View the original article here

Indiana Releases Draft of New Academic Standards to Replace Common Core

37670 « Adjustments to Common Core in Florida Approved by State School Board | Main | Calling Common-Core Implementation 'Botched' NEA Calls for Changes »

The Indiana Department of Education has released a draft version of new content standards for English/language arts and math that would replace the Common Core State Standards that were adopted by the state in 2010. The drafting of the new standards was required under a law approved last year.  

According to what the state board has said, the new Indiana College and Career Ready Standards "represent Indiana sovereignty, demonstrate high levels of quality, and are aligned with nationally and internationally benchmarked definitions of college- and career-readiness and postsecondary expectations."

The state's Academic Standards Evaluation Panels, which oversaw the creation of the draft content standards following an earlier review of standards in the fall, had 27 members, including English and math teachers, as well as English and math professors and professors at schools of education in the state. These members compared the current common core standards to prior Indiana standards and held them up against aforementioned criteria for state standards, then "reconciled" them into a final set of draft standards.

It's still unclear how much and exactly where the draft standards deviate from the common core—at some level, the difference between the two sets of standards may become very minute or non-existent. And whatever set of standards the state board ultimately adopts, it will still have to select a state assessment aligned to their standards. 

Under the No Child Left Behind Act, the U.S. Department of Education requires states to have assessments that align to their standards. Even states with NCLB waivers still have to meet this requirement, but the federal Education Department's peer review guidance process to aid that alignment was recently suspended. That review by outside experts doesn't look at the assessments themselves, but rather at states' plans for reviewing and implementing high-quality assessments as they relate to their standards. It's unclear how much in-depth review the department is actually doing in terms of this alignment work without that peer-review process. 

Indiana distanced itself last year from the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, one of two federally funded consortia developing common-core aligned tests. Although it's still technically a member of that consortium, it seems unlikely that Indiana will ultimately use a PARCC test. (It's easy to imagine common-core foes in the state being very unhappy if the state drops the common core but uses a common-core aligned test.) It remains to be seen if Indiana can find an existing assessment that's aligned to its new standards in the eyes of the peer-review process. If the draft standards are ultimately adopted, it might take some time before the state can field-test and then administer a new assessment that does. 

Common core supporters in the state have expressed the hope that the new Indiana standards will either match what common core offers or improve on it, while foes of the common core say the new standards shouldn't simply be a rebranded version of the common core.

In the background, there is a bill this year from GOP Sen. Scott Schneider that would nullify the state's 2010 adoption of the common core. The new standards would take their place. 

The standards will be up for review for several weeks, including at three meetings where the public can comment later this month. Next, the Indiana Education Roundtable—which is led by Gov. Mike Pence, a Republican, and Superintendent of Public Instruction Glenda Ritz, a Democrat, and which includes business leaders and members of the education community—will vote on the draft standards March 31. Finally, the state school board will vote on the new standards April 9.

View the original article here

Examining How Common Core and Indiana's Draft Standards Differ

Examining How Common Core and Indiana's Draft Standards Differ - State EdWatch - Education Week _hbEvent = function(param){}; function _hbSend(){} function _hbLink(p1, p2){} function _hbPageView(p1, p2){} Education WeekTeacherDigital DirectionsIndustry & InnovationTopSchoolJobsShop Annual ReportsBooksBack IssuesEdweek SpotlightsSubscriptionsSite LicensesReprintsAdvertise Recruitment AdvertisingDisplay AdvertisingWhite PapersProfessional Development DirectoryAdvanced Search March 4, 2014 Login | Register | Subscribe
Sign Up for FREE E-Newsletters Current Issue Topics   Assessment and TestingBudget and FinanceBullyingCharter SchoolsCommon StandardsCurriculum and InstructionE-Learning English-Language LearnersFederal PolicyHigh SchoolsLaw and CourtsLeadership and ManagementNo Child Left BehindProfessional Development Race to the TopResearchSpecial EducationState News by StateTeaching ProfessionTechnologyUnionsSee All TopicsBlogs  Reports & Data   Leaders to Learn FromQuality CountsDiplomas CountTechnology CountsSpecial Reporting SeriesState Highlights Reports EdCounts DatabaseEdWeek MapsEPE Research CenterERS Practical Tools for District TransformationEvents   PD WebinarsWebinarsChatsLeaders to Learn FromLive EventsLive Events VideosCalendarDiscussions   ForumsChatsTeacher Book ClubWebinarsOpinion  Multimedia   VideosInfographicsPhoto GalleriesAudio Galleries

Education Week's blogs > State EdWatchSee our States news coverage
Andrew Ujifusa

Andrew Ujifusa covers state education policy for Education Week, from new legislation and trends to eye-catching political battles. He previously worked at newspapers in Maryland and Mississippi, and taught high school English in Japan. 3769437694 « Calling Common-Core Implementation 'Botched' NEA Calls for Changes |Main| Bipartisan Support Clear for Early Education at Governors' Gathering »

Examining How Common Core and Indiana's Draft Standards DifferBy Andrew Ujifusa on February 20, 2014 11:25 AM Tweet

Now that Indiana has released the draft version of English/language arts and math standards intended to replace the Common Core State Standards, we can try to discern where the standards actually differ.

As a sample, let's look at the youngest students—kindergarteners—and see how the two sets of standards handle the teaching of measurement and data. I chose this area in part because the language and concepts will be as basic (and therefore, hopefully, as clear) as possible. Here's a screenshot of the standards in the Indiana College and Career Ready Standards:

In those draft Indiana standards, the three standards above the grey bar are for measurement, the three below are for data.

Now, here's how the Common Core State Standards deal with measurement and data for kindergarteners:

Some initial, superficial observations are that there are only three discrete standards in the common core in this area, while there are a total of six in Indiana's draft standards. This isn't surprising, since one of common core's main selling points is that it requires teachers to address fewer content standards across the board, but allows them to address each standard that is included in more detail in their classrooms. 

One other thing that jumps out quickly is that the third standard from Indiana is the same, word for word, as the first standard from common core: "Describe measurable attributes of objects, such as length or weight. Describe several measurable attributes of a single object."

Now, look at the first standard from Indiana. It asks students to make direct comparisons between two objects and recognize the differences between them. It specifies a number of ways the two objects can be distinguished, such as length, weight, and temperature. Now contrast it to the second standard from common core, which also asks students to compare two objects, but doesn't ennumerate the different categories through which the objects can be distinguished. It provides an example and asks students to describe the difference, which the Indiana standard doesn't explicitly do. The common core standard also seems to leave more latitude in terms of how the objects can be compared.

One notable contrast is the second Hoosier standard, which requires students to understand concepts of time, such as morning and afternoon, and also to recognize that calendars and clocks measure time. You won't find the concept of time addressed in the common core standards in question. This is in the same vein as something I wrote about recently, when the Florida state school board altered the common core to require that basic and practical financial concepts be taught. There's an emphasis on every-day life in the shifts Florida has made and that Indiana is now considering. Here's the new Florida standard on money that was added:

Another Indiana standard not found in common core standards is having students formulate questions that they must answer by organizing data using pictures, graphs, and objects. And a separate standard requires Indiana student to "record and organize information using objects and pictures." (CLARIFICATION: The common core does contain these two standards regarding pictures and organizing information, but in later grades and not in kindergarten.) So the authors of these draft Indiana standards have taken pains to spell out some specific examples of how the standards could actually be taught in classrooms.

Now, that's just one comparison of one area of the standards in one grade. But perhaps some of the differences and similarities identified are instructive. 

I asked Marc Porter Magee, a supporter of the common core standards and the president of 50CAN, a nationwide K-12 advocacy group, how important the gap between the Indiana standards and the common core is for the state's public schools. He said that while states can make some alterations or additions to the standards and still keep them essentially at the same level of quality, at some point, major deviations from the common core will make the new standards into a lesser product overall.

"If Indiana went back to their old standards, that would be a step backwards," he said. 

Categories:Standards State Boards State PolicyTags:common core common-core pushback indiana kindergarten mathPrint Email TweetYou must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.

Get 10 free stories, e-newsletters, and more!Email
Password

Select your primary connection to education District Superintendent, Deputy/Asst. Superintendent District Leadership - Technology District Leadership - Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment, PD District Leadership - Business, Communications, HR District Personnel - Other (Admin., Specialist, etc.) School-based Leadership (Principal, Asst. Principal) Teacher - Early Childhood/Elementary Teacher - Middle School Teacher - High School School-based Technology Coordinator School-based Personnel - Other (Admin., Specialist, etc.) Library Personnel/Media Specialist University or College Faculty/Administration Federal Government Personnel State Government Personnel Education Product/Service Provider (including Consultants) Investment Community Association/Advocacy Organization Philanthropy Education Research/Analysis Media Education Services Agency School Board Member Student Parent/Community Member

Send me Edweek Update e-newsletter (Daily)

By clicking "Register" you are agreeing to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Follow This Blog Follow This Blog Recent Entries Draft Indiana Standards Get Chilly Response at Public Hearing Bipartisan Support Clear for Early Education at Governors' Gathering Examining How Common Core and Indiana's Draft Standards Differ Calling Common-Core Implementation 'Botched' NEA Calls for Changes Indiana Releases Draft of New Academic Standards to Replace Common Core Advertisement

Most Viewed on Education Week Categories--- Select a Category ---Academic Achievement (80)Arne Duncan (39)Budgets (130)Charters (52)Elections (112)Foundations (8)Governors (475)Lawsuits (62)Legislatures (341)Misconduct (23)Race to the Top (88)School Choice (62)School Finance (138)Standards (132)State Boards (102)State Policy (465)State superintendents (218)Stimulus (24)Taxes (39)Teachers unions (119)Title One (3)Turnarounds (29) Archives Select a Month... February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 Recent Comments Principal School District of Clayton, Clayton, MO Superintendent Ridgefield Public Schools, Ridgefield, CT Director of Bilingual Programs and Instructional Equity Verona Area School District, Verona, WI Middle School Director of Curriculum & Instruction Cornerstone Preparatory School, Memphis, TN Superintendent of Schools Community Consolidated School District 181, Hinsdale, IL Principal - Landrum Middle School: District-Charter Collaboration SKY Partnership - School Year 2014 Spring Branch ISD, Houston, TX 77024, TX MORE EDUCATION JOBS >> Post a Job >> Powered by Movable Type Pro Account Management •Register or Subscribe •Online Account •Print Subscription •Manage E-Newsletters/
Preferences •Site Licenses Contact Us •Help/FAQ •Customer Service •Editor Feedback •Letters
to the Editor Policies •User Agreement •Privacy •Reprints Advertise with Us •Display Advertising •Recruitment
Advertising EPE Info •About Us •Staff •Work@EPE •Mission and History Education Week Publications •Education Week •Teacher •Digital Directions •Industry & Innovation •PD Directory •TopSchoolJobs

© 2014 Editorial Projects in Education

6935 Arlington Road, Bethesda MD 20814 1-800-346-1834 (Main Office) 1-800-445-8250 (Customer Service)

[MESSAGE]

UserID:

iCustID:

IsLogged: false

IsSiteLicense: false

UserType: anonymous

DisplayName:

TrialsLeft: 3

Trials:

Tier Preview Log:

Exception pages ( /edweek/state_edwatch/2014/02/examining_how_common_core_and_indianas_draft_standards_differ.html ) = NO

Internal request ( 39.55.57.158 ) = NO

Open House ( 2014-03-04 12:16:50 ) = NO

Site Licence : ( 39.55.57.158 ) = NO

ACL Free A vs U ( 2100 vs 0 ) = NO

Token Free (NO TOKEN FOUND) = NO

Blog authoring preview = NO

Search Robot ( unknown ) = NO

Purchased ( 0 ) = NO

Monthly ( : 0 / 3 ) = NO

Can add to monthly ( /edweek/state_edwatch/2014/02/examining_how_common_core_and_indianas_draft_standards_differ.html ) = YES

Add to monthly ( ) = NO

Access granted ( 7 ) = YES

View the original article here

Draft Indiana Standards Get Chilly Response at Public Hearing

Indianapolis

Draft standards aimed at replacing the Common Core State Standards in Indiana drew a barrage of skeptical and disappointed reactions from many who turned out here Tuesday for the second of three four-hour hearings on the controversial topic this week.

Some of those testifying said they were dismayed that the draft Indiana academic standards seemed very similar to, or no different from, the common core. Roughly 30 to 40 people testified over the course of the hearing.

Others said the new standards, which were created by a state panel of educators by merging the common core with portions of Indiana standards adopted in 2009, would only confuse students and teachers and create more instability in classrooms. And many simply reiterated their opposition to the common core itself.

Over the last several months, the state has been reconsidering its involvement in the common core and developing new standards with the help of state education professors and K-12 teachers. The resulting draft Indiana standards were released last week.

Danielle Shockey, a deputy superintendent in the Indiana education department, previously had said parents likely won't notice a difference between common core and the new standards if they're adopted, and that the skills teachers will focus on with students won't differ greatly.

But Diane Scott, the curriculum director of the Lebanon Community School Corporation, said that despite being the "cheerleader" for teachers in her district, she was worried yet another change in standards would make them lose heart.

"These shifts are very difficult for the people in the field trying to do the work," Scott told Indiana State Board of Education members and other education officials at the public hearing.

Some educators expressed concern that the draft standards were not clear in particular subject areas, and that the order in which the draft standards should be taught was also uncertain.

And Amy Nichols, who said she was a math specialist, argued that the approach of merging standards has produced a "confusing mess" for teachers.

Nichols criticized the draft standards for not separating certain mathematical topics and for simply replicating common core. Half of the common core standards for algebra, for example, had carried over to the 139 draft standards for algebra, she said.

"Why are we so rushed, especially when we already drafted standards in 2009 that were thoroughly vetted?" she asked.

A few individuals praised the way in which the standards were drafted, if not the specific standards themselves. Although she said the draft standards should be better organized for teachers, Kate Johnson of the Stand for Children advocacy group said, "The process definitely included input from educators."

In perhaps the loudest moment of the hearing, several people jeered in opposition when Caitlin Hannon, of Teach Plus in Indianapolis, a group that advocates for effective and experienced teachers to be placed in urban schools, urged state officials to listen to teachers, and not prioritize testimony from parents over educators when it comes to standards.

Existing critics of the common core in Indiana showed that they were largely unsatisfied by the new standards. Heather Crossin, a leader of the Hoosiers Against Common Core group, said that they were simply a dressed-up and overweight version of the common core and even more unclear.

"It is clear that they represent the return to a mile-wide, inch-deep" method of learning, Crossin said at the meeting.

A few of those testifying urged the state board of education not to knuckle under to what they see as the federal government's influence and money.

Randy Brown, a common-core opponent, said he resented the loss of the 2009 Indiana standards, which he argued had been the right course for the state all along.

"Common core came along from the federal government and kind of knocked that out of the water," he said.

(The U.S. Department of Education gave incentives for states through Race to the Top grants to adopt "college- and career-ready" standards like the common core, and it's paying for common-core aligned assessments, but it did not pay for the common core's development.)

Another political critique, albeit a very different one, came from Bonnie Fisher, representing a group called Corporate Education Reforms Watch. She said the draft standards were really no different from the common core, and that both simply prepared students to be drones in a workforce dominated by capitalism.

If the state school board adopts the draft Indiana standards, Fisher said, "You should rename yourselves Lords of Basic Worker Training. For this is not education."

The draft content standards under discussion have not stopped lawmakers from taking further action to distance the state from the common core. After passing the state Senate, legislation that would void the state's 2010 adoption of the common core was approved by the House education committee earlier this month. (It would not explicitly prohibit the Indiana State Board of Education, which has final say over content standards, from re-adopting the common core, although that option now appears both impractical and politically unpalatable.)

That 2014 legislation was authored by GOP Sen. Scott Schneider, who first introduced anti-common-core legislation last year. The push didn't trigger the state to dump the common core, but it eventually led to a state law mandating a review of the common core and the official consideration of new standards. That review and evaluation of standards, in turn, led to the state's consideration of these new standards.

The Indiana Education Roundtable, which is led by Republican Gov. Mike Pence and Superintendent of Public Instruction Glenda Ritz, a Democrat, are to vote on the draft standards in March. Finally, the Indiana State Board of Education is to take a vote on the draft standards April 9.

View the original article here