Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
here comes the monkey
The Common Core testing monkey is shamed by John Oliver.


What does a monkey have to do with Common Core tests?  He was a character at a school creating student excitement about standardized testing.  He loves the tests and wants your children to love them too.  Jay P. Greene (the department head and 21st Century Chair in Education Reform at the University of Arkansas) and Jay Oliver (an English comedian, writer, producer, actor, media critic, and television host) would suspend this monkey from school premises to save  children from this high stakes testing debacle.


From Jay P. Greene:

Below is the text of the testimony I intend to present to the Arkansas Common Core Council on Wednesday.  The Council is chaired by Lt. Governor Tim Griffin and was charged by the legislature with providing advice on the future of Common Core Standards and PARCC testing.  You can watch videos of the Council testimony and discussions here.

Here are excerpts from his testimony which cannot be considered ringing endorsements of the Common Core State Standards (bolded by MEW):

Because standards are about values, their content is not merely a technical issue that can be determined by scientific methods. There is no technically correct set of standards, just as there is no technically correct political party or religion. Reasonable people have legitimate differences of opinion about what they want their children taught. A fundamental problem with national standards efforts, like Common Core, is that they are attempting to impose a single vision of a proper education on a large and diverse country with differing views.

National standards can try to produce uniformity out of diversity with some combination of two approaches. They can promote standards that are so bland and ambiguous as to be inoffensive to almost everyone. Or they can force their particular vision on those who believe differently. Either way, national standards, like Common Core, are inappropriate and likely to be ineffective. If national standards embrace a vague consensus, then they make no difference since almost everyone already believes them and is already working toward them. If, on the other hand, national standards attempt to impose their particular vision of a proper education on those with differing visions, then national standards are oppressive and likely to face high levels of resistance and non-compliance. So, national standards are doomed to be either unnecessary or illiberal. Either way, they are wrong.

Some of you may be thinking that education is not entirely about values. Can’t we at least agree, you might be thinking, that all children need to acquire basic competency in literacy and numeracy? And if so, might not standards be helpful in addressing these more technical issues even if they cannot address broader issues of values?

Unfortunately, even when it comes to some of the narrower goals of education, there is no evidence that standards deemed to be higher quality are effective in producing higher levels of literacy and numeracy. I’m aware of four analyses that have examined whether states with standards judged to be better have greater academic achievement. I’ve provided references to these four analyses in the written version of my testimony. None of them show any relationship between the ratings of state standards according to the Fordham Institute and Education Week and each state’s performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. I’m not aware of any empirical analyses that show that “better” standards lead to better outcomes for students.

The lack of relationship between the judged quality of state standards and student achievement should raise a number of concerns for this Council. First, it should make you doubt claims about the quality of Common Core standards. How does anyone know whether Common Core standards are good and will contribute to academic achievement if no one has ever found a relationship between Common Core (or any standards for that matter) and student outcomes? Many people claim to be expert judges of the quality of standards but no one’s judgment has been validated by actual improvement in student performance.

Second, perhaps the lack of relationship between expert judgments about the quality of standards and student achievement is explained by the fact that there is not a single path to academic success for all of our incredibly different children. Common Core or other standards might be good for some students in some circumstances, but bad for other students in other situations. The reason why expert claims about the quality of standards have never aligned with student achievement is that there is no single set of standards that could be optimal for promoting even basic literacy and numeracy for all students. Standards, particularly national standards, are then a fool’s enterprise of one size fits none.

Third, the lack of relationship between “better” standards and achievement might be caused by low levels of compliance by schools and educators rather than the unreliable judgment of experts. That is, standards are just a bunch of words in a document. Even if they are the right words and even if one set of words could fit what all children need, there is no assurance that schools or educators would teach to those standards. Schools and educators have their own ideas about the proper goals of education and little can be done to force them to change their practice.

Key backers of Common Core standards are aware of this problem and so the U.S. Department of Education funded the development of new tests that would be aligned with these national standards. If these new tests could detect whether schools and educators were changing their practices in the ways desired by Common Core and if rewards and punishments could be imposed on schools and educators for their compliance with the new standards, then perhaps the empty words of standards could be transformed into a real change in the education system.

The problem with trying to use PARCC or Smarter Balanced tests to drive Common Core changes is that it almost certainly requires more coercion than is politically possible and would be undesirable even if it could be accomplished. If Arkansas tries to use the PARCC test to impose strong enough sanctions on schools and educators to drive changes in their practice, we will witness a well-organized and effective counter-attack from educators and sympathetic parents who will likely neuter those sanctions. If, on the other hand, the consequences of PARCC are roughly the equivalent of double secret probation in the movie, Animal House, then no one has to change practice to align with the new standards.

And even if by some political miracle the new PARCC test could be used to impose tough sanctions on schools and educators who failed to comply with Common Core, it’s a really bad idea to try to run school systems with a test. All sorts of bad things happen when maximizing performance on standardized tests becomes the governing principle of schools. Schools and educators are likely to narrow the curriculum by focusing on tested subjects at the expense of untested ones. If we care at all about the Arts, History, and Science we should oppose trying to run schools with math and ELA tests. And within tested subjects schools and educators are likely to focus narrowly on tested items at the expense of a more complete understanding of math and English.

Common Core is unlikely to produce meaningful changes in practice without an aligned test that punishes schools and educators, but those types of harsh consequences are unlikely to survive the political opposition of educators and parents. And even if PARCC could impose tough consequences to drive changes in practice, the changes would produce a disastrous narrowing in the curriculum of schools.

So what should this Council recommend? Given that there is no technically correct set of standards and given that expert judgment about the quality of standards has never been validated by better student outcomes, there is no reason for Arkansas to defer to the small group of national experts who drafted the Common Core standards. Arkansas policymakers, educators, and parents know as much about effective standards as these self-proclaimed experts. So we should be empowered to write our own standards that reflect our own priorities and values in education. If standards are about values, they should be developed as close to the people to whom they apply as is practical.

But even standards that are developed in a decentralized way will fail to capture all of the legitimate diversity of goals and needs. For that reason, even standards that are developed locally should be humble about what they can accomplish and the extent to which schools and educators ought to change their practice as a result. In the end, it is families, educators, and communities who need to set appropriate goals for individual children, not the state and certainly not the national government or organizations.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we should abandon PARCC and purchase an already-developed, nationally-normed standardized test from ACT or any of the reputable testing companies. The purpose of PARCC is to drive changes in educator behavior in ways that are desired by Common Core. But we should not be using tests aligned with a set of standards to coerce schools and educators to change their practice. What we really need from standardized testing is just information about how our students are performing. This can be accomplished at much lower cost by just buying a nationally-normed test off of the shelf. And lower stakes tests that are primarily about information rather than coercion will produce much less harmful narrowing of the curriculum.


This testimony is nothing less than earth shattering.  From a parental viewpoint, parents need to copy this testimony and present it to their legislators with this particular phrase highlighted: parents know as much about effective standards as these self-proclaimed experts.  Unlike a witness in the HB1490 hearing who stated that parents should not be on workgroups because they don’t know enough about standards, Jay P. Greene eloquently disagrees with that opinion.

Greene also confirms that Common Core does indeed ‘tell teachers how to teach’ regardless of CCSS PR materials stating otherwise:  The purpose of PARCC is to drive changes in educator behavior in ways that are desired by Common Core.  SBAC is no different from PARCC in its intent.  The initiative has been designed for a particular outcome and adoption of educational techniques are necessary in the quest for the outcome.

Another snippet to share with those who want to know what all the Common Core standardized testing fuss is all about:

jay p greene and common core


Let’s address the Common Core tests that are being developed by PARCC and SBAC based on the standards testimony Jay P. Greene offered above.  John Oliver delivers an entertaining (warning: salty language/references) narrative on the standards and assessments and it’s scathing.  Rolling Stone reports:


The standardized test explosion dates back to the Nineties and early 2000s. On his third day in office, George W. Bush announced his No Child Left Behind program, which “increased the number of federally mandated tests from six to 17.” President Obama campaigned that he would de-emphasize the heavy testing – but he’s pushed his own initiatives like Race to the Top, which emphasizes the Common Core state standards. These concepts are sound in principle but difficult to implement, leading to many states using “value-added analysis,” which ties teacher pay to student test scores.

The system is flawed in every aspect. Many of the tests are impossibly challenging, fail to reflect ability in a practical sense, include error-laden questions and are graded with shady scoring tactics. “At this point, you have to ask yourself: If standardized tests are bad for teachers and bad for kids, who exactly are they good for?” Oliver says. The tests are operated by companies like Pearson Education, which had 40 percent of the testing market cornered as of 2012. “The only test they have no hand in is the HPV test you might take in college,” the host jokes.

Oliver’s video is quite informative on the creation and funding of the testing.  If you are not bothered by suggestive language, it’s worth a look:


Did you know that the testing comes with instructions for testing administrators on what to do if students become so upset while taking the test that they vomit?

john oliver vomiting

Be sure to watch the clip beginning at 14:30 when the people who scored the tests (hired via Craigslist) talk about the directions given on how to grade tests regardless of the answers.  Scores were not based on merit but rather, quotas.


It will be interesting to watch how the Common Core standards/assessment proponents such as The Chamber of Commerce, Arne Duncan, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Hillary Clinton, Mike Huckabee, Mike Pence, CCSSO,  NEA/AFT, etc will respond to the facts about how this standardized testing/scoring is not standardized, but capricious and faulty.  The assessments are based on the standards, created by private organizations and are not ‘state led’.  They are tied into accountability measures that do not accurately measure student progress and knowledge.   Teacher’s evaluations are highly dependent on this unvalidated test in many states and students’ education is being compromised by these characters no better than the monkey mascot.  If you are going to create excitement about a process and product, it should be legal and validated.  The standards and assessments are neither.  So beware of the PR nonsense about these standards being ‘higher, better, rigorous’.  It’s just circus banter by a group of politicians, corporations and bureaucrats counting on you buying a monkey’s schtick.






Gretchen Logue