The Doubleplusgood New SAT Duckspeak

In the past several days I have read so many articles and heard so many talk-show discussions on the big SAT changes announced by the College Board, that I just had to tune out.   I hit my doublethink quota on day two.  By day three after the announcement, I had to shut down or risk becoming a doubleplusgood duckspeaker.

The Ministry of Plenty (aka The College Board) has made adjustments to this famous test and presumably it will benefit the proletariat, the commoner, the peasants, the hoi-polloi.  Color me skeptical, but I’m not ready to jump for joy just yet.

The SAT has been long-detested by many.  It is especially abhorred by those who take it unprepared.

THE PROBLEMS

There are five things about the SAT that students hate:

1.  Math problems are presented in a tricky way.

      2.  An essay must be written in 25 minutes.

      3.  The vocabulary is arcane.

      4.  The critical reading passages are dense and, again, the questions try to trip up the test  taker.

      5.  The test is almost 4 hours long.

THESE ARE SOLUTIONS?

The new SAT promises to be less tricky, although now for some sections of the math, a student may not use a calculator. I don’t see how this can help anyone except the students who are very competent with math and who do not need a calculator.  I think that the academically disadvantaged student is going to struggle without a calculator.  Also, if the math is to be more like ACT math, then it will include more trigonometry.  Again, I ask, how is this going to help the academically disadvantaged students?

The essay is now optional, but this only helps students who are not applying to selective colleges.  Those colleges are going to require the essay.  Students aiming at schools that are traditionally hard to get into will still write the essay; everyone else won’t have to.  What does this tell you?  The bar has lowered – true.  But for whom?  Less selective schools have claimed that they do not look at the writing score anyway, which is just appalling because the writing score is NOT just the essay.  Included in that score (through multiple choice questions) is the demonstrated ability to write a grammatically correct and properly punctuated sentence.  It doesn't get much more basic.  However, now that the essay is optional, students least inclined to learn to write will eagerly skip it altogether.  Yet the students who have been groomed and propped up for entry to an outstanding four year college will continue to hammer away on their writing, and they will write that essay.  I see a widening gap here, not a leveling field.

When it comes to vocabulary, if high school students were reading Dickens, Melville, Conrad, Tolstoy, Hawthorne, Eliot, Faulkner, Joyce and Solzhenitsyn – as they should be – they would have no trouble whatsoever with arcane vocabulary on the SAT.   The trouble is not arcane vocabulary.  The trouble is the trash that passes for literature in our public schools.

If the new critical reading questions include primary source documents from US history, which is something the College Board promises, then bravo.   However, this would include The Federalist Papers, John Locke, and Thomas Paine.  It surprises me that anyone would consider this a leveling of the playing field.  Students studying AP US History will be pleased.  Students who already possess outstanding critical reading skills will be pleased.  Other students should be warned – these questions could be quite difficult.  Current critical reading scores have fallen behind scores from 35 years ago and we can thank technology for that.  Free technology.   For example, the free technology that provides cell phones to all students whose families receive any kind of welfare.  FACT: The more our kids text and tweet and fool around on phones, the lower those critical reading scores will be. 

From the college-board website:  Students will encounter challenging texts and informational graphics that pertain to issues and topics like these in the Evidence-Based Reading and Writing section and the Math section. Questions will require them to read and comprehend texts, revise texts to be consistent with data presented in graphics, synthesize information presented through texts and graphics, and solve problems based in science and social science.

This sounds more like college-level analysis to me.  I love it, but it will NOT be easier than what is on the test now.

Finally, no one has said anything at all about these changes shortening the test.  If you are skipping the essay, then your test will be "about" 3 hours long.  For everyone else it will be "about" 3hours and 50 minutes long.  It is not shorter. 

SOME TRUTHS – UNUTTERABLE BY THE MINISTRY OF PLENTY

Although the College Board has marketed this as something that will help impoverished students, this I do not believe.  I think these changes will keep the struggling students in the hole they are in, while it will be neutral (or helpful) to kids born into success and who have prepositioned assets in place from day one to ensure a trajectory to academic success.

The College Board certainly wants to capture more of the testing market.  They have been losing market share to the ACT.  So this new SAT is more like the ACT.   The College Board wants to make more money.  This I believe. 

David Coleman, President of The College Board, is in very deep on the Common Core Initiative and he cannot afford to have states pulling out of this preposterous homogenization project.  He said himself that the new SAT will be alignedto high school curriculum – a long, slow curve ball to keep states on the Common Core bus.  The new SAT is the Common Core’s pimp. Coleman has a side-business -http://achievethecore.org/about-us If you are really curious about his actions as president of The College Board, you ought to read about the goals of this business of his. 

Anyone who thinks that our best interests or the best interests of those living in poverty are being served by David Coleman and The College Board needs some kind of reality triagecare. 

A steady decline over the past few decades in academic performance from the students in our country speaks all of the truth that any parent, student, or politician needs to hear.  There is no government program, no free access to test prep, no elimination of hard vocabulary words, and no hand out that can stem the tide.   The problem is foundational and organic and so must be the solutions.  These solutions will be born in the family unit, not a township, state, or federal unit.  It does not take a village to raise a child; it takes a village to betray a child.

Have you ever wondered why the explosion of free online courses and free test preparation hasn't had an impact on knowledge and test scores?  The more free stuff we throw at the problem, the further away we move from getting at the real culprit.  A student has to have the time and the desire to use the free help.  It's just that simple.

The US is loath to speak plain truth and we are all handicapped by this.  Alas, the truth will never buy votes.  The truth will never get the wheels of commerce turning.  Only fantasy does this and it does it so very well.

With the new SAT - The kids of the 1% are going to continue to do quite well.  Everyone else: you are in a world of doublespeak insanity.  Do not listen to policymakers.  Take the high road and choose to do hard stuff every day.  Then you can create your own path to excellence.

 

The new SAT is not doubleplusgood.  It’s doubleplusungood.

====================================================

Notes:  Some of the terms used in this essay are from George Orwell’s, 1984, which may or may not be part of the Common Core, but it is part of my curriculum.

Newspeak terminology:

Duckspeak- a Newspeak term meaning literally to quack like a duck or to speak without thinking.

Doublethink- the act of ordinary people simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct.

Doubleplusgood– to say that someone or something is the best.

Doubleplusungood– to say that someone or something is the worst.

Ministry of Plenty – In 1984, The Ministry of Plenty is in control of Oceania's planned economy, where the central theme is that a poor, weak populace is easier to rule over than a wealthy, educated and powerful populace.

That dang SAT ....

A friend of mine shared this article.  It appeared yesterday in The New Yorker.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/03/03/140303fa_fact_kolbert?currentPage=2

It is a good read and I do admire this mom's pluck.  But, I think what she details in this article reveals more about the American "school-conditioned" thinking than it does about the SAT.

The author of the article sets out to conquer the SAT herself in order to motivate her kids.  It backfired.  My hat is off to her for even trying!  (I really have to meet this mom!)   I've been humbled multiple times by questions on this exam.

Couple of facts:  The SAT (while we all hate it) actually does a good job at predicting a student's success in college.  These words from Duke University sum it up well:  The SAT I measures verbal and mathematical skills that are important for college success; as such, it furnishes colleges with a relatively easy and inexpensive way to acquire information about students’ abilities in these areas. Colleges also respect the SAT I because it provides a yardstick with which to compare applicants from different high schools and communities.

So why are there SO MANY articles ridiculing the SAT?   The answer to this, I think, is simple statistics.  Look at the distribution of SAT scores for college bound students in 2013:

494 students scored a perfect 2400
6,600 students scored 2000
20,063 students scored 1510
20,394 students scored 1400
18,561 students scored 1300
10,360 students scored 1100

1,660,000 students took the test in 2013.  The average score was 1499.

When there are so many more students doing poorly on this test, there will be many more writers denouncing it openly.  I have never heard a student who scored high on this test doubting its virtues.  If you examine the drop-out and transfer rates at highly competitive colleges, it is remarkably low.  Most of those high-scoring students seem to be where they belong.   Even more interesting is the fact that transferring to less competitive colleges is most common in students whose SAT scores were borderline in the first place. We do not have to like these facts but we should not, as a culture, look for ways to make the test easier.

The problem does not begin with this test.  The problem begins with unrealistic expectations in parents and students.

For over a decade I have heard parents tell me that their kids go to "one of the best public schools in the state".   I  marvel at this statistical impossibility and the naivete that clings to it.

In fact, engaged parents who have used their public schools should not encounter any surprises when the time comes to have their kids take the SAT.  They should have looked up the average SAT scores for their local public schools and they should know what the predicted outcome is long before they are dealing with their own teenager's preparedness for this exam.  If a parent has high hopes for her student, then she should have this student on board the same cruise ship she is on before he begins high school.  There would be fewer surprises and less frustration and discord.

There is nothing wrong with the SAT, other than the fact that it is hard.  But, it does not test a student on the specific curriculum  used in her school.  It tests the student's ability to think.  This is why a good high school student can get a lousy score.  A kid who gets straight A's at Joe Jones High School is not necessarily going to do well on this reasoning test.

Will rich families with plenty of $$ to toss into SAT Prep get a better result?  Maybe.  But, remember - all the money in the world cannot purchase a kid's cooperation.  It cannot purchase a shared vision.  It cannot purchase determination in a kid.  But any parent can plant these seeds early on in a kid's life.

Academically successful families tend to spend LOTS of time, beginning in elementary school, bringing their kids into the fold - preparing them for academic leadership - molding them to stand out by committing to the very hard work of being better.  These kids start high school with clear goals, fully participating parents, and a family culture of excellence through tremendous focus and effort. These families are never caught off guard. These families do not rely solely on what their public school tells them. They send their kids to the public school -  but they lead their kids.  They do not abdicate to weary counselors or distracted administrators. Most importantly, the kids want the same things as their parents - they are on the same team.  THIS is the goal.

There are many things a parent can do, regardless of income:

1.  Engage early - don't be caught off guard.
2.  Have reasonable expectations.  Not every kid belongs in college.
3.  Do your own research on the SAT scores of the students in your local schools.
4.  Get your kid on your side - work as a team

Much can be learned by looking at the habits of families with academically successful children, but, of course, academic success is only one kind of success.

=======================================================

UPDATE !

Regarding The College Board's announcement today (March 5th) on the big changes planned for the SAT beginning in Spring 2016 ....am I the only one suspicious about the potential connection to the national conflict over Common Core Initiatives? The Common Core is an effort to standardize curriculum in all states in the union.  Individual states are fighting this.  David Coleman's side-business could be deeply affected if most states are not on board the common core wagon.  So, as president of College Board, he aligns the SAT to "curriculum"?  (Rather than have it remain the reasoning test that it has always been.)  Sounds like a chess move to me.  Mr. Coleman's side business is: Achievethecore.org :: About Us

That's right - only 24 hours after posting the above, the College Board announces sweeping changes!  David Coleman says it is to help the underprivileged.   What?  I doubt that.  Most of the math section must be done without a calculator, now.  How will this help, exactly?  Were calculators holding these kids back in some way?     I think the changes have more to do with David Coleman's other business ....his deep involvement with Common Core.

The College Board:  Magnanimous or Megalomaniacal ?  (You probably won't see these vocabulary words on the "new" SAT.   I think the latter - for what it's worth.)

CCSI = Common Core Standards Initiative - the aligned gets maligned

You would have to be living on a deserted island to have escaped the interminable carping over the CCSI.   It is runner up for the Most Detested Sweeping Statist Change in America.  You can guess what takes first place, of course.

For the rest of this post, I'd like to ask you a favor.  Every time you see the words "National Standards" and "align/ment", please also hear the crisp, brush and clip of the goose-step executed by a sea of uniformed enforcers.

A few administrators remain giggly over CCSI  (Common Core) - these are the people who plaster every inch of the school with "You CAN do IT" and "Today is YOUR day" signs.  These buffoons don't count.  Then, there is the avalanche of publishers trying (poorly) to conceal their glee.  After all, that which is "aligned" has to be rewritten, sold, and then thrown out soon after.  It's a publisher's dream come true.

Why in the world did a bankrupt nation busily engaged in the ignoble work of losing its exceptionalism in every imaginable realm decide to jump onto the curriculum alignment bandwagon?  If it is part of a bigger plan - it is a wicked plan indeed.   If it is not part of any plan at all, if it is just more flailing desperately at the new congenitally subordinate intellect that our moocher nation has bred, God help us all. Warning - when you see the pieces of the puzzle float together, you will be ill at ease.  It is a nasty, confusing, and, in the end, gloomy business.

The entire US of A is being "aligned".  As of three days ago, all of the schools (except in Texas, Alaska, Minnesota, Nebraska and Virginia) are changing .....well, everything.  There is now a National Standard which is developing rapidly into a Common Curriculum for all states.  This has resulted in big companies like Scholastic, Inc publishing books that omit Israel from the world map and AP History textbooks misstating the 2nd and 3rd Amendments.   Oversights?  Maybe...I am not bothering to mention in any detail the flood of complaints about a pro-Islam agenda that has slipped into every subject book.  The only research creepier than the evolution of Common Core is botfly removal.

What out-of-touch, ivory tower clown cooked up the idea of one standard which would then belch out a common curriculum for states as diverse as Alaska and New York, Montana and New Jersey, California and Kentucky?  That would be Bill Gates.

A little history.  Many years ago, Bill Gates said something about education that got the attention of a few people who can smell money from miles away.  Gates said (in so many words) that he thought the states should all have the same academic guidelines - the same standards.  "We need a National Standard."   If you want to know what happened after his pontifications on education, all you have to do is follow the money.  There is a chilling conclusion to be drawn at the end of that trail.

Bill Gates and a couple of other guys decided they could create the image of a state-led education overhaul.  Except the state had nothing to do with it.  It was just a few guys setting out to change the country's schools.  Why?  Because they could.  And, for Bill's money, of course.  Why would Bill Gates underwrite every aspect of CCSI?  Power?  Bordeom?  Wait and see.  My speculation - there will be a Microsoft-based platform for CCSI in which all schools must participate and into which our tax dollars will be tossed willy nilly. How could 45 of our states jump on board this runaway train without looking more closely?   Since US students are routinely eclipsed by international students, and since this embarrassing problem is growing worse each year, the US government is willing to try anything. Anything.   And, if Bill Gates says it is necessary .... well, I guess that's good enough for our policymakers in DC.  The fact that the "state" had little if anything at all to do with the National Standards might be reason to hope, but a look at some of the "aligned" textbooks reveals this fact:  It is possible that government-led education reform is not the worst scenario.  Now, that is just a ghastly thought and not just because it means I have to eat my "Pro-Privatization" hat.

Some downright terrifying background:

After Gates "shared" his thoughts on National Standards, David Coleman, the president of the College Board, immediately started a company called Student Achievement Partners.  Bill Gates gave this SAP millions.  David Coleman's new (side) business has one and only one purpose - to develop Common Core Standards.  As president of the College Board, Coleman oversees the development and implementation of the PSAT,  SAT, APs and SAT Subject Tests.....just about every test your kids needs to ace in order to prove their worthiness to the university-world.  Are you starting to get scared?  Pour yourself a stiff drink, because it gets a lot worse.

The public has been told that:  "The standards were developed in collaboration with teachers, school administrators, and experts, to provide a clear and consistent framework to prepare our children for college and the workforce." (This is from the CCSI website.) Baloney.   There were two organizations that Bill brought into the circle.  The National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council for Chief State School Officers.  Here's the most interesting thing.  Bill Gates has plowed up to $150,000,000 into these organizations (and Coleman's SAP) since that first fateful meeting of a few avaricious minds in 2008 under the guise of an "educational forum" on National Standards.

An entire country is following Bill Gates' trail of crumbs, like a whole flock of Hansel and Gretel's, and no one stops to ask.....why?   What is at the end of this trail?  I don't know.  But, I feel compelled to run away.  Maybe because I've read Hansel and Gretel - the nonaligned version.

Bill Gates is not a teacher.  Although he is a parent, something tells me his kids did not suffer under overworked, underpaid public school teachers struggling in unsafe, underfunded districts.  In short, he has no idea what he is doing.  Unless, of course, there is a hidden agenda, in which case he knows exactly what he is doing.  He and his "non-profit" partners, knew exactly what they were doing.

The NGA had 29 individuals present at the first pow-wow.  As it turns out, though, only 2 of these individuals were not affiliated with an education company.  As you will see from the list below, most of the education companies get boatloads of Gates' money.  See what I mean?

It really does look like a handful of guys rammed this through.  Not even a Hollywood B conspiracy theory flick could have created this kind of grandiose scheming.  Scary thing - it has worked. Washington took the bait.

So what is the moral to this spine-chilling story?  Well, when someone asks you nervously if the textbook you are using is "aligned", remember that just a couple of monkey suits banged this out on their way to and from the bank each day, and in between their trips to the islands.

Keep your old textbooks because "aligned" means that matters of faith have been buried, matters of constitutionality have been buried and 4th grade math has been made utterly incomprehensible.  You are about to witness conditioning that will make 1984 and Brave New World look like a Magic Tree House mystery.  The "aligned" texts have an insidious form of "new-think" which skips the unpleasant task of swaying your opinion because in many realms, they skip the truth altogether.

This needs to be repeated - keep your old textbooks.

At the bottom of this blog are two lists.  One is a list of the $$ Gates has paid directly to CCS architects.  The second is a list of educational organizations that have been bought by Gates.  These are from the deutsch29 Edu blog, but you can find the info in many places.

If you go to this blog, and I hope you do, you will see that included are links for every grant and contribution from Gates to back the research.   http://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/a-brief-audit-of-bill-gates-common-core-spending/

It you have a ton of time, you can ferret out all of these from the Gates Foundation website, directly:
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database

========================================================================

The four principal organizations associated with CCSS– NGA, CCSSO, Achieve, and Student Achievement Partners– have accepted millions from Bill Gates. In fact, prior to CCSS “completion” in June 2009, Gates had paid millions to NGA, CCSSO, and Achieve. And the millions continued to flow following CCSS completion.

Prior to June 2009, NGA received $23.6 million from the Gates Foundation from 2002 through 2008. $19.7 million was for the highly-disruptive “high school redesign” (i.e.,“small schools”) project, one that Gates abandoned.

After June 2009, NGA received an additional $2.1 million from Gates, the largest payout coming in February 2011,

…to work with state policymakers on the implementation of the Common Core State Standards, with special attention to effective resource reallocation to ensure complete execution, as well as rethinking state policies on teacher effectiveness 
Amount: $1,598,477 [Emphasis added.]

Years ago, Gates paid NGA to “rethink policies on teacher effectiveness.”

One man, lots of money, nationally shaping a profession to which he has never belonged.

As for CCSSO: The Gates amounts are even higher than for NGA. Prior to June 2009, the Gates Foundation gave $47.1 million to CCSSO (from 2002 to 2007), with the largest amount focused on data “access” and “data driven decisions”:

March 2007 
Purpose: to support Phase II of the National Education Data Partnership seeking to promote transparency and accessibility of education data and improve public education through data-driven decision making 
Amount: $21,642,317 [Emphasis added.]

Following CCSS completion in June 2009, Gates funded CCSSO an additional $31.9 million, with the largest grants earmarked for CSSS implementation and assessment, and data acquisition and control:

July 2013 
Purpose: to CCSSO, on behalf of the PARCC and SBAC consortia to support the development of high quality assessments to measure the Common Core State Standards 
Amount: $4,000,000

November 2012 
Purpose: to support the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) in helping States’ to build their data inoperability capability and IT leadership capacity 
Amount: $1,277,648

October 2012 
Purpose: to support strategic planning for the sustainability of the Common Core State Standards and the two multi-state assessment consortia tasked with designing assessments aligned with those standards 
Amount: $1,100,000

June 2011 
Purpose: to support the Common Core State Standards work 
Amount: $9,388,911

November 2009 
Purpose: to partner with federal, state, public, and private interests to develop common, open, longitudinal data standards 
Amount: $3,185,750

July 2009 
Purpose: to increase the leadership capacity of chiefs by focusing on standards and assessments, data systems, educator development and determining a new system of supports for student learning 
Amount: $9,961,842  [Emphasis added.]

Gates money also flowed to Achieve, Inc.; prior to June 2009, Achieve received $23.5 million in Gates funding. Another $13.2 million followed after CCSS creation, with $9.3 million devoted to “building strategic alliances” for CCSS promotion:

 June 2012 
Purpose: to strengthen and expand the ADP Network, provide
more support to states for CCSS implementation, and build strategic national
and statewide alliances by engaging directly with key stakeholders 
Amount: $9,297,699  [Emphasis added.]

=========================================================================

Gates Buys Select Major Ed Organizations and Think Tanks

Let us now consider major education organizations and think tanks that have accepted Gates money for the express purpose of advancing CCSS:

American Enterprise Institute: $1,068,788.

American Federation of Teachers: $5,400,000.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: $3,269,428.

Council of Great City Schools: $5,010,988.

Education Trust: $2,039,526.

National Congress of Parents and Teachers: $499,962.

National Education Association: $3,982,597.

Thomas B. Fordham Institute: $1,961,116.

(For most of the organizations above, Gates has funded other reform-related efforts, including those related to charter schools, small schools, teacher evaluation, and data systems. Comprehensive listing of Gates grants for the organizations above [and then some] can be found here:  Gates Foundation Grants to Select Education and Policy Groups)

Date: January 2011 

Purpose: to track state progress towards implementation of standards and to understand how what students read changes in response to the standards 
Amount: $1,002,000 [Purpose emphasis added.]

Even though CCSS was never piloted, Gates and Fordham want to watch state “progress” in implementing CCSS, and they even want to know how the untested CCSS shifts the curriculum– even though reformers are quick to parrot that CCSS is “not a curriculum.” This “tracking” tacitly acknowledges CCSS is meant to drive curriculum.

Next is this Gates purchase of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI):

Date: June 2012 
Purpose: to support their education policy work in four distinct areas:
Exploring the Challenges of Common Core, Future of American Education Working Groups, Innovations in Financial Aid, and Bridging K-12 and Higher Ed with Technology 
Amount: $1,068,788 [Purpose emphasis added.]

Gates is paying AEI to promote educational policy that bolsters CCSS. And Gates is getting his money’s worth from AEI “scholar” Frederick Hess, who offers these twoarticles advising “Common Core’ites.”

Third is the Gates purchase of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT):

Date: June 2012 
Purpose: to support the AFT Innovation Fund and work on teacher
development and Common Core State Standards 
Amount: $4,400,000

Even though AFT was not invited to the CCSS table until the “standards” had already been drafted by the CCSS Inner Circle noted above, and even though CCSS has not been piloted, AFT only called for a testing moratorium and not for a cease-and-desist of CCSS altogether. It appears that accepting $4.4 million in order to “work on teacher development and Common Core Standards” precludes “just saying no” to what amounts to the CCSS Colossal Education Experiment.

Fourth is the Gates purchase of the National Education Association (NEA). In July 2013, NEA officially endorsed CCSS, and in July 2013, Gates paid NEA for its support in the form of two grants totaling $6.3 million:

Date: July 2013
Purpose: to support the capacity of state NEA affiliates to advance teaching and learning issues and student success in collaboration with local affiliates
Amount: $2,426,500

Date: July 2013
Purpose: to support a cohort of National Education Association Master Teachers in the development of Common Core-aligned lessons in K-5 mathematics and K-12 English Language Arts
Amount: $3,882,600

NEA was not at the CCSS birthing table with NGA, CCSSO, Achieve, and David Coleman’s Student Achievement Partners. However, after the establishment of CCSS without teachers, now Gates is willing to pay a teachers union to create curricula that in the end do not really matter since the CCSS power is in the assessments that are completely out of NEA’s control.

I have saved my favorite CCSS-Gates purchase for last, this one to the Council of Great City Schools (CGCS):

Date: June 2011 
Purpose: to promote and coordinate successful implementation of the new common core standards in major urban public school systems nationwide 
Amount: $4,910,988

Date: March 2010 
Purpose: to support the development of a cross-sector proposal to pilot test the new common core standards in a set of selected cities 
Amount: $100,000  [Purpose emphasis added.]

It seems that Gates paid CGCS $100,000 to propose a pilot study of CCSS in 2010 (not to conduct a pilot study– just to draft the idea for a pilot). Fifteen months later, there is no mention of a “proposal” much less a pilot study materializing; instead, Gates pays CGCS to “just go ahead” and “coordinate successful implementation” of the untested CCSS.

======================================================================

Final words:

One more time, because I cannot stress this enough:  Hold on to your old textbooks.  There will be more truth in them.  Their content will have more integrity.   They do not bear that most degenerate brand - "ALIGNED with COMMON CORE."