This reader explains the conflict between Common Core expectations and her professional judgment. How did she resolve it? She did what she believed was in the best interests of children. It’s not easy.
She writes:
“As a literacy consultant and Title 1 coordinator at my K-6 rural NH school, I sympathize. At my school, we use Fountas and Pinnell’s Benchmark Assessment System as our universal screening tool for literacy. When F&P came out with their revised reading level expectations (obviously inspired by the CCSS, although they refuse to admit this), my colleagues and I came to consensus about the fact that we will not adhere to them, as we feel that at several grade levels (most notably kindergarten), they are developmentally inappropriate and unrealistic.
“Because we are the only elementary school in our district that came to this conclusion, I am receiving complaints from the one middle school into which all elementary students in the district funnel: “But now our grade level expectations for reading are not aligned! How are we supposed to determine which students are truly at core, strategic, intensive, etc.?”
“My stance is, do the work to figure it out. Get to know the whole child. Let’s stop pretending that each child develops at the same rate, and that it’s as easy as looking at a piece of data to determine which students truly need intervention. Policies and guidelines like this we put into place so that educators don’t have to think. It is something I work against every single day.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Great points! Good for you and your colleagues for standing up for what you believe in and what you know to be true because you are the experts!
LikeLike
If so many teachers keep saying they need to work against it or modify it or whatever (both of which are prohibited for many teachers with whom I’ve talked) when do we finally decide that these expensive and worthless standards have got to go? And the problems inherent in the standards manifest later as student and teacher failure. And we know where that takes us.
LikeLike
“And we know where that takes us.”
To prison???
LikeLike
I fully agree with,
“My stance is, do the work to figure it out. Get to know the whole child. Let’s stop pretending that each child develops at the same rate, and that it’s as easy as looking at a piece of data to determine which students truly need intervention. Policies and guidelines like this we put into place so that educators don’t have to think. It is something I work against every single day.”
In other words.. be a professional. Teach your heart out!
Thanks for another inspirational post.
LikeLike
I think it’s important keep in mind the difference between planning individualized instruction and a scope & sequence. While CCSS may (appropriately or inappropriately) list a particular skill to be acquired by a particular date, that doesn’t mean that a teacher should teach it if the child isn’t ready for that skill.
In other words, a scope & sequence isn’t designed to replace professional judgement related to curriculum pacing or individualizing/differentiating instruction, and I’m not sure where folks are seeing CCSS claim otherwise. I can definitely see how teachers could disagree with CCSS expecting too much too soon, and problems with teacher evaluation if they are shown to be ineffective because they aren’t teaching certain skills (because kids aren’t ready for them), but those aren’t issues with CCSS per se, but with related evaluation systems and imposed pacing expectations.
Another way of phrasing this – ANY scope & sequence can encounter these same problems if a teacher is expected to teach those skills and not adjust pacing/instruction based on actual student skill levels. This problem has existed long before CCSS, and has always presented challenges to teacher professional judgement. Many folks simply don’t the difference between scope & sequence/standards as opposed to curriculum or curriculum pacing. These are issues, in my opinion, not with those constructs themselves (e.g., CCSS) but those who are attempting to inappropriately use them.
LikeLike
“These are issues, in my opinion, not with those constructs themselves (e.g., CCSS) but those who are attempting to inappropriately use them.”
Agreed. But the problem is, the implementation is ‘where the rubber meets the road’ and the indications, at least what I’ve seen so far, are that more states and districts are implementing the CCSS in an inappropriate manner. Perhaps this is due to the breakneck rollout without piloting and adjustment?
Unfortunately, teachers and students are and will continue to be the victims in this inappropriate rollout and all calls for slowing down and moratoria are being loudly negated and refuted.
How do you propose we deal with this reality? And how do you prevent the inappropriate use from tarring the CCSS program in its entirety as a failure when teachers and students become collateral damage in the process?
There were many, many voices raising this alarm during the rollout of CCSS and RTTT (with it’s requirement of adoption in order to receive federal funding) that were ignored or falsely characterized as supporters of the “status quo”. That most likely will come back to bite the CCSS juggernaut in the rear.
LikeLike
Chris, I think you bring up a really important issue, and I’m not sure I have a great solution. First, I’d say this problem exists in pretty much every corner of education. With almost every larger-scale reform, no matter how great it might be, implementation integrity seems to become an issue. I’m thinking specifically of RtI, for example.
In terms of brainstorming solutions, I think the broader context of implementation should be considered with all reforms, which is what I think you’re suggesting. My sense is that this is typically not done as much as it should be.
The ultimate question, then, is whether anticipated implementation issues should prevent us from even considering it to begin with. The problem with that approach is that almost no large-scale reforms could be considered because many seem to have implementation issues. While it may be tempting to say, “See, this is the problem with large-scale reforms and we should keep change local,” I’d point to many important large-scale reforms that likely wouldn’t have happened in many schools if left to “local decision making,” from school integration to special education.
Finally, rather than pointing fingers at the interventions, I think we should consider deeper issues in our educational system that seem to consistently lead to implementation issues, such as leadership capacity at local and state levels. Is it that we need to strategically improve our leadership so that they have a greater capacity to implement more technically challenging initiatives such as CCSS? Perhaps it’s a funding issue? I’m not arguing that any one area is causing all implementation issues, but I am saying that I think it may be wise to address root causes of implementation issues rather than just consider any large-scale initiatives pointless.
LikeLike
“These are issues, in my opinion, not with those constructs themselves (e.g., CCSS) but those who are attempting to inappropriately use them.”
Yes, the issues are with the standards or constructs as you call them. See Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700 to understand why.
For a primer: Define what exactly is an “educational standard”. When you do we can go from there, eh!
LikeLike
Hi Duane – hope you’ve been well. I would define an educational standard as a particular (academic) behavior that is expected to be performed by the average student by a certain chronological point in the student’s academic career.
Perhaps it would be helpful for you to outline the argument you cite of Wilson’s here?
LikeLike
Eded,
Not a bad definition at all except that it brings up many more questions: Who defines those behaviours? How do we know that an “average” student (if there really is such a thing) can be able to perform a certain “behavior” by a certain chronological point? What should the assessment look like to determine this “capability”? Is not each student an individual experiencing growth and learning at differing rates than all others, including twins and therefore there really is no average? I always seem to have more questions than answers.
I will try to summarize briefly in a new post so as to not make this a total string bean post Wilson’s argument but it will necessarily be lacking as to outline it won’t do it justice. Kinda like Cliff Notes for Moby Dick.
Been well, was out camping for a week and now since I’ve gotten back had to head to the ER for what I thought was a serious sinus infection (I was experiencing rather frightening gushing nosebleeds). Well turns our it’s hypertension (240/180 at the time) and the good part is the blood was coming out my nostrils and not going into my brain (stroke). So I’m taking meds and will have to get a primary physician (not one that only took a five week “How to be an ER doc) and get this ol body a bit back in better shape. But I’m not giving up my butter-ha ha!
LikeLike
Wow, Duane – hope you’re doing okay, and stick with that butter! :). I think we’re on the same page about standards – all of those are valid questions that should have to be answered thoroughly in any system of standards. Your concern about individual progress is also very relevant, which is what I was addressing before – that pacing and individual student progress shouldn’t be determined by standards alone, but by assessment data and consideration of that particular student. The bottom line is that those are all separate issues – standards themselves do not dictate pacing, differentiation, assessment – etc. If someone has a problem with the CCSS assessment, I get it – but that’s the assessment, not the standards.
Stay well!
LikeLike
“a scope & sequence isn’t designed to replace professional judgement related to curriculum pacing or individualizing/differentiating instruction, and I’m not sure where folks are seeing CCSS claim otherwise.”
I agree! I think the bigger problem in education today is when a school district (like NYC) mandates a teaching method (like “balanced literacy”) that has been proven to be ineffective.
LikeLike
I’m with you Carole – that seems unfortunate that that has happened. If you’re in that location, hopefully you’ve found a way to work effectively within those constraints.
LikeLike
Your point would be valid if high stakes standardized tests were not tied to CCSS. It’s not fine to say teach the child where he/she is and then turn around and rank the student and evaluate the teacher on the basis of grade level standards.
LikeLike
2old2tch those are simply two different points. Before CCSS high stakes testing has been tied to other sets of standards. In other words, the standards are completely separate from accountability. I can see having issues with CCSS, but how teachers are held accountable to those standards is a separate issue.
LikeLike
Huh? I’m not tracking with you. Here’s where I am. We have this set of standards developed by policy people and politicians on which all students will be tested and on which students and teachers are being evaluated. I am critical of both standards and high stakes testing for different reasons, but I am beyond words to describe my reaction to combining “beta testing” these standards and tests in a high stakes environment that will affect schools, students, and teachers. Yes, you can look at the standards and the separately. Seeing deficiencies in either or both artifacts is only “interesting” as an academic exercise to those who are unaffected by the real world consequences. Too many of us have been affected by uninformed and ill conceived experimentation in recent years.
LikeLike
I agree with most of what you said, but I don’t think the act of seeing standards separately from assessment systems is merely an academic, irrelevant exercise. What if the standards were great and the assessments were awful? What if the assessments were great but the uses of those assessments (e.g., teacher evaluation) were awful? Those are extremely important details that are more than merely “academic.”
LikeLike
If you look back at my post, you will notice that the words “merely” and “irrelevant” are not used. I did not intend for academic exercise to be viewed as pejorative. Other than your adding those words to characterize what I was saying, I think we actually agree.
It is the careful consideration of the translation of the thinking into action that has been left out. We are throwing around academic sounding concepts without defining terms in actionable language. Then we are throwing gotcha tests at the students (and teachers) predicting that scores will go down. Of course they will go down until everyone figures out what the tests are testing!
There are many more problems that I have not even addressed. The main point that I think we agree on is that neither standards or tests are ready for prime time. I struggle with them being more than an academic discussion given that they have built on what, I believe, is a false narrative.
LikeLike
…they have been built..
LikeLike
I always appreciate consensus. Truthfully, I don’t have a lot of experience with CCSS specifically, so I won’t make any strong statements in support or against. I have heard some good things as well as some bad things. The main point of my post wasn’t for/against support, but just in favor of being specific with the discussion, and clarifying exactly what we’re talking about.
LikeLike
Firstly, I would like to make clear that I have not made any decision as to whether I approve or disapprove the CCSS. My state (TX) has not adopted it. So, I confess, I have not spent a lot of time researching if the CCSS will be good or bad. However, I have read the CCSS for ELA, and I will have to agree with edededucation’s post that says, “a scope & sequence isn’t designed to replace professional judgement related to curriculum pacing or individualizing/differentiating instruction, and I’m not sure where folks are seeing CCSS claim otherwise.”
The author in Diane’s post speaks about the F&P Reading Level Assessment. I’m very familiar with this assessment because my district mandates three reading level benchmarks a year using F&P. Here is what I copied from the CCSS in relation to reading levels (I picked 3rd grade) for fiction:
“By the end of the year, read and comprehend
literature, including stories, dramas, and poetry,
at the high end of the grades 2–3 text complexity
band independently and proficiently.”
It is the same standard for the nonfiction reading level.
According to my district’s benchmark standards, this is a pretty generous range. Our third grade students have to be at a reading level of “P.” By using F&P’s reading level chart, this is at the end of 3rd grade. Here is the chart:
Click to access 10MonthProgressByInstructionalLevel.pdf
I’ve come to partially agree with Tom Loveless of Brookings when he says that it doesn’t make a difference how rigorous and uniform the standards are. Why? Districts across our nation will be given the flexibility to “teach to the test” and mandate teaching methods that don’t work. The way teachers are trained to teach mandated methods that don’t improve student growth, in my opinion, is one of the biggest problems in education today. Teachers should be allowed to choose which models work best in their classrooms and meet their students’ needs.
LikeLike
Diane, I just submitted a post and I think I mistyped my email address because it went to moderation. 🙂
LikeLike
I find myself always going back to read Diane’s book (Death and Life). Each time I do, I find something new to ponder. This time, Diane validates my thinking about a rich curriculum. It’s the curriculum that is the most important!
We can go on and on in agreeing or disagreeing with CCSS. Does it really make a difference? In my other post that I hope Diane recovers from moderation :), I said that I had to partially agree with Tom Loveless of Brookings when he says that it doesn’t make a difference how rigorous and uniform the standards are. We all know that there will be districts across our nation that are going to flex the rules/standards and make teachers “teach to the test.” The way teachers are trained to teach mandated methods that don’t improve student growth, in my opinion, is one of the biggest problems in education today. Teachers should be allowed to choose which models work best in their classrooms and meet their students’ needs.
Diane writes, “Every state should have a curriculum that is rich in knowledge, issues, and ideas, while leaving teachers free to use their own methods, with enough time to introduce topics and activities of their own choosing.” (p.236)
I couldn’t agree more! 🙂
LikeLike
If only more teachers like you acted on behalf of the children we teach, maybe then things would turn around…what I’ve discovered in my district at least (Boston Public), is that teachers are so uninformed they’re utterly ignorant, & that’s what I see as the biggest issue…curious to see if its the same where you, & others, are! Keep up the great work abd stay string!!
Theindignantteacher.wordpress.com
LikeLike
Stay strong lol spellcheck!
LikeLike
Parental judgement may join the conflict, on the side of teachers. See Bill Fitzgerald’s description of a parent night devoted to introduction of CCSS in Portland. His conclusion sums it up nicely: And this is my single biggest take away from the event: teachers are left explaining a system they didn’t develop and didn’t choose. Teachers become the public face of policy decisions that originate thousands of miles away. When policy makers create a mess – and I would describe a set of standards that are poorly understood, backed by curriculum that is not yet defined, assessed by testing instruments that do not yet exist, as “a mess” – teachers are the ones who attempt to explain it. Our teachers are doing a great job. I hope, at some point, our policy makers catch up.
LikeLike
Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine.
1. A quality cannot be quantified. Quantity is a sub-category of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category by only a part (sub-category) of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking. The teaching and learning process falls in the logical realm of aesthetics/qualities of human interactions. In attempting to quantify educational standards and standardized testing we are lacking much information about said interactions.
2. A major epistemological mistake is that we attach, with great importance, the “score” of the student, not only onto the student but also, by extension, the teacher, school and district. Any description of a testing event is only a description of an interaction, that of the student and the testing device at a given time and place. The only correct logical thing that we can attempt to do is to describe that interaction (how accurately or not is a whole other story). That description cannot, by logical thought, be “assigned/attached” to the student as it cannot be a description of the student but the interaction. This is probably one of the most egregious “errors” that occur with standardized testing (and even the “grading” of students by a teacher).
3. Wilson identifies four “frames of reference” each with distinct assumptions (epistemological basis) about the assessment process from which the “assessor” views the interactions of the teaching and learning process: the Judge (think college professor who “knows” the students capabilities and grades them accordingly), the General Frame-think standardized testing that claims to have a “scientific” basis, the
Specific Frame-think of learning by objective like computer based learning, getting a correct answer before moving on to the next screen, and the Responsive Frame-think of an apprenticeship in a trade or a medical residency program where the learner interacts with the “teacher” with constant feedback. Each category has its own sources of error and more error in the process is caused when the assessor confuses and conflates the categories.
4. Wilson elucidates the notion of “error”: “Error is predicated on a notion of perfection; to allocate error is to imply what is without error; to know error it is necessary to determine what is true. And what is true is determined by what we define as true, theoretically by the assumptions of our epistemology, practically by the events and non-events, the discourses and silences, the world of surfaces and their interactions and interpretations; in short, the practices that permeate the field. . . Error is the uncertainty dimension of the statement; error is the band within which chaos reigns, in which anything can happen. Error comprises all of those eventful circumstances which make the assessment statement less than perfectly precise, the measure less than perfectly accurate, the rank order less than perfectly stable, the standard and its measurement less than absolute, and the communication of its truth less than impeccable.” In other word all the errors involved in the process render any conclusions invalid.
5. The test makers/psychometricians, through all sorts of mathematical machinations attempt to “prove” that these tests (based on standards) are valid-errorless or supposedly at least with minimal error [they aren’t]. Wilson turns the concept of validity on its head and focuses on just how invalid the machinations and the test and results are. He is an advocate for the test taker not the test maker. In doing so he identifies thirteen sources of “error”, any one of which renders the test making/giving/disseminating of results invalid. As a basic logical premise is that once something is shown to be invalid it is just that, invalid, and no amount of “fudging” by the psychometricians/test makers can alleviate that invalidity.
6. Having shown the invalidity, and therefore the unreliability, of the whole process Wilson concludes, rightly so, that any result/information gleaned from the process is “vain and illusory”. In other words start with an invalidity, end with an invalidity (except by sheer chance every once in a while, like a blind and asonomic squirrel who finds the occasional acorn, a result may be “true”) or to put in more mundane terms shit-in shit out.
7. And so what does this all mean? I’ll let Wilson have the second to last word: “So what does a test measure in our world? It measures what the person with the power to pay for the test says it measures. And the person who sets the test will name the test what the person who pays for the test wants the test to be named.”
In other words it measures NOTHING as the whole process is error ridden and therefore invalid. And the whole process harms many students as the social rewards for some are not available to others who “don’t make the grade (sic)” Should American public education have the function of sorting and separating students so that some may receive greater benefits than others, especially considering that the sorting and separating devices, educational standards and standardized testing, are so flawed not only in concept but in execution?
My answer is NO!!!!!
LikeLike
One final note with Wilson channeling Foucault and his concept of subjectivization:
“So the mark [grade/test score] becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark that implicitly predicted the now self evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.”
In other words students “internalize” what those “marks” (grades/test scores) mean, and since the vast majority of the students have not developed the mental skills to counteract what the “authorities” say, they accept as “natural and normal” that “story/description” of them. Although paradoxical in a sense, the “I’m an “A” student” is almost as harmful as “I’m an ‘F’ student” in hindering students becoming independent, critical and free thinkers. And having independent, critical and free thinkers is a threat to the current socio-economic structure of society.
LikeLike
anosmic not asonomic, ay ay ay!
LikeLike
It’s also wise to remember what these young children are NOT doing while inappropriately being “taught”. What I jokingly call “self-initiated cognitive activity” (pay) is abandoned, along with art, music, dance, physical education, make-up stories, read-alouds that are meant to pique interest and joy, not “reading skills”! And on and on.
Deb
LikeLike
I just discovered that F&P is not a recommended reading level assessment tool on the CCSS. The only assessment system that I recognized on the list is Lexile Framework. So, the standards that my district is using (F&P) doesn’t appear to be as rigorous as CCSS standards on text complexity by grade level. Ugh!
LikeLike