Robert Shepherd, experienced writer, textbook developer, curriculum designer, and loyal reader posted some interesting critiques of the way a Common Core will affect teaching and teaching materials:
He writes:
The fact that the “standards” are entirely highly abstract descriptions of skills to be demonstrated, that they are content free, will be ENORMOUSLY distorting in their effects on curriculum development. Instead of presenting a coherent, progressive body of knowledge having to do with some subject like the short story, literary archetypes, Romanticism, the oral tradition, Greek history and thought, etc., we shall see curricula that present materials pretty much at random to teach x set of abstract skills. Even those Common Core standards that are process related are at such a high level of abstraction that they do not encourage the operationalization of those processes, and when one attempts to create a lesson that does operationalize them, that, for example, steps students through the process of, say, writing a press release, one will find that the necessary specific processes that students must learn are nowhere even suggested by the “standards.” Educational publishers will reject manuscripts with this extraneous material and insist that every lesson “cover” some number (six or seven, for example) of standards, whether it makes sense to deal with these together or not. That’s because, over the course of the year, all the standards will have to be “covered.” So, the abstract standards will drive the curriculum development. It’s the tail wagging the dog, and it is entirely predictable that this will be the case because that is what has largely happened with materials developed to meet state standards.
Think of it this way: What is the difference between sitting down and saying, I want to develop a unit that teaches kids about the Civil War or mythology or whatever and saying, I want to develop a unit that teaches kids standards L.3.1 through L.3.6. The curriculum designer starts making decisions based on whether the standard is covered rather than on whether the subject being studied is.
And the point about learning something so that one then has something to write about is KEY. Content must drive instruction. The CCSS have this exactly backward.”
In another comment, Shepherd adds:
“One can already see how distorting this stuff is. Look at an American lit book from one of the big basal publishers. Turn to the units on, say, the Puritans or the Transcendentalists. Ask yourself, how much does the student actually learn from this unit about what happened during that time and what those people actually thought? The answer is, precious little. The emphasis is not on learning about the thoughts and behaviors of the Puritans and Transcendentalists but on learning some abstract set of skills. The content is WAY down the list of concerns in each lesson. The result: These units are, in current texts, incredibly dumbed down. The student who does the unit on the Puritans does not come away knowing about original sin, election, predestination, salvation through Grace, local governance, individual responsibility, the Protestant work ethic, the direct relation without intermediaries between people and God, the significance of the Word as a direct pipeline between people and the divine. But all of these were incredibly important to the development of American thought. Much in our current culture is a direct consequence of this stream that has run through our history, and if people don’t understand it, they won’t understand a lot of why things are as they are today. If one goes back to textbooks written twenty years ago, all of this stuff is dealt with in the unit on the Puritans. Now, that stuff is considered too difficult, and besides, the emphasis is supposed to be on this or that set of abstract skills described by this or that subset of the CCSS in ELA. That’s what will be one the only test that matters–the high-stakes test. It will be a test of isolated “skills.”
And he concludes:
“The Common Core will be the final nail in the coffin of coherent curriculum development in the English language arts.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Great analogy of the tail wagging the dog. This teacher wonders when our society will acknowledge all the valuable aspects of excellent teaching.
I think Shepherd is mostly concerned about his job…because what the CCSS focus and approach could mean is that finally teachers will be liberated from the tyranny of externally designed curriculum and textbooks and become the curriculum makers themselves! If only there weren’t the standardized tests attached to CCSS, which will serve to once again constrain teacher-led curriculum design by turning the entire endeavor into teach-to-the-test gaming.
Jamie, that is precisely what I want–for teachers to be liberated from top-down, totalitarian prescription of standards, curricula, pedagogical methods, etc. If it were up to me, groups of teachers at local schools would have sole authority over these matters (though they would, of course, be subject to local social sanction and would have to operate within the parameters of federal laws to protect the basic civil liberties of students).
You apparently haven’t seen the new “CCSS aligned” textbooks yet, Jaime. These new books and materials make the tyranny worse, not better.
And what about parents who would like their children to exit school with solid, concrete core knowledge as opposed to trained in effective work-behavior skills!!
Could this be the result, sort of, of the PC movement? Two things cross my mind immediately when I read Shepherd’s words here: when we come away from a unit of study and realize we have not retained all the content we might have, we might tell ourselves “well, it was the process that matters”—kind of like upon graduation from Davidson College, a small liberal arts college in NC, the President said that what mattered most was that we came away with questions, not necessarily with answers. So there’s that type of thought, which might be trickling down into K-12 educational approach via the Common Core; second, since my generation, beginning in about 1990, was pointed towards the notion that one culture’s history or literature should not be elevated above another, then we get this sort of washed out failure to attach to anything out of fear of elevating one culture’s history above another.
This could be the final nail, or if we are able to push this Common Core back and approach things more directly rather than just wash them all out, maybe some good can come out of it. It is a way of admitting that we do have to choose something and commit to learning it–not just breeze over lots of stuff with an emphasis on process more than content. (This is also, in my opinion, where teacher training might have tripped itself up—focussing on process more than content. One of the reasons I have never done my national boards is that I just don’t want to study more process and teaching approach—I would rather spend my time taking a science class or learning about the trees and birds of my region.) Maybe those who teach education classes will look at this as an opportunity to figure out what really needs to be emphasized. When reading the posts of young TFAers, the point I think they most make is that in many cases they have a broader and deeper grasp on a wide body of content, rather than an array of processes for teaching. Both are important, of course—but maybe this is where teacher preparation has gone awry, creating that gap that folks now focus on. (Also, I figure when integration happened there should have been a balance on integrated teaching staff, and more collaboration between white folks and other races—but I know that is 20/20 hindsight). Many folks learn about Kant, but they don’t actually read Kant. I suppose this is why a liberal arts education before teacher training was the tradition in my Presbyterian family.
In music, I insist that the students understand the diatonic scale and our Western musical system: key signatures, the circle of fifths. I point out that the entire world’s system of music is not like ours (if you go to Russia, C is always “do,” whereas we have a moveable “do;” India and Asia have tones in between our smallest tonal distance, the half step, etc). And we do some Asian songs, but at the end of the day we sing music rooted in Western musical systems and that is where we hang our hat.
I recall my English teacher my senior year in high school (who I liked, but thought was way too PC to be teaching English—she graded our vocabulary lists that we looked up in the dictionary and took off points if we didn’t copy down the pronunciation and everything just like it was in the dictionary, which I thought was silly)—she was also a Spanish teacher and quite frankly I learned far more about English literature and language from the two teachers I had before her, in 9th, 10th and 11th grades who were unapologetically rooted in traditional approaches for English literature. That said, it has only been in recent years with my book club that I am able to read a novel based in another culture (I used to just breeze over the pronunciation of names in, say, a novel based in Asia—but now I make myself figure out how to say the names so I can read the book thoroughly and fairly).
In my painting classes in college, my professor (who is a very successful painter) said that the best artists are the ones who know their art history the best. Maybe the same is true of teachers. Those who really know their content (and how it fits into a larger scope of our world and our nation), and then figure out how to use process, will make the best teachers. There has to be balance.
“Could this be the result, sort of, of the PC movement?”
Inte\resting stuff. It reminds me of my own undergrad experiences in the late 1980s. By that time the pendulum had swung back sharply against “PC” and multiculturalism, which had moved beyond academic circles and become a mainstream term and object of ridicule for cultural conservatives. And the backlash against PC drove a backlash against the backlash. (See, e.g., Alan Wald’s 1991 book “The Campaign Against Political Correctness.”) In English Lit departments, the consensus seemed to be that deeming any literary work to be canonical was tantamount to an act of violence. Professors and grad students talked about E.D. Hirsch as if he were a Nazi. Meanwhile, in the real world, the conservative think tanks, curriculum consultants, and the Department of Ed were working to put the backlash against PC and multiculturalism into practice for K-12 through standards and testing.
That’s how I remember the broad strokes, at least, although the K-12 aspect, which really was the important aspect, was barely on my radar at the time. I only knew what I read in the newspapers. Which means that I knew that smart people who were experts in education believed public education was in a state of crisis, and I knew that “public education” really meant “urban schools mainly attended by minorities.” But there was no Internet, and I never heard of Gerald Bracey or David Berliner (and others I still haven’t heard of — I’m a neophyte) whose books seem to be cut-and-pasted today.
As a math teacher, my view of the Common Core is different. Specific skills are identified for each grade level – in many cases, concepts that are beyond the developmental readiness of the majority of students.
My question is this: if the specifics about the Puritans listed by Shepherd are not to be learned, then what is the purpose of considering the Puritans at all?
And could he provide examples of some of the “abstractions” that are replacing specific content?
as a math ed professional, i agree. i actually think that abstract skills are integral to mathematics content, so from a CCSSM perspective, the headline of this post is misleading.
I am curious about how you deal with the wide range of students ability in mathmatics. Some students are capable and interested in doing advanced work at an early age.
Just curious about what the math teachers think about Everyday Mathematics (McGraw-Hill) and division? I have three school-aged children who all perform at advanced levels. My oldest son never caught on to “hangman division” (partial quotient) but was given the option of doing long division (he’ll be in 8th grade). My second oldest son, now going into 5th grade, was never given the option of long division. He struggled with understanding “hangman division” and lattices, which I honestly had no clue even existed. I sat down to help him with his homework and ended up teaching him traditional long division, initially with him looking at me like I was from another planet. Within 45 minutes, he had this concept was committed to memory. This is just a tiny portion of our experience, but going 2 for 2 on a single concept, I have lost confidence in the system and can only imagine how frustrated our quite competent teachers are when their class math average only jumps from an F to a D over the course of a year!
My daughter was in early elementary school when Everyday Math was first introduced into our school system. Together we would spend an hour or more, every night, on her homework.
About a week later I was getting phone calls from her friend’s parents. They knew that I was a teacher who was using this new program. They asked if their kid(s) could come over for help on the homework, as they didn’t have a clue. These were intelligent adults. They were embarrassed, but felt that they needed my help.
The group would get up to four, some afternoons.
What I found particularly distressing about Everyday Math was that, in the introduction to the series, they state that strong parental involvement is key to it’s success. As difficult as this proved to be for my child’s friends, it was so much worse for the inner city, poverty bound kids that I was teaching in my Special Ed classes.
It’s all in how you phrase it. Shepherd claims that standards are “highly abstract descriptions of skills” that we all have to “cover” and this is very upsetting to him. His idea that we should all teach trivial minutia about Civil War dates and characters as we try to cram content down the throats of students is outrageous. (Note: he never said he wanted to cram content down students’ throats. I just chose to read his comments that way. I fear that that is his intention and worry that he teaches stuff about the Puritans that no one will ever want or need to know.)
Phrased differently, the standards are clear descriptions of what students should be able to do and standards should be included in lessons. I focus on speaking and listening. I cannot see how Shepherd or anyone would say, “No! I DON”T want students to be able to integrate and evaluate information presented in diverse media and formats.” Would he say, “Outrageous!! Adapt speech to a variety of contexts and communicative tasks?! Never!!”
He asserts that education must be content driven. A true blast from the past. For decades education has suffered from trying to cover all the content. (Here is where the word “cover” really fits.) Shepherd has his pet Topics That Must Be Covered and so does every state legislator and textbook designer and teacher. “What? Of course students must learn all of the state capitals.” See Guido Sarducci’s Five Minute University to the result of Shepherd’s approach.
But the bottom line is that Shepherd can still teach his beloved Transcendentalist unit. If he cannot figure out how to include a way to help students integrate and evaluate information within that unit, I would be surprised.
I am not a “content” guy as opposed to a “skills” guy. If you will read my comments again carefully, you will see that what I oppose is making highly abstract characterizations of skills the focus of instruction. I think that instruction should deal with world knowledge (knowledge of what) and specific procedural knowledge (knowledge of how), as well as with challenging experiences that will result in learning that cannot be predicted beforehand. I absolutely do NOT think that we should avoid teaching “skills,” which I would prefer to call procedural knowledge because of the emphasis, there, upon making the skills specific enough to be communicated–that is, upon operationalizing them. The focus on vague “skills” not operationally defined leads to content agnostic instruction, whether that content is world knowledge or procedural knowledge. It makes for bad content instruction and bad skills instruction.
As a parent, content is important. I don’t want my child to learn “thinking skills” through content taken out of context.
The standards are a backwards design – learn skills through content instead of learning content through skills. “Deep reading” before a true interest and passion for reading will only discourage emerging readers. Convoluted math to teach “perseverance” – which is shown on the NYS exemplar as an indicator of success – is likely to penalize students who don’t have the disposition to demonstrate HOW they arrived at an answer. Validating opinions to form arguments in writing will only serve to encourage faulty, invalid essays where the content is less relevant than the skill of arguing. Kids need subject matter, and lots of it, to come up with valid arguments. It is all imbalanced, backwards, not developmentally appropriate and not child-centered.
content is everything. ( happy birthday! heres a box of nothing!)
why would any parent want a robot propagandist like Erik Palmer or any other common core toady teaching their kids anything let alone
” how” to think. It’s idiocy. its is absurd. I would love to have valuable content shoved down my kids throat with trivial civil war dates and the puritans. human beings already know how to think and can use their own perfectly useful minds to analyze, integrate and evaluate historical information on any topic themselves, they do not need ill equipped surrealist abstract “skills” ” facilitated” by arrogant know nothings with low intellect and a social justice axe to grind
Common Core is a fraud on America.
its like the stage mom on American idol tryouts who is hysterical because her talentless crooner did not get chosen. too much self esteem is unattractive and dangerous.
Your caustic delivery forced me to have to read your reply 3 times before I was able to make sense of what you were saying, Erik.
I’m always suspicious of people who try to belittle the ideas of other’s as a means of furthering their own agenda. The bullying tactic becomes a diversion from the reality of the debate.
Let’s take one example. Under the CC as currently pushed, students would learn “I” and “Am” and “a” and “man” when studying the sanitation workers strike in early 1968 in Memphis, TN but not “I Am a man” and what that meant and means.
IMHO, that is what Robert Shepherd is saying. They would not learn what one of those out-of-fashion lazy LGIFGO teachers said so very long ago:
“The whole is more than the sum of its parts.” [Aristotle] [LGIFGO: Last Greek In, First Greek Out]
Of course, what did he know? If he were alive today he probably would oppose the Holy EduMetrics of high-stakes standardized tests…
Me? I’ll stick with the old Greek guy on this one.
🙂
I agree KrazyTA. As for me, I want students to be exposed to both content and skill. I don’t think it should be an either or proposition. What my experience with high poverty students has shown is that they have very little exposure to content outside of school, therefore it takes much more time to get to the skill and application stages. This is what those who do not teach high poverty students have difficulty understanding. Students who come to school with a broader exposure a wide range of content, then have much more prior knowledge and background info from which to draw.
My students typically begin school about 18 months behind higher SES students, as measured on developmental skills checklists. It is possible to catch most of them up by end of Kindergarten, but their home environments typically do not provide them with exposure to the kinds of information and content knowledge that supports school success. That is to say, they have pretty diverse home environments that may not be rich in books and informations needed for academic success. This can be overcome with the right resources, but CCSS is not the magic bean that will somehow provide everything that is missing. The magic comes from the content knowledge and skill of the classroom teacher and the support systems available in schools. It also comes from exposure to a rich curriculum that integrates both content and skill. Until we remove the high stakes testing mandates that have narrowed the curriculum and draines our resources, CCSS will not solve our problems.
Joanna – your comments are well thought out and relevant. One of the most important books I have every read during my pursuit of my Master’s Degree was “Other People’s Children” by Delpit. I am a special ed teacher, and I also happen to be K-6 elementary certified, as well as ELA 6-8. I agree with your thoughts about needing to be global, but I also see a greater need for the elementary schools to ‘bulk up’ their science and social studies content. If K-6 could expand their focus beyond the Thanksgiving Pilgrims and only teaching simple science a few times a semester (how many times can a student learn about how seeds grow?), it would greatly impact how students learn retain information in middle school and beyond.
stephanie your sanguine tone about the pilgrims and seeds is troubling. these are two important things that maybe bore you but maybe it isn’t all about you.
I like the idea of common core learning guidance but this abortive attempt to do so will sour the taste anyone has for such an effort for decades to come. All of the research into learning systems indicates that there needs to be common objectives (I would hope combine with a smaller portion of local objectives). This is another educational tragedy.
All of what I learned about reaching a consensus on such a project requires a great deal of involvement, which was skipped in what appears to be a top-down effort. If only that had included a great many teachers in this effort, it wouldn’t be such a cockup.
A great article on the dumbing down of kids via Common Core. And it is traveling to the private schools, as well:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347973/two-moms-vs-common-core
The standards seem to call for “skills” because they are what is needed for success in college and career. At least that is the line we hear. If this is true, then, the standards don’t claim to be a curriculum, so decisions about what to teach are left up to.the state and local district. Therefore, I think some of this article’s critiques miss the mark. In fact, the standards do require Shakespeare and American dramatists. They don’t say how to incorporate them, instead they say that is a local curricular decision. The standards’ call for complex texts also seems to suggest that districts should choose meaningful curriculum to study. Finally, if a textbook isn’t doing this then teachers and districts need to write their own material. I’m thrilled about the standards’ emphasis on close reading and making arguments. Those two standards are driving my instruction and I think all other standards can be viewed through that framework.
Some would argue that what is needed in life is more important than what is needed for college and career. But that brings up the question of what is the purpose of school.
you are thrilled, however parents do not need their children learning too rip apart everything and argue endlessly with nothing but arrogance taught to back it up. so being thrilled about them is all about you. another teacher all about himself spouting taglines and slogans, how droll.
The standards seem to call for “skills” because they are what is needed for success in college and career. At least that is the line we hear. If this is true, then, the standards don’t claim to be a curriculum, so decisions about what to teach are left up to the state and local district. Therefore, I think some of this article’s critiques miss the mark. In fact, the standards do require Shakespeare and American dramatists. They don’t say how to incorporate them, instead they say that is a local curricular decision. The standards’ call for complex texts also seems to suggest that districts should choose meaningful curriculum to study. Finally, if a textbook isn’t doing this, teachers and districts need to write their own material. I’m thrilled about the standards’ emphasis on close reading and making arguments. Those two standards are driving my instruction and I think all other standards can be viewed through that framework while studying meaningful content that his been decided at the local level.
When I first read R. Shepherd’s comments on CCSS a while back I was immediately drawn to his deep understanding of these standards in a way that I don’t think I had read elsewhere. As a school administrator here in Louisiana my colleagues and I are over our heads in what our state Dept of Ed calls “unpacking” the standards. What I have come to realize is that the standards are just broad statements of abstract skills (as Robert states) and do nothing to establish how we are to go about achieving them. There will be broad interpretation, especially in ELA, which can be good or not so, depending on the rigor and skill level of individuals who implement CCSS. Math may be a little more standardized in its scaffolding, but still leaves room for interpretation along the way. This is especially true at lower grades where CCSS for math is grossly developmentally inappropriate for very young students just being introduced to math concepts.
I appreciate Robert’s insight and look forward to hearing more from him on implementing CCSS as we struggle with “unpacking” the standards in my school district and in my school. I welcome the challenge of a more rigorous curriculum for my high poverty students, but am cautiously optimistic. I worry that in an attempt to standardize, we will inadvertently turn kids off to the joy of learning for the sake of learning. I worry that this corporate driven initiative will morph into something unrecognizable as we have seen happen so often in recent EdDeform strategies. Only time will tell. Until then I will support our teachers in keeping the true goals of education in mind and try not to lose sight of our own vision.
Thanks Robert.
“I worry that in an attempt to standardize, we will inadvertently turn kids off to the joy of learning for the sake of learning.”
I’m afraid teachers are losing their joy of teaching as well especially those who began teaching before NCLB. They have had to abandon their inherent pedagogical skills to being required to follow scripted curriculum and focus on quantitative data to appease those who undermine their profession.
In the meantime, how will you support your teachers, as you stated, when you must judge them on the new teacher evaluation and test scores?
I’m not worried about the evaluation piece, since it involves things we ultimately have some control over (instruction, assessment, etc.). It is the state mandated VAM part that worries me, since no one really knows what the algorithm actually is and how it is calculated. I just saw that it adds points for a student being suspended from school. So now it incentivizes suspending students 😦 . All I can do is continue to follow my gut and make decisions that are on the best interest of students. What I will focus on is improving effective teaching strategies in the classroom, improving our curriculum (rigor and scaffolding), and trying to find money for resources. I believe these are the things that really matter. I will continue to advocate for improving the things that I don’t control, like the unfair laws that target teachers and attempt to dismantle public schools. The hard part is the testing mandates that continue to take away from both our resources and narrows the curriculum.
Bridget,
Thank you for your comments. I responded in the same way to Mr. Shepherd’s comments on CCSS. For a long time my critique of the standards focused solely on the Emperor’s New Clothes issue; i.e. what’s so new about any of this stuff? I’ve always taught close reading, grammar, evidence-based argument, and even nonfiction text (although not 70% of the time).
Mr. Shepherd has really moved the discussion to the next level. As he notes, Language Arts is not simply a set of skills or strategies. As you note, teaching skills divorced from content may well “turn kids off to the joy of learning.” Why in the world would any student bother to practice any “skill” unless that skill can be used in a larger endeavor that matters to that student?
P.S. Don’t you hate that “unpacking” term? Here in CT we are told to “unwrap” the standards (an equally ridiculous term). Standards can be analyzed, explained, studied, critiqued, or elaborated. Is the odd language a way to make the whole process appear more professional? Maybe I’m just being cranky.
I love it! You get to “Unwrap” their gift to you. I just get to “unpack” my suitcase…:-)
Bridget: I would word things a bit differently.
Beware of ‘mandated straitjackets’ that are little more than ‘aspirational goals’ packaged as the panaceas, silver bullets and elixirs du jour.
Until, of course, the next round of ‘new and improved’ magic pixie dust.
Thank you for all your efforts.
🙂
Reblogged this on News You May Have Missed and commented:
Robert Shepherd: Common Core Requires Teaching Abstract Skills, Not Content
Thank you for this, Diane. It eloquently expresses my own concerns. As I have said, my district has essentially blown up American Literature — it doesn’t exist any more. The same with British Literature. Those courses have been replaced with 10th and 11th grade McEnglish, where kids might encounter some material that used to be in American and British Literature sprinkled in here and there (or they might not), but with little historical context and no sense of chronology.
As I said, I have chosen to simply avoid the core English courses when I can and teach ESL classes (which have their own problems) and electives if possible. Teaching what used to be American Literature is too depressing, similar to visiting an old friend with dementia who no longer remembers who they are.
McEnglish. This is a quite accurate description of the Common Core State Standards in English language arts. One has only to imagine what English and journalism professors in our universities would say if they were told that they had to make training in CCSS skills the focus of their instruction and testing on their students’ mastery of this vague, abstract, list of skills the only really significant measure of their students’ learning.
But it’s not only the case that the CCSS in ELA are wrong from the start, at the fundamental design level of their categorical conceptualization. There are many other problems as well. They are wildly developmentally inappropriate in the early grades. They are full of glaring lacunae. They instantiate lots of prescientific notions about language acquisition. Individual standards often seem to be placed at a particular grade level absolutely at random. They are mandatory and one-size-fits all and so stifle innovation of the kind that would occur if we had voluntary, competing standards. They are not a curriculum, of course, but they will inevitably narrow and distort curricula and preclude development of curricula based upon alternative conceptualizations of goals to be achieved within and across grade levels. And because of the high stakes, the pressure will be on to “cover” them all, which will result in curricula not designed coherently but, rather, with the coverage as the goal. I am already seeing the products from educational publishers that cover six standards in lesson 1, another six in lesson 2, etc. It’s the tail wagging the dog.
Leading to McLife? And McHumans?
The question is: should school prepare kids for life or for college and career? Some might say parents should prepare kids for life and school the latter. It really points towards looking at the mission of school.
If schools prepare some students for life and some for the academic rigors of top colleges and universities, won’t these students have to be on very different tracks in the school?
Yes, TE. Absolutely. There must be many paths.
Robert,
I am curiose about your impression of carolcorbettburris’ high school. All students take the same curiculum until 11 grade, and in 11th all take IB English. Is that the kind of school you think is best?
The discussion is here:https://dianeravitch.net/2013/07/07/the-superintendent-of-a-high-performing-district-speaks-out/comment-page-1/#comment-203920
cs: testing “of their students’ mastery” not “testing on their students’ mastery”
Robert, I am especially worried about my Special Ed population with CCSS. Here in Louisiana they are expected to pass the same high stakes tests as my regular Ed students and are punished with mandatory retention in two grade levels (4 and 8) when they can’t reach proficiency levels. We have individualized education plans for them and ensure their progress at each grade level, yet when it comes to the state test, their individual developmental achievement is ignored. Only a tiny per cent are allowed to take an alternate test. Research has proven long ago that retention becomes a drop out sentence for most students, and does not benefit most students, yet we continue this antiquated practice when it comes to high stakes tests. How will CCSS address their needs? I suspect it will leave them farther behind as it is developmentally inappropriate at the lower grades, where the building blocks will be distorted for many of them. I hear very little discussion on this issue. It will eventually face us though, as CCSS meets PARCC.
It will eventually face us though, as CCSS meets PARCC. Indeed it will!!! This is going to be VERY ugly.
Very ugly indeed, in so many ways. This issue makes me FURIOUS! It tells students with disabilities “you are failures.” The blood, sweat and tears you devoted to learning something don’t matter. In addition, teachers are told that we are at fault because our “low expectations” and our failure to “expose students with learning disabilities to complex texts” are to blame.
Hm. Are students in your state allowed to “retake” the test if they fail the first time? I ask because in my state (RI), students are allowed at least one “retake” and will be allowed to graduate if they show IMPROVEMENT (they do not need to pass!).
This means that students who historically score low on their standardized tests will have a perverse incentive to intentionally bomb their Junior year test so it will be easier for them to show “improvement” on the retake. I am not being facetious or hypothetical here — students already know about this loophole and are talking about it.
Now, guess whether or not the “retake” scores will replace the original scores for purposes of determining VAM scores for the purposes of teacher evaluation? Go ahead — guess.
It seems to me that the Common Core should be seen only as an umbrella, with content specific decisions being made locally. The problem that has arisen is that the use of standardized tests has ruined both the Common Core and content delivery. Due to the need to “train” students on test taking skills, how to “give them what they want” and, imo, “play the testing game”, we have created a monster.
In Ohio, we only had the Lang Arts CC in place in 2012. In my 4th grade lesson plans, I put the standard/s at the top of the page for each relevant subject area: Reading, Writing, Language/Spelling.
f
We had to find a way to integrate all of the standards in order to cover more ground with students, killing two birds with one stone, so to speak. Individual local curriculum objectives had to be noted for each lesson. You had to figure out how many were covered, looking at lessons with a broader perspective. The Common Core broad objectives remained the same for several weeks, with additional objectives added throughout each quarter.
For Informational Texts and Persuasive Writing and Informational Writing, we tried to build the science and social studies curriculum into the Lang Arts curriculum. We were always in a state of flux. It was difficult to keep pace with the expectations, but we seemed to be successful, despite spotty and inadequate professional development and a 4th grade “team” that could NOT reach consensus, mostly due to one individual.
I just think that, depending on where you live, the Common Core can be effective. The problem is that it isn’t a good fit with the PARRC tests, as far as we could tell. With a broad umbrella available where a district could pick and choose what specific content would be taught for the Common Core directives, diverse presentations and curricula would be difficult to actually test. With no comparable background knowledge or content delivered to all students, the random possibilities for the testing questions can be quite disconcerting to the districts, the teachers, and the students.
Therefore, I think the TESTS are problematic. And, to use those scores to imply that there is an actual correlation to career readiness is simply absurd. To use the same to rate teachers is beyond belief.
Indeed, the tests are the bigger problem. Sadly, the standards are the engine that drives that juggernaut that is rolling over kids and teachers. It doesn’t have to be that way. We can dump the standardized tests (or have them be among many options that students and their parents can choose) and dump VAM and have competing, voluntary standards that local teachers can borrow from to develop their own standards and curricula. And if we did that, if we treated teachers like professionals and gave them the autonomy to make these choices themselves, we would see a great flowering in preK-12 education, lots of innovation and creativity of the sort that you are showing working within the straightjacket of the mandated standards.
I think what I am hearing is that a broad, rich curriculum, with no high stakes testing, lots of innovative and technology rich programs, and plenty of resources, taught by teachers who are treated like the professionals they are, and plenty of extra curricular, and creative courses, would produce well educated students who are prepared for college and the work force. Sounds like what is happening in the pricey exclusive private schools that are attended by the children of our wealthy EduDeformers and Washington politicians (including our presidents’). Why aren’t Gates, Broad, Walton, Dell, and friends funding those kinds of schools to be available for ALL children? Why arent our elected officials enacting laws that aupport those kinds of programs in public schools? That is the real question, isn’t it???
Well said, Bridget!!!
Why? Well, I think one thing that is occurring is that they are seizing the opportunity to break union holds and lower salaries in order to save money. With less state aid to education, social services, police, and fire, this is one way to thin the wages and dump those who have slowed down a bit. It is interesting to note that those we taught and are now criticized for teaching are now replacing us as if we didn’t contribute to their success.
Students are not widgets. It is a mistake, a terrible mistake, to try to standardize outcomes for all of them. We are on a disastrous course. The cost for individual students and teachers will be terrible. Until this madness passes, and it will, we must all continue to do the best we can for our students, to do what is possible, for their sakes, within the parameters we are forced to work within. But we mustn’t be silent about what will happen, is happening, because of the standards-and-testing regimen, for silence is complicity.
Do you think there was ever a time when most students were treated as individuals?
Let’s start now.
The ideal outcome will always beat what actually exists. If only the ideal outcome was obtainable.
To start on this road, we need to have students matched to classes and schools based on their own individual characteristics rather than on where their students live. We need to treat every individual student as an end in themselves rather than a means to improve the education of other students.
Do you think my view is incorrect? That all students in a district in fact need the same education? That treating students as individuals require that they are used as an instrument to help other student’s education?
To offer to every student the “same” education is not only immoral, it defies reason.
So whether you are guided by morals, reason, moral reasoning, or reasoned morals- it doesn’t work.
Is requiring all students to go to the “same
Let me try that again. Is requiring students to go to the same school because if ge
Dang iPad. Is requiring all students to go to the same school based on geographic proximity immoral? To require all students of the same relative age to take the same curriculum immoral?
Does the traditional public school system define reason? Does it work?
Does the traditional public school “define” reason? I don’t think I understand your question.
The public school MUST serve all children. Has it? No. Does it? No.
Can it? Yes.
In the real world traditional public schools do not serve all children. Can it? Not at any reasonable funding levels. Students from my local high school leave the building every year to take courses at the local university. Every three years or so those high school students are taking graduate courses. Public high schools do not have the staff capable of teaching those courses, and hiring a research mathamatician to teach a course every couple of years might reasonably be viewed as an ineffientt use of funds.
It is important that we realize that public school will not serve all children so we can have a productive discussion about which children the public school can serve.
The same thing occurs in the university town in which I live. I have no problem with that. Neither as a taxpayer, nor an educator.
The public school can and should arrange such services when required.
This is rare, however, and these students will likely thrive, and learn according to their giftedness.
Are all intellectuals, and innovators products of private and charter schooling?
It happens when students have access to universities. The median high school in my state has 250 students and is many miles from a college or university, Will those gifted students be served at those small rural schools or are they too rare to bother about?
Frankly, those “kids are all right”.
They will succeed – even with remote instruction, such as on-line university level classes provided (funded) by their school district. It’s not a big issue anymore.
The REAL challenge is meeting the needs of those lesser “able” students. There exists within this group a wider range of needs.
You might want to look at “Understanding Suicidal Behavior of Gifted Students:
Theory, Factors, and Cultural Expectations “. It has a nice literature review. Here is a link: http://silentdecision.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Hyatt-et-al-FINAL.doc
I was especially struck by this quote from the paper about a gifted student named Ian “Requiring Ian to undertake all his school work with age peers of average ability was rather like requiring a child of average intelligence to spend six hours a day, five days a week, interacting solely with children who were profoundly intellectually disabled” (Gross, M.U.M. (2004). Exceptionally Gifted Children (2nd ed.). New York:Routledge Falmer. p4)
This conversation has been very interesting to follow. Teachingecon, I think our mistake comes when we try to paint public schools as some Utopia to fix all the evils of society. The very nature of public schools is that they serve the community in which they exist. The experiments that try to do otherwise create other unforeseen problems. This is what is happening right now in New Orleans and elsewhere. There should always be other options when possible, but it is not the job of public schools to provide the Utopia. We strive to improve the chances of our students to be successful citizens, prepared to participate in our democratic society.
Others may disagree, but I think we should provide the best we can with the resources available within an equitable public school system. But remember, equitable is not necessarily equal, nor is it always fair. I grew up in a small town of about 1000 people. I received a decent education foundation and then went on to University and continued my advanced degrees. It is what most people of my generation did, and it served us well. I have many friends who did not go to college and chose a trade. They are very successful today as professionals on their field. Why is it that suddenly it is the job of public schools to prepare students for a job? There are many pathways to job preparation.
I appreciate your perspective. Throughout this conversation I could not help but be nagged by the notion that the education of our children, though provided through the state, is primarily a parental resposibility.
We entrust our children to the school, but must not surrender them.
I agree with you that public schools will never be a utopia that fixes all social ills.
Here though I am arguing the narrower point that public schools will never be able to provide the best education for all. Pretending that they can just means that the choice of who gets left out is not openly considered.
Note that 4equity2 says that those kids will be all right. That is a reason not to provide them with the educational opportunities that they can benefit from, not an argument that they are being provided with all the educational opportunities that they can benefit from. That is the beginning of a discussion on who to leave out, and I hope others will contribute.
I should also add that it is not at all clear that they will be alright. My son just finished his second year a a very highly selective university. One thing that struck him was that, like himself, most of his classmates had a miserable time in high school. One even dropped out and spent a year successfully pretending to be a student at MIT. Through a combination of luck and the sympathy of professional mathematicians, many of whom had experienced these frustrations with public education, this student found a way to graduate high school, overcome poor grades, and attend one of the most outstanding universities in the world. How many were not so lucky?
Many, if not most if these students at the high end are intrinsically motivated, and could be served – as I stated before- through college/university level studies coordinated at the district or state level.
If, as you seem to insist, these students cannot be served by public schools, what then do you suggest?
I suggest that we acknowledge we are not going to serve these students if it is too costly, in terms of resources or allowing them to be “skimmed” and removed from the general student population.
I think it would be a step forward in the discussion here if we would acknowledge that most of the discussions here are about who gets a better education. We could start thinking about some principles that might help us decide that question.
I agree with teaching economist, I am sick to death of my children being dumbed down by group assignments and partnering. it is a burden and takes away the ability for all the children to reach their own potential. my kindergartener is next to an autistic child and her teacher is so proud that my child “knows just how to help her, knows just what she needs”. Well my child is not being paid to be a caregiver for this other child, or is she being able to achieve her own potential. this is cruel. my daughter like so many others is being used. I was told point blank a few years ago by my other daughters teacher that she was used as an example. A boy was completely distracting and difficult at her table and she was used as a tool to help him. this is warped.
Bridget and some others mention, almost in passing, the term “unpacking the standards.” The author of the book by that name was one of two people Atlanta Supt Beverly Hall procured to do a quick review of teaching in the Atlanta PS. He did a wrote a classic puff piece. It was posted on the Atlanta PS website. The other reviewer raised questions. Somehow Supt. Hall lost that review until Atlanta Journal and Const journalist Heather Vogell dug it up.
If you have any questions about “unpacking the standards,” you owe it to yourself to read the author’s Atlanta puff piece in volume 4 of the Atlanta PS Investigation Report
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/Exhibits-to-Report.pdf (page 328)
Critical thinking is an abstract skill. But it can only be developed and demonstrated by thinking ABOUT something. Critical thinking can be taught in every discipline and the content of those disciplines is what we are thinking about. The more background knowledge and content one has, the greater the opportunity for critical thinking; also the greater likelihood for problem solving and creativity. In addition, research has shown the correlation between poverty and background knowledge. If a student has never seen fresh fruits and vegetables s/he is unlikely to be able to demonstrate critical thinking about them on a standardized test.
Well said, Steven!
“Critical thinking is a way of deciding whether a claim is always true, sometimes true, partly true, or false”. from wikipedia. critical thinking is related to critical theory which is a politically motivated hypothosis whos claims are not backed up by any empirical data or fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
Critical theory is a school of thought that stresses the reflective assessment and critique of society and culture by applying knowledge from the social sciences …
Outline of critical theory – List of works in critical theory – List of critical theorists
critical thinking is mearly a gateway to social justice imbedding into every topic under the sun, used as a weapon against western society by a politicallymotivated group who happen to be pushing common core.
if a piece of literature has any part that can be hammered out to kids within a pet narrative, gender, racism etc… its AOK.
but otherwise as David Coleman so eloquently put it ” nobody gives a s##t about what you think or feel.” this is why content is scoffed at by so many common core junkies.
Jane Love, you just demonstrated critical thinking. Why are you opposed to teaching it?
Robert and Diane: http://oaklandschoolsmi.com/2013/07/11/ccssteachers/
What do you think?
“This post responds to Robert Shepherd’s claims about the English Language Arts Common Core State Standards in a post on Diane Ravitch’s blog on July 5. Shepherd is a curriculum designer and textbook developer who contends that “The Common Core will be the final nail in the coffin of coherent curriculum development in the English language arts.” Though I’ll set aside whether Shepherd is conflating “coherent curriculum development” with textbook development, I can’t let his key argument go without response.”… see link above for response