In a day of debates, the American Federation of Teachers voted to continue its support for the controversial Common Core standards while complaining about its faulty implementation. The delegates also voted for a resolution to put Secretary Duncan on a remediation plan that would be monitored by President Obama (ha-ha, when he is not busy with foreign crises). Politico.com wrote: “The “improvement plan” would include the requirement that Duncan enact the funding and equity recommendations of the Equity Commission’s “Each and Every Child” report; change the No Child Left Behind and Race To The Top “test-and-punish” accountability system to a “support-and-improve” model; and “promote rather than question” teachers and school staff.”
After the NEA passed a resolution calling on Duncan to resign, the AFT rebuke seemed like mockery of Duncan, a bureaucrat who demands accountability of everyone but is never held accountable for his own missteps. Of course, his missteps are not mistakes but reflect his contempt for teachers and public schools. In his world-view, everyone lies about how terrible schools are except him.
This is the press release in which AFT explained its continued support for the Common Core, which will drain states and districts of billions of dollars for the testing industry while teacher layoffs increase:
“LOS ANGELES— AFT members today passed a resolution at the union’s national convention reaffirming the AFT’s support for the promise and potential of the Common Core State Standards as a way to ensure all children have the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in the 21st century while sharply criticizing the standards’ botched implementation. The AFT’s resolution lays out key actions needed to restore confidence in the standards and provide educators, parents and students with the tools and supports they need to make the standards work in the classroom.
The resolution, “Role of Standards in Public Education,” resolution passed following an intense, extended debate on the convention floor. Educators expressed their frustrations and anger with how the standards were developed and rolled out, without sufficient input from those closest to the classroom and without the tools and resources educators need to make the transition to the new rigorous standards, even as states and districts rushed to test and hold teachers and students accountable. AFT members also voiced their distrust of efforts by those seeking to make a profit off the new standards. No matter where members stood on the issue, there was clear anger over the deprofessionalization of teachers throughout the implementation process. At the same time, however, many educators shared how they’ve witnessed, when done right, how these standards more from rote memorization to provide children with the deeper learning the standards were designed to produce and that the standards remain the best way to level the playing field for all children. Proponents of the resolution made clear that it resolution offers solutions to fix the poor implementation and includes a call for greater teacher voice.
“We heard a lot of passion today—all in support of student needs and teacher professionalism,” said AFT President Randi Weingarten. “And where our members ended up is that we will continue to support the promise and potential of these standards as an essential to tool to provide each and every child an equitable and excellent education while calling on the powers that be in districts and, states and at the national level to work with educators and parents to fix this botched implementation and restore confidence in the standards. And no matter which side of the debate our members were on, there’s one thing everyone agreed on—that we need to delink these standards from the tests.”
The resolution lays out key action steps the AFT is taking to make the standards work for kids and educators, including:
• Rejecting low-level standardized testing in favor of assessments aligned with rich curricula that encourage the kind of higher-order thinking and performance skills students need;
• Supporting efforts by affiliates to hold policymakers and administrators accountable for proper implementation;
• Advocating that each state create an independent board composed made up of a majority representation of teachers and education professionals to monitor the implementation of the standards;
• Fighting to ensure that educators are involved in a cohesive plan for engaging stakeholders, and, that they have a significant role in the implementation and evaluation of the standards in their schools, and that there are adequate funds provided by all levels of government to ensure successful implementation of the standards; and
• Reaffirming the call the AFT made more than a year ago for a moratorium on the high-stakes consequences of Common Core-aligned assessments for students, teachers and schools until all of the essential elements of a standards-based system are in place.
“What educators and parents are saying is,: ‘Yes, we want our children to have the knowledge and skills they need for life, college, career and citizenship.’ But to make that a reality, our voices need to be involved in a meaningful way, and we actually have to focus on the learning, and not the obsession with testing,” said Weingarten.
###
Here are my thoughts;
If the standards are decoupled from the tests, as the AFT hopes, the standards will be a very costly and very toothless tiger. With or without the tests, they will drain every district of desperately needed resources.
One very promising idea to emerge from the conference was Randi Weingarten’s proposal to give grants to groups of teachers to revise the standards. This makes sense, especially in light of the fact that the writing committee for the Common Core standards did not include a single active classroom teacher nor anyone who had experience teaching early childhood edition nor anyone who had taught children with disabilities.
To those who say that the standards can’t be revised because they are copyrighted, I say nonsense. Let’s see if the National Governors Association or Achieve or the Council of Chief State School Officers has the gall to sue the AFT or its surrogates for trying to fix the CCSS. Bring it on.
No matter how many resolutions are passed at this or any other convention, the Common Core standards are going nowhere. State after state is dropping them or the federal tests or both. The standards ignore the root causes of low academic achievement: poverty and segregation. There is no proof that they will fulfill their lofty goals. They will end up one day as a case study in college courses of the abuse of power: how one man tried to buy American education and bypass democratic procedures. Even in states with high standards, like Massachusetts and California, there are large achievement gaps. Even in the same classrooms with the same teacher, there are variations in test scores.
We live in an age of magical thinking, of unrealistic expectations and of lies dressed up as goals and promises. For more than a dozen years, politicians have insisted that testing and accountability would leave no child behind. Then in 2009, the politicians said that testing and accountability would create a “race to the top.” Now we are told that common standards and common tests will bring about equity and excellence. What fools these mortals be. The politicians never run out of excuses or slogans. At some point, the public will tire of their know-nothing meddling. Let us hope that day will come soon.
The “grants” for CCSS “revision” are a farce. NGA and CCSSO have their product and have no reason to graft in “teacher contribution.”
In short, AFT has no leverage with NGA and CCSSO to disrupt the plan to market CCSS. None.
Even worse… If some minor changes suggested by these panels of teachers are accepted by whoever, it will allow the whole to be pushed as a product of ‘teacher input”. The whole concept is a nightmare, and whenever teachers are coerced into adding (precious little) to the effort, it simply weakens their potential power by dividing one group (call them ‘The Collaborators’) against another (call them ‘The Professionals’).
Unfortunately, the average teacher is rather politically naive. Of course, most teachers would rather spend their energy helping people (K-20) grow into their adult potential, and so they don’t have time to ‘play games’. Unfortunately, in today’s atmosphere, that makes them a fairly easy target for the sociopaths in our society who want to fleece everybody and make them bow to their power.
Since the Medieval university, it was expected that students meet ‘standards’ in order to enter into the community of scholars. Those standards, however, were set (entirely!) by educators. They directed the student into a display of intellectual or creative gymnastics, not job training exercises. The idea that our schools ought to provide a competent and compliant workforce is anathema to me. This is not education, and certainly not what is needed to prepare a citizen in a democratic society.
And, who pays for the ‘Grants’? The AFT is so fat that the members (without outside support) can afford this? Could it be Gates money?
There’s a sucker born every day.
you got it right, John. It is all so much dazzle -dazzle while the dirty work is done behind the scenes. Have you read my article Bamboozle Them, or Magic Elixir, written years ago.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/BAMBOOZLE-THEM-where-tea-by-Susan-Lee-Schwartz-110524-511.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Magic-Elixir-No-Evidence-by-Susan-Lee-Schwartz-130312-433.html
People have no conception of what it really takes to teach, and in fact believe anyone can teach with a little training. No grasps the destruction going on in the schools, even though the story of the take-down of the largest system in the country is available. GRASSROOTS AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH WAITING FOR SUPERMAN
Not if they have Bill Clinton being honored. He was the one that told Bill deBlasio who to hire for Chancellor to please Duncan, and sent Randi to the Ukraine to propagandize on going to war. I am afraid that the unions are part of the neocon vision and Randi is so needy to be at a table, any table. She is perfect.
Word, words words…. what STANDARDS…. the National Standards for Learning, was the Pew funded third level research, which had no testing standards whosoever… bt were the 8 core principles of LEARNING to occur… four for teachers, and FOUR FOR THE SUPPORT OF TEACHERS BY ADMINISTRATION.
As for a CURRICULUM, a genuine syllabus of objectives and outcome for achieving mastery of skills is what a CURRICULUM IS ALL ABOUT… the teachers choose the materials, plan the lessons and evaluate students in order to plan to meet all needs.
I am sick and tired of hearing ‘standards’ applied to that creation of Gates and clones, for it is neither genuine standards, or genuine curricula.
WORDS MEAN SOMETHING.
Susan, visit a classroom sometime, teachers choose the curriculum from the mountains of common core materials directed at them by the districts. since when do teachers “choose” the materials?
I choose all of my materials. Finally was able to choose the textbook that I wanted about 4 years ago. Everything in my teaching of Spanish is chosen by me.
Yes, Spanish is not included in the new skills.
“I am sick and tired of hearing ‘standards’ applied to that creation of Gates and clones, for it is neither genuine standards, or genuine curricula.”
Yes, Susan, the proper term is curriculum and not “standards”. Standards ≠ curriculum. Just as testing is not the same as assessing. And testing should really be only a very small part of assessing with the best “assessing” being done by the students themselves tempered by the teacher’s and parents’ assessment.
Thank you, Duane, for taking the time to write such interesting and smart replies.
I was merely trying to say that looking at the Core Curricula as “standards” is insane.
The Pew research for The National Standards laid out what was needed for LEARNING to happen… and for 2 years IN THE NINETIES, I attended NATIONAL STANDARDS workshops in District which got zillions when Pew decided to include it as the 12th district.
If I had not experienced the authentic standards research — if my work had not been lauded and then used around the nation to demonstrate how one teacher created a curricula that met the ‘standards’ required for LEARNING to occur, then I would think the research never happened.
I had been a teacher for thirty years by then. The school supported me by giving me a room and four classes to teach. Furniture came a few days later. I personally bought the books for independent reading (over 1000, by my 8th year, bought at garage and library sales) and I copied (Xeorxed) the stories i chose from literature textbooks. Eventually, the school purchased a few novels for my practice. I had a tv which I shared and on e computer. I created a practice which brought kids from across NYC.
I had been a sub in East Ramapo, and had access to the wonderful literature texts, and even the grammar books they used, and of course, I had the state syllabus which listed the OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES FOR this age group… “Learner Will be Able to….”
I chose the stories and novels that allowed me to demonstrate the principles of great writing and to also help the kids examine human behaviors as seen through literature. In East Ramapo (at that time, long before it became a failed system) seventh grade included GRAMMAR instruction and used Warriner’s Grammar as text. I copied a few lessons to use , in order to explain to my NYC kids, the underlying structure of sentences– so they could ‘hang words on thoughts’ on paper… in ways that enabled a reader, an audience to make meaning! Yeah, we talked endlessly about ideas, but in the end they had to write and I WAS THEIR GUIDE… and high school was just down the road… figuratively and literally. My ‘kids’ were accepted to all the top NYC high schools, private and public, and I was inducted 4 times in “who’s Who Among America’s Teachers, because when they graduated high school, they nominated me as THE ONE who made it happen for them… learning!
I chose stories with lyrical and ‘figurative language’, and often I chose novels that had movie versions or were on Broadway, so the kids could compare and contrast the two forms. We had fun..THE OPERATIVE WORDS ARE I CHOSE!
My class was ‘fun’ and interesting, because I learned long ago that MOTIVATION (not tests) was the key to all learning where kids were concerned. It was not merely, as was suggested at this blog, that I was ‘brainwashed’ to create a lesson plan that listed the objectives (so I could be clear about what I was ‘teaching”) and followed this with my plans for motivation, and then the materials for the activity. Motivation was part of the reward system I set up. I gave no GRADE until the end of each semester, but I had very very very clear expectations for what excellence looked like… and the parents knew what I expected, too. (see the first principle of learning). I gave no tests, except for a few simple quizzes to ascertain progress with certain skills.
In this brand new magnet school, where I WROTE the entire 7th grade English curricula I based my choices for lessons, on the NYS OBJECTIVES FOR OUTCOMES for that age; Not a soul in administration helped me or gave me a thing. I even had parents build the bookshelves.
I was successful in ways that even I had not anticipated. When they (the standards research teams (from the LRDC and Harvard) asked me HOW did I do it, I actually could not answer….BUT, After 2 years in the workshops, and after being studied (as the cohort) during that time, I knew what learning looked like, and I got it… I knew WHY learning was enabled in my classroom. You see, I met all the indicators for the 4 principles that affect and enable learning.
Here are the 4 principles of learning they looked for:
* Clear Expectations
*Rewards for achievement
* GENUINE EVALUATION and AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT BY THE TEACHER… so planning to meet all needs was ongoing…. tests were only a part of this,; portfolio and performance assessment were the key tools.(THERE WAS NO MENTION OF standardized test.)
*Teacher competency in the content area as well as education and competency in pedagogical methods.
These ‘standards’ were for learning. If each of these four principles were in practice,the kids learned, met the objectives…across ethnic and economic lines and for all kids according to ability.
From day one, the LRDC folks asked ‘what does LEARNING LOOK LIKE?
THEN, THEY spent 2 years showing teachers what was required to enable kids to learn , to facilitate the acquisition of SKILLS by the human brain.
Absolutely nothing I am hearing today existed in this research.
NOW, HOLD ON TO YOUR HAT, here are the PRINCIPLES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION — in order to support the teachers and thus LEARNING there were 4 PRINCIPLES FOR THE PRINCIPALS.
1- Maintaining a QUIET, safe site.
2- Providing instructional and other materials including texts, equipment etc
3- Organization of programs and the school so that support services were available and movement through the school was accomplished.
4- The employment and SUPPORT of competent staff who met the personal and educational criteria for licensing.
Notice how simple these 8 things are, and the absence of the word “standards” or “curricula”.
Notice the absence of the words “teaching’ and “tests’ and instead words like ENABLING and FACILITATING Learning.
When top-down management came in, test-prep came in with them, and teachers like me, who knew how to facilitate the genuine acquisition of skills and content knowledge were sent packing so the bull-poop about ‘standards’ and curriculum’ written by non-educators could be shoved down the throats of novice practitioners who were too scared to say, “you expect me to ‘teach’ this?”
I was, at the end of the Standards research, chosen to be The NY S English Council’s choice for EDUCATOR OF EXCELLENCE’ for my proven success and my research as a cohort… and soon after, a few months later, I was in a rubber room, and eventually charged with INCOMPETENCE.
Need I say more?
Noel Wilson has shown the many epistemological and ontological errors involved in the “educational standards” process. To understand just how INVALID educational standards and its joined at the cranium, two sides of the same coin, accompanying standardized tests see: “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700
Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine. (updated 6/24/13 per Wilson email)
1. A description of a quality can only be partially quantified. Quantity is almost always a very small aspect of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category only by a part of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as unidimensional quantities (numbers or grades) is to perpetuate a fundamental logical error” (per Wilson). 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 the descriptive information about said interactions is inadequate, insufficient and inferior to the point of invalidity and unacceptability.
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. And this error 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 logical 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 anosmic squirrel who finds the occasional acorn, a result may be “true”) or to put in more mundane terms crap in-crap 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 attempts to measure “’something’ and we can specify some of the ‘errors’ in that ‘something’ but still don’t know [precisely] what the ‘something’ is.” 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!!!!!
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.
By Duane E. Swacker
Duane, I very much appreciate your comments. I wish you could have phrased them more simply because the ideas you expressed in scholarly language are much too important to bury in an ocean of words. To me, the two important questions are:
1. Who vouches for the validity of these tests (e.g. the Pennsylvania Keystone exams.) is there an independent, disinterested entity out there somewhere and how is it qualified?
2. Why are students whose first language is not English (and whose first culture is not that of the USA) expected to perform at the same level as native “American-English” speakers? Implicit in this question goes to your point: why do we keep humiliating our students by categorizing them based on these flawed exams.
Assessment is truly one of the most challenging tasks in education, and far too many students are “left behind” by standardized tests because any real assessment of creativity and critical thinking takes lots more time and effort than a bubble-in one- or two-hour mind-numbing exercise.
Pat,
I would expect that every certified educator (and most adults, if not perhaps our public education system is truly not up to snuff) should be able to understand what I have written and that if they do not understand, know, recognize various words and meanings that they would have the intellectual tools to decipher them. Or in the case of this blog ask me to further explain a not understood point. Is there something that you don’t comprehend due to the “scholarly” language? Let me know, either here or feel free to email me at dswacker@centurytel.net anytime. I can be a little slow at checking my home email but I eventually get to it.
As far as your question #1. Wilson has shown the invalidity of all standardized tests which would include the Keystone exams so that any attempts to validate them can be easily debunked.
#2. I don’t know other than to make public education “look bad”. And really it is more than “humiliating” the students. Students internalize those marks. How many adults would want to go to a place and be there for 7-8 hours where they are told that they are average-C, below average-D or Failing??? I wouldn’t.
“epistemological and ontological errors involved?” It’s always good to put it in your own words.
Joseph,
Some words work perfectly well as the two that I assume you are referencing-epistemology and ontology. Many times, my own words are lacking and I use those of others who have come up with the thoughts before me and whose words do a better job of explaining.
For what it’s worth:
A. Comte-Sponville in his chapter on Tolerance in “A Small Treatise on the Great Virtues” on the an “active meaning” of philosophy-“to philosophize is to think without the benefit of proof”. And that is all we have in regards to many epistemological* and ontological** problems. From Wiki:
*Epistemology (from Greek ἐπιστήμη – epistēmē, meaning “knowledge, understanding”, and λόγος – logos, meaning “study of”) is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge[1][2] and is also referred to as “theory of knowledge”. It questions what knowledge is and how it can be acquired, and the extent to which any given subject or entity can be known. (from Wiki)
** Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.
So, I didn’t put it into my own words but does those explanations help? How do we know what we know and how do we know if what we know “really exists”?
“as a way to ensure all children have the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in the 21st century” the press release says
It’s common to divide knowledge into two types–declarative knowledge (e.g., world knowledge, content knowledge, knowledge of what) and procedural knowledge (e.g., knowledge of how). The CCSS in ELA explicitly mentions ALMOST NONE of the former. The latter are what people vaguely refer to as “skills.” The CCSS in ELA is ALMOST ENTIRELY a list of skills. However, most of the items on that list are so vaguely formulated that they do not rise to the level of operationally testable (e.g., validly testable) procedural knowledge.
So, one wonders what standards this press release is referring to, for it certainly is not referring to the CCSS in ELA, which barely treats “knowledge” and treats “skills” extraordinarily vaguely.
Furthermore, there his no evidence whatsoever that the particular skills enumerated in the CCSS for ELA will “ensure [that] all childrne have the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in the 21st century.”
Where does one even begin with a statement like that? “Ensure”? “All children”? Seriously? That’s NCLB-style “Schools will reach 100 percent proficiency by 2014” talk. It’s nothing but rhetoric.
What an embarrassment that a union representing the nation’s teachers would put out statements like this.
Bob you are correct. The outcomes of the AFT convention are an embarrassment to teachers everywhere. The CCCS have been dissected on this blog and elsewhere with nary a good word to be found. Sitting around revising ridiculous standards is an exercise in futility. When are funds going
to be used to benefit children? Gates could have used his wasted billions to build swimming pools, tennis courts, soccer fields all over the country. He could have devised a plan to reduce violence in our cities. He could have given scholarships to high school graduates to attend college. He could have funded after school programs, art and music education. He could have donated musical instruments and books to libraries. Instead, he thinks only how to make himself richer through venture philanthropy. Gates should take a page from Maimonides who wrote that the highest form of charity is giving anonymously.
I apologize for the length of my comments, above, but one of the HUGE problems with discussions of the new standards is that they almost all take place at a 35,000-ft level, but the devil is in the details. Those, if we are not to be heedless, we must attend to. That’s our duty as educators.
No, it is not an embarrassment to teachers everywhere, it is an embarrassment to the (NYC-dominated and Randi manipulated) AFT. I have never been represented by the AFT, and they don’t represent me in any way. In terms of numbers, this is a very minor slice of educators. They are (or ‘she is’), however, somewhat media-savvy and quite vocal.
Additionally, the whole “knowledge and skills” line of thinking essentially ignores the central role of economic policy in determining the opportunities available to children in the future.
Writing any of this stuff in stone is a terrible mistake. Goals for our instruction should themselves be held to the highest standards and to the highest level of CONTINUAL, ONGOING scrutiny, analysis, discussion, and debate, and it’s simply absurd to imagine that one size will fit all–the student who is going to be a cosmetologist at Best Beauty Hair Salon and the student who is going to be a cosmologist at MIT.
It astonishes me that leaders of organizations entrusted with the instruction of our children are this heedless. These things matter. Every educational publisher in the United States is beginning its development of every product in ELA and mathematics by making a spreadsheet with a list of the CCSS in the first column and the places where those standards are “covered” in the next, and high-stakes assessments are being administered that purportedly test those standards and nothing else. So, what the standards say MAKES AN ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE. And that’s why they should not be used without an enormous amount of careful scholarly vetting and critique and an enormous amount of careful, experimental testing.
But before any of that, the assumptions on which they were based should have been examined, starting with the question of what a measurable standard should look like–how such a thing should be formulated–for the vastly different kinds of acquisition and learning in vastly differing domains of ELA and mathematics.
OfficeMax is selling plasticized displayable cards with the CCSS .The box is printed in red and white. These boxed sets, per grade level, cost about $24. Reminds me of Ed Hirsch’s marketing of his core curriculum at Sam’s and also that some teacher observation protocols require a visible posting in the room of the CCSS standards and objectives for the day.
The organization Common Core, which existed well before the CCSS, has online curriculum maps for ELA that now have the CCSS codes plus an online spreadsheet for teachers to document their “coverage” of the standards.
This ELA project was a Gates-funded initiative before it was relocated at Common Core, perhaps to protect Gates’ other work in financing the CCSS. As far as I know this is a non-profit project. Any fees are likely for operational costs
The CCSSO could use a new graphic designer. They don’t understand brand colors. Everything they did for the first year was in the trademark red, white, and yellow of their logo and their initial website and documents. In other words, they established some corporate colors. That’s graphic design for business 101, day 1. And then they just redid their website, employing a Microsoft Surface sort of aesthetic that totally threw over what had been established. I imagine that some graphic designer working for them is shaking her head and thinking, what arrogance and idiocy; these people are undermining themselves.
Bill Clinton handed it to Randi.
The CCSS in ELA appear to me to have been prepared by people with no familiarity whatsoever with the state of knowledge and art in language acquisition, hermeneutics, rhetoric, thinking, and other areas that they cover. They are shockingly amateurish. When statements like the one above are made, one can only assume that the authors of the statement have in mind a few vague general notions that they have about what the standards are supposed to be, for surely they cannot have actually read these standards closely and have come to such conclusions about them. If they have done that, then that’s a terrible indictment of the state of their learning. People who know so little about teaching English should not be anywhere near a desk where policy regarding the teaching of English is made.
heedlessness
our country and our children deserve better
All that said, teachers and curriculum developers must do the best they can within the limitations of the standards adopted by their states. Often this will involve giving them a charitable reading that goes well beyond their letter. I recently reviewed a textbook for challenged students that worked within the CCSS ELA framework and was really superb, for the author had done precisely what I have said here. However, I have also seen an enormous amount of complete junk that treats the CCSS in ELA AS THE CURRICULUM. There is a huge tide of such drek pouring out of educational publishing houses right now. So, buyer beware.
So, for example, if the standard says that students will be able to explain how the figurative language in a poem or story contributes to its tone, recognize that
a. there are many, many types of figurative language
b. there is much that one must teach about figurative language that has nothing whatsoever to do with mood or tone (in other words, the standard treats a tiny, tiny fraction of the topic)
Let’s look at that one part of one of the Common Core State Standards in ELA, as an example. I would like you to bear in mind, as you read, the following observation from Nietzsche:
“The drive toward the formation of metaphors is the fundamental human drive, which one cannot for a single instant dispense with in thought, for one would thereby dispense with man himself.”
–Friedrich Nietzsche, “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense” (1873)
One of the unfortunate, generally unremarked features of the new national “standards” in ELA, and of the state “standards” that preceded them, is that they draw boundaries within the vast design space of possible curricula and pedagogy and say, “What is within these boundaries you may teach, and what is outside you may not.” And in so doing, they rule out almost all the good stuff–great existing material, or curricula, and approaches, or pedagogy, incompatible with the CCSSO’s list. And, more importantly, they preclude all material and approaches that might be developed in the future that happen to be incompatible with that list.
I will give a single example to illustrate the general principle, but one could do the same for most of the other “standards” on the bullet list.
At several grade levels in the CCC$$ for ELA, there is a literature standard that reads, in part, that the student is to be able to explain “how figurative language affects mood and tone.”
Now, given a topic as rich as figurative language is, doesn’t that “standard” strike you as oddly constricted, or narrow, and even immature? It does me. Why effects of figurative language “on mood and tone” in particular? Why should we be having students think and write about effects of figurative language on the mood and tone of selection after selection in lesson after interminable lesson, year after year? Why not treat any of the thousands of other topics we might consider under the general heading of figurative language?
As an alternative to that “standard,” let’s consider just one topic related to one variety of figurative language. The variety we shall consider is metaphor, and the topic is conceptual framing. Thinkers as diverse as Emerson, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Borges, Sapir, Whorf, Burke, Hirsch, Derrida, Lakoff, and Kovecses (one could list many others) have all written, to various ends, about how metaphor is one of the fundamental means by which we understand the world. Our ways of conceptualizing the world are to a large extent metaphorical. Language is absolutely shot through with metaphor. And most of the metaphors we use we use unconsciously. They are sometimes called “dead” metaphors.
If you think carefully about the preceding paragraph, you will discover that it is heavily (that’s a metaphor) dependent (that’s another) upon metaphorical conceptual framing. The word Let’s depends upon a conceptual frame of a coming together of you, the reader, and me, the writer–a frame that equates consideration of a topic with physical meeting. Topic, of course, comes from the Greek topos, or “place.” Another metaphor. The word ends employs a conceptual frame in which a process of thought is treated as a journey or as a physical object with a beginning part, a middle part, and an end part. The word figurative belongs to a large class of metaphors that describe statements and thoughts as shapes (e.g., “The argument centered on Eliot’s last poems”). The words fundamental and understand relate to a conceptual framing of ideas as parts of structures–ground on which to stand or overarching shelter. The metaphorical frame of shot through is clear enough: ideas are projectiles. And conceptual framing and dead metaphor are, of course, examples of themselves. The phrases are self-describing. They apply to themselves. In the argot of analytical philosophers, they are autological terms.
Emerson, in the essay “Language,” Chapter 4 of his book Nature (1836), makes the claim that all abstract thinking has its roots in the concrete, is at root metaphorical. He gives the examples of the word right, as in “the right way,” having the literal meaning of being on a straight path, of spirit being derived from wind, and transgression being derived from crossing a line. So common is such metaphorical conceptual framing that Nietzsche, in his influential, in-your-face early essay “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense” (1873), speaks disparagingly of such unexamined use of such inherited, “prefab” metaphorical concept frames as the essential, or defining, human activity! Heidegger, in the essay “Building Dwelling Thinking” (1951) derives I am from dwelling on Earth, making our expression of our very existence metaphorical in origin:
“Bauen originally means to dwell. Where the word bauen still speaks in its original sense it also says how far the essence of dwelling reaches. That is, bauen, buan, bhu, beo are our word bin in the versions: ich bin, I am, du bist, you are, the imperative form bis, be. What then does ich bin mean? The old word bauen, to which the bin belongs, answers: ich bin, du bist mean I dwell, you dwell. The way in which you are and I am, the manner in which we humans are on the earth, is buan, dwelling. To be a human being means to be on the earth as a mortal. It means to dwell.”
Heidegger’s etymologies are much disputed, but the wisdom of his general approach is indisputable.
Lakoff and Kovecses have created extensive but by no means exhaustive catalogs of metaphorical conceptual frames.
Example: debate = war:
He won the argument.
Your claims are indefensible.
He shot down all my arguments. Her criticisms were right on target.
If you use that strategy, he’ll wipe you out. Example: achievement = harvesting:
She reaped her rewards. What a plum job!
By your fruits you will be known.
That market is ripe for the picking.
In short, metaphor does a lot of heavy lifting in our language and thought, and limiting ourselves, as teachers, to having students explain, year after year, for selection after selection, how the use of figurative language affects mood and tone is like reducing the study of the Civil War to consideration of the relative sizes of Union and Rebel cannonballs.
Suppose that a curriculum developer were to suggest to an educational publisher, today, that there should be, in a tenth-grade literature program, a unit or a part of a unit dealing with
common metaphorical frames in literature (cycles of seasons = the life cycle; a journey = learning, personal change);
how metaphors work, structurally (their parts and their mapping to the world);
how they shape thought, and the extent to which they do (note: we must reject any contention that metaphor renders certain perceptions or conceptions necessary or impossible–any strong version of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis; but a weak version certainly holds, often with dramatic effect–consider the egregious metaphor of “the little woman” used by U.S. husbands in the 1950s to refer to their wives);
how most metaphors are dead ones–are unconsciously employed, unexamined, common linguistic inheritances; and
how dead metaphors that constrain thought within preconceived patterns often have to be unlearned if progress in thinking is to be made (consider, for example, how the bad metaphor of “using up energy and becoming tired during work” shaped Aristotelian mechanics and had to unlearned by Galileo and Newton).
Such a unit on metaphor as conceptual framing–often inherited, unexamined, culture-shaping conceptual framing–could be extraordinarily valuable and interesting. It could give kids tools of ENORMOUS POWER that even many professional writers and critics don’t have. And those tools would have applicability far, far beyond the classroom. Critique of conceptual framing (itself a metaphor, remember) is a powerful (another metaphor) lever (yet another) for thinking generally. Dan Dennett has suggested that use of such heuristics, such levers, such intuition pumps, as he calls them, likely accounts for the Flynn Effect–the remarkable average continuous increase in IQ over the past century. Dennett’s casual observation should be taken very seriously, I think, by educators–such is the fertility of his mind.
Suppose that I suggested to a K-12 educational publisher, today, that we do a unit on metaphor as conceptual framing, or even a single lesson or “special feature” (in the argot of the educational publishing trade), on the topic. Here’s what the publisher would tell me: “No. You can’t do that. The ‘standards’ [sic] say that you must concentrate on how figurative language affects mood or tone in literary works.”
In comparison, of course, the “higher standard” is, well, not higher (note the metaphor: correct is up/false is down). The “higher standard” is hackneyed and obvious and something teachers have done pretty much unthinkingly for eons, and it’s a LOT LESS interesting and powerful and important than is the alternative (or addition) that I’ve recommended. What we are told to concentrate on in the standards reads, to me, like what might be suggested by an amateur who really doesn’t know much about figurative language and how it works.
And so it is with standard after standard. We find in these “higher standards,” again and again, received, hackneyed notions. Even worse, the mediocre, the common, pushes out the uncommon and valuable: exciting alternatives are, a priori, ruled out. They are not important. They will not be on the test.
Obviously, the alternative that I outlined above is just one of many possible approaches that one could take to this one topic from this one “standard”–one of many ruled out because we have been told that we must do what the “standard” says and not any of a thousand other things that never occurred to the authors of these standards.
Of course, a unit on metaphor as conceptual framing would be in line with the state of the art of research into the cognitive science of thinking and language. Such conceptual framing is fundamental to the thinking via natural prototypes (as opposed to Aristotelian natural kinds) that we actually do. And being aware of what we do, there, is extremely powerful and enriching, to one’s reading, one’s writing, and one’s thinking generally. Knowing about conceptual frames facilitates unlearning, which is the most powerful kind of learning there is.
But no. As an author of curricula for K-12 students, I am not allowed to think about such matters now. The authors hired by the CCSSO have done my thinking for me and for all of us, and we shall have new thinking when the CCSSO reconvenes its Politburo in five years or so to issue its next bullet list. If we want changes in these “standards,” we shall have to await future orders from the Commoners’ Core Curriculum Commissariat and Ministry of Truth, appointed (by divine right?) the “deciders” for the rest of us.
And so it is by such means as I have described above that these “standards” typically limit the possibilities for pedagogical and curricular innovation. We are to limit ourselves to the backward, received, unimaginative, uninformed, often prescientific ideas of the Philistines who put together these “standards” based on the lowest- common-denominator groupthink of the previously existing state “standards.”
I’m not happy about that. Could you tell? How did my use of figurative language in this piece affect my tone and your mood?
And who cares? Wouldn’t you much rather engage what I had to say? to agree or disagree and tell me why? I thought so.
P.S. If you wish to respond to this piece, please make sure that your response is a five-paragraph theme on how my use of figurative language in the piece affects its tone or mood, and please give at least three pieces of evidence from the piece to substantiate your claims. Do not under any circumstances address what I had to say. That would be outside the parameters for response that I have set here.
See what I mean? The CCSS approach leads to completely unnatural, inauthentic Instawriting, InstaReading, and InstaThinking instead of actual, normal engagement with texts–with what writers actually have to say. But precisely the sort of directions I just gave for your response are being repeated in text after text after text, on test after test after test, because of the CCSS in ELA. And if that’s not completely wacko, I don’t know what is.
Please note that this is an analysis of ONE PART of ONE of the 1,600 standards on the list. And it’s not a complete analysis. This is the sort of thing that should have been done for the entire document, line by line, by hundreds of highly qualified scholars and classroom practitioners. And for any guidelines adopted for general use, this sort of thing should be done continually, on an ongoing basis, for our knowledge and understanding does not stand still.
Come on Bob, not you too!
I wrote lesson plans too, LWBA Learner will be able to figurative language in a poem contributes to its tone,” IS A stated OUTCOME, not a STANDARD!
OUTCOMES AND OBJECTIVES were actually the curricula that I was given when I began to teach in NYC, and in NY State.
The objective for lessons then would look like this:
LW read and identify metaphors in the poem….”The Raven.”
LW find instances of metaphors and images that contribute to the mood of the poem.
LWBA to explain …
LWBA to write a poem that uses metaphors to create a mood.
Then, the lesson plan WOULD DEMAND
1- THE MOTIVATION
2- THE ACTIVITY.
3- THE MATERIALS
4- THE FOLLOW UP (REVIEW OR HOMEWORK,OR ANOTHER ACTIVITY)
AND THE EVALUATION TOOL , an essay, a poem, or some other performance assessment tool.
I NVER HEARD THE WORD “STANDARDS” from anyone. I used the world to create the CRITERIA or Rubric with my students, so as to be clear what excellent work looked like, what a best work looked like, what good work looked like and what fair or poor work looked like… we all knew what learning looked like…because my expectations were clear from day one… and CLEAR EXPECTATIONS, Bob, by the way, ARE THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF LEARNING.
As a cohort for the real NATIONAL STANDARDS, the LRDC at the University of Pitssburgh, who were the tools folks who went into all the practices in the research, told me that my best practice met all 21 indictors for CLEAR EXPECTATIONS, which, they said, explained why the kids were so successful in meeting the OUTCOMES BY MEETING THE OBJECTIVES.
Standards talk are a HEAD Jam.
What the bleep happened to the real NATIONAL STANDARDS?
WHERE IS Pew
WHERE IS HARVARD OR LAURNE RESNICK WHO WROTE THE THESIS?
Where is the LRDC, WHO TRAIN THE STAFF DEVELOPERS WHO TRAIN THE STAFF DEVELPERS ACROSS THE NATION?
Can you spell CONSIPRACY!
Susan, I am simply reporting. The authors of these “standards” clearly meant by the word “standard” an outcome to be measured, for that’s what these “standards” are–a list of the outcomes that will be tested on the national test. Of course, that’s not what “standard” means in the rest of the world. In the rest of the world, a “standard” is a product specification. So, for example, UFC standards for screw threads call for them to have a 60-degree pitch, and that is a “standard.” It’s a spec. Different meaning entirely.
This kind of thing often happens in education. Educators half hear some term used in the rest of the world and then adopt that term and use it in a totally screwy and vague and poorly thought out way. So, for example, in the rest of the world, throughout the world of manufacturing, a benchmark is a quantified, high level of efficiency or effectiveness. An example: Suppose you wanted to set a benchmark for the availability of a particular machine–a web press, for example. One uses a formula (availability %) = total time available – downtime/total time available x 100 to calculate availability. Then one looks around for the highest availability one can find for this machine in existing businesses using it. If it’s available 60 % of the time at Acme, Inc., and 74 % at Bob’s Printing, and 86 % of the time at Printing for Less, then the Printing for Less number (86 %) becomes a benchmark–what one strives to hit.
That’s what the term means in the rest of the world. Educators heard the term and adopted it. But to them it means doing interim testing to figure out where you stand. So, they misuse the term based on a misunderstanding of it. Educators HALF HEARD what manufacturing people were saying. They sort of understood that people ran benchmark tests. But they totally missed the point of those tests–to compare processes to measure them against some absolute high level of efficiency or effectiveness.
Or consider the word “strategy.” In the rest of the world, a strategy is an overarching plan for meeting some goal. Particular actions that you take to meet the goal are tactics. But in education, a strategy becomes any little thing that people do when they are trying to accomplish any little thing. Breaking a word into its affixes and root becomes a “strategy.” The term is completely misused as a result of sloppy thinking by those who originally adopted it.
One could multiply these examples indefinitely. There is an enormous amount of very, very sloppy thinking on the educational carnival midway. People’s use of the term “standard” with no thought whatsoever given to what they mean by it is an example. Formulating standards in one way for vastly differing kinds of acquisition and learning is just dumb. It’s worse than apples and oranges. It’s apples and theories and a stroll on the beach and wistfulness and Luther’s 95 theses. COMPLETELY DIFFERING THINGS get treated as though they were somehow similar, as though they belonged to the same set.
You bet.. take “balanced literacy” jargon, and this mess
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/14/opinion/how-to-teach-reading-and-writing.html?emc=edit_ty_20140714&nl=opinion&nlid=50637717
Leave it to Carmen who was part of the top-down debacle when NYC tanked to go back to this failed practice. It does not ‘balance” anything, and in fact topples the teacher’s stance as to how to enable kids to write.
oy.
So, Susan, that’s a long-winded way of saying that of course you are right, that as the rest of the world uses the term “standard,” it refers to a specification, much as one might have in a rubric. The product should have this or that properties.
And that’s what I’ve meant when I have said, a thousand times, on this blog that these people didn’t bother to think AT ALL about what they meant by “standard” when they set out to write standards. Completely heedless, they just hacked together a document from the lowest-common denominator groupthink materials of the preceding state “standards” without doing the requisite reflection about fundamentals.
Susan your conditioning by the system is perfect: “motivation”, “objectives” etc. Learning is not always about a lesson plan or even a lesson.
I have seen some teachers using the same “plan” their entire lives.
So, some practical advice:
As long as these standards are your state standards, you will have no choice but to work with them, and it will be VERY IMPORTANT TO YOUR STUDENTS that you teach them how to answer questions of the kinds that they will be asked on the exams based on these standards. Bear in mind as you do these things that the standards are, like all things this side of paradise, flawed, and often these flaws are very, very serious indeed. When dealing with a seriously flawed standard, attempt to discern the intention behind it and to let that intention rather than the flawed letter of the standard guide what you do. Meet your students where they are. Fill in the breathtaking lacunae in the learning progression in the standards. Treat them with a grain of salt. Good teachers already know these things, of course.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Yes, Bob: metaphor. A concept which draws together all literature, a sort-of rain-poncho against the vicissitudes of ELA policy.
“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,” – that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”
So why wouldn’t you want to be the recipient of a grant for tweaking CCSS-ELA? It seems AFT is offering a bit of an opening. We have to start somewhere.
Good idea Spanish and French! Award the grant to Bob! Let’s crank out some letters of recommendation.
The idea of having one set for all is fundamentally flawed. And so is the idea of having a set of standards carved in stone. And so is the idea of having one set instead of competing ones. And so is the idea of minutely specifying the standards rather than promulgating general principles that would provide the degrees of freedom within which true pedagogical and curricular innovation could occur.
I have spent decades thinking about and learning about how to teach reading, literature, grammar, vocabulary, writing, research, public speaking, debate, theater, journalism, thinking, and other topics in ELA. I have studied in enormous detail pedagogical approaches, curricula, and learning progressions. I’ve tried to learn as much as I can about the relevant sciences. But I would not PRESUME to dictate to everyone else. That’s CRAZY because IT STOPS THOUGHT COLD and because NO ONE HAS THE BEST OR THE FINAL IDEAS. It takes a lot of hubris to think that one does. What I most know is how little I know. That clearly cannot be said of the authors of the CCSS in ELA.
We should have voluntary, competing frameworks, standards, learning progressions, and lesson templates posted to a national wiki. These should be continually discussed and debated, and alternatives should be continually proposed.
But thank you, Spanish and French Teacher and NY Teacher, for the honor of your recommendation. That means a great deal to me.
Stop being so modest Bob. You know more than the rest of us combined!
S&F, your quotation from Keats reminded me of this, from Shelley’s “Alastor,” a statement of an unachievable but glorious goal for the humanities (the Geisteswissenschaften):
“And all of great,
Or good, or lovely, which the sacred past
In truth of fable consecrates, he felt
And knew.”
ll. 72-5
I like to think of the humanities as a vast garden cultivated by our ancestors, with many, many paths, and of teachers as guides to it. Down this one, there is a spring. Drink from it. Delicious, huh? Heck, jump in. Take a swim. Yes, the water is deep in places. Be careful! And look at what lives under here. Would you like to camp here for the evening? Great. I’ll see you in the morning. Poke around a bit. You’ll find the fruits, there, delicious. In the morning, tell me three amazing things that I didn’t know.
AFT is offering an opening? on a corrupt foundation, Randi had no real experience as a teacher. Do the monstrous materials from all of the publishers just need “tweaking”? The tweaking needed is the removal of the leadership, now Gates is willing to “throw money at the problem”. we have met the enemy, and he is us.
For Susan who wrote:
CLEAR EXPECTATIONS, Bob, by the way, ARE THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF LEARNING.
Who said so? Why? Might it ever be possible for a teacher to enter a class and ask: What would like to learn today? or What should we learn today?
I think that the ensuing discusssion with students could leverage a lot of learning (including learning about learning) without clear expectations.
Perhaps I have had an overdose of SMART goals and SLOs and SGOs but the current revival of management by objectives with a heavy dose of behavioral objectives — both from mid-century last–stikes me as a clear case of insisting on direct instruction as a “best practice” especially when linked to demans for targets for learning and measured outcomes by a time certain. Clear expectations for learning are a hallmark of training more than education.
Our prime directive is to produce intrinsically motivated, lifelong learners. One who depends for his or her learning only on what happens in class or what happened in the first 12 to 16 years of his or her life will not be a learned person and will not be able to adapt as necessary for survival in a rapidly changing world. Laura is absolutely right. We must teach in ways that provide structure and guidance but that also encourage and require independent initiative.
And the assumption being that student participation was not present in my methodology, because I was clear about what was needed to succeed?
Or, that the authentic research teams were somehow missing the fact that student discussions was at the CENTER of my methods? I used so many student -centered discussions that I doubt many of you have even heard of…like Fishbowl… which I will be happy to describe, and which I could put up as a youtube, as I have the tapes when they filmed my students talking, talking talking, inGENUINE GUIDED discussions.
I hear a lot of chatter hear about what a teacher should do, but I know what I did (and so do the teams that were astonished at how I did it), and I explain what I did, these days, using the words of the LRDC research workshops. Words have meaning!
What makes anyone think that what Lauren describes— this” student participation” is antithetical to clear expectations?
You see, that is exactly what I did… clearly setting up STUDENT expectations, AS WELL AS my own. The first week of school, was to establish who was in that room TOGETHER, and what were the common goals for the course, as well as my personal expectations for each and every one of them. The first day, first week and first month set up the collaborative effort so that EXPECTATIONS WERE CLEAR. What is wrong with that?
MY tool was a letter…. I wrote one each week to them, and each of them wrote back, talking about their independent reading, and then, if they could –in good paragraphs with clear – if simple -sentences they told me about their thoughts and ideas about what they were doing in my class and in our school. They managed 50 words in September, and 3000 words were often the case in June!
The letters, were unique, and the reason the Harvard researchers walking through our hallways, stopped to read, and stayed to see what it was that I did to get children to think on paper like that.
Laura should try to grasp that the people who ran this 3rd level millions of dollar- research were trying to NAIL the truth. These principles were not a set of rules written by a billionaire to ensure profits. These were serious folks who knew some teachers did magic, and they wanted to see if their were a few things ALWAYS PRESENT… when kids LEARNED.
The LRDC at the University of Pittsburgh sent the top education minds in the nation to look into each of the cohorts, in the 12 districts. These graduate staff developers at the workshops were the ones who showed the nations superintendents what LEARNING REALLY LOOKS LIKE WHEN IT WORKS. I learned ,too, what it was that i did right!
That said, another time I would like to address what Lauren said about those apparently nasty, forbidden, words that I chose to describe how I planned the curricula: “objectives” and “outcomes”!
For now, it is essential to be crystal clear to NYC kids– about what success looks like–OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES!
She may be right about the ‘alphabet soup’ that has put the hex FOR HER – on ‘direct instruction,’ but the way that I used it, for over 40 years, was an essential method, especially at the start of the year when too many of the 135 kids that come to me, have such poor grasp of underlying skills.
. You can give a kid a violin, but direct instruction sure helps when they begin to acquire a complex skill. Over 40 years of teaching I discovered that it really helps to Know where I am going, and what is expected FROM ME, for EACH LESSON when I stand in front of a class. I cannot imagine how such basic methodology got demonized as ‘direct instruction’ but one thing is clear from the conversation here… there are too many cooks and the broth is losing its richness.
And yes, clear expectations are the core principle for any skills acquisition, especially for critical thinking skills… comparison and analysis, hypothesis and prediction, not to mention synthesis. Thus, naturally, Lauren Resnick made “clear expectations,’ THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF LEARNING when she wrote the thesis that became ‘THE NATIONAL STANDARDS…. THE REAL ONES.
…and yes, of course the students participation is the core ingredient in everything that I, the PROFESSIONAL THAT THEY TRUST bring to the floor in that room….MY room! My PRACTICE!
The bottom line, Lauren and BOB, no matter what jargon I use to describe what I did in that room for 8 years, one thing is clear… the kids learned to think, to get those thoughts down on paper, and to use appropriate tools to get their writing ready for an audience…to be read. They won every writing contest they entered, were accepted at the top high schools, and aced every single NYC test for reading and when the new ELA came out and 1/3 of NYC kids failed… they were 10th in the state.
One last thing, it is so easy to point a finger and say”ohmigod’ she is using “direct instruction” or she is ‘teaching a grammar lesson, or a phonics lesson,’ and this is wrong”. THAT is how the principals get to document incompetence, by spewing some poorly understood theory.
It is time to pay heed to the voice of the authentic teacher , the one who was the grunt on the line who made a difference!
Academic discussions are well and good, and necessary, but some of the things that are out there now are antithetical to actual LEARNING… like for example ‘balanced literacy” which Carmen Farina is pushing in NYC even though it failed everywhere because it is cockamamie theory. Letting kids discover meaning for themselves is a tenant of all best practice, but there has to be some groundwork for emergent learners, some ‘direct instruction’ to lay down structure, or the result is what I saw all too often, …the blind leading the blind… kids in groups walking down the wrong paths and wasting precious time to discover basic skills…talking about ‘farts’ or whatever comes to their minds instead of pursuing the objective for the lesson.
and THAT is my 2 cents…f or now.
Oh, goodness, no. I made no such assumption, Susan. Much of what you have said makes a great deal of sense to me. Sounds to me like you were a wonderful teachers. Warm regards, Bob
Thank you Bob. It is nice that you and Lloyd and so many people that I admire and respect actually grasp what I did. I have the awards and the offers to write books about what I did… I actually was famous, and the trauma of the loss is over.
I just want to be clear that the reason that I joined the conversation here, is that what happened to me, happened to tens of thousands of wonderful teachers, and it is simply unknown… even here.
I want to be clear that IF they can take out a teacher such as I was, such as David Pakter and Lorna Stremcha, it make the LIE about evaluating ineffective teachers all the more glaring.
THAT is the “reason the schools failed”, as Karen Horwitz put it… it is a crime, just like the hedge fund managers and banksters the real criminal got away with it, and this is why nothing will stop the destruction now. They looked this way, and they looked that way, and absolutely no where was there any accountability for taking out the professionals… so today, it is THE process!
This hidden destruction, this war on teachers began 20 years ago. The CCSS VAM PARC and the alphabet soup of nonsense is only possible because we, the talented professionals who knew what learning looks like and what is needed to teach, are gone.
The media did it. The media hid the story while the oligarchs raped the system, and blamed the victims, and got away with it, so now anything goes, and the public swallows the snake-oil.
It makes me very sad because the road to opportunity was that public school system with teachers who use direct instruction and had never heard of balanced literacy or standardized tests, but who had administrators who supported their practice, and parents who supported them.
Off the top of my head, I like very much the technique of the letters. I’ll have to think about that. Could be quite time consuming, but there are some obvious benefits from these.
Well, Lauran, and Bob, I agree completely. How does being clear about what is expected of a 13 year old as a writer and a student interfere with initiative? My students entered city and national writing competitions, wrote songs, plays, stories and essays, but were crystal clear about what the writing process entailed and what was expected of them if they were writing for an audience — anyone who had to read their ideas. We talked endlessly to GET THE IDEA, they wrote often to GET THEIR IDEAS DOWN, and they then met MY EXPECTATIONS for the work necessary to GET THEIR WRITING READY TO BE READ. THEY actually identified in SEPTEMBER WHAT AN EXCELLENT FINISHED PIECE OF WRITING WOULD LOOK LIKE, and THEY decided what was merely passing or poor.
Crystal clear… all year… with lots and lots of rewards for HARD WORK… which by the way, was the mantra of the workshops for the National Standards. Accountable talk and hard work… a community of learners who knew what LEARNING LOOKED LIKE and what it did not!
and one last thing FYI
Well, Lauran, Dr. Lauren Resnik the head of the LRDC at the University of pittsburgh, the graduate arm that discusses the latest research with the school administrators, staff developers and academics across the nation wrote the thesis, and Harvard said
PROVE IT!
SO, Pew funded zillions for 3rd level research… you know the kind that PROVIDES EVIDENCE THAT IT WORKS EVERYWHERE NOT JUST IN SOME SMALL SCHOOL DISTRICT IN timbuktoo.
The LRDC provided the ’tools’ people —the staff developers to run the workshops for every district chosen to be included in THE NATIONAL STANDARDS research///to go into the THOUSANDS OF classrooms in 12 selected DISTRICTS ACROSS THE NATION, documenting the practice of teachers in low and high performing schools. They had Lauren’s theory, which like your own needed real evidence… so they looked for indicators for each principle.
And lo and behold, where the 8 principles were documented as existing, LEARNING WAS HAPPENING… and in six teacher practices, the success was extraordinary and the curricula was completely teacher designed and implemented. I was one of those six.
One last question…. if I were doing something wrong, how did the kids learn the critical thinking skills, the writing skills, and the personal habits of mind (another standards term we used) to achieve such outstanding outcomes? Why were the parents lining up to get their kids into my class, and why were the students that came out of my practice nominating me as the teacher who made a difference, when they graduated high school with honors… which accounts for my inclusion in WHO’S WHO AMONG AMERICA’S TEACHERS, and also explains why so many former students find me on Linked in and Facebook, to tell me what my classes meant to them.
I think, Susan, that Laura has a point that one cannot be “crystal clear” about what one does not yet know and that education must also involve students discovering that which is surprising or new both to them and to their teachers. I’m certain that you will agree with that.
What’s not to agree. But she said much more than that in her assumption.
What makes you think that what you describe is antithetical to clear expectation?
You see, that is exactly what I did… clearly setting up their expectations and my own. The first week of school, was to establish who was in that room TOGETHER, and what were the common goals for the course, as well as my personal expectations for each and every one of them. MY tool was a letter…. I wrote one each week to them, and each of them wrote back, talking about their independent reading, and then, if they could –in good paragraphs with clear – if simple -sentences they told me about their thoughts and ideas about what they were doing in my class and in our school.
The letters, dear Laura, were unique, and the reason the Harvard researchers walking through our hallways, stopped to read, and stayed to see what it was that I did to get children to think on paper like that.
Laura, try to grasp that the people who ran this 3rd level millions of dollar- research were trying to NAIL the truth. These principles were not a set of rules written by a billionaire to ensure profits. These were serious folks who knew some teachers did magic, and they wanted to see if their were a few things ALWAYS PRESENT… when kids LEARNED.
The LRDC at the University of Pittsburgh sent the top education minds in the nation to look into each of the cohorts, in the 12 districts. These graduate staff developers at the workshops were the ones who showed the nations superintendents what LEARNING REALLY LOOKS LIKE WHEN IT WORKS.
That said, I would like to address what you said about objectives and outcomes, and how one makes them clear to NYC kids in 2014…. another time, but of enow, let me say you may be right about the alphabet soup that has put the hex on ‘direct instruction,’ which worked for me, the way that I used it, for over 40 years. You can give a kid a violin, but direct instruction sure helps when they begin to acquire a complex skill.
And yes, clear expectations are the core principle for any skills acquisition, especially for critical thinking skills… comparison and analysis, hypothesis and prediction, not to mention synthesis. Thus, naturally, Lauren Resnick made that THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF LEARNING when she wrote the thesis that became ‘THE NATIONAL STANDARDS…. THE REAL ONES.
Mid century?
Hmmm. you mean when teachers planned the lessons that would result in the set outcomes for their age… objectives like being able to compare and contrast prior knowledge to what they were hearing, reading or seeing?
Hmmm…. mid century practice before top-down told the teacher what the lesson should look like and what should be used , and how it should be tested?
Hmmm mid-century, as I recall , was a time when schools actually worked and emerging high schools kids went on to real careers and could read, written and think well bough to enter careers in agh and science.
Heavy on what works?
Not dependent on one method alone, but using it when needed, because Lauren, when there are 35 -40 21st century kids in front of you, accustomed to using 500 words all their life, and knowing more about video games then history or ANYTHING, and YOU have ten months to ensure they succeed– or parents and administrators will have a thing to say— you find what WORKS, and no cockamamie opinion out of SLO or SGO or SMART should be accepted as OBSERVABLE REALITY.
A teacher, like a doctor or attorney, uses what works TO ACHIEVE OUTCOMES and Lauren, it really helped me over a half century ago, when I was 21 and teaching my first classes to write down those objectives, and know those outcomes… and it became MY way of planning. There were many teachable moments where the children added new outcomes and conversations flew in new directions, but ultimately I HAD TO BE CLEAR about what I expected, and I had to COMMUNICATE THIS TO THEM.
Too many parents today set few parameters for behavior, and children thrive when they know what is expected of them, and when there are REWARDS FOR SUCCESS… which of course was the second principle of learning that went hand in hand with clear expectations.
It worked girl, for me at the end of the century, and for all of the most successful teachers studied among the tens of thousands in the real standards research. Too bad, these principles got waylaid by Gates and clones, instead of being celebrated and copied. Too bad, that I am gone from East Side Middle School, and my fabulous curriculum and methodology never saw the light of day, again…. because someone can always come along in the education business and say; “hey…that “I think, that what you do is old stuff, mid-century nonsense!” and of course the operating words are I THINK!
More practical advice, if you need to work with this document: read p. 6 ” what is not covered by the Standards” carefully. Notice point 2, where it states that “While the Standards focus on what is essential, they do not describe all that can or should be taught.” You may find thT you need to point this out roan administrator.
My flawed method has been to attempt to find something within the standards that I can teach. The most disturbing aspect is the lack of developmental progression from one grade to the next. As an ESL teacher, I am usually assigned students from various grades who are performing significantly below grade level not only in English,
but in their native language. The ELA standards do not conform well to the requirements of ESL instruction.
Indeed. Suddenly, at Grade 8, students are expected to be able to identify verbals (infinitives, participles, and gerunds) in sentences AND to explain how they function. But one would be able to do those many things (for these are many separate things) only in the context of and as part of a whole progression of explicit learning about syntax that is ALMOST ENTIRELY ABSENT FROM THE STANDARDS. So, you have a standard that gives every indication of having been THROWN IN AT RANDOM without much, if any, thought about what it actually entails. What are the functions of verbals in sentences? Well, one can write a hefty book about that. A gerund or gerund phrase can serve as a subject, direct object, indirect object, object of a preposition in a complement or adjunct phrase, predicate nominative, retained object, subjective complement, objective complement, or appositive of any of these. Are students to be able to identify these “functions”? Clearly, the authors of the standard didn’t think through what they were asking for. So, someone teaching this “standard” has to think carefully about what can really be taught, what prerequisites students have, and so on. In other words, the teacher must do the thinking that the authors of the standards clearly did not do.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Oh, you are so right. In my tiny world– foreign language for age 2.5-13– & separate from public school, which seems little interested in teaching children to actually use the language to communicate– it is taking me a dozen yrs or more to refine my curriculum to the point where each step leads to the next. Where the listening comprehension that comes from learning songs & rhymes [the only method that works for pre-lit preK]– is shepherded through stories exercises to the point where it results in the ability to communicate one’s thoughts to another, & then respond.
Attention must be paid. Connections must be made. To translate what I am learning into a standard for others to use would be a difficult yet inspirational task. This is not work for the random, the hit-or-miss folks whose agenda is something other than helping kids to learn to speak in a foreign tongue. I am very fortunate that– so far– CCSS [& state core curricula pre-CCSS] has chosen to let ACTFL standards prevail.
When do they get to read and write and learn in context? we don’t need no stinkin’ gerund phrases. Why not have them know the origins of every word while they are at it?
So sorry Joseph. Common Core does not believe in context for close readings. The two methods of differentiation I was trained in are rereading and chunking. Now you go try those strategies with a group of ESL students several grades below level.
“to attempt to find something within the standards that I can teach.”
That doesn’t seem “flawed” to me but, rather, what a good teacher does–meet kids at their zone of proximal development.
I was working last school year with eighth graders and I encountered the standard you describe. I could not start a lesson with instruction on gerunds with students who could barely distinguish a noun from a verb. As an ESL teacher, I have to do a lot of work on verb tenses especially
irregular verbs. CCCS offer no guidance on my instructional issues.
And, of course, explicit instruction in recognition of these forms has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with acquisition of competence in using them. If the authors of the standards knew anything at all of language acquisition (duh, there is actually a body of relevant science), they would have known this.
Hey, AFT—Nobody puts Duncan in a corner!!!
AFT is his towel boy, when he sweats a game with Big O.
TAGO!
Towel boy! I love it! Should we call him TB?
AFT is towel boy to Duncan and Clinton.
So, the AFT, under Randi Weingarten’s “leadership,” has continued in its support for the Common Core.
Two questions:
1. Is the Common Core really ” dying the death of a thousand cuts?”
2. Will this blog continue to laud Randi Weingarten for taking small “incremental steps” that do nothing to stop Common Core implementation?
One wonders about the genesis of this particular move.
An interesting resolution on contingent faculty:
http://www.aft.org/about/resolution_detail.cfm?articleid=19602
The full text of the CCSS resolution:
http://www.aft.org/about/resolution_detail.cfm?articleid=19597
The unions are both missing the point on standards: as long as they are linked to age-based cohorts their implementation will be measured using summative assessments instead of formative assessments. If public schools and politicians adopted the late Ron Edmunds’ premise that all children can learn given sufficient time and appropriate instruction we would abandon the notions that time is a constant, there is “one best way” to teach children, and tests are a means to measure group performance as opposed to individual progress.
The real magical thinking in public education is that all children can learn a fixed set of standards in a fixed amount to time using a teacher-proof curriculum that can be delivered by someone with little or no classroom experience.
With this resolution and a token, you can get on the NYC subway.
I am so tired of all of the discourse at this time.
Firing Weingarten and Duncan is all that’s left
with their “racketeering” with Gates around the Common Core.
This must be illegal to conspire against the Constitution,
the right of the States to determine the role of education.
“Randi the Racketeer”
While I’m disgusted by the AFT’s acceptance and endorsement of the CCSS, I have to say that the “Fire Duncan” mantra won’t do anything. As was said by Mercedes: Obama will just replace him with another yes man.
I agree with the AFT’s slant on the Duncan issue. Instead of getting rid of the token figurehead, insist that Obama (who’s doing what he’s told, as well) direct Duncan to create new guidelines that follow a more rational educational approach.
Regarding:
” Rejecting low-level standardized testing in favor of assessments aligned with rich curricula that encourage the kind of higher-order thinking and performance skills students need;”
Hasn’t anyone but teachers heard of Piaget’s work? Piaget was to cognitive development as Darwin was to the origin of species. Both based their work on careful observation, thought and reasoning. Later, as science and technology improved, it corroborated the work of both men. And in Piaget’s case, there is evidence that the various stages proceed without being skipped, and that those “higher-order” thinking skills begin to develop (sometimes) in adolescence and continued through one’s adult life (sometimes). Unfortunately, there is evidence that some never reach this highest level of cognitive development.
To suggest that the introduction of curricula designed to encourage these higher-order thinking and performance skills that “students need”, without consideration and realization of their current stage of intellectual development, can in fact make them happen before the child, especially the very young, has the capability to accomplish these tasks is utter nonsense.
By using tests administered to age-based cohorts as evidence of learning schools are effectively precluded from using developmental psychology as the basis for instruction. If some third graders lack the cognitive skills required to master some of the elements tested by the common core— TOO BAD! Time to move on! Oh… and it’s the TEACHER’S fault because they neglected to follow the prescribed curriculum developed by the testing company. Schools will not focus on developmental psychology as long as time is constant and they cannot use developmental psychology so long as “accountability” is defined by scores on tests administered to age-cohorts.
Well said. A very, very important point.
I have been saying this for a while. My son, who struggles with math, had the new CC math as a freshman. I hired some of my old students, who were juniors taking AP Calculus, to tutor him. Several times, my students told me that they were doing the same concept in AP Calculus, at the same time, as my son was doing. Not only is it questionable that ALL students need to have calculus concepts, but forcing them on freshman, most of whom haven’t hit the abstract reasoning stage yet, is ridiculous.
In writing a blog post based on the AFT’s positions, I noted that many of the commenters to your blog decry Bill Gates’ involvement in the development of the standards and believe his desire to “reform” public schools is avaricious. I am not sure that Bill Gates is advocating the implementation of de facto national standards to make money— I am open to the possibility that he and his fellow “reformers” sincerely believe that schooling can become better if the current model is standardized and made more efficient. The standardization-and-efficiency model worked for him in the computer industry and works in all hierarchical organizations and factories. Schooling, however, is more like organic farming: it requires varied time depending on the climate and varied nutriments depending on the soil…. Bill Gates and the “reformers” want to create schools that are like “efficient” factory farms that use chemicals and genetically modified seeds to grow crops and keep drugged livestock penned into cramped quarters to provide cheap poultry and meat. It is the “reformer’s” new cult of efficiency¹ that is defining the direction of public education… not the teachers… and the magical thinking of the first two decades of our century is no different than the magical thinking a century ago when the first wave of efficiency began.
Gates has admitted in more than one interview that he supports CC in order to bring education “to scale” to “unleash powerful market forces.”
“. . . new cult of efficiency. . . ”
May I assume that the hyperscript 1 is a reference to “Education and the Cult of Efficiency” by Ray Callahan. Although 50 years old it is an excellent history (prior to 1960) of businessmen’s many attempts at creating an “efficient” educational system. It should be required reading for all educators.
You got it… apologies! When I pasted from my post it didn’t show up on the box on Diane’s web page… it was one of the most compelling books I read in graduate school in the early 1970s… I think a reprise is in order! Maybe “Education and the Cult of Efficiency 2.0”
I reproduce most of a comment I made on this blog 7/2/2014. I suggest reading it in conjunction with the Lyndsey Layton interview with Bill Gates where he asserts [that’s the quote at the bottom] that there is no connection between Microsoft and CCSS.
I got the following from a posting on this blog, 3/5/2014, “Microsoft and Pearson Join Forces to Create Common Core Curriculum: Are you $urprised?”
The link below was included and accesses an announcement of 2/20/2014:
[start quote]
Today Pearson announced a collaboration with Microsoft Corp. that brings together the world’s leading learning company and the worldwide leader in software, services and solutions to create new applications and advance a digital education model that prepares students to thrive in an increasingly personalized learning environment. The first collaboration between the two global companies will combine Pearson’s Common Core System of Courses with the groundbreaking capabilities of the Windows 8 touchscreen environment. The Common Core System of Courses is the first curriculum built for a digital personalized learning environment that is 100 percent aligned to the new standards for college and career readiness.
“Pearson has accelerated the development of personalized digital learning environments to improve educational outcomes as well as increase student engagement,” said Larry Singer, Managing Director for Pearson’s North American School group. “Through this collaboration with Microsoft, the global leader in infrastructure and productivity tools for schools, we are creating a powerful force for helping schools leverage this educational model to accelerate student achievement and, ultimately, ensure that U.S. students are more competitive on the global stage.”
“Personalized learning for every student is a worthy and aspirational goal. By combining the power of touch, type, digital inking, multitasking and split-screen capabilities that Windows 8 with Office 365 provides with these new Pearson applications, we’re one step closer to enabling an interactive and personalized learning environment,” said Margo Day, vice president, U.S. Education, Microsoft Corp. “We’re in the middle of an exciting transformation in education, with technology fueling the movement and allowing schools to achieve this goal of personalized learning for each student.”
In addition, iLit, Pearson’s core reading program aimed at closing the adolescent literacy gap, will be optimized for the Windows 8 platform. Designed based on the proven instructional model found in the Ramp Up Literacy program, which demonstrated students gaining two years of growth in a single year, iLit offers students personalized learning support based on their own instructional needs, engaging interactivities, and built-in reward systems that motivate students and track their progress.
[end quote]
Link: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1748922#ixzz2uLL0Nx7J
So “There’s no connection to Common Core in any Microsoft thing”—
Rheally!
But not really.
But then in some ways Bill is just an old fashioned fella.
“In ancient times they had no statistics so they had to fall back on lies.” [Stephen Leacock]
Duncan is the Mouth (though he is stupid, he can repeat stuff), Obama is the Face (equally appealing to blacks and whites, and lets not forget, our first black president), Gates is the true architect (with his software programs and $$$), and the billionaire boys club is happy to throw money at its pet project, and the Michelle Rheeject as its battering ram, and certainly, definitely, the UNIONS have been paid. Period.
Money talks, and BS walks – this BS can keep walking with a few kicks and punches from the masses who are waking up in droves to fight the BS.
The union should take heed – with its positions on this, it very well may lose members, and money as such, and the donations it takes from the privatizers will have worked. They want the union gone. Perhaps pitting the union members against the union will be the nail in the union’s coffin. The hedge funds have hedged their bets.
Love your similes…Well said… and you are right…the unions should take heed that the oligarchs want the unions gone, and thus, if they do not begin to represent the members in a real way, they will lose.
The AFT should take a look at how many states are pulling out of CCSS and PARCC. They should also read legislative statements providing reasons for withdrawing state support: http://d214ea.org/ea/node/198.
http://gerriksonger.wordpress.com/2014/05/04/teaching-to-the-common-core/ccss/
Click to access IL%20SRO638.pdf
Click to access IL%20HR0543.pdf
We need meaningful standards: success-promoting /foundation building from the ground up. Socially/emotionally centered and appropriate from step one…building as students progress.
To have my own union leaders wed to inappropriate standards created by non-educators, using a pie-in-the-sky skills standard for students ready to enter a four-year college degree program (with the old NCLB psycho-assumption that that’s what 100% of students should be ready for), than back-spreading it down (again, not building it up)…
Unfortunately, there is also money and there are also relationships and infrastructures involved in keeping union leaders in power and willing to concede what’s right for mere survival or pretend relevance.
Reverend Dr. William Barber’s appearance at the convention was moving, and should be a call to Union leaders to get with their people…not try to get their people with them.
“We need meaningful standards. . .”
NO! We don’t!!
As a concept standards imply, indeed require, measurement and the teaching and learning process isn’t amenable to measurement.
We need meaningful curriculum that is age/grade/subject appropriate developed and/or selected by the teachers from, ideally, Bob S’s concept of an open source educational wiki and or any other sources the teacher deems necessary.
I too, feel that Dr. William Barber was amazing and moving.
I also feel that the leaders of the AFT are disconnected from their membership. I have not met a teacher yet, who does not support having high standards. However, the majority of classroom teachers do not approve of the CCSS. Perhaps, Randi and the lot should go back into the classroom and get some first hand expirience with the CCSS and their implimentation. It wouldn’t take long for them to see what the rest of us see!
I am disappointed and frustrated……..
Teachers are drowning in a sea of standards, not only the 1620 in the CCSS but those in the sciences, engineering, the arts, financial literacy, and so on. The authors of the CCSS had tunnel vision, not anything like a coherent philosophy of education with reasoning about what is worth knowing beyond getting a job and getting ready for college. Even those claims are based on sloppy thinking and research making the promise of college and career a gigantic set of lies. The writers of the CCSS seemed to assume that studies in all other subjects could be taken care of via the selection of ” informational’ texts.”
Such points are extraordinarily important but get ALMOST NO public discussion. Again and again and again, there are absolute howlers in these “standards” that betray lack of experience and understanding on the part of the standards’ authors.
If teachers want parents to act–to opt out, to support the teaching profession, etc–they need to remember that parents often take their cue from teachers. Teachers are the insiders, they have knowledge we don’t have, and our school days (in spite of reformer efforts to discredit teachers) have taught us to respect the authority of teachers.
As a parent, I am encouraged and empowered by organizations like the Chicago Teachers Union and so many of the commentator/teachers here on Diane’s blog.
The AFT action–not so much.
I would dearly love to see a focus on resources as well. I believe that especially in the middle grades, teachers are having to make up their own resources, with mixed success. It’s hit and miss as to what skills get taught and what get ignored.
We need well-constructed exercises and teacher guides that can help us focus our planning and ensure that we’re covering the whole scope of knowledge skills and attitudes in an appropriate sequence. These resources help us align curriculum in our schools, and facilitate continuous progress.
And a last thought: It seems that people are clamouring for better teacher evaluation. Effective teacher evaluation requires that there be ongoing interaction between the teacher and the evaluator. Administrators (themselves teachers) need to be trained on how to evaluate teaching, and they need to be given time to visit classrooms. A second pair of eyes can facilitate effective goal setting and professional development.
Have your administrators facilitated your development lately? Ours are largely adept at a gotcha type game.
Fortunately, the vast majority of our administrators put teacher evaluation very low on the priority list. We have teachers who go through the bulk of their careers without being evaluated more than a handful if times. Where problems exist, admin is closer to the situation, but principals and VPs are very respectful of our autonomy and our needs. All of them are teachers first. And they simply don’t have enough time to evaluate everyone.
Wow…where do you live/teach, miner49er (San Fran, I guess)? That’s definitely to the case, here in NYC.
Totally disagree, give me a classroom with no resources, I will find them as long as I have a library. Then teachers can “choose” their own text book as a group. This idea of knowledge skills and appropriate sequence is deadening. they will learn the skills that transpire in their writing. teachers are conditioned to be helpless.
Agreed, Joseph. I’ve been sent to many workshops that were either trying to sell curricula or previewing what had already been bought by our NYCDOE, over the years.
One thing that became more and more prevalent since about the year 2000 was (and still is) the mantra of, “…and you don’t have to do ANYTHING! It’s all scripted out for you”, complete with texts, workbooks, etc. Aligned with the standards. As though this was a great thing.
I questioned this, as it became more pervasive, and was told I could use the “differentiation component”.
I’ve been concerned for the past decade or more about how this will effect young teacher’s abilities to actually “teach”, without the aid of outside curriculum writing/testing sources. There are so many things to deal with that are outside of the script. The reliance on technology makes it even that much more disconcerting. What happens when the system’s “down”? What skills does the teacher have to fall back on?
CCSS are a Mcmansion not the Parthenon. Bulldoze them. Someone left that cake out in the rain. Pitch it.
I do indeed agree with the resolution’s call for “[r]ejecting low-level standardized testing in favor of assessments aligned with rich curricula that encourage the kind of higher-order thinking and performance skills students need” (from the posting above).
But let’s be practical and hard-headed about this. In a comment of 3:24 AM, 7-14-14, Bob Shepherd writes in this thread: “The authors of these ‘standards’ clearly meant by the word ‘standard’ an outcome to be measured, for that’s what these ‘standards’ are–a list of the outcomes that will be tested on the national test.”
This is a clear, truthful and sober statement, verified by no less than Dr. Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, a charter member of the education establishment and an articulate member of the $tudent $ucce$$ status quo:
[start quote]
In truth, the idea that the Common Core might be a “game-changer” has little to do with the Common Core standards themselves, and everything to do with stuff attached to them, especially the adoption of common tests that make it possible to readily compare schools, programs, districts, and states (of course, the announcement that one state after another is opting out of the two testing consortia is hollowing out this promise).
But the Common Core will only make a dramatic difference if those test results are used to evaluate schools or hire, pay, or fire teachers; or if the effort serves to alter teacher preparation, revamp instructional materials, or compel teachers to change what students read and do. And, of course, advocates have made clear that this is exactly what they have in mind. When they refer to the “Common Core,” they don’t just mean the words on paper–what they really have in mind is this whole complex of changes.
[end quote]
Link: http://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/the-american-enterprise-institute-common-core-and-good-cop/
Dr. Hess is spot on. Bob Shepherd is spot on. The AFT resolution attempts to borrow the misleading rhetoric of the self-styled “education reformers” in order to rescue CCSS from itself—and in the process, to rescue the reputation and self-respect of early AFT promoters of CCSS.
With all due respect, the resolution contains a poison pill. It can easily be spun by the political/education/MSM establishment. How? As an acknowledgment by the AFT that those infamous lazy LIFO teachers and their “union bosses” [thugs, anyone?] haven’t been doing their jobs up to now—I mean, look at all the remediation and upgrading we have to do to make up for decades and decades of incompetence and neglect!—but that even when pressed to finally demonstrate even a smidgeon of dedication and care and “high expectations” they whine and stall and complain and sabotage.
Let me end by restating what to me, at least, is obvious: the CCSS are incompatible with excellence and high standards and critical thinking and creativity and a host of other things. They don’t need to be revamped.
They need to be thrown overboard. Putting the baby of public education in the poisoned waters of CCSS and its conjoined high-stakes standardized testing is like immersing an infant in water laced with highly toxic chemicals.
We don’t need a little lotion for the baby’s skin, or a little more water to slightly dilute the poisonous liquid, or to lower the baby into the tub a little more slowly and gently.
The Titanic of CCSS is boring full steam ahead for the iceberg of colossal nationwide failure on an unprecedented scale. Rearranging the chairs on the decks ain’t gonna do the trick. An entirely new course is in order.
Just my dos centavitos worth…
😎
P.S. Bob Shepherd: I was inspired to write the last part after reading your comments on figurative language. If I failed to do an adequate job, well, go figure [a numbers/stats joke], I’m just your average local neighborhood KrazyTA.
What do I know?
We will be forwarding you a Figurative Language Rubric KrazyTA. Looks good to me, but I am a pre-Common Core product.
Again, “21st century skills…” is mere hooey describing that which is needed to work for…Walmart.
I am thankful that our daughter is an adult long out of the clutches of K-12 education.
That having been said, I will NOT give up on continued pushback to preserve public education as it was prescribed in a democratic America.
Yes, WE can…and we WILL.