A comment on the blog today:
“Common Core was imposed on teachers by non-educators. We were fed a lot of mistruths along the way, as well. However, there would be no backlash if the CC founders gave us an educationally sound reform package. We are rejecting CC primarily because the standards in ELA are un-teachable and un-testable, abstract and subjective thinking skills – essentially content free, the math standards are the SOS shifted around in developmentally inappropriate ways using unnecessarily confusing pedagogy, and the tests tied to teacher evaluations have become the epitome of educational malpractice. Furthermore, the notion of producing educational excellence with standards that cannot be changed, altered, deleted, or improved, is insult to our profession. And until the ESEA is dealt with by Congress, we are stuck inside a very deep hole, whether we support the CC or not.”
We could talk about common core (btw you give me much hope) but I think we also need to talk about how disheartened and demoralized most teachers are. I plan to leave after this year, after 14 years with lausd – many very brutal and heart breaking. I just can’t watch the kids get more and more coddled (for fear if lawsuits) and less and less educated and more and more like zombies everyday. Hope? Lost. #sorrynotsorry
Peace, beats and beauty sleep,
Rebecca Cherkoss Actor/Writer/DJ http://www.realtalkgirlz.com http://www.rebeccacherkoss.com
Now in Pre-Production for Season 3… “REAL TALK GIRLZ” Follow The Girlz on Instagram @therealtalkgirlz Follow The Girlz on Twitter|TUMBLR|Vine @realtalkgirlz YouTube Channel: http://bit.ly/1qCHpYn
>
DJSallty.. I think you address a very REAL issue and common core standards is the “icing on the cake”. I thank god I work in a school with a sense of community. The beginning of the year before the students arrive is now not a time of excitement despite this. It is mired in endless nonsensical bureaucracy. I cannot wait for the students to arrive this year because THEY remind me (amidst the haze of website links to more and more bureaucrat stuff including data from all ends (including data tracking me and colleagues), PD’s on line, paperwork and deadlines that must be completed on line on sites that are slow or do not work well, changes from everything that was “new and improved” last year.. and it goes on and just gets worse. I cannot wait to see the kids because they are the reason I got into teaching and they remind me of why I am a teacher. I want what is best for these kids. I am disheartened that I am being more and more MEGA MANAGED (this is highly disrespectful to me and my fellow teachers. I am less and less able to use my professional knowledge and this is like death by a thousand cuts. I am disheartened to spend SO MUCH TIME ON EVERYTHING THAT HAS NO BEARING ON CHILDREN. I am disheartened by attending PD’s from outsider consultants (as nice as they may be) who just have no real connection to my local community and who come to preach “the ed reform” gospel of the day du rigeur. But I keep those kids in mind all the time because I want the best for them. I understand your sentiments… yes.. common core just adds to THE PILE. Common core to me is like asking students to suddenly think when all the top-down policy leading up to common core has told them NOT TO THINK. Ughhhhh.
“We are rejecting CC primarily because the standards in ELA are un-teachable and un-testable, abstract and subjective thinking skills – essentially content free…” Bazinga! The twofold-problem is first, teachers and parents didn’t hear quite clearly that we were now teaching STANDARDS. Their minds made the leap to teaching TO the standards, which was not the case at all. It is on full display in the mind-numbing power points on engageNY and in the videos of teachers having students haul out the standards and actually focus on the standards in a lesson at the beginning of each lesson. Every engageNY ELA module begins with this approach. At the high school level, students do Assigned Independent Reading (AIR- an unfortunate acronym, because air suggests nothing…so) based on standards. For example, “Turn to your partner and discuss how standard X was shown in your reading.” Yeah, that is how any high school student reads a novel! The second problem is closely related: there is no emphasis on content. There is no notion of American literature or British literature or any canon, for that matter. The modules and the lessons are connected by the standards, and only the standards. When teachers, parents, and students started seeing this, they balked. In addition, the graphic nature and irreverent language and copyright violations of some of the pieces promoted were inappropriate in more conservative communities (copyright violations are obviously problematic in all districts). And then there was the excerpting of Shakespeare so that 17 lessons instead could be spent on one short story. The devil was in the details. At least in NY.
In my school, we are required to post the standards that apply to the lesson for every class, every day. No joke.
In my state (Michigan), we are required to submit what standards we taught during an observation. No joke.
Your comments on the “content-free” nature of the CCSS really struck home for me. Especially since I also teach AP European History where Lord Coleman has assumed authority.
The new AP History curriculum guide is virtually content-free. It tests the kids “ability to think like historians.” The problem is that the questions are so difficult (or at leas the exemplars they’ve revealed) that students are doing college upperclassmen thinking. This class is designed to replace a survey intro freshman history course.
The prior AP was too content driven. The new AP is to skill driven. Plus, the new curriculum document claims that we don’t have to teach as much content and then proceeds to tell us to still teach everything in a massive concept outline.
AP is destroying itself with this one. Once word gets around that these tests are crazy hard, the number of kids paying to take those tests will drop hugely.
AP is very much designed to align with CCSS. It’s all of these abstract thinking skills with very little concrete knowledge. (Note: Adults think kids can simply look up any information they want on their phones and tablets. That’s a fantasy. If they can’t find it on Wikipedia, even the smart ones are stuck. Knowledge and information still matter. It isn’t only about skills.)
This is a comment from Susan Schwartz. For whatever reason, WordPress would not post it, so she asked me to post it for her.
From Susan Schwartz:
Exactly. I have been saying this for a decade.
It is an insult to our profession, but when tied to the total abrogation our due process rights as my story, which you all know here, demonstrates… as does the thousands of stories that abound at
http://www.endteacher abuse .com.
like this one
http://www.endteacherabuse.org/Stremcha.html: which will be the story behind “Bravery, Bullies and Blowhards,” Lorna Stremcha’s story, when her book is finally published. You cannot know how hard it is to publish the REAL story of abuse to a teacher.. I have often linked to Lorna here, because her treatment was not merely the opposite of professional, she was set up , by the principal to be sexually assaulted.
The inability of this teacher to get justice, and the legal fight in the courts that would not have been necessary if her rights to due process had been SUPPORTED BY THE MONTANA UNION, is here:
nycrubberroomreporter.blogspot.com/2013/10/lorna-stremcha-and-her-rubber-room.html
and her testimony, incase you missed it on the other posts is
http:///watch?v=nfNxj-O1DiI
Lorna’s experience and mine
are merely 2 that have never been investigated by journalists of media, and both, merely the tip of the iceberg, none-the-less demonstrate not merely an unprofessional attitude to teachers, they point to the utter contempt that these new top-down mangers — who call themselves principals and superintendents –have, for Americans who happen to be teachers… education, successful practice, dedication and talent NOTWITHSTANDING!!!
http://www.speakingasateacher.com/SPEAKING_AS_A_TEACHER/The_Insane_War_on_Teachers_and_Democracy.html
http://www.speakingasateacher.com/SPEAKING_AS_A_TEACHER/No_Rules_or_Regulations.html
http://www.perdaily.com/2011/01/lausd-et-al-a-national-scandal-of-enormous-proportions-by-susan-lee-schwartz-part-1.html
…and that, is MY 2 cents!
“In my school, we are required to post the standards that apply to the lesson for every class, every day. No joke.”
My district and building haven’t gone that far. Yet. We just have to have our learning targets posted clearly and in “student friendly” language. I got chided once for using “calculate” instead of “find” in a target for an *honors* class. I think we’re theoretically supposed to be able to tell admin what standards that day’s lesson is addressing, though I’ve never been asked that and, thank god, do not work in a district or building where we have to file lesson plans.
However, our VP in charge of curriculum decided that we needed to revamp our syllabuses. He was probably right; some of them referred to requirements from laws that expired more than a decade ago. He declared that every course syllabus needs to list the standards addressed during the year. I and another teacher worked on the syllabus for Algebra 2. The list of standards is four full pages of small, single-spaced text. And that is after we decided to stick to just the “cluster level” and remove examples. Before that decision to edit, the list was seven pages long. This all in a document to be given to students and parents. We could not convince him that no student or parent cared that they would be working on Standard A-SSE 3a.
Our district has fully embraced CCSS and education-as-business, at least at admin and above. Last year we took had to take a survey about “customer service”. The principal did not react well to being asked who the customers were because teachers have students, not customers.
Steve K,
We have to post standards in NJ for each class and for observations. We also have to devise kid friendly I can statements. It is a total waste of time.
When they started that in my school, I obliged. But, as I was teaching Spanish, I posted ’em in Spanish. When my department head, who was unconvinced of the usefulness of this exercise, came by to observe, she told me that she would note that I had them written down, but she couldn’t comment on their appropriateness because she didn’t speak Spanish. Presumably, she could still evaluate my teaching, done in Spanish.
“. . . we were now teaching STANDARDS.”
How the hell does one teach “Standards”?????
Exactly. How do we inform parents that teaching standards, not content, is the focus of CCSS? No one in the mainstream media is covering this, yet it is all over engageNY and other sites as well. If my kids were in elemtary or middle school, I would want to know why they weren’t learning “things,” why instead they were learning standards, because that won’t get you to a 4-year college let alone beyond. This message needs to be spread during this election cycle.
One cannot teach a standard, but one teaches well and teaches the content to meet that standard.
While I agree with the concept of a common national core, I loathe the process that led up to the CCSS because it was anything but scholarly and democratic.
But don’t we have standards every day in our lives, Duane?
Isn’t there a reason why you don’t throw your pots and pans on your living floor after making a great pasta with zucchini dish? It’s because you uphold a certain standard of cleanliness and common knowledge of upkeep.
Isn’t there a reason that if you buy a dozen tomatoes from the local supermarket and you find each one to be rotten inside once cut open, you return them to the store to exchange or get your money back. That’s because you have a certain standard about what an acceptable tomato should be like for consumption.
We create and assess standards every day, many times a day, officially and unofficially, consciously and unconsciously. If we did not, there would be no discernment and no discrimination, and THAT would lead to chaos. When we cross the street, we have to be able to apply and live up to a certain standard in order to prevent from getting hit by a car.
I think in the case of educational standards, their actual content is legitimately very controversial and the consequences of their usage is objectionable. How could they not be?
Standards to me are not the problem. It is how and why they are being used as well as how well they are developed with all kinds of learning styles and mindsets involved. THAT’s the problem . . . . .
But in America, we rarely do anything really well except take money, set up systems for creating businesses, marketing, convinving, hooking, and selling. We are a mercantile cutlure. The customer is KING and the citizen is a very weak afterthought.
But we were never sold on the CCSS, and reading Mercede’s investigation on how it came to be says everything about how not serious the government is about education. Having great intentions with no real competence in the exectuion of those intentions is as good as pure corruption and decay in my book . . . . . .
Robert,
What you are calling “standards”, I would call expectations.
Part of the problem is that the word standard has a few meanings that are related but at the same time distinct. The term standard as used in public education discourse these days is different than you usage/examples here. Your usage appears to pertain to (from google dictionary) 1.
a level of quality or attainment.
“their restaurant offers a high standard of service”
synonyms: quality, level, grade, caliber, merit, excellence
“the standard of her work”
[or]
a required or agreed level of quality or attainment.
“half of the beaches fail to comply with EPA standards”
synonyms: guideline, norm, yardstick, benchmark, measure, criterion, guide, touchstone, model, pattern, example, exemplar
“a safety standard”
Now if it pertains to a “level” how does one determine that level? What does “level” mean in relation to the teaching and learning process? Not only that but also standard contains the element of “agreed level” which further complicates what a standard is.
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has strict guidelines concerning the definition and formation of standards:
What is a standard?
A standard is a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose.
[and]
How does ISO develop standards?
An ISO standard is developed by a panel of experts, within a technical committee. Once the need for a standard has been established, these experts meet to discuss and negotiate a draft standard. As soon as a draft has been developed it is shared with ISO’s members who are asked to comment and vote on it. If a consensus is reached the draft becomes an ISO standard, if not it goes back to the technical committee for further edits. Click on the diagram below for further details.
For more details see: http://www.iso.org/iso/home.html
There has never been any “standard” process as identified by the ISO (the premiere “standard” organization) in the CCSS or for that matters any prior state standards, although the state standard processes have approached the ISO standard for standards (sorry, couldn’t help that one-ha ha).
But the problem goes even deeper in that the teaching and learning process is not amenable to standardization, mainly due to the fact that no one student is the same as any other. And public education is not a manufacturing process (I know you know that RR) but one of allowing, getting, cajoling, teaching the students to develop their capabilities whatever they may be, and those capabilities are many and varied.
I am still fleshing this argument out but it seems to me that the connotations of the word standard are what cause many problems in our discussion of them as one person means one thing, another another thing and yet another something else, so that there is no “standard” definition/usage of standard.
And again it comes down to the fact that the term standard implies some sort of measuring and not only that but agreed upon measuring of the standard.
There is no such thing in the teaching and learning process, never has and never will be.
Perhaps we should go back to the words, goals, objectives, expectations, activities all of which appear to be subsumed within the current usage of standards.
To me using the term standards as it is used is very sloppy at best and intentionally misleading at worst.
If the standard states: Students will edit their own work….you teach the skills that go along with that standard. The standard is just the objective. I am not against Standards,,,,NYS had a pretty good set of standards. What I am against is the CC and following the booklets that go with it. At least with the former standards, I could develop my own lesson.
I disagree with you Robert only on the point of intentions. The intentions of the reformers are less than honorable.
NJ Teacher,
I am not understanding you all the way. If you disagree with me on this point, well, I believe I never made the point. I like the idea behind a common core, but I have criticized the people and process used to develop the one we currently use. I have cited this to be non-democratic, if you read my comment closely.
I never said or implied that the reformers who came up with our CCSS are honorable. In fact, far too many reformers are dishonorable, although not all. But I have a theory that the further up the power ladder you go, the more disconnected and corrupt a reformer is.
Was that what you meant? I’m not clear.
Duane, I understand and agree with what you are saying, but are we dealing with semantics a bit?
Your response strongly suggests that the current development, criteria, and utilization of standards are questionable, if not downright objectionable. I don’t completely disagree with that, and that’s what I posed in my comments.
But the idea of an objective, non-politicized development and use of standards as a tool for educators is something that can be empowering for them and the student.
I have been studying French and (journalistic) Spanish for the last two years using a variety of tools and approaches. I sense that I am coming closer to the standard that I want, but that I am not at all there yet. But I need that standard always to constantly tell me where I am so that I know where to go. Of course, if I were not motivated to master both language, the standard would mean nothing.
But in my case, no one gets punished or maligned.
Teachers and leaders in education do . . . . .
Robert,
Yes to a degree it is semantics. More likely to a large degree. But then again semantics is a part of the political process and I’m one to believe that much of social interaction involves the political. The edudeformers use language in such a way as to obfuscate, not to clarify, to semantically change the meanings of words to satisfy their agenda. And “standard” is very much at the top of that list of words.
Your usage of standard as in “But I need that standard always to constantly tell me where I am so that I know where to go.” is of the edudeformer mode (and I know your not part of that), that is, an undefined usage of the term. How can anyone be against a standard? (Wilson delves into this more deeply). What do you mean by “the standard you want to move closer to”?
Is it the Royal Academies version of French and Spanish? Is it to basically “handle”-speak, listen, write and read in a fashion that gets you by? Which Spanish and French standard are you referring to. What I am getting at here is that there is no agreed upon “STANDARD” in this situation and there are many variations of what is commonly acceptable in French and Spanish.
Like I say I’m still “fleshing this concept out”. Thanks for the opportunity to help me help myself to do so with this conversation. Hopefully, this helps!
Duane, I mean the standard I would like to move closer to, in a ridiculously simplified example, would be instead of saying, “Cual tiempo es?” or “No me gusta que ella sabe como escribir en frances”, I would be saying, “Que hora es?” or “No me gusta que ella sepa como escribir en frances.”
All forms were intelligible, but only two of those forms were correct and standard use of Spanish and made instant sense. A native speaker would not question, probably, the grammar in the last two utterances, but maybe only my accent. In the first two, a native speaker might questions or not be at ease with all of it.
Thus, the standard is not “telling” me what to do, as reformers are bascially prescribing to us what we real educators should do, but a standard is something we should strive to achieve, with no doubt in my mind.
The question becomes there is a difference between excellence in teaching and striving and a gurantee that all will achieve such excellence as put forth by NCLB and not RttT.
Guarantees in effort and professionalism are NOT the same as guarantees of a score. But reformers don’t see it that way because very few of them have actually ever taught or have backgrounds in education or have dealt with low income children (who DO learn brilliantly, I might add!).
It’s the blind leading the visually capable. . . . That’s America.
So while politicians are busy telling teachers how to do their jobs, about which they have no clue, and trying take away teachers’ rights and pensions, they are busy not doing their own jobs, such as not reauthorizing ESEA and filibustering their way to do-nothingness regarding virtually every other bill. Meanwhile, they are racking up hefty pensions themselves. Maybe it’s not a lot of money to some, but they are vested after only 5 years of service and the minimum pension averages 4 times what I’m getting in Social Security after over four decades of work. And now they are on a break –from what I cannot possibly imagine. And the clincher is that WE are paying for all this nonsense.
‘Cause the CCSS are stupid.
A bit off topic but close enough.
Can someone point to any research that “proves” that posting objectives in the classroom everyday leads to a better teaching and learning process or, perhaps that it doesn’t make any difference?
My first observation, I got told I needed to post my objectives for students to see, despite my supervising admin telling me, “But whenever I asked a student, they knew what they were working on.”
It is profitable for the dry erase marker business.
Something tells me I’ll be getting a letter over this crap. I wonder if “Begin to Learn Spanish” will be a good enough “objective”.
Just figured it out. I’ll write one set objectives in Spanish and tack them onto the wall, that way the admin won’t have any clue
And Danielson and Mariano.
Duane,
Your beginning to learn Spanish objective is too broad and needs to be specifically tailored to meet the needs of your students. A laser like focus on your learning targets will result in greater student growth over the course of the school year.
Do I have a shot at administration?
I would hate to see that research. Is this really new? We’ve had to post standards off and on (yes, you must! No, the union says they can’t make you! You don’t have to post them, but an observer has to know what standard your lesson addresses!) for at least a decade in CA. Of course, they’re for Math and English, so this may not apply to Duane. That’s why when some of you are complaining that the standards are vague, I am secretly thinking Thank Heavens. It is so much easier that way to justify teaching what I think needs to be taught.
I find this one quite open-ended: CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.7.3
Analyze how particular elements of a story or drama interact (e.g., how setting shapes the characters or plot).
As long as we have a story, this should work…
I’ve been blogging about working my way through the EngageNY 6-8 ELA modules, at least some of them.
http://teachthefantastic.blogspot.com
This is a vampire curriculum. It sucks the joy out of reading literature.
You are absolutely correct. What have we done to public education? Many of us were educated in the public school system without all the bells and whistles of today and many of us did just fine: doctors, nurses, attorneys, teachers, shall I continue?
“Furthermore, the notion of producing educational excellence with standards that cannot be changed, altered, deleted, or improved, is insult to our profession.” Yes! And why on earth do people who usually worship at the altar of “creative disruption” think that unchanging, unchangeable, set-in-stone standards are a good idea? What software business, to take one example, would release a product and then never, ever change it or improve it — no 2.0, no 3.0, etc.? Why do the same organizations and media outlets that enthuse about “21st century learning” want standards that never evolve?
That’s the problem, Duane. There is NO RESEARCH to show anything. Those “kid friendly” standards had to be posted every day and for EVERY SUBJECT! What a waste of time they were.
For a reform movement that demands teacher effectiveness be proven using quantitative data, its amazing how many of their ideas have absolutely no data, no studies, or no research whatsoever to support their implementation.
“The standards in ELA are un-teachable and un-testable, abstract and subjective thinking skills – essentially content free…”
Wow, whoever wrote that comment really nailed it. It is so funny that in all the media debates there is never really any attempt to clarify exactly what the standards are.
It is also interesting that despite the ELA standards being so vague and content free (e.g. “Ask and answer questions to demonstrate understanding of a text”) the math goals are very specific. I work at a self-contained special education high school, so we have some leeway in selecting standards that are developmentally appropriate (although the administration still requires us to also include the corresponding high school “anchor” standard in all our lesson plans and bulletin boards). I would be interested to hear from general education math teachers about the appropriateness of the standards to their students’ level of development.
Finally, are history and science teachers supposed to use the reading informational text standards? For science, all I can find is a subsection under ELA, which is equally vague (e.g. “Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of science and technical texts, attending to the precise details of explanations or descriptions”). Shouldn’t there be specific content that all students should know such Newton’s three laws of motion and the concepts of genetics and inheritance?
Nimbus is right: lots of people use the language “teach the standard”. As if they knew how to do this! People don’t realize that they’re on incredibly shaky ground when they claim they know how to get kids to reach these ELA standards. Sure you can give kids practice at “contrasting two authors’ viewpoints” in a contrived classroom setting with scaffolding, but is repeated practice like this certain to empower a kids to be able to do this independently and in a wide-variety of situations? Will taking away the scaffolding, as Coleman proposed, do the trick? I don’t think anyone really knows, yet we latch on to this “practice the skill” approach unthinkingly in a leap of faith that we don’t even realize is a huge leap of faith simply because it seems intuitively plausible, not because there’s any proof it works. Personally I think the true path to proficiency in these lofty ELA standards is not even on most teachers’ maps. I think the path is long and involves systematic building of background knowledge. Why? Because to contrast two authors, you first need to grasp what they’re saying. That’s a function of knowing the vocab and knowing something about the subject. That knowledge comes from a rich curriculum among other sources. Once kids grasp the texts, the contrasting part is easy. Contrasting is not something we need to teach –it’s something our brains do pretty much naturally. It’s absurd that so much Common Core material involves trying to teach these skills directly, as if they need to be taught! Teach analysis. Teach inference. It’s ludicrous. A three year old can do these things –on topics they know about. But having knowledge isn’t natural –it must be given to kids. There is no doubt about this, is there? And, lo and behold, knowledge IS something teachers can teach. And, lo and behold, this is what teachers were doing for 500,000 years…until John Dewey came along and “disrupted” education and said we’re in modern age now and everything needs to be different. What we teachers need to do if we want kids to have a chance at performing these skills adeptly is, counterintuitively, to give them abundant knowledge –the kind of knowledge that resides in the brains of Andover grads –not forcing their underfed brains to do lots of mental weightlifting. Counterintuitive as it may seem, that’s a recipe for mental weakness.
That’s the problem with the EngageNY curricula – there’s no content. It’s just skills. The kids aren’t learning anything.
I was hoping that “The Lightning Thief” would have a fair amount of mythology in it, but it doesn’t. All I’m seeing is text analysis. When I teach mythology I go for knowledge. The kids have to memorize the Twelve Olympians with their Greek and Roman names and know the meaning of a lot of myths. I even spend about three days telling them the story of “The Illiad” and “The Odyssey” without notes, giving them a little taste of how those stories were told back in Homer’s time. This EngageNY Common Core unit has none of this “engaging” material. It’s very dry.
Ponderosa, looks like we’ll have change those old Einstein posters:
“Contrasting and Comparing is Power”
So agree – ‘abundant knowledge ‘ is a great way to express what a good teacher does. I hate to even use the expression good teacher because that has been twisted by reformers. Content is king or should be at every grade level. Look at Europeon systems – I doubt they post standards – it is a waste of time and it is for administration – I put up one each for math and language arts each day even though lots of standards and skills are being taught . The principal can check off that it is up. I think if you are doing rich content these objectives come up as you teach and the students internalize them as they go.
Rich content is also interesting. It gets students involved. These text analysis skills are boring!
Ponderosa,
You summed up the whole problem. First of all, the children need to become readers. These artificial skills are meaningless. If readers can grapple with the content of the text, they will be able to have a robust discussion. When discussing a book with a friend, do you ever go through these tortuous steps?
FYI Re Nan Rich….Rita Solnet Ad for Nan…..https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=695944000454134&set=vb.100001156213252&type=2&theater
Posting standards for the lesson is unnatural. Doing so is a distraction to responsive teaching. Some days I feel like a robotic, artficial teacher reading scripted lessons. It’s like listening to a presenter reading from a power point. Boring…
To make matters worse, we’re suppoded to write a rubric. Must have been too tough for the CC staff to complete that part of their job. Right, have the teachers do it; wont hurt to give them one more thing to be accountable for. Well we’re tired of being a doormat. We reject being told how to teach by “experts” who claim to know what is best in educating childen. They can no longer pretend as the truth will prevail. It’s sad though that it took over a decade ruining careers and students potential. I thought long and hard about becoming a teacher because I felt it was too big of a responsibility
…thinking i could ruin kids lives but the reformers beat me to it.
The WONDERFUL thing about this fiasco called “common core” is that it can now serve as a very efficient litmus test when interviewing candidates for teaching and administrative positions. (That is, for school districts who actually want to hire educators who think and feel and who aren’t acting like robots.)
“So, what do YOU think of the “common core”?
“Well, it’s so rigorous and I’m so rigorous and, you know, rigor mortis is great, too…. and, gee, I just left my brain sitting in the car parked in the hot sun….”
Nope. No job for you.
Okay, so a certain amount of mindless sucking up seems to be prerequisite to get and hold onto a lot of jobs. But isn’t education meant to be different???
New York State has done a lot of great things in the past with its public schools.
This current fiasco has been a complete, total embarrassment.
“CuoMO….he’s got to GO!” (Imagine 100,000 teachers chanting that up in Albany.)
If only…..
-John O. (a one of many proud NY teachers)
What is SOS?
Something that the good ship Common Core shares with the R.M.S. Titanic?
“same old stuff” (I cleaned it up for decorum sake)
Here’ the list of inane, time wasting requirements in my school, none of which are supported by research or even the common sense acquired through experience in the classroom. Many of these requirements are dictates from NYSED because we are a “Focus” (formerly SINI) school district. Some of these are required through the Marzano rubric. Some are directly related to APPR teacher evaluation.
Post student learning objectives for the lesson/unit
Write a rubric for every graded activity
Maintain an evidence binder: a record of all professional interactions
Submit a student centered lesson plan (monthly)
Deliver PBIS mini-lessons
Use EngageNY teaching modules (ELA)
Pre and Post observation conferences and on-line feedback forms
Incorporate the “academic word of the day” into our lessons
Writing SLOs using EngageNY template
Write and administer local pre-tests and post tests including matching each test item with a corresponding standard (We are not allowed to grade these tests)
Recording all data for the processing of HEDI scoring (VAM calculations)
Robert Shepherd summed this insanity up so perfectly in a fairly recent post:
Every minute spent wasting time on such nonsense is a minute less teachers can devote to improving instruction in substantial and meaningful ways.
Agree agree agree – everything mentioned is a waste of precious time that could be used for students. Everything on your list is for administration to check off on and they are wasting their time doing the checking off.
Sorry. My list was incomplete. I forgot everyone’s favorite: the data wall.
Having a conversation with students would be far more meaningful than any of this crap. I am always amazed by what my students want to discuss. I had a heated discussion with an eighth grader on the pros and cons of a twelve year old girl having a baby!
Ugh, NY teacher. The data wall is horrific especially in elementary grades.
We just spent one school year in which we applied all of these prescriptions for academic success as measured by test scores. Our test scores did not improve.
Did we not just prove, using their very own metric, that none of these inane, time wasting, ridiculous prescriptions DO NOT WORK. Will they insist that we continue using these now disproved methods, strategies, and techniques? You can bet your 20 point HEDI score they will.
NYT,
What’s a HEDI score?
Thanks!
H = Highly effective
E = Effective
D = Developing
I = Ineffective
This is New York’s version of VAM ratings for all teachers except math and ELA.
We use pre-tests and post tests to determine our HEDI score with a max of 20 pts.
We have to administer TWO different tests, one local and one state at 20 points each; for a combined 40% of our evaluation score; the remaining 60 points come from formal and informal evaluations using the 44 Marzano rubrics. Improvement (growth or gain) is based on a formula that uses pre-test and post-test scores combined with the teachers prediction for improvement. It is so convoluted and mathematically absurd it would get a failing grade in an AP stats class. The state growth system determines academic improvement using “20 point growth bands”. To give you an example of just how ridiculous this is, Student A could gain 3 points on their post test and get credit for growth by moving from 58 (first growth band) to 61 (a new growth band). Student B could raise their post test score by18 points and get no credit for growth because they moved from a 51 to 69 – staying in the same growth band. So the teacher of Student A gets credit for being effective and the teacher of Student B does not. I kid you not Duane, this is the Twilight Zone and John King is our Rod Serling.
Correction. Student B would move from a 61 to a 79, a gain of 18% points. No credit for growth because she did not move into a new growth band; stuck in the 61 – 80 point band does not qualify as improvement. Incredulous is an understatement.
Growth Bands:
0 – 20
21 – 40
41 – 60
61 – 80
81 – 100
Correction. Math and ELA receive HEDI scores as well, they just don’t write SLOs or use the growth band formula. Their scores are calculated on an even more obtuse formula using the CC aligned math and ELA scores.
At high school level, math and ELA do write SLOs based on “growth.” If a school has chosen to use the CCSS-aligned algebra and English exams, then scores are based on performance on those tests. If a school still is using the comprehensive English (2015 is the last time for this), growth scores are based on performance on that exam. NYT, your school seems to be in one of those EM Escher-like circles of Hades; you face punitive, frustrating, meaningless-to-reality scrutiny in a confusing maze. Sorry. You seem like someone who truly cares about students and who imparts much wisdom to them. Oops. there isn’t a HEDI scale for that. And think about that-HEDI- pronounced like the goat-herding girl whose movie pre-empted a famous football game. You can’t make this up!
Sad to say we kind of get used to it. Ever since the inception of NCLB we have been cited for failure to meet AYP, mainly due to our numerous sub groups (SINI status). We have been cited for low graduation rate (Focus district). We end up being saddled by NYSED with an endless stream of so-called improvement plans. Under RTT and CC things have gotten worse because the punishment includes our school, the entire district, administrators, and of course teachers. We can’t try much harder and so the abysmal 2014 Pearson scores will probably burry any last shred of morale we have left.