Peter Rawitsch has been teaching early childhood education for 35 years. He was selected by the state of New York to participate on a committee reviewing the state standards. His post was published by the Albany Times Union and reposted on Susan Ochshorn’s blog. I think you will enjoy reading his commentary, and I am reposting it here.
Peter described how the group for Pre-K-grade 12 met and were briefed. Then they broke into sections.
The Common Core State Standards were adopted by the New York State Regents in 2011. Its original group of authors did not include any early childhood experts. If it had, it would have started with kindergarten and progressed forward, instead of starting with 12th grade and mapping backward. It would have acknowledged that children learn and develop at different rates, which is much better reflected by a learning continuum and not inflexible of end-of-year benchmarks. The continuum would have included the physical, social, emotional, language and cognitive areas of child development. It would have stressed the critical role of play-based learning for young children.
As the week went on, we were able to tackle these larger issues, but we didn’t reach a consensus. A concern for some members of our group was how teachers would know what to teach without standards. My response is that we observe, listen and get to know our students so we can determine what they know, what they are ready to learn and how we can best support their learning.
Our work is not done. When our draft is finished in August, the state education department will review the whole P-12 document to ensure there is consistency in the language and a progression of skills. Then there will be a public comment period, followed by still more editing and revisions. Finally, it will be presented to the Regents for their review.
It will be interesting to see how our original work evolves through this process. Ideally, the state would put a moratorium on the current Common Core ELA and math standards until the standards can address all of the developmental areas. The unintended consequences of rolling out only the ELA and math standards have been: a narrowing of the curriculum, almost to the exclusion of science and social studies; devaluing of play, the primary mode of learning at the P-2 level; and over-testing. These have all been harmful to young learners.
New York parents and teachers will have an opportunity to be heard. Let’s let the Education Department know that childhood cannot be standardized.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“The continuum would have included the physical, social, emotional, language and cognitive areas of child development.”
I get nervous when we try to standardize benchmarks beyond “Type 1” testing/evaluation – especially for “social & emotional” areas of development. Who decides what is “appropriate?” I think we are heading down a dangerous rabbit hole with “social and emotional” benchmarks, especially if those are set at the federal (or international) level.
Fantastic! An early childhood expert on the committee!
The committee doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel.
The NY State Learning Standards are already written and are far superior to the Common Core’s. NY State Learning Standards did not change the curriculum; it gave us a new way of teaching, incorporating higher order thinking skills including the imagination; CC ignores the imagination. Common Core not only imposes a new curriculum but limited the thinking skills to be taught. New York Learning Standards builds on prior knowledge and makes learning fun. Children’s minds are activated in bridging prior knowledge to the new. Common Core ignored the interactive approach using the direct teaching approach.
NYState Leaning Standards were developed by experts in the field, anchored in research. Each district reviewed them and gave feed back. Finally the district committees aligned the NYSLS to each grade level. The committee should go back to the NYSLS. They adapted the standards for every area including science, social studies, art,and music.
The problem now is getting textbooks back into the hands of the students that reflect the NY Learning Standards. Pearson Co. bought up all the book companies and aligned their books to CC.
I am very proud of the teachers and students at my fourth grader’s Staten Island K-5 school, which has ranked in the top 10, according to the annual NYS tests. However, this testing success has come at the expense of science (2 times a week/no books or homework is ever sent home), social studies (only allowed 1 time a week in 4th grade), art (1 time a week), music (none), and keyboarding skills/computers (none).
While these children have learned skills to help take the tests, they don’t know how to spell, they don’t have a working knowledge of grammar, and they can’t type. The band is only open to an exclusive few in 4th and 5th grade. There is no school-wide music appreciation or instruction.
Our youngest learners need to augment academic instruction with the arts. They need to be exposed to the joy of music and learning a new language, be fascinated by Science, unlock the thrills of coding, and experience learning about other cultures and history. Unfortunately, those aren’t topics on the test.
And by the way, every parent I know pays a tutor to help their child keep up with the difficult curriculum. Which takes money away from the family’s budget that would pay for fun extracurricular activities and vacations. The kids deserve more.
Unbelievable that there is a high need for tutors in an elementary school. The curriculum sounds unnecessarily difficult.
Also, what the kids deserve more of is free time. Time to explore their own interests, not the ones mandated by the school.
Here is a link to the NY State Learning Standards: (Why reinvent the wheel?)
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/ciai/standards.html
Here is how one district aligned them for the primary grades in Literacy:
Standards
Language for Information and Understanding
Aligning District Standards with NY State’s
Composed by JoAnn Flammer & Mary DeFalco
The Student:
*Reviews text and as a continuous process: questions, activates prior knowledge, predicts, confirms, and revises predictions to construct meaning.
*Retells or summarizes using the structures of: sequencing, cause/effect, comparison/ contrasts, or main idea detail
*Follows written and oral instructions
*Uses the conceptual tools of semantics (prior knowledge) syntax, and graphophonics to establish meaning:
1. Semantics (prior knowledge- past experiences)
-Uses pictures clues, graphs, and graphic organizers to assist in visualizing, inferencing, comparing /contrasting, understanding cause/ effect, main idea/detail and summarizing; viz., Venn Diagrams, KWL chart, mapping, webbing, and clustering
-Self corrects using meaning clues, taking risks, reading on, rereading until it makes sense
-Understands idioms, slang, dialect, and colloquialism
Syntax
-Uses the structure of the language to construct meaning
-Knows placement and function of nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, etc.
-Self-corrects
Graphophonics:
-Uses cues: beginning, middle, ending, vowels, digraphs, diphthongs, clusters, r controlled vowels, compounds, affixes, root words
-Recognizes syllables and accents, synonyms, homonyms, multiple meanings, comparatives and superlatives
-Uses technology, resource books, and other text for information
-Uses glossary, picture dictionary, dictionary, table of contents, and index to construct meaning
Language for Critical Analysis and Evaluation
Student will:
*Analyzes and evaluates new knowledge ( material presented in print by technology, books and other means) and applies it to experiential background. (Makes connections and learns a lesson.)
*Relates reading to one’s own experiences before, during, and after reading print, and while viewing and listening to technology
*Makes mental pictures, generates questions, and makes predictions when reading
*Analyzes story elements: setting, characters, problem/plot, solution/ outcome, point of view, mood, and theme
*Analyzes, synthesizes, evaluates ideas presented in text
*Effectively uses analogies, makes comparisons and inferences using Venn Diagrams, KWL charts, webbing, and mapping
*Relates a character’s trait to a personal one
*Differentiates between reality and fantasy
*Effectively conveys analysis and evaluations through presentations, discussions, and writings
*Listens critically while a book is read aloud
Language for Social Interaction
Student:
*Shows respect for speaker: listens and maintains eye contact
*Provides verbal / non verbal feedback to speaker
*Identifies purpose of listening: to follow directions for information and for enjoyment
*Gives oral reports; maintains eye contact
*Listens and responds to peers in small groups
*Participates in cooperative groups
*Asks for repetition, restatement, or explanation to clarify meaning
*Discusses a variety of genre
*Offers personal opinions
*Shares personal ideas and experiences
*Observes and discusses a variety of illustrations
*Tells own story from illustrations
*Participates in story telling, retelling, rhyme, and song
Language for Literary Response and Expression
Student:
*Discusses different genre of reading from home and school
*Paraphrases – rewrites information in own words
*Relates story to personal experience
*Follows written and oral instructions
*Recites rhyme, chants and poems
*Dramatizes, improvises and pantomimes
*Illustrates and encodes to reflect an understanding of the text
*Memorizes songs and poetry
*Writes for a specific purpose:
-Writes for an intended audience
-States opinion
-Lists facts
-Creates new story endings
-Recounts actual experience
-Produces skit or script
-Describes story characters
-Writes descriptive paragraphs
-Makes journal entries reflecting feelings and judgment
-Utilizes structure, ideas, and themes of varied genre
-Writes set of directions/ instructions
*Plans and brainstorms
*Makes drafts using graphic organizers
*Monitors writing: reads, rereads, and revises own work based on peer responses and teacher conferences
*Revises
-Rewrites to improve understanding of text
-Evaluates and improves content by adding, deleting, and rearranging information in a logical sequence
-Proof reads and edits by correcting errors in spelling, grammar, usage, and mechanics
-Uses grammatically correct English
-Varies sentence structure
*Reads silently for extended periods
*Chooses to read during free time
*Locates and selects appropriate material
Although brief in nature, the opinions stated here are simultaneously informative and allusive. Let’s start with allusive. As a graduate student majoring in TESOL (teaching English to speakers of other languages), I was surprised to see that many of the things mentioned in this post mirror the way that I have been taught to teach English learners. For example, acknowledging that children learn at different rates is consistent with the ideas of theorist Cummins, who introduced the distinction between BICS (basic interpersonal communication) and CALPS (cognitive academic language proficiency). English learners generally learn basic interpersonal communication between one and three years, whereas, it generally takes anywhere from five to ten years to develop cognitive academic language proficiency. However, there was no specific mentioning of English learner. Additionally, Peter Rawitsch alluded to the needs of underserved students when he stated that standards must incorporate physical, social, and emotional development. However, there was no specific mentioning of the underserved population. In an increasingly globalized society, when given a chance to represent the educational community, one must take advantage of the opportunity to unabashedly address critical issues. When challenged by his peers with the question “how would teachers know what to teach without standards?” Rawitsch could have leaned on the growing understanding that the implementation of the Common Core Standards was motivated by a political and corporate agenda. According to Diane Ravitch in Reign of Error, “the new standards were a linchpin to match “smart capital” to educational innovation. She continued by saying, “previously, these markets operated on a state by state basis, and often on district- by- district basis. But the adoption of common standards and shared assessments means that education entrepreneurs will enjoy national markets where the best product can be taken to scale (pg.17).”
Lastly, as an educator, the final bit of this post that surprised me was a comment made by Carol. Carol was the first person to comment on this blog and her comment was in direct opposition to one of the most important things mentioned in this post. Carol was opposed to acknowledging the social and emotional needs of students. As a critical pedagogist, I would challenge Carol by stating that 1 in every 4 schoolchildren is either Hispanic of African-American, and 1 in every 3 is a member of a racial and/or linguistic minority. With that being said, taking into account the social and emotional needs of students is not only not optional but imperative.
References
Hinchey, P., (2006) Becoming a critical educator: Defining a classroom identity, designing a critical pedagogy. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Ravitch, D. (2014). Reign of Error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America’s public schools. New York, NY: Knopf
Mr. Rawsitch is on to something. We spend much time fighting the wrong battles. In NY, this was just made evident again as John King’s replacement is trying to tweak Common Core standards. The issue is not what should be covered in 3rd or 4th or 5th grade, it’s whether we should tie any policy to a child’s age.
Standardizing childhood is impossible, as the last 16 years showed. But it seems neither science nor history can stop the bipartisan corporate plunder of education budgets.