Common core ignores the power of the interests and ideas that come from our students and teachers - Deborah Meier

Editor’s note:  I feel fortunate to be living during a period in our history where for the first time we can easily form social learning circles that bring together from around the world, experts, authors, and others that share passions and can engage in rich and meaningful dialogue. The power of the technology to connect in ways never before possible is a game changer when it comes to learning. I have brought together one such amazing network of people who come together to think about and grapple with issues of ed reform and alternatives to the status quo with The Innovative Educator group.  Here is a piece of that learning where education icon Deborah Meier shares some of her thoughts on the common core.

Deborah Meier - Shares

Its a nice thought--that it [Common Core] is offering a "common language". I wish it were. But common core as presently understood is a 13 year mandatory curriculum (developed largely by experts in testing, not the subject matter being tested) of what is to be taught--and in what sequence. It ignores the power of the interests and ideas that come from students and teachers as the basis for forming curriculum"--or of picking up from the world around us our "curriculum". Starting "where we are" intellectually and moving out from there--a common approach to thematic studies, for example. Or spending months on one "small" part of history or science, in order to be able to ask deeper questions and make deeper sense--rather than covering" a lot in order to be prepared for shallow tests. (Uncovering vs covering as we sometimes say.) etc, etc.

In the schools I’ve worked in we were able to spend months on the Constitution (if we chose to) and thus less on other aspects of American history. We could focus long enough and deeply enough to engage in projects, to question the evidence, to weigh one source over another, to imagine other possibilities, to look for patterns, to acknowledge disagreements, etc, etc. We could return to last year's themes and subject matter as it cropped up gain in the context of this year. It enabled Mission Hill to study the same topics in all grades, Kgtn to 8th grade at the same time and thus turn the whole school community into a shared learning experience, and to lie out the idea that we're never "done", there is always more to learn about the same subject in new and different ways.

It also enabled us to give younger students the experience of watching older students and vice versa as they observed each other's work. It turned our hallways into lively places for common study, made it easier to have a wide range of books on the same topics, bring in experts from outside, and on and on. In all the schools I've worked in and with we've also been able to set aside time from the exploration of our private, personal passions and see where they took us individually or as a group. It meant, of course, a different way of assessing young people's work. What we developed instead was a "common" set of questions, habits of mind we called them, for getting at what we were trying to make sense of. It also meant that we spent two years covering "less" than one year's high school physics course. And on and on.

Reading The Power of Their Ideas or In Schools We Trust may give you some sense of what such a curriculum might look like. Or read an old book--36 Children by Herb Kohl. Suggestions, from others?

Deborah
Our conversations never die.  You can join in anytime here.  

You have read this article common core standards / common standards / deborah meier / standardized tests with the title common core standards. You can bookmark this page URL https://benncam.blogspot.com/2012/10/common-core-ignores-power-of-interests.html. Thanks!

Big news! Turns out it is okay if you don’t go to college.

Didja hear it?  If you were able to catch any of NBC’s Education Nation conversation, It was ever so subtle, but it was there. The part of the conversation that disturbingly has been the banned from the Common Core College and Career Readiness mantra.

If you heard it you noticed that the language is changing, slowly but surely, from the lips of the politicians, corporate funders, and even from the administrators who feel they must not deviate from the party line (even when they know it's wrong) lest they lose their jobs.

So, what's the big idea that is ever so softly slipping through the lips of those engaged in the politically correct education conversation?

The new and improved stats and facts have arrived, and....

College AND career readiness is OUTTA HERE!

In its place is an important conjunction that many of us were shut down and smacked down if we dared to utter those two ugly letters.

So what are the two little letters that could change everything?

OR

Yes, though it had been banned from the vocabulary of the Common Core proselytisers,  “OR” is now an acceptable word.

But, of course, there’s a condition.

It must be followed by post-secondary certification.  The whole phrase looks like this:

“College OR post-secondary certification and career readiness” and it's a step in the right direction.

Oh...all the documents where that popular CCR (college career readiness) acronym will need to be found and replaced with CPSCCR.  

But actually, we could fix that, because many of us know what would make it even better would be to simply remove the words "post-secondary" as many young people are capable of getting a certification during their teen years.

So perhaps the new language will be:

College or certification and career readiness.  

Or to make it a really nice acronym we could call it

College or certification and career competency.   

Then the acronym could just be  C4 or C4

What's more the pundits are acknowledging their fatally flawed claims about the success the earning power of those w/college degrees verses those w/out.  They can no longer deny the facts. When you account for socioeconomic status and student loan debt  the stats about earning potential of college grads frankly, puts a lot of money in the pockets of our government and our colleges, but it's a load of crap.

So, what will this mean?

• It will mean that educators are allowed to publicly acknowledge that, "One size does not fit all!".
• It will mean that we can consider and honor the passions of ALL students.
• It will mean that we no longer have to send the message to those in our society who did not take the college path that you are less worthy than those who did.
• It will mean that we can value the contributions of all and help them think about and seek out which of many options will help them achieve their path.

And, of course, let's not be naïve. There was also probably some big trade school association that funded studies and hired lobbyists to march on Capitol Hill rallying for their piece of the pie. These decisions most always follow the money. So get ready to see a lot more certification programs vying for their piece of the post-secondary education pie.  

But, still, that means more choices and that will mean better options for students and when all is said and done, that is what matters most.  

Next step of course is to realize the value of the on-the-job training and apprenticeship opportunities that made my close family members and friends (Director, Accountant, Computer Programmer, Sound Engineer) six-figure income earners without degrees or post-secondary certification programs. And, BONUS! No college debt or years of lost earnings while pursuing a degree.

Too often, our leaders view life through the narrow lens of when they were in a four-year college. A broader view is required to lead on this complex issue today.  The goal must not be for a one-size-fits-all path to success, but rather on providing a menu of options that may or may not include college or certification.

You have read this article college myth / common core standards / Education Nation with the title common core standards. You can bookmark this page URL https://benncam.blogspot.com/2012/09/big-news-turns-out-it-is-okay-if-you.html. Thanks!

Common Core State Standards - The precursor to testing the crap out of kids

Educators are becoming more and more familiar with and learning about the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).  What they might not realize is that CCSS is really code for constantly testing the crap out of kids. As a result the publishers and politicians who designed them reap the rewards. Politicians have pretty charts and numbers they can use as talking points and publishers like Pearson rake in enormous profits. 

Meanwhile these same politicians and publishers have been yapping about how the new standards and assessments will be so much different and better.  Some had visions dancing in their heads of standards that were customized to student who would choose their own way to demonstrate mastery.  

Then poof!


Reality hits. The dreams shot down. 

I was perusing the EngageNY site which is a teaching and learning clearinghouse designed to support New York teachers, principals, administrators, and Network Teams in rolling out the Common Core State Standards. It is there that I learned they just released the sample questions for ELA and Math. Kids will be asked to show mastery so they can progress to the next grade.  I looked at these tests and thought, dang, I'm glad I'm not in school. 


Here's a snippet of each:



Excerpt of the reading passage:
No persuasions or enticements could overcome her fear, till, the fact coming to Mr. Laurence’s ear in some mysterious way, he set about mending matters. 


Example of a math question:
A trainer for a professional football team keeps track of the amount of water players consume throughout practice. The trainer observes that the amount of water consumed is a linear function of the temperature on a given day. The trainer finds that when it is 90°F the players consume about 220 gallons of water, and when it is 76°F the players consume about 178 gallons of water.


Part A: Write a linear function to model the relationship between the gallons of water consumed and the temperature.
Part B: Explain the meaning of the slope in the context of the problem.     


I couldn't answer the questions on the math test the way that was expected nor had any of this math ever been necessary for my success in life.  I looked at the ELA test and thought, wow, a whole generation of kids will forever have the joy of reading sucked right out of them (read #6 for Alfie Kohn's thoughts).


Then I had a few more thoughts like...

• Why are we taking the job of assessment from the ongoing work of teachers and handing it over to publishers? Some will say that's because we can't trust them. If that's the case, figure out a way to fix that rather than spend BILLIONS on these tests and stress out kids. I mean do we really trust the politicians and publishers that are imposing these tests upon us more than teachers anyhow?
• Why is all assessment a test?There are such better ways to assess students and it should be done as a part of what kids do in the classroom.
• Why does everyone need to know the same thing?I don't know or want to know this math and I'm doing just fine. 
• Why is the ELA language so dang white and who talks like that today?Why not allow students to respond to passages that they've already chosen to read that are meaningful, relevant, and/or of interest to their worlds?
• Why aren't more parents opting their kids out of testing?
  You can opt out in most states.  There's a group on Facebook for each state. Find yours in one of two ways:
  1) Type in the search on Facebook: Opt out of State Standardized Tests - Your State
   i.e. Opt Out of State Standardized Tests - Ohio
  2) Go to the page url: https://www.facebook.com/groups/OptOutYourState i.e.https://www.facebook.com/groups/OptOutOhio

This sucks. Kids deserve better.  What will we do about it?

You have read this article common core standards / standardized tests with the title common core standards. You can bookmark this page URL https://benncam.blogspot.com/2012/07/common-core-state-standards-precursor.html. Thanks!

It's wrong to group kids by date of manufacture

Guest post by Teresa McCloskey

While at the park today with the kids, I saw a classmate of Mason's, coincidentally also named Mason and also in as much trouble with authorities as my own Mason.

Mason & Mason F. started kindergarten at the same time.  Their date of manufacture is obviously comparable.  They are both currently in 7th grade.  But Mason F. now stands nearly 2 feet taller than my Mason.  He's filling out.  Mason F. has very obviously hit puberty in his 12th - 13th year of life.  Mason F. was stealing backpacks from two girls then later blew them off to hang with a young lady dressed scantily in short shorts and a spaghetti tank top.  He escorted her out of the park looking every inch of a 16 or 17 year old if I hadn't known his real age.  Meanwhile, my Mason was happily climbing a tree and riding his bike up & down a hill as fast as he could.

Bradley was also along with us today.  He's now a couple inches taller than Mason, and his voice has started squeaking and cracking.  Bradley just turned 12 in February, so he's on the younger side, but still, puberty is making itself known as his jaw strengthens and he struggles between acting child-like and wanting to do more 'mature' things.

All 3 boys would fall in the realm of 'normal development' in terms of their physical growth.  Yes, my Mason's has probably been stalled and delayed a bit due to numerous issues, not the least of which is his stimulant medication for behaviors.  But what I found myself marveling about was the fact that any adult person would honestly and truly tell these 3 boys that they are ALL. NORMAL.  That their bodies will grow, change, develop, and mature at very differing rates, and that is NORMAL.  That puberty can strike anywhere from age 8-15 and nobody will bat an eye over it.  We will bend over backward trying to reassure a young person that it will happen for them, too; especially for those poor souls who do not physically develop until much later than their peers.  They endure such wonderful treatment from their friends by being called things like, "Smurf," and "Shorty," and probably a lot of names much crueler than that.  Each name surely hurts, though, and serves to remind that child that they are different, perhaps "less than" the others around them.

But if we adults work so hard to assure children that what their bodies are going through is 100% natural - as God intended - the way things are - beyond their control, why oh why do we not believe the same about the overall learning process? Why do we not trust that each individual's brain functions in a unique and individual manner which makes learning various skills and abilities come when nature intends?  Reading, math, writing - these are huge areas where kids are forced, pressured, and frequently demeaned, diminished, and coerced when they are not doing it at the same level as their peers.

Why do we do this to kids?  If we can trust their bodies to grow as nature intended, what on earth makes us think we know best when their minds should develop and exactly which skills their brains should be able to accomplish based on arbitrary timetables?  Why do we try to standardize their learning to be identical to every other child who was born around the same time rather than respecting that each child will fulfill their mind's destiny when offered a wide range of interesting information the way we offer a wide range of healthy foods?

------------------------------------------

Teresa McCloskey is a mom of 4 boys, 'host' mom to countless exchange students from around the world, wife to one amazing husband, daughter of the King, student, life learner who no longer believes in time outs, naughty spots, spankings, shaming, or the compulsory government indoctrination institution system. John Holt, Alfie Kohn, Naomi Aldort, and Adele Faber are some of my heroes.

You have read this article common core standards / standardized tests with the title common core standards. You can bookmark this page URL https://benncam.blogspot.com/2012/05/it-wrong-to-group-kids-by-date-of.html. Thanks!

They're here... The Common Core Standards - Available for Comment

They're here...

This was five-year-old Carol Anne's ominous announcement made at her parents' home while starring into a static television when referring to the presence of unknown beings in her home. Their antics, benign at first, such as moving and stacking the kitchen table chairs soon turn quite disturbing as Poltergeist fans can attest. Like the unknown beings in the movie, the newly released draft of the Common Core Standards have had a ghostly presence to the masses who have seen pictures of Governors linked in arms with smiles on their faces as they unite to support the release of standards for a nation. While I do agree the premise of having international or at least national standards, makes sense, I do have concerns that these at first benign, perhaps even good-intention-seeming standards must be treated with EXTREME caution.

I shared my primary fears around these standards last October in my post All Children Left Behind - Common Standards for Our Student's Past. My concerns presented themselves again yesterday as a DOE official shared with a gleam in his eye that The Common Core Standards draft had been released and this was going to mean a whole new era of even more rigorous assessments for our students.

Ahhhhh!!!!!

What concerns me as I heard these words is not the standards, but the man behind the curtain, or the screen if you will. Though most of America never has never taken a peak, many who have are scared. As Chris Lehmann shared in his blog last fall, "This Core Standards movement should scare everyone who believes that meaning and learning is still most powerfully made in the spaces that students and teachers share. More than teachers, students, or state administrators, the group that stands most to gain from national standards and a national test is the education-industrial complex.

At the same time, Tom Hoffman shares in his blog, "We are inviting testing companies to determine the future of our schools with virtually no accountability or public input. These standards were developed by two testing companies, the College Board and ACT, with help from a nebulous non-profit, Achieve, Inc. No high performing educational system in the world would consider giving testing companies this much control over their standards and curriculum. It is absurd. He also shares that many standards were selected because they are easier and cheaper to score reliably on a standardized test. 

To get a clear picture of what this really looked like, here is the list of the working group for the language arts standards.  Notice the representation of testing companies (most) verses K-12 teachers (are there any?) verses students (what students?).

• Sara Clough, Director, Elementary and Secondary School Programs, Development, Education Division, ACT, Inc.
• David Coleman, Founder, Student Achievement Partners
• Sally Hampton, Senior Fellow for Literacy, America's Choice
• Joel Harris, Director, English Language Arts Curriculum and Standards, Research and Development, The College Board
• Beth Hart, Senior Assessment Specialist, Research and Development, The College Board
• John Kraman, Associate Director, Research, Achieve
• Laura McGiffert Slover, Vice President, Content and Policy Research, Achieve
• Nina Metzner, Senior Test Development Associate—Language Arts, Elementary and Secondary School Programs, Development, Education Division, ACT, Inc.
• Sherri Miller, Assistant Vice President, Educational Planning and Assessment System (EPAS) Development, Education Division, ACT, Inc.
• Sandy Murphy, Professor Emeritus, University of California – Davis
• Jim Patterson, Senior Program Development Associate—Language Arts, Elementary and Secondary School Programs, Development, Education Division, ACT, Inc.
• Sue Pimentel, Co-Founder, StandardsWork; English Language Arts Consultant, Achieve
• Natasha Vasavada, Senior Director, Standards and Curriculum Alignment Services, Research and Development, The College Board
• Martha Vockley, Principal and Founder, VockleyLang, LLC

I personally spoke to a prolifically published author, esteemed expert, and valued contributor to other literacy policy documents who shared that she too was concerned by the choice to leave her and other accomplished pedagogues out of the conversation.

As I jumped over to take a look quick look at the standards, I was already perplexed. What were previously English Language Arts are now Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies and Science. Huh??? What on earth does that mean? Did they just try to lump everything together? Anyhow, a deeper dive is indeed in order and I'm interested to hear and read what other EDUCATORS and hopefully STUDENTS have to say. I was pleased to see there was a way to Submit Feedback on the site and I encourage teachers, and principals to do so, and to help their students do so as well. An improvement to the feedback submission process would be full transparency and enabling the public to see the feedback blog style of one other. They are here for sure, and the secret ballot-style request for feedback where ghost-like contributors who can't see one another until the edited, censored results are shared, frightens me.

You have read this article common core standards / common standards with the title common core standards. You can bookmark this page URL https://benncam.blogspot.com/2010/03/they-here-common-core-standards.html. Thanks!