Thoughts

"You cannot complain if you do not vote." This is timely piece of rubbish to cite in the wake of the midterm election, for it is so often hurled around by those "politically engaged" individuals who seem to view the state and its mechanisms as some institution completely beholden to the will of "the people" (i.e. the majority vote), strong enough to withstand the influence of forces outside of this will that would otherwise steer its mechanisms to the pandering of interest groups and corporations. How blissful and naive this picture looks! But, of course, I do not expect you, dear reader, to rely on my agitation as the means for belief in this sentiment. So, instead, I'll show you how the implementation of Common Core has belied any sort of democratic practice while running full-steam ahead on the profits of capital, which is, as you know, "the governing power over labor and its products." In other words, I hope to briefly show that we educators are governed not by our elected officials, our "democracy," but by the rule of wealth, by plutocracy. 

In order to understand the depth of this sham, it will be prudent to review what the countenance of capital (i.e. Common Core) looks like to the public. Here is what is stated on Common Core's website apropos its development:

"The nation's governors and education commissioners, through their representative organizations, the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), led the development of the Common Core State Standards and continue to lead the initiative. Teachers, parents, school administrators, and experts from across the country, together with state leaders, provided input into the development of the standards. The actual implementation of the Common Core, including how the standards are taught, the curriculum developed, and the materials used to support teachers as they help students reach the standards, is led entirely at the state and local levels. "

Let’s focus on the first part, the part where the NGA and CCSSO are discussed as “leading the development of CCSS.” Taking my cue both from Mercedes Schneider’s blog, deutsch29, (and don’t admonish me for a blog citation when I’m writing on a blog and without consulting my reference, which after reviewing I’m sure anybody will count as credible) and Alan Singer’s writing in the Huffington Post’s Education Op-Ed section, Schneider, as she focuses more on the implementation of the CCSS than on its merits (although those are laden in her writing, too), had this to say about the NGA’s hand in the development of CCSS: “…if one reviews this 2009 NGA news release on those principally involved in CCSS development, one views a listing of 29 individuals associated with Student Achievement Partners, ACT, College Board, and Achieve. In truth, only 2 out of 29 members are not affiliated with an education company (emphasis added)” This sentence is just one among many that help demystify the original and misleading CCSS language that compel one to believe that “the nation’s governors and education commissioners” acting through “their respective organizations” means that they acted solely through the NGA and CCSSO, when in reality these organizations are merely fronts for corporate think-tanks like the Student Achievement Partners, ACT, College Board, and Achieve. I mean, all one has to do is look at this NGA news release to realize that these “elected officials” have little else to do with the implementation of CCSS other than merely making announcements: “The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) today announced the names of the experts serving on the Common Core State Standards Development Work Group and Feedback Group and provided more detailed information on the college and career ready standards development process.”

            But citing this is as the only source of evidence against the praising of voting as the means to ensure democratic decisions is jumping the gun, for it is stating a point in time (July, 2009) that proceeded an initial juncture that, once it is shown, should really levels the charges of pro-voting idealists down to that of delusions and science-fiction. Singer’s piece also cites his college’s, Joy Resmotives, “How Common Core Became Education’s Biggest Bogeyman.” In it, Resmotives gets to the root of the corporate influence in the development of CCSS when she first chronicles the fastidiousness of the Kentucky chief of schools, Terry Holliday. During April of 2009, realizing that his state’s resources were not adequate to meet the demand of the legislature, who mandated that “he needed to write new learning standards that ensured students were more prepared for higher education or careers,” Holliday, with the NGA and CCSSO, thought up an idea: “Instead of states developing standards on their own, why not pool resources and work on the project together?” These resources, rather than being “pooled together” by states, were given by none other than the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

            Resmotives describes the situation that led Gates into the mix as deriving from a startup that had been created during the good ol’ No Child Left Behind era. David Coleman and Jason Zimba’s Grow Network, which was responsible for assessing the results of NCLB tests to better guide teacher instruction, were instrumental in the develop of CCSS, for they had written a paper—that called for “math and science standards that were fewer, clearer, and higher”—for the Carnegie Foundation. The contents of which subsequently caught the eye of representatives of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, who then “dropped as much as $75 million on what would become the Common Core.”

            I could continue, but I would merely be paraphrasing Resmotives’s piece. Now, I know, even university departments rely on the grants and fellowships of capital in order to continue their pursuits. The issue is not whether or not reliance on private capital ought to be discouraged in education; the problem is that the embryo of these initiatives starts well outside of the people who have to live with the standards: teachers, parents, and students. You could counter and argue that this initiative is rooted in the people, for the NGA is an association of governors, who are elected by the people. But it was shown that the NGA had merely been a front, a sort of façade that enlisted experts to do the bidding of the demos. And did I vote for these experts to bid on my behalf? And, more significantly, the fact that CCSS used “Teachers, parents, school administrators, and experts from across the country, together with state leaders, provided input into the development of the standards,” and that, as Resmotives remarks, “They [the CCSSO and NGA] analyzed 10,000 public comments pulled from a website they had set up and revised the standards yet again with that feedback in mind,” does not answer to the critic who sees this whole process not as a form of democracy, but one of asking for consensus. As soon as the question of standardization entered into the relationship between venture capitalist charity and the mechanisms of the state, Common Core was going to happen; it was just a matter time, money, and manipulation of the “opinion polls” to show us non-experts, us “common folk” (i.e. teachers) what we all thought of “our” law that “we” created; “public comments on a website” are nothing more than barometers measuring a degree of consent.    

A step towards standardizing students?

When I first started hearing about the Common Core, I honestly had no idea what my teachers were talking about. I looked over the list of standards for English Language Arts and my eyes instantly glossed over. They are so jargony, so ambiguous, and I had no idea how they would ever help me in my teaching. I figured they would be one of those annoying things I just have to understand enough to put on a lesson plan to appease whoever was looking over my shoulder. 

In order to better understand the standards and how they are meant to be implemented, I watched a video on teachingchannel.org that focuses on one school in New York, and how they have changed their practices and overall pedagogy to align with the CC. Teachers of English in this school explained how the CC has made the content and structure of the class "clearer, more focused, and more rigorous," and that the students are expected to learn less knowledge, but become more achieved in the skills they learn. More succinctly put, the CC is "fewer things that must be done extremely well." There is a strong emphasis on complex reading material, and 70% of readings are meant to be literary non-fiction. As for writing, most should be argumentative, persuasive and expository. Teachers have a facilitative role, modeling for students so they can construct their own meaning and learning. One teacher explained that with the implementation of the CC, "students moved from receptors of information to being processors of information."

The video made me very uncomfortable. The tone was very utopian, like "hallelujah, we finally found the prescription for teaching effectively!"I fear that we, in the English departments, if held to these expectations and standards strictly, will lose touch with the beauty of the subject. Argumentative writing and non-fiction lit is great, but there is so much more the ELA. Personal narratives are such a great writing activity for high school students- they are at the developmental stage where they need to explore themselves, their interests, their ideas. Reading fiction is how I came to understand my surroundings, at least somewhat. Without these, I know I wouldn't be here. I fear for an unnecessarily dry curriculum. I love that students are moving away from the receptor role, but there is plenty of information to process in works of fiction, and other, more creative writing. And my biggest of all fears is something an English teacher stated at the end of the video. He explained that he was uneasy with the standards at first, because "standardizing is difficult, students are not standard, but this is a step towards that." We do not need to take any steps closer to standardizing our students, it is absolutely ridiculous, impossible, and unnecessary. 

The perspective piece from NPR I read helped me breathe easier. It focused on an Elementary school teachers in D.C. One approves of the shift to more complex texts, stating that "this pushes them... the high kids aren't bored, and the low kids aren't bored. And we're all learning about really interesting things." The students are not restricted to their reading level, as they once were, and are encouraged to move beyond their comfort zone. That being said, the article also explains how "The Core standards don't say everything kids read has to be salt-and-pepper serious and seriously hard. There's still plenty of room for pink." (Yay. I need my pink.) The reporter turns focus to another teacher, in whose classroom a student is reading a Roald Dahl book. The teacher states that "the book is actually below [the student's] reading level, but that's okay. She's having fun. And that's the point."

I don't know if reading these articles has cleared up any of my confusions or apprehensions concerning the CC. I like knowing what I am responsible for, what skills I am expected to teach. I cannot attempt to standardize my students, and I refuse to limit students to argumentative writing. The approach the NPR article took I greatly appreciate- I want to challenge students, but I don't want them to miss out on the beauty. And we can do both. These standards can mean very different things to different people/admins/teachers/parents. What do they mean to you all? Do you think there can be a set of perfect standards for all schools across the nation? Do you think these standards are a step towards standardizing students, or are meant to do so? Have your opinions changed after your own research? How do you see yourself implementing, or not, these standards?

https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/common-core-state-standards-high-school

http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2014/10/27/359334729/common-core-reading-difficult-dahl-repeat

Common Core Standards: How they changed the classroom + a defense of the standards

Hi Everyone,

One of the two readings I chose for this week is "7 ways common core standards will change your classroom" by Jacqui Murray on Teachhub.com. This website was built by teachers for teachers and it offers free lesson plans, education news, professional development, teacher blogs, among other resources. 

The goal of the common core standards is: to prepare the nation's tens of thousands of students for college and/or career. 

In this article, Jacqui lists a few philosophical changes that teachers will have to implement to teach by the standards of the common core:

1. Depth not width - Teachers will cover fewer topics in a year, but with greater detail.

2. Nonfiction, not fiction - Students need to be able to critically read and analyze print and digital information, a skill which will help them in the real world. 

3. Evidence is required - Students will need to prove their claims with authentic and well understood evidence.

4. Speaking and Listening - These skills will be taught in the K-12 curriculum, and as students advance grade levels the requirements will advance as well. 

5. Technology is a part of most/all standards -  Teachers and students will use the internet, online tools, software, and tech devices as vehicles for achieving educational goals. They will be integral part of the curriculum. This mean teachers will have to be comfortable with iPads, online widgets, Google Docs, etc. 

6. Life skills are emphasized across subject areas - The standards expect students to communicate effectively and think critically in all subjects. Students must understand cause and effect, transfer knowledge from one subject are to another throughout their educational day. 

7. An increase in rigor - Accountability will be expected of students and teachers. CCSS will look for:

transfer of knowledge, evidence of learning, student as a risk-taker, authenticity of lessons, vertical planning, learning with increasingly less scaffolding and prompting, and differentiated instruction so all learners get it. 

Based on this list, do you think that these philosophical changes will positively affect students and education? 

The second reading is "In Defense of the Common Core Standards" by Joshua Bleiberg an Darrell West. In this article, the authors defend the common core by describing benefits of the standards. 

They begin by talking about the tension between standards and curriculum. The authors mention how the standards define what students should know and be able to do, but not how teachers should teach it. They say, "high quality education is only possible with both rigorous standards and excellent curriculum" 

But, they go on to explain how standards defines which curriculum materials are appropriate and which are not through establishing a system to measure teaching materials and students. The standards serve as a guide for the tests, textbooks, and other teaching tools. 

DO YOU THINK THAT STANDARDS GIVE TEACHERS THE FREEDOM TO DECIDE HOW TO TEACH, OR DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE STANDARDS ARE RESTRICTING? IN WHAT WAYS?

An argument against CCSS is that they place too many restrictions on teachers, that low income students and those with disabilities face greater challenges in meeting grade level proficiency, and that teachers are not given the resources to achieve these goals. 

But the authors mention a lot of positives in their defense of the CCSS:

The standards are supposed to ensure a baseline level of instruction quality and minimize variation in learning goals across classrooms, schools, and districts. Standards let teachers focus on how to help their students learn, and standards make it easy to plug a lesson from another teacher into their own curriculum. Standards create a common language for discussing the goals of education and makes it easier to communicate ideas between and within the professions that contribute to education. 

Some of the benefits of the standards, according to these authors, are that they create a platform that allows for the delivery of new techniques and technologies, and they provide support researchers and innovators an avenue into the classrooms so that they can support teachers who are otherwise left with a full classroom and the responsibility for teaching them on their own. Another benefit is that the greater number of districts and states that adopt the CC, the greater the incentive for developers of curriculum materials to develop products for the market. 

WHAT KIINDS OF CURRICULUM MATERIALS CAN BE DEVELOPED TO HELP TEACHERS IMPLEMENT THE STANDARDS IN THEIR CLASSROOMS?

The authors say, "According to the popular definition of standards, they serve as a countervailing force to innovation that restricts flexibility and creativity. Paradoxically, standards spark innovation" 

DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE? 

ARE THERE OTHER BENEFITS OF IMPLEMENTING THE CCSS? IN YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE USING THE CCSS IN YOUR LESSONS, DO YOU FIND THEM HELPFUL OR RESTRICTING? WHAT ARE YOUR OVERALL THOUGHTS OF THE CCSS?

Readings:

http://www.teachhub.com/7-ways-common-core-will-change-your-classroom

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/03/common%20core%20state%20standards/bleiberg_west_common%20core%20state%20standards.pdf

Common Core State Standards

The articles I read were "Moving Forward with Common Core State Standards Implementation: Possibilities and Potential Problems” by Emily Liebtag from University of Virginia and “Common Core State Standards: Progress and Challenges in School Districts’ Implementation” by Nancy Kober and Diane Stark Rentner.

The first article talks about issues surrounding equity and teacher education, and also the possibilities and potential problems of this reform as it relates to social justice and the skills required for current and future educators to implement it. Michael Casserly, the Executive Director on the Council of the Great City schools, declares, “The common core standards finally make real the promise of American public education to expect the best of all our schoolchildren.”  Then they state that the following are the main reasons why Achieve supports the Common Core:

• Preparation: The standards are college-and career-ready. They will help prepare students with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in education and training after high school.
• Competition: The standards are internationally benchmarked. Common standards will help ensure our students are globally competitive.
• Equity: Expectations are consistent for all – and not dependent on a student’s zip code.
• Clarity: The standards are focused, coherent, and clear. Clearer standards help students (and parents and teachers) understand what is expected of them.
• Collaboration: The standards create a foundation to work collaboratively across states and districts, pooling resources and expertise, to create curricular tools, professional development, common assessments and other materials.

For this article, the quote “The common core standards finally make real the promise of American public education to expect the best of all our schoolchildren,” I would say that it is not the real promise for the American education because I don’t think that there really is just one way to make our education system better. Would you say that the Common Core State Standards is our salvation to fix the public education system, especially after the experience we have had within our field experiences?

As for the five main reasons listed of why to support the Common Core State Standards, which one do you guys agree with? Did you guys find similar reasons being used within your individual articles?

The second article is a report that provides a snapshot of what districts had done or were planning to do to implement the CCSS standards when the survey was administered in early 2011. Based off this article it says that states and districts have moved ahead with additional implementation activities; basically saying it has been progressing positively. They include a couple of pie charts graphing districts’ opinions of the Common Core State Standards and how it has either been successful or not thus far.

From looking at these four pie charts, we can see that more than half of the districts agree that CCSS are more rigorous than previous standards and that implementation of CCSS will improve skills among the students. The rest of the district either disagrees or is unsure. Based off  these findings, we can say that most of the districts feel that CCSS will be successful, in comparison to previous ones. I would fall in the category of agreeing as well, but to an extent, because I do not think that CCSS is going to be the one thing that is going to turn our education system around.. Which category would you fall into? Do you think these charts are an accurate representation?

"Moving Forward with Common Core State Standards Implementation: Possibilities and Potential Problems”

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.cc.uic.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=b5da4595-0ab2-40db-ad83-4dc7d49cefb3%40sessionmgr4004&vid=1&hid=4204

“Common Core State Standards: Progress and Challenges in School Districts’ Implementation”

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED523957.pdf

Preparing America’s Students for Success: College & Career

Good Evening,

I hope this post finds you well (regardless of position =] ).

When I began reading on the topic for today’s post, I found myself constantly needing to reference more and more readings/opinions to begin to even grapple with my own perspective. They each offered a different outlook on what seemed to be the same end goal. As with any developmental plan, one can see the pros/cons, strides/drawbacks.

Just to provide an overview, corestandards.org defines the standards as:

1. Research and evidence based
2. Clear, understandable, and consistent
3. Aligned with college and career expectations
4. Based on rigorous content and the application of knowledge through higher-order thinking skills
5. Built upon the strengths and lessons of current state standards
6. Informed by other top-performing countries to prepare all students for success in our global economy and society

The site positions that the standards clearly demonstrate what students are expected to learn at each grade level, so that every parent and teacher can understand and support their learning.

It opens with telling parents that today’s students are preparing to enter a world in which colleges and businesses are demanding more than ever before. To ensure all students are ready for success after high school, the Common Core State Standards establish clear, consistent guidelines for what every student should know and be able to do in math and English language arts from kindergarten through 12th grade.

It makes mention that while the standards set grade-specific goals; they do not define how the standards should be taught or which materials should be used to support students. It is recognized that there will need to be a range of supports in place to ensure that all students can master the standards. It is up to the states/districts to define the full range of supports appropriate for these students.

“When I look at the standard, I don’t see a document that tells me what to teach or gives me a curriculum; rather, I see an underlying organization that gives us collective purpose.”

 –Sarah Brown Wessling 2010 National Teacher of the Year and English teacher, Johnston High School

As a future teacher, what do you see when you look at the Common Core State Standard?

Below is a link, if interested, of statements of support by various people and organizations. It is where I found my second reading. 

http://www.corestandards.org/other-resources/statements-of-support/

In the summer of 2010, Bob Wise, President of the Alliance for Excellent Education, released a statement supporting the Common Core. His concerns were that, “ under the current education system, there is wide variation between states and even school districts on what students are expected to know and do—a situation that is unfair to all students, and one that is especially harmful to low-income students and students of color.” He claimed, “With common standards and assessments, students, parents, and teachers will have a clear, consistent understanding of the skills necessary for students to succeed after high school and compete with peers across the state line and across the ocean.” 

Aside from Bob Wise’s concerns with the achieve gap in education, another primary focus of his was cost efficiency. “During a time when many states face large budget deficits, there are significant financial benefits for moving toward common standards and assessments” assured Mr. Wise. He provided statistics of the money that goes into developing, administering, scoring, and reporting tests, along with the cost of college remedial supports. With commonalities in assessments, and schools that are pro CCSS, he didn’t see reason for funds allocated for education to not decrease drastically.

Lastly, he was sure to note, “Although common standards cannot single‐handedly improve the quality of the nation’s education system, they are an important first step toward setting a common goal for educators to ensure they are preparing students for success in college and careers.”

“Zip codes might be great for sorting mail, but they should not determine the quality of a child’s education.”

-Bob Wise, president of the Alliance for Excellent Education and former governor of West Virginia

As the video and Mr. Wise both make reference to, do you believe that the CCSS helps bridge the gap/disconnect in education?

Readings:

http://www.corestandards.org/

http://all4ed.org/press/statement-from-gov-bob-wise-on-the-release-of-the-common-core-state-standards/