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.
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
Nice post Amanda,
ReplyDeleteI think that the common core standards have everyone a little uneasy because it is a change in so many ways. In one of the articles I read, “ Common Core: A year Later” new york teachers and superintendent mention how hard things were in the beginning and that teachers are slowly making their way through the standards and implementation, making them more comfortable with them now, then a year earlier. I think that it is nice to think of a much more uniform curriculum where everyone should be learning the same skills. My only concern is making sure that things are really as transparent and equal as many people make it seem. In the same article I read, the teacher union president talked about how states had fudge the numbers and make it look like students are achieving standards when they really are not. This makes me nervous because then I feel like we are not making any progress. Yet, other articles that I read states that we just need to give the CCSS some time to see where things really are. Meaning that in 2022 when common core will have reach every single student in our educational system, we might finally be able to say whether it was our greatest decision or our biggest mistake.
I agree with Natali!
DeleteCommon Core behaves like a framework for our curriculum, guiding learning in explicit directions. I think because of how new this idea is in terms of shifting pedagogies and opportunities to introduce different materials, many teachers grow angry and unmotivated to engage. I also think that there is the problem of finding a balance between these standards and you've pointed out, the beauty of learning. Common Core shouldn't hinder learning, but instead create a framework so that certain skills are being addressed whilst in the process.
Nice post!
Saarah Mohammed
Amanda,
ReplyDeleteI feel similar to how you do. I've always leaned away from CCSS after only hearing negative things from those around me. We spent a lot of time talking about Common Core in my ESL endorsement classes, which a lot of teachers take. Therefore I was able to hear from all of them about why they weren't fans of the standards. The big takeaway I got was that there isn't any evidence if this works. Most of them said they can't say if they like it or not because they have no idea if it's even being effective. One of my articles that I picked was Diane Ravitch's blog post titled "Why I Cannot Support the Common Core" and she talks a lot about the fact that the CCSS have been implemented with no field test and no idea of how they will affect students, teachers, or schools. She states "Would the FDA approve the use of a drug with no trials, no concern for possible harm or unintended consequences?" The obvious answer being no. I've only heard positive things from what I've read, I haven't met a teacher who is really strongly in favor of CCSS. Ravitch suggests that the standards should be a guide or an aspiration of what states and districts are expected to do, not a demand. I don't think every school in the country can successfully follow the same standards, I think if the CCSS worked more as a guide and each school or district could determine the way they would design the curriculum based on their students, then they would be more successful.
Amanda,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post. I’m not sure if these articles clarified all of my questions, but I have learned much more about the CCSS. One of the articles I read was called “Implementing the Common Core State Standards”, and it talks about how the school librarian’s role changes as the CCSS are being implemented. The school librarians are the ones who play a special and important role in the implementation of ELA CCSS. The main purpose of the CCSS is to prepare students for college and career pathways. One of the CCSS related to Language Arts is to increase the focus on nonfiction material, and “the CCSS require that in elementary grades 50 percent of what students read be informational text, and this requirement increases to 70 percent in high school.” So the librarians are the ones in charge to make sure that they “take an active role in motivating students through piquing their interest in nonfiction material”. One strategy to promote interest in reading is through book talks, so librarians should be prepared to do so. Also, collaboration between the school librarians and the classroom teachers on content-specific topics or projects is necessary. I’m not sure how much school librarians are involved in classrooms now , but with the implementation of CCSS they should also be involved in planning and co-teaching of lessons. I think that is a great responsibility of the school librarians, but in order to “foster independent lifelong readers, school librarians and classroom teachers must collaborate to an even greater extent.” One of the shifts that school librarians have to take is the “Staircase of Complexity” and their role is to “support the teaching of reading strategies and expose students to more rigorous text aligned to what is being taught in classrooms.” School librarians have to take a bigger responsibility upon themselves in making sure that they are helping the students besides the teachers. I think school librarians are a great resource; however, the fact that there is so much required of them with the implementation of CCSS makes me wonder how much work they have to put in order to succeed in their roles.
Hey Amanda,
ReplyDeleteI liked your description of the article and video you chose for this week. I, too, have been apprehensive about CC, and the effects it might have on the way I would like to teach. The NPR video is especially useful in unpacking the Gordian Knot that is Common Core, and it also alleviated some of my fears about teaching under these new standards. I like and agree with the idea of needing to challenge students, but as I have found in my own experience teaching, there is a fine line between challenging students, and overwhelming them. When you overwhelm a student, they will react by pushing back on what you have given them, throwing their hands up into the air and give up. I've seen this happen, unfortunately by my own hand.
Yes, CC should challenge students, and push them out of their comfort zone, but there is only too far that they can be pushed before they will push back. I don't think CC has an answer of what to do in that situation, but the logical choice seems to be to reel back on the goals you have for the individual, making them more manageable and achievable. CC is a step in the right direction to standardize all students across the country, if that is in fact the goal of CC. However, it is well known that all students learn differently, so is it really a good idea to try and hold everyone to the same standard? What about students that are late bloomers, or just simply aren't interested in what you are teaching? What do you do then? Is there only one answer? I am not sure that there is, and if so, I don't think CC is the go-to source to find out.
I have mixed feelings about the common core. For english, I think the common core is allowing english teachers to teach a wide array of literature while focusing on reading and writing skills that are important. I do believe that we need standards but the problem for me is that different states, different regions, even different suburban and urban areas learn differently. There are different ways to go about that. It does not mean that I believe that the common core is a way to try and reach this country wide standard. I believe that is a incredible goal but the problem comes in when we decide how to test these standards. No matter what they standards look like or what they are called you cannot have a country wide educational system without any standards. Personally i think we need to look at these standards, learn from them, and develop them gradually but we have to change the way we test them, It is not possible to function as an educated society by denying people opportunities due to the fact that they cannot pass a test.
ReplyDeleteHey Amanda,
ReplyDeleteI just finished reading an article on Gallup about a study done that surveyed educators' reception of the CC. Overall, the reception was initially positive to the primary goal. Teachers liked the idea of what it was trying to accomplish. It derailed, however, when the standardized tests came into play. I think that's one of the major problems with the CC. As you mentioned, there's a lot of creative and personal writing that makes up our discipline, and I don't think you can accurately measure those if we stay aligned with the CC. Standardized tests don't allow room for expression, and that's a shame since English is deeply rooted in the ability to express and communicate. The problem we have right now is how we assess these standards, not necessarily the standards themselves. One test doesn't reflect an individual's depth and understanding of a concept, but I'm pretty sure we all agree on that. Great post!
Hi Amanda
ReplyDeleteI think the common core is a little overwleming for teachers because they do not understand what the skills it is asking them to teach are. The common core are mostly a set of skill that students will need to know to reach their greatest success in the classroom, but knowing how to make sure these students have all these skill is the hardest part. While it does offer use a guideline, it can be difficult to make sure our students are truly reaching that potential.
Hey Amanda,
ReplyDeleteGreat post. I feel that when teaching standards, standardizing students is a danger and not a goal. The point of the standards is to have every student leave school with the same foundation of knowledge, or things that they have to know specific to a subject. Currently, the Next Generation Science Standards are being accepted as the new standards across the country because they incorporate the CCSS and create a necessity for inquiry based learning. One article that I read, Supporting the Implementation of Equity by Gallard, Mensah, and Pitts, focused on implementing the NGSS in a way to ensure the cultural and student specific backgrounds are incorporated. It is impossible to teach the same thing in the same way to all students and have them all gain the same knowledge from it. When differentiating instruction to implement standards, the diversity of the classroom must have an impact on how you teach these standards, but the core of the lesson is what must stay the same.
The article I read by Peterson and Kaplan, featured on the Academic journal Education Next, states that only 35% of U.S. 8th graders were evaluated to be proficient in Math by the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) in 2011. The authors justify the implementation CCS to bring the nation’s standards and proficiency bars to levels matching those established by international organizations and acquired by students in leading countries abroad. I think attempting a one-fit-all type of education is the incorrect approach. However, I understand that we want to make sure that all students are competitive and prepared in the basic skills. There has to be a reasonable way that we can implement CCS without demeaning our student’s creativity and individual strengths.
ReplyDeleteIn a nut shell, I think that common core has the right idea embedded in it, however, does not fully deliver or is catered to today's students and today's teachers. It has good merit because it allows teachers to understand what skills, topics, and concepts students have been exposed to in years prior to having them in their own classrooms. Not only that, but these standards target, as my article explains, the connection between procedural fluency and conceptual knowledge. However, both students and teachers are unprepared for these standards (resulting in great opposition) due to possibility of sudden change in their thinking. Neither students nor teachers may be prepared to tackle these standards, although in the future they may prove to be useful and successful. I don't think CCSS are meant to standardize students. If that is the case, then I feel that any set of standards will always "standardize" the students. I think the CCSS have great potential, however I feel a diverse set of teachers should have been used to derive these standards. I feel if this was the case, there would be less opposition and therefore result in successful implementation.
ReplyDeleteI agree we should have some set of materials that is important to reach as a country. We have to find a way to do that where communities also don't lose power in what they are teaching. Standards should guide communities not force them to teach irrelevant material. Can I say that by 2014 students were supposed to be all geniuses? Also, just a question and I really don't know the answer to this but if all seniors were to be college ready, would all students be admitted into a college?
ReplyDeleteAmanda, I want to applaud you for the conscientiousness and passion you bring to this post. I also want to thank you for tying the NPR blog on complex reading into our reading for this week because it really brought it full circle for me. I also listened in on what was happening in the D.C. elementary school and was inspired by what Wertheimer is doing in her classroom. Based on my observations over the past 2-3 years, the majority of teachers don't seem to take the risk of introducing texts generally above their students' lexicon. In fact, the texts usually fall under the grade level being taught. On the other hand, I do feel lucky to have observed mostly fictitious works being taught because it allows students to interpret, rework, and analyze with more flexibility compared to a reading that is more set in stone.
ReplyDeleteNow, with enforcing complex texts on one hand and involving high-interest/low-reading level on the other, an ELA teacher can't help but feel tugged in multiple directions. The one idea I do have, for an educator who might find themselves in this conundrum, is to allow students to take on both. If a unit focuses on a particular time period, for instances, students can read both complex texts or texts better suited for struggling readers both having to deal with similar themes/ideas deriving from a particular period. I would imagine, based on the similarities, students would be able to come together and discuss issues, answer questions and workshop despite not having read the same text.
Amanda,
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, what does Common Core mean to us, I think the article ‘A Poison Pill for Learning,’ by Robin Hiller common core standards are j exactly just that. The article talks about the negatives of the standards, and I too agree that it diminishes learning. To begin with it, it creates a strained relationship with the student and teacher who are both pressured on these common core standards that must be taught. These standards are implemented by test designers, not teachers, who actually know the individual students. Accordingly, each time a state uses tests aligned with common core, student scores drop dramatically, where only 1/3 pass. The article points out how Common Core is developentally inappropriate, in which students are “asked questions beyond their ability to understand, and they are reduced to guesswork.” What does learning really mean? The ability to follow these standards? Does that mean success?
Amanda,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the great video and article. I really liked and agreed with much of what was said in the video. For example, their organization of math classes by concept instead of just by grade level is a great way to implement common core standards and ensure that students get "very good" at fewer skills. However, I do understand your concern with how this approach can affect the amount of actual content your able to study with students. The Common Core Writer who was talking specifically about Language arts and Literature gave a pretty simple analogy for their goals. He said that they want students to "read like a detective and write like an investigative reporter." I feel like one should be able to use this approach with their chosen texts, that way teachers have more room to choose different genres, in the case of English classes.
Hi Amanda, I really enjoyed reading your post. I agree with you on so many things. I am not a huge fan of writing fiction or personal narratives myself, but I can't imagine depriving my students of that. There are so many skills (and creativity) that writing a personal narrative can bring out in a student. The word "dry" is correct in describing the path these standards are pushing us to take. Moreover, I agree that we should not be standardizing our students.
ReplyDeleteThe articles I read were about states that have pushed to get rid of the standards. These include Tennessee and Indiana. Apparently, there is a lot of push-back from republicans when it comes to the standards-the whole state rights vs fed govt deal-they believe states should be in charge of their education. I sort of agree. I do not like that most states were coerced into accepting the standards in order to receive government funding. I feel if something is good, naturally people will adopt it-I am always fishy of stuff that needs to be sold with the use of an ultimatum.
Hi Amanda,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up some really great points here. I honestly still don't know where I stand with the Common Core seeing that in the readings I have chosen for this week, both sides bring up valid points as to why the Common Core is or isn't effective. The perspective piece that I read from U.S News titled "A Poison Pill For Learning" brings forth the argument that the Common Core is harmful to students and teachers because of its limitations on creativity and collaboration in the classroom. The article also highlights that there is evidence that the Common Core is hurting students as it was observed in New York after the second round of Common Core-based testing that the achievement gap between White and Hispanics has increased immensely from 3% (before the CC) to 22%. I can see how many can come to blame the standards in a situation such as this, but I also wonder if it is due to the way that these standards are implemented in the classroom and how much weight schools place on the standards themselves. After reading about the NPR article you chose, I began to think that perhaps these standards can't be as harmful as many believe it to be as long as they are implemented in a way that leaves room for the "pink" that your article mentions. The stories of the teachers in those classrooms also gives me hope that there is potential for these standards to be used to foster growth and learning in the classroom in a way that truly supports students. As I said, I'm still unsure of my thoughts on the Common Core. Right now, I consider them as guidelines that can be helpful in framing curriculum, but I still don't know where I stand in regards to their effectiveness.
Hi Amanda,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post. I agree that after reading the NPR reading, I felt slightly better about the whole Common Core implementation, especially after a teacher like Ms. Wertheimer, who has been teaching for 17 years, likes what it has done for her reading curriculum. As for your question about "standardizing students"--I would say that is one of my main fears about this type of implementation. If every school in the US is one day required to follow the exact same standards--and will that eventually include curriculum??--is the goal to create "standardized students" to go out into the world post school and all have learned the exact same thing? I would certainly hope not and hope that within the Common Core there still exists the important notion of inspiring individuality!
I agree with you, Amanda. We cannot and should not standardize our students. My goal are not to produce excellent sheep, but critical thinkers that can find make meaningful decisions in their lives and find value in presence, rather than productivity. A person’s worth shouldn’t be measured against an index of scores and numbers. We see what they can do to their self-efficacy and how detrimental it is to manifest a student’s failings in the form of reports and other such benchmarks. I think we should start looking at skills that are most beneficial to students, such as interpersonal communication skills and the ability to deal with failure in a constructive manner, and teach them to our students. These are the skills that will transcend the classroom and find uses in other facets of their lives.
ReplyDeleteI totally share you concern. In addition I feel like this is just another way to "screw" the little guy. Whenever I read any official material on the subject it always feels like the wording is coded in a way that is supposed to make me believe a lie. Also they makes it seem like it is not a national standard, but will it be tied to finding in the same way NCLB is? It seems to me that they are trying very hard to make it seem like it is the thing all the "cool kids" are doing and that every state needs to adopt it gleefully, but I am not convinced. http://www.ccsso.org/resources/programs/implementing_the_common_core_standards_(iccs).html
ReplyDeleteGreat post,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up some very good points. I think is important to understand what Common Core standards are and to clear up any confusion and misconceptions. I personally don't think CC standards are meant to standardize or uniformize students, rather they are there to make sure that teachers have the same high expectations of all students. The CC, when applied push students to think about and understand the information. One of the articles I read from the New York Times, "Common Core, in 9-year-old eyes" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/education/common-core-in-9-year-old-eyes.html?_r=0) emphasizes this aspect but brings to attention that the CC should not be viewed as a quick fix and that it would take some time until the CC standards will show their benefits. Of course the imminent question is what happens to the current students who are the first to experience this?
Nice post Amanda,
ReplyDeleteThe learning channel video you posted made me a bit uncomfortable too. At the same time I believe with its message of teacher as facilitator, students constructing their own meaning, etc. Regarding personal narratives and fiction, the English Language Arts Common Core Standards actually include these modes. Standardization is scary, and I don't know if I wholeheartedly agree with it either, but I do like the shift of focus in English in recent years from transmitting the teacher's special snowflake opinion about Moby Dick to utilizing literature to build students' skills. And of course these skills also include aesthetic judgement, feelings, personal expression, etc... the difference is that now students are being empowered to apply these skills to various texts (other books, other students, the world). One last note: the teachers I have spoken to about standardization say that they most often design their lesson plan with their own goals/objectives in mind and then just copy and paste a CC standard that appears similar... so don't be totally freaked out... it seems like there is a great degree of flexibility with these standards.
Amanda,
ReplyDeleteI really liked how you said that you feared that the implementation of CCSS would make the English subject lose it's "beauty of the subject." I completely agree. We treat these students like they are simply a number and we are comparing them to other students/schools instead of comparing that students to their past work to see how they have grown. CC makes the classroom more statistical and less about deep understanding, enjoyment, and beauty of the subject. While reading Brian Farmer's article, I completely agreed when he stated why he wasn't a fan of CC by stating "the concerns about the cost, the quality, and the constitutionality of Common Core" and how they "pale in comparison to the concern for the hearts, minds, and souls of America’s children" (http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/18437-common-core-is-rotten-to-the-core), which is what CC is for: to further the growth of the American children we work with everyday.
ReplyDeleteHey Amanda,
Great post. I too am concerned about the unexamined optimism about the implementation of the CC as the road to closing the achievement gap and fixing education. One of the articles I read, "Critical Literacy, Digital Literacies, Common Core State Standards: A Workable Union?" ultimately lands on a positive note, demonstrating that both the push to include technology in the English standards and the desire for us to practice critical thinking and pedagogies in our classrooms can happen together under the reign of Common Core. However, the writers are not too rosy, noting that they can be "potentially stifiling" (28) and ending on a push to use the Common Core itself as a text to be read with "a skeptical stance" (32) in our own classrooms. Questions they encourage us to ask together with our students: "Who authored the standards? Whose interests are served by the crafting and adoption of national standards? What are some of the possible effects on learners, particularly those who may not fare well under "standardized learning?" Whoese voices are silent in both the ideology behind the standards but also in the types of learning and assessment they promote and recognize?" (32). I LOVE THIS IDEA!!! Use the Common Core as a text while implementing Common Core! Ha! So, so subversive.
See Chris's post above for some answers to some of the questions I quote above.
I can echo the sentiments above about the common core, I have mixed feelings towards the use of them as standards that are not necessarily created by professionals in the field, but rather are backed by businesses and just the term "standard," creates a sense of othering. One of the articles that I read (http://watchdogwire.com/michigan/2013/03/08/opinion-common-core-standards-fail-to-serve-students/) did not support the common core, mostly because the standards themselves keep being raised even though the previous standards were not met. George argues that the cost keeps going up and up but the results are still being returned as declining.
ReplyDeleteHey Amanda,
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting and offering up your much needed skepticism. The article I read was a NY Times article that explained the root of the criticism from us good ol' left-wingers. I think the most important point that was mentioned from this angle ties in with all our stress about accountability and numbers determining whether we can keep our teaching jobs or not. In the article, it was noted that in New York, "as the tests changed [and became based on Common Core Standards], the scores plummeted: Less than a third of the state’s students passed...In Albany, leaders of both houses of the Legislature called this month for a two-year moratorium on the use of Common Core test scores in teacher evaluations and in decisions about student promotions or admissions. The state teachers’ union has asked for a three-year pause." I think this makes so much sense. It's pretty cruel to throw a whole new set of rules and regulations at anyone--an individual, an organization, a corporation--and expect them to perform just as well as they did before, when they were used to a much different pacing/structure, and then punish them if they do not. Giving the nation and its schools a "grace period" while also critically assessing the pros and cons of CCSS makes the most sense. Like many of us on here, I'm pretty conflicted about the CCSS, but I do think that at its heart, "all moving together forward" is a good policy for our kids. The problem is that our nation struggles immensely with inequality that is FED by the very corporate system that promotes and provides the backbone for CCSS. It's a kind of chicken and egg type situation, I suppose. Get rid of CCSS because it's steeped in oppressive, inequality-perpetuating, corporate ideology, OR keep CCSS because it theoretically wants all students to learn the same things and do well, and just give schools a little more leeway in implementing?
IDK, let's talk about it in class. :)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/nyregion/new-york-early-champion-of-common-core-standards-joins-critics.html?_r=0