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
Good Post Alva,
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if i think that the implementation of CCSS will improve scores and the achievement gap. I think that it is important to remember that each school is different, and although the standards will be consistent among districts and states, it does not mean that there will be equity. According to the article I read in the online magazine "Rethinking Schools" by author Stan Karp there will still be huge gaps between the amount of money each school gets. Making standards more rigorous and universalizing standards does not mean that students will achieve those ends. Some people think that the increase in testing and the more rigorous standards might alienate more students and cause them to struggle even more. If students are not meeting the less rigorous standards that are in place now, how are they going to meet them when they are harder. Also, in the newspaper article "Education Week" by author Benjamin Harold, teachers who thought the implementation of the CCSS would be easy at the beginning of their role out have changed what they thought. The standards are more rigorous than they thought they would be and there is more testing which will require more time for implementing them in school districts. I am all for more critically thinking skills and more rigor, but like Karp explained in his article, the roll out of CCSS should not be done universally. Like him, I think they should have pilot programs to work out the bugs and to let teachers gain experience in implementing the new standards.
Hi Archie,
DeleteGreat post! I absolutely agree with several of the points you made here. For instance, I also believe that CCSS should not be universalized because not all schools/districts are the same. The student body/teacher body is different across all schools and districts. What does this mean?? There is diversity!
In the article I read, "Literacy Implementation for the ELA Common Core State Standards" by the International Reading Association is trying to promote some type of same universal learning; however, we all know that will never happen! Why do I say this? Well, the lack of resources, time, and the preparation/experience of every single teacher is different. The article discusses about how the standards for ELA have significantly been changed, but of course, there are no specific guidelines in order to help teachers meet these standards. Yet, this article is suppose to be a guideline for implementing literacy? The article only mentions that teachers should push students to read higher-level texts, but the teachers need to make sure the students have the skills to even be able to read these texts. Again, this is meant to be a guideline, but it really isn't. The article claims that "states and schools need to support such efforts with appropriate and timely professional development for teachers," but how effective are these PDs? I have asked several teachers, and they dislike PD days. This article is not so great in demonstrating how to implement CCSS.
Great post Alva,
ReplyDeleteBase on your 5 bullet points that your article brought up I think that in many ways they sound very good to be true. Nevertheless, I hope that some how some of those points are actually true, since they are mostly hypothetical. In one of the articles I read, “Common Core a Year Later” they looked at the way New York city teachers and superintendents felt about CCSS after one year of implementation. There is a sense that teachers feel much better about the standards and implementation. While the superintendent believes that students keep moving forward and achieving proficiency standards in math and language arts.
However, later in the article teacher union president calls their “meeting proficiency standards” subjective as goals and the definitions of proficiency changes to make it look like the students are meeting standards.
As a result, this made me feel like what is the point of having nationwide standards and curriculum if each state can measure success differently. Again, I understand that each district and state is different and therefore it might make sense that each one measures their success differently, but then aren’t we just staying where we are but calling it something else?
In my other article, “Realizing opportunities for English Learners in the Common Core literacy standards” I liked the way in which the article addresses the needs of our diverse children and the ways in which we need to make the standard work for all of our learners. In the article is goes through reading, writing, listening and speaking and gives specific examples of how CCSS can be used with our ELs. With this article, your fourth bullet point, equity, is addressed. I think this is important because as ELs move into all-English classes they will be able to do all the things that their fellow classmates can.
Hey Alva,
ReplyDeleteYou picked a couple of good articles to read for this week! To answer your questions regarding the first article, I would not agree that Common Core is the salvation that teachers, administrators and parents have been looking for. However, I do think that it is a good place to start in trying to solve the myriad of problems that face the U.S. education system. I worry that Common Core is one of those things that look great on paper, but when put into practice, the problems become self-evident. I think much more time needs to pass in order to determine if CC will follow in the footsteps of NCLB, but it needs to be monitored closely. I wholeheartedly agree that CC should prep students for college, even if they choose not to attend college. Otherwise, what is the point, really?
As for your second article, I pretty much already touched on this, but I think it is too early to tell what the long term effects CC will have on our education system, so I am wondering if surveys like those described in your second article are jumping the gun. More time and evidence needs to be gathered before any final judgments are passed.
Alva, I enjoyed reading your post! One of the articles I read, "Adult Problems Aren't More Important Than Student Needs" by Michelle Rhee, made a case for the CCSS similar to the "Competition" bullet point you listed. Rhee states that she feels it is ridiculous that our students aren't competitive compared to students from other countries, especially because of the resources we have in this country. She also brings up points about equity, saying how inappropriate it is that a student's zip code often determines the quality of education they will receive. With this, the says how she thinks the standards will level the playing field since they are internationally benchmarked and will give all American schools that same standards to live up to. As for my own beliefs on the standards, I think that they have potential, but I'm not convinced that they will significantly improve the quality of education students receive in this country. For one, the standards--at least in math--are written in language that I think if very value, so it's hard to determine what the standard is even calling for. Additionally, we can write all the standards we want, but without support for our teachers and others who are key players in facilitating the learning of our students, we won't accomplish anything. Thus, I believe that while the idea of having national standards has potential, I think the standards should be written in a way that is more easily understood, and teachers, parents, and administrators should be given the proper supports to be able to meet the demands of the standards.
ReplyDeleteFor me, I don't think that the Common Care, is an immediate fix. I think that it is a good starting point. I don't think the problem is the standards themselves because standards are a tool. They are a goal to look forward too and something to aspire. In sports the standard is the average, if you are above the average you are considered a hall of famer, something that very few people are, if you are the average well you are still playing professional sports at a high level, if you are below the average well, you find something else that you are good at. The point is that these standards are something we help students achieve but we have to realize that the standards are not pass or fail. They are not, if you can't answer the questions on this one test then you are a failure. If an athlete has a bad game they get back out there and play again. It takes years before an athlete reaches a point where they are rejected and in a lot of cases they utilize their experience to coach or enter a new field. Not everyone is going to be great at Math or English or Science but most people have a mind for something and there are things that are important that are outside of the realm of STEM, This is just the first baby step in a long list of changes.
ReplyDeleteGreat post Alva, very informative.The article I read by Robert Rothman on the Education Next journal talks about the implementation of Common Core Standards in the state of Illinois. In the state of Kentucky, there was a lot of resistance from the community to accept the inclusion of CCS in the instruction students received. Rothman highlights that teachers, school leaders and district officials meet regularly to propose lessons, develop assessments and share materials to help prepare other teachers in their home schools and districts to implement the standards. I think this is a great approach to make the implementation of CCS a collaborative effort that includes opinions of all the community.
ReplyDeleteNice post, digign the pie charts. I agree with the last point from that first article that it will allow for better collaboration, the first three points are still questionable and yet to be seen, and I definitely can't comment on the fourth point as I have not yet gathered the experience are familiarity with previous standards to make that case. I definitely agree with the pie chart and would put myself in the improve and provide more rigorous math. I know people ar very hesitant skeptical particularly since policy and standards change so often over time as pointed out in this article http://www.newarkadvocate.com/story/news/local/2014/11/15/common-cores-uncertain-fate-educators-edge/19110587/
ReplyDeleteBut as mentioned in the other article http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/11/12/12cc-coherence.h34.html that I read a lot of people did not grow up with math like this or see math like this, but much of the 'math' people have seen in their schooling was not really that much math, so much as procedures without the connections, and for the first time different approaches and methods are being encouraged in math with in the standards themselves, and its not got people confused. Personally I believe if properly implemented it will provide for a more rigorous and thoughtful math and will definitely have the potential to improve math scores, because the focus is on developing skills necessary to be to improve a persons math skills and abliities and not just covering as many topics as possible. They emphasise "understanding" in the common core document, while the word is thrown around often in the document, it seems that the intention is for deeper math knowledge over rote memorization.
I also agree that implementing common core standards will improve skills, but what I disagree with is how it is being measured. In the article I read, "Tests in transition," the article states how multiple test formats are used (ACT, ISAT, PARCC) in order to measure student performance during this transition period. What the article also states is that schools are transitioning to project based learning. The standardized test should be part of the assessment of student performance, not the sum.
ReplyDeleteAlva, a great post that makes people really think about their perspective about the common core. I personally believe the common core is just a way to make everyone equal, well a try to make everyone accountable for their learning. Does it make students more likely to succeed, yes, but it really isn't effective when it comes down to how it is measured. I also believe that getting students used to this common core will end up being useless when they transition into a post-secondary education where a different state standard applies. Another thing also is the primary focus on math and English while the other subjects are seen as less important.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlva, this post was awesome and very informative. I actually read the first article as well. And quite a few others. I mentioned earlier on in the semester that I am not very familiar with common core, aside from the horror stories I have heard from my teacher friends. It has all been pretty negative from what I can tell. There are many opinions on the web on whether or not it is good to implement these standards. I think it will be good in some cases and bad in others. I, like many others, agree that it will help keep everyone on track as well as improve various skills. It will be great if these standards can be implemented correctly. I also disagree with how it is so standardized test intensive. It seems to me, and this may just be the article I read, that these standards are intended to teach to the tests. Which I think can be great if our students actually learn material that is worthwhile and not just for the exam. In the end I guess it's all about accountability, and that is exactly what these standardized tests are there for.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-singer/common-core-tests_b_6170832.html
I really liked the points made in the first article. Before I knew exactly how the common core shaped curriculum, it seemed as more unnecessary work for teachers and students. However, with points such as college and career readiness and equity the standards make sense and are beneficial. They prove to be a necessary means to shape curriculum that is important to learning beyond the classroom.
ReplyDeleteAlva,
ReplyDeleteThanks for talking about this article! I feel as though bringing up the stats of CCSS will encourage more acceptance, That being said, I find it to be executed with such difficulty in many classrooms. I see teachers do the technical work like writing the addressed standards on the board, but when in practice, it seems as though the lessons display a sense of disconnect with the CCSS. I don't think there is anything wrong with this disconnect, but it seems as though students are still grappling with the materials and are critically learning. It just seems as an inconvenient technicality for many teachers.
Nice post!
Saarah Mohammed
Hi Alva,
ReplyDeleteGreat post with visuals! I agree with the majority of the bloggers here that no, the common core is not some magic solution to everything but, if used properly (i.e. if used as a guideline towards making sure that students learn a general set of skills no matter where they're learning them at, will help our educational system on the whole. However, these results will most likely not be seen until maybe an entire generation of school students have went through the entire system. One Chicago Tribune article which I've read titled, "Defending the common core school standards" (its a no brainer whose side the author was on), they argue that there is a solid need for the creation of a national set of standards which all students should be able to meet. It also argues that as a guideline, teachers would utilize it in a way which would help them use it as a roadmap to tracking their students and that teachers would have then the freedom towards deciding on their personalized ways of reaching students to achieve that standard. Its a slipperly slop which has positives and negatives about the common core, howeve, if used properly, then there are good motives towards utilizing it to help imporve our educational system.
As a article called Common Core: Myths and Facts points out Common Core Standards started out "with the idea that math in Massachusetts should not be any different from math in Maryland." This is what the common core standards are trying to help they want a student who moves from Chicago to New York to have a smooth transition within the two schools. He/she should not be behind from the other students. The standards provide two things guidelines for teachers and fairness to students.
ReplyDelete