By Mark
This summer, I've been participating in a book study about challenges in implementing Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts. In that spirit, I sat down today to look at my scope and sequence for the classes I teach (Freshman English Lit and Comp). All along I've been saying to myself and others that this whole Common Core Standards shifting is no big deal: we're already doing that work, it's just a matter of identifying in those standards all the things we already do–we won't really have to do much that is "new."
As it turns out, this whole process really made me rethink what I teach and how I teach. I found that there were many standards which were addressed, reinforced, and assessed in basically every single unit of the sequence. I also found a few standards which never appeared more than once, buried as a footnote in some broader unit. More concerning: some of the projects and assessments that I and my students enjoy the most were supported by only tenuous connections (at best) to the standards.
This coming school year, I anticipate that many of my posts will reflect my process with the Common Core. Interestingly, when I try to characterize my feelings, the first word that pops into my head (however irrational this may be) is the word mourning. Some of those projects that kids seem to connect with so well lack strong connection to Common Core, even if they are the tasks that former students still recall to me ten years later. No matter how much I, or they, love the experience, these are the things I really need to examine and honestly assess whether they belong in my classroom under my new expectations.
As I try to help other teachers make this transition to the new standards, I need to remember that word that popped into my head. As I encounter resistance, I need to remember that isn't just about being "opposed to change." I need to remember that the first reaction when you are told to do something new might not actually be a reaction to that which is new, but rather a quick and confusing pang of loss for something deeply enjoyed that no longer seems to fit.
We’ve had these discussion in my building, as well. A lot of times it comes down to the difference between “better” and “familiar.” A teacher may love to teach a particular unit or lesson, claiming it’s “better” than that which the district has adopted. Maybe it is. Or maybe it’s simply “familiar.” Maybe the teacher has been teaching that unit for years. Maybe it’s a good unit, and kids love it. But that doesn’t necessarily make it “better” than a unit that was designed to build on what the students learned at the previous grade level and lead into what will be learned at the next grade level.
As teachers, we play a long game. We’re supposed to work together so that when people graduate from high school they’re prepared for whatever they choose to do. Sometimes that means sacrificing the “familiar” for the “better.”
I was at a meeting yesterday where we were discussing the idea of the “Julie Andrews” curriculum: a curriculum where decisions on what to include are made because “these are a few of my favorite things.”
There are some legitimate reasons to include “favorite things,” When teachers are excited about what is going on in the classroom, this enthusiasm spills over to the students, and when the students are the ones choosing the “favorite things,” they tend to own their learning. As Kristin notes, however, we can definitely adapt and modify to encourage enthusiasm and allow student choice while still meeting standards.
The teaching of Common Core standards in all curriculum areas is a tricky one. Yes, reading and writing across the content areas can definitely strengthen content area learning as well as CC standards.
However, Mark, you write about other content teachers worrying about loss of their “own” curriculum, and Kristin, you note there is no way to meet all CC standards in the allotted ELA time. That is true, but honestly, in science, there is no way (or it is very difficult) for us to meet our current state science standards in our allotted time, and to ask us to “push kids to master specific reading and writing skills” is a tall order. We currently are teaching science with state standards, we are reviewing the upcoming national Next Generation Science Standards, and to have a third set of standards in our minds is a lot.
The big challenge, I think, will be how the ELA standards will be implement in non-English classrooms. So much of the informative writing and nonfiction reading (based on what my district is exploring) takes place beyond the English classroom. I worry that the science, history, health, art (etc) teachers will see this as “one more thing…” or feel resistant out of worry for loss of their “own” curriculum.
Seattle has been shifting to Common Core for a few years now. It’s true – it’s hard when you pull out your favorite project or activity and it doesn’t match up to anything your students are supposed to be mastering, but most of us are pretty adept at revising and tweaking.
I think there are some good conversations to be had around taking something and realigning it. You can still enjoy the same project; you just need to shift it in certain key areas so that it matches the new standards.
Using the Common Core has simplified things for me. The writing standards are more streamlined and clear than the standards my district used to use. Because I teach blocks – language arts and history – if I couldn’t hit a standard easily with literature I could do it in history. For schools that don’t block, like most high schools, there should definitely be some collaboration across content areas so that classes other than language arts are pushing kids to master specific reading and writing skills. There’s no way you could hit them all in one year, fifty minutes a day.