By Mark
Common Core State Standards, TPEP, data-collection, student growth. These have all been the culprit in many conversations with teachers wherein they, with understandable sadness, talk of how all of these new initiatives and expectations are squeezing the creativity and joy out of teaching. I empathize with where these teachers are; I even wrote here a while back about the sense of mourning I felt as I began to align my course content to the Common Core.
When I was in the ninth grade, we found out that my mother had breast cancer. As a family before and even during this, we experienced little strife–I had it quite good on our little farm in the middle of a blank spot on the map of Oregon–but we were not particularly emotional, super touchy-huggy, or all that. (When we were first together, my wife, lovingly, equated my family's mealtimes to a board meeting.) After the cancer diagnosis, I'm sure the experience for my mother and father was very different, but I remember only the simple resolve with which my parents approached her cancer as a task to be taken care of–it is what it is and now we need to do something about it. Surgery and a slew of pills took care of the first round of cancer. It returned again a couple of years later, and surgery again was, thankfully, enough. My mother has been cancer-free since.
During this time, a book showed up in our house–and it has stuck in my memory ever since. Based on the title, I think I know which of my mom's friends probably dropped it off, but that's no matter. It was a Erma Bombeck-eque book by Barbara Johnson, titled Pain is Inevitable but Misery is Optional, So Stick a Geranium in Your Hat and Be Happy.
I don't remember if I ever even opened the book.
I hate to come across as a jerk, but this book's title is now what comes to my mind when I hear teachers lamenting that the Common Core (or whatever else) is squeezing the joy and creativity out of teaching. It is also what I remind myself when I likewise start looking for the culprit for whatever moment of misery and struggle I might find myself in.
This is what I believe: If you say that the Common Core will stop you from being creative with your students, that's your choice, not the will of a sheet of standards. If you say that having to focus on student growth for your evaluation is squeezing the joy out of your work, that's your choice, not the requirement of the law. If you are miserable, that comes from you. Misery is a choice.
I get it that people might be opposed to Bill Gates' involvement in public education. But, Bill Gates does not have enough money to squeeze joy and creativity from my teaching. I get that people oppose the Common Core State Standards. But, I had standards to teach to before, and I will always have standards to teach to, and no where does it state in those standards that I have to engage joylessly in my work with students. I understand, and concur with, the opposition to high-stakes state testing. If I bring creativity and joy to my classroom, no matter the standards or content, I believe that I will be preparing them infinitely better through how I choose to teach than if I resentfully slog though whatever curriculum I am "forced" to cram down their throats.
Over the last dozen years, just as many of you have likely experienced, many students have come to me to seek advice about dealing with troubles at home, particularly in how they deal with alcoholic or drug-addicted parents, and more than a few have had parents go through the same health battles my mother endured. Every time, I hear myself tell them: first, realize what is within your control and what is not. The foundation of the good ol' "serenity" prayer.
I say the same for my colleagues: consider what we have real control over. We have control over whether we are miserable. We can disagree with policy and law and top-down mandates. But when we start saying that these mean we can no longer be creative and must instead be miserable, we've chosen to give up our power.
If we disagree with policy and law and top-down mandates, we absolutely must voice this opposition, offer alternatives, and try to make change. Yes, I am "pro-TPEP" and just fine with the Common Core, but I respect the fact that many others are not. I wish only success for any teacher who argues to improve the system in the way they believe it needs to be improved, so long as they are respect me for possibly having a counter-argument and the same noble intentions.
But we need to keep in mind the weakest possible argument in our opposition of whatever we oppose: that the "it" squeezes the joy or creativity out of our teaching. Joy and creativity are, unlike many other things in our jobs, fully within our control.
Two things:
1. I totally agree with Mark that teaching to the CCSS doesn’t “squeeze the joy” out of teaching. At least not my joy. I find joy in the daily challenge of planning, executing and reflecting on my teaching and my students’ learning. Frankly, it matters little what standards I’m teaching to, as long as they’re coherent.
2. Linda, your remark that some standards are “developmentally inappropriate” concerns me. On what basis do you make this claim? I have found that developmental appropriateness is a very nebulous concept. Even within one classroom there might be 15 kids who are ready to learn fractions and ten who aren’t. Do we wait until all of them are ready?
Linda, I totally agree. When we stand up against whatever policy or program we oppose, we have to make sure our arguments are the best arguments.
I have to admit that my personal opinions on CCSS are far closer to “indifferent” than “passionate,” mainly because of my context (high school English, where the CCSS is a shift from previous standards but not in a way that I believe is unreasonable).
Elementary teachers and math teachers in particular, certainly have much more valid things to say in opposition to CCSS than I do–and THOSE are the voices that ought to be raised. I have no authentic voice, and in my opinion, very little place, in that particular argument–in a sense it is similar to non-educator policymakers making education policy: I have no right as a high school English teacher to presume to know what is best for my elementary-teaching colleagues. My relative indifference to CCSS in my classroom does NOT mean that others should be indifferent as well. We all must advocate from what we know toward what we think is best. Whether that means engaging at the building or district level to help influence curricular decisions or to engage at the local or national level to make broader changes there.
Other issues, such as the new evaluation system, I am very well versed in and feel much more strongly about. Because that is something I am informed about, passionate about, and have influence around, I do engage at the building, district, local and state levels in trying to help shape how this new system is implemented. This is what we all need to do.
Perhaps it was shortsighted of me to try to parse out just one part (the creativity and joy piece) of these bigger arguments. My message, about joy and creativity, was in direct response to what I hear among my own colleagues but also in response to other voices being posted online here and there about these matters. I find the joy and creativity argument to be passive and self-indulgent…and far to easy for the “powers” to dismiss as petty whining.
Also, I’ve been thinking more about that idea of “serenity” as you raised before. The line “the serenity to accept the things I cannot change” is not the line that resonates the most to me in this context. Rather, the better line is “the courage to change the things I can.” Teachers with the courage to “do” change rather than just talk about it will be the ones who can make the change they want to see. By that I mean I could sit and write on this blog until my fingers break off but it will do no good unless I go out and do something about what I care about (and I do, in my case, what I care about is ensuring that the system serves to help teachers grow as practitioners, not be bogged down with documenting their practice). It might not seem like it is possible sometimes, but I do think teachers can change the broader system for the betterment of our students–and it will not be easy, but it will take courage. It will be painful–what’s the saying, if you stick your head out you’re more likely to get your head chopped off? That takes courage.
Linda, thank you for reading and engaging in a civil dialogue (what I perceive to be civil at least, I hope you’re feeling the same) since in many other domains, the comments section is nothing but polarized polemics and ad hominem attacks. Civil dialogue is a lost art, but I believe is the critical for enacting lasting change.
Mark,
I’m sorry if I misinterpreted some parts of your post. We do agree on much, but the issues around CCSS sure make things less clear. We seem to be saying we must accept CCSS and move forward. Or are we not saying that? WEA must provide resources to help implement, but wait, some of the standards are not developmentally appropriate. This issue has become extremely divisive and people are planting themselves in one camp or the other. You chose to write a piece focusing on the “joy and creativity” aspect, and on that we can agree 100%. But this namby-pamby approach we are taking regarding appropriateness, implementation, etc. is not serving us well. Teachers are working very hard and are, by and large, dedicated to making things work, and we do what we are told to do. Our leadership needs to take a strong, ethical position based on the truth and the course of action that serves the needs of our students. That course is always the correct one for teachers, families, and the community.
Linda, I’m glad you can see my main point. However, I wasn’t intending to compare “acceptance of CCSS” with accepting a cancer diagnosis, just giving the background for how that book showed up.
And… I didn’t say to accept with serenity… at the end I do call on people to make their voices heard and that we must argue against what we think is not best for education. (See the last two paragraphs of the post). No matter what, the first step in making change is figuring out what we are in control of and what we are not.
I likewise agree that the standards are developmentally inappropriate in many cases. That argument is the argument policymakers need to hear. In fact, I agree with every policy point you make in your comment. In no way is my post asking teachers to just shut up and accept these 🙂 but instead to make sure that we are arguing the right points when we stand in opposition of them.
Ultimately, we need to make sure that our reasons for opposing whatever we oppose cannot be rooted in arguments around joy and creativity, which are wholly in our control. If our arguments include those points, it is far too easy for those in power to disregard everything we say.
Fair points, though the metaphor of acceptance of CCSS and acceptance of your mom’s cancer diagnosis seems strange and sad to me. I, for one will never let anyone or anything squeeze the joy out of my life’s work. (Partly because I will reject whatever is suggested or even “required” that may lead in that direction.) But I must say, I believe serenity is seriously overrated. I will not accept this flawed mandate with serenity. It was wrong to impose an untested set of standards, many developmentally inappropriate, on states. It was wrong for states to adopt them before they were even finalized. It was wrong to finalize them before piloting them. It is wrong, right now, to be developing questions for SBAC, in light of the inadequacy of the standards on which they are based. I will not accept any of this with serenity. But, I do agree with your main point: joy and creativity are totally within my control. I practice them every single day with my students, my friends, and family. I will never allow anyone or anything to take these away!