By Tom
One of my fourth graders began school in a part of the country known for its spectacular natural beauty. Unfortunately, it’s also know for subpar housing, poor health care, and high illiteracy. Sadly, this student started the year well behind his peers and is still struggling to catch up. When I talked to his mom, she explained that he was an average student in his old school and she noticed a huge jump in terms of what he was expected to do in our school.
In other words, standards.
People across the country, both conservative and progressive, are balking at the implementation of the Common Core State Standards, either because they fear too much federal government involvement in what has traditionally been a state issue, or because they fear the Common Core is leading to over-testing of students and profiteering by the companies that produce those tests. While these concerns probably have some merit, there are three important facts concerning the common core that need to be considered:
First of all, we’ve always had, and always will have, standards. And it’s not just us. Doctors have standards. Plumbers have standards. So do engineers, pharmacists and the guys that build train tracks. We had standards before the Common Core and we’ll have other standards if we abandon the Common Core.
Second, standards imply assessment. Think of those guys and their train tracks. From time to time, one of them has to stop what he’s doing and check to see that their tracks are just the right distance apart. Otherwise they’ll have to start over. Likewise, from time to time we have to stop what we’re doing every once in a while to see if our students are learning the stuff we’re trying to teach. It’s inconvenient for everyone, but it’s also important.
And finally, it makes no sense for different places in the country to be teaching to different standards. Particularly math, ELA and science standards. People move around a lot, and kids all over the country will eventually compete for the same jobs and college seats. It’s ridiculous for their respective states to focus on different standards. Because by “different” we’re talking harder or easier; and in this case, harder is better.
The Common Core is not perfect and testing is no fun. I get that. But there’s a kid struggling in my classroom right now, mostly because the beautiful state where he was born and the beautiful state where he lives now each decided on a different set of standards.
That doesn’t make any sense.
This makes lots of sense, Patty. If the discussion is standards, then we’d like to specialize in standards; if it’s tests, we tend to specialize in tests. the issues of 1 don’t inherently impart flaws upon the opposite.
I agree that we’re at a place where testing seems more obtrusive than it could/should be. We need to find a balance between time spent teaching and time stolen for testing. We’re not there yet. But we will be.
I just got a new student today and one is coming tomorrow… thankfully both from Washington, but even so there will be some work during the transition. Standards are an essential component of a functional public school system. And I agree – it makes a great deal of sense to have the same set of standards for everyone. They may not be perfect, but they’re pretty good (especially the math).
Standards do seem to imply some testing, but what does that look like? I’m not sure how they test the railroad gauge, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t tested every foot of the track by hand. There’s a better way. Likewise in education, we need to assess our students (and the system) intelligently. Maybe we can look more closely at how the different parts the system come together and design ways of creating integrity within.
Tom,
Thank you for articulating my position on CCSS. Those who would argue against the standards are most likely arguing against assessments or mandated curriculum or something else completely unrelated to the standards. I have also taught students from other parts of the country who came to us woefully behind, but who had been considered at least average in their old systems. The more mobile our society becomes, the more we need a consistent standard. In my ideal world, the standards remain, SOME testing remains, and teachers are given time and training to implement the standards in ways that are best for our students. Is that so much to ask?
“Those who would argue against the standards are most likely arguing against assessments or mandated curriculum or something else completely unrelated to the standards.”
Respectfully, I don’t think this statement holds up. The standards drive the assessment, and the standards together with the assessment drive the curriculum taught. Treating them as all isolated things is your classic forest/trees situation.
I agree with you that standards, assessment, and curriculum can’t be looked at in isolation. If we begin with the standards, the other pieces are natural outgrowths. However, those who begin by looking at the assessments, and use those to criticize the standards, are usually upset with length and frequency of testing rather than the standards that are being tested. My point is simply that we need to start our discussion with the standards, not the other things that come with them.
This makes a lot of sense, Patty. If the discussion is standards, then we need to focus on standards; if it is tests, we focus on tests. The flaws of one do not inherently impart flaws upon the other.