If there's
anything more surprising than how quickly and calmly 45 states embraced the new
Common Core curriculum standards, it's how quickly and contentiously the
backlash erupted.
The
standards, which California adopted in 2010, outline the skills and knowledge
public school students should acquire in each grade from kindergarten through
high school. Overall, they call for covering fewer topics, but covering each
more deeply. They require students to think their way through math problems,
rather than taking so much direct instruction from teachers. More careful
reading is another part of the standards, along with the reading of more
nonfiction. Students do more analysis and a lot more writing.
But almost
as soon as the new standards got underway — most California schools began
teaching the related curriculum this year — the coalition began to shred. Tea
party conservatives claimed that the standards were being pushed too
assiduously by the federal government, intruding on the states' authority to
set curriculum. There's some justification for that argument. The Obama
administration demanded higher academic standards from states that wanted
federal grants or some freedom from the onerous No Child Left Behind law;
though the Common Core standards were developed under the aegis of the National
Governors Assn. and adopted by states voluntarily, it was known that embracing
them would increase a state's chances of federal beneficence.
There's also
a pragmatic motivation behind conservative opposition to Common Core: Its
success would represent a political victory for the administration.
Backlash has
also come from parents and teachers' unions, who rightly argue that the
standards have been implemented hastily and sloppily in too many states. They
have legitimate worries that schools and teachers will be held responsible for
student performance on standardized tests even as they try to work out the
kinks in a dramatically new set of expectations. Researchers recently reported
that, so far, there are no textbooks that are truly aligned with Common Core
standards.
Several
state legislatures are now pushing back. Bills in Georgia and Wyoming call for
reviewing the standards with a possible eye to junking them; legislation in
Wisconsin and Alabama would repeal Common Core altogether. New York is delaying
full implementation after a rushed and botched start. At the federal level,
Republican legislators have introduced bills and a resolution that would scold
the administration for pushing the standards, and bar any use of federal grants
or regulatory favors as a reward for adopting them.
What gets
lost amid the political and administrative squabbling is the issue that ought
to matter most: whether the Common Core standards are a solid improvement on
what most states, including California, had before. And with a few caveats,
they are. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics praises them for
following a more logical track in building math skills. The standards are also
more closely aligned with how the top-scoring nations in international tests
teach math. Educators are pleased that students will do more writing under the
standards; colleges have long complained about the poor writing skills of
incoming students.
California's
old curriculum standards were particularly well known for being a mile wide and
an inch deep. Here's one small example: In the middle of second grade, students
were taught about obtuse and acute angles even though they had no geometry
background to understand the concept. Although they didn't know what a right
angle was or how many degrees it had, they would do a few work sheets and then
drop the subject for several years.
The Common
Core standards eliminate that sort of nonsense and build, from the earliest
years, understanding of topics that now befuddle many students, such as
multiplying and dividing fractions. In kindergarten, they might start very
simply: folding paper in half, and in half again.
Criticism of
Common Core — of the standards themselves, not the politics or implementation —
focuses on a few areas. One is that while in many states, including California,
most students are supposed to take Algebra 1 in eighth grade, under the new
standards most take that or an equivalent course as high school freshmen. That
gives them no time to reach calculus in high school, though advanced students
may follow an accelerated course of study that allows it. If any group ought to
be worried about that, it would be mathematicians. Yet the Mathematical Assn.
of America says it isn't a problem. It's more important, a spokesman said, for
students to get a deeper understanding of what they're being taught; and
besides, the idea that a high school education must include calculus is
outmoded.
Common Core is destroying the American education system. Teachers are forced to teach to a test that determines whether or not they are doing their jobs well. It is my opinion that you cannot “teach to a test” as students in every school come from all different backgrounds making it impossible for learning to be at an equal rate for each student. It is not right to say that a teacher is not doing their job well enough, or that a school is failing, because of poor test scores. Many students have trouble testing and always get poor scores even when they have mastered the material in class. The whole system of Common Core is unfair to both the students and teachers.
ReplyDeleteThe focus of Common Core is to cover less material but more in depth. The article says that students will now be focusing on fewer subjects within their classes but they will be learning much more about those areas. I see this as a disservice to students because students will get very bored and tired of talking about the same thing in so much depth for such long periods of time. What teachers should be doing is covering a reasonable amount of material and covering all the topics they need to cover but within a shorter time. Perhaps teachers should spend no more than two to two and half weeks on one topic. This way students would not get so bored with the material. Common Core is making it so students are trying less and less because they are so disinterested in what they are learning. Although Common Core gives schools grants and federal money, it is not worth it to ruin the students’ education.
The biggest issue I have with Common Core is the fact that they think that everyone needs to think deeply about every topic that they learn about. A majority of things learned in school have proven to be useless in every day society. If our job as teachers is to prepare students for the outside world, then the least we can do is start covering important concepts in the classroom. There is no use of spending weeks on a certain math topic, or a certain history topic if all it is is just part of the curriculum. The things we learn in high school should be at least 75% useful in our every day lives after high school. We do not need to be wasting three days on a topic that could be taught in one day. If we are going to start going in depth with certain topics they need to be worth our time. It will start to kids off of learning if they are forced to spend a long amount of time on something that does not really matter. Common Core needs to re-strategize their goals and start thinking about what will truly make the students want to learn and not wasting time on things that do not matter. If Common Core can start making changes then they could have a really cool program. What Common Core, and a lot of the other programs like it, lack are making changes and being open to feedback. There needs to always be a conversation about what is going on and there needs to always be someone who is willing to make changes. If they are not willing to refine their ideas then we will still be having this conversation twenty years from now, and I prefer talking about something else.
ReplyDeleteThe reasoning behind Common Core is a sound one, yet I believe it was not carried out to its fullest potential. While I do believe curriculum being "a mile wide and an inch deep" is not the way to go, an inch deep and a mile wide is not the best strategy either. I feel as though Common Core goes too in-depth for students at the K-12 level. If students want to psychoanalyze every single character in "Catcher in the Rye" to the point of being able to accurately assume their zodiac sign, I feel it is best to do that as a special interest in college where it is more-so about what the student wants as opposed to what is being forced on them. While I do support the notion within Common Core to gradually lead up to a topic, such as fractions, by starting small, such as folding paper in kindergarten, I feel like it also may be underestimating the actual intelligence of students at the elementary level. Overall, I feel as though Common Core is a great concept, ut is not executed well and is far too focused on depth.
ReplyDeleteI think that in theory Common Core and the idea of a common curriculum for all American students is a good idea, however I feel that Common Core is not being executed properly. I feel that Common Core is too in depth and will eventually lead to the students losing interest. I believe that ER made a good point when they said, "I see this as a disservice to students because students will get very bored and tired of talking about the same thing in so much depth for such long periods of time." In my opinion, it is a disservice to our students because when they eventually become bored with the material they will no longer pay attention and they will not fully learn the material. I do not believe we should be covering a million topics in a year because then there is not enough depth. There has to be a happy medium somewhere and we just have to find it.
ReplyDeleteI think another good point was raised by MC, "The biggest issue I have with Common Core is the fact that they think that everyone needs to think deeply about every topic that they learn about." One of the new practices with Common Core is having students write out in words what their mathematical process was while solving a problem. I believe this is a huge waste of time and completely unnecessary. While it is important to understand the steps one is going through to solve a problem, to write out why do did each step is superfluous. Again, this is another example of how Common Core goes too in depth and sacrifices certain topics for useless time wasters.
While the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) have some setbacks, the idea behind them makes a lot of sense. No we should not teach to the test, but making sure material is taught in a logical order and that students fully comprehend a subject matter is very important. The CCSS also help students when they get to college, because they will have (theoretically) been taught the same material and have to pass the same test in order to graduate. This will help ensure that every student is at the same level of understanding and have been taught the same subjects no matter where they went to school. College is a time, where you can really see just how different each states standards are, some student’s do not know how to write a paper when they come to school! ER pointed out that “The focus of Common Core is to cover less material but more in depth” which is true in a way. I think that the focus behind the Common Core is instead of just teaching students the material, we need to teach them how to think so they can approach material they may have not been exposed to in a unique way, increasing students’ critical thinking skills. MC made a similar point stating that her “biggest issue with Common Core is the fact that they think that everyone needs to think deeply about every topic that they learn about”, which should not be an issue. One of the goals of the Common Core is to increase understanding of how the subjects students’ are learning in class can relate to everyday life. If we show how thinking about a math concept in a certain way can also connect to an English concept, it will make students who have a preference in one subject understand the other subject better. AF made some very good points that I agree with to an extent. I agree that a “curriculum being "a mile wide and an inch deep" is not the way to go, an inch deep and a mile wide is not the best strategy either”, there does need to be some balance between going into too much detail and not enough detail. The Common Core may not be the best strategy for education, but I feel like we are on the right track with the ideas behind it.
ReplyDeleteSS Agreed with my point that Common Core is doing a disservice to students. I am wondering if those behind Common Core will realize this and start to strive to make some changes. As teachers we want students to want to come to class but if Common Core continues we will be losing the interest of several students. It is unfortunate and there needs to be some sort of "happy medium" set in place in this regard.
ReplyDelete