By Nate Reaven

As a contrast to lovely counterpart on the east coast, I too, am going to discuss the Common Core standards recently approved in nearly half the states across the country (and counting). I will provide a similar warning, and say that I too, am a rookie teacher, and so my thoughts, opinions, and beliefs are all malleable. You can talk me into changing my mind on nearly all these points.

1) Common Core CAN HELP fix the national standards problem: Eric brings up an interesting point here. Namely that these standards are unacceptable because of their complete glossing-over of such classes as history, art, music, physical health, languages, and computer science. While I 100% completely agree that these subjects need to be taught in the classroom, I believe that, because of an infinitesimal amount of political, emotional, and ethnic differences, the education community needs to prioritize. My belief is that, without question, math and reading are the two most important subjects in school. When a student does not know how to read, they will not succeed. Beginning in third grade a student switches from learning how to read and transitions to using their reading to learn. This is why as Hilary Clinton said, “There are states in our country who actually plan how many prison beds they will need by looking at third grade reading scores. They look at the failure rates and they extrapolate how many prison spots they’re going to need in 10 to 15 years.”  Math is a similar foundation for the rest of learning. Without math, students are unable to understand science, computer science, and engineering – any of the hard sciences. These two subjects are the basis and foundation to nearly all of our academic learning as students. This is not an argument for staying satisfied with these two subjects, but instead an argument to not nitpick because we haven’t reached the other subjects yet.

2) Common Core CAN improve the current testing situation: While I agree with Eric here, that the current testing practices need to be rethought, I do not agree with him in the how. I believe that ideally, we as teachers, should want to teach to the test. If we as teachers taught to the test, it would mean that the skills the test is assessing are acceptable, they’re meaningful, and give the students the best possible chance of success once they have finished high school. I don’t really care if my students will walk away loving Romeo and Juliet or not, (okay, I care a little), as long as they know how to write well, and are able to think about what they’re reading. Why should that not be our goal as teachers – to give our students the best possible chance at success? And so, I think these standards while not the highest in the country (that would be Massachusetts), certainly hold a large part of our country more accountable – the states with the lowest standards. True testing is based on arbitrary cutoffs, true they are politically manipulated, true four-hour long multiple choice tests were never, ever, ever a good idea. But creating a clear, common standards system can at the very least move us in the right direction of creating an assessment which the entire country can be based upon. How is that not a good thing?

3) Common core CAN affect classrooms in a positive way: Here, Eric and I agree in every way. As I mentioned earlier, I believe that we should want to teach to the test, because that means the test is assessing the skills that we want to give to our students. Historically, students have received vastly different levels of education not only from school to school – but from classroom to classroom. This is unacceptable. Creating a consensus amongst the standards is crucial if we are going to stop large disparities from continuing in our schools (well that, and an infinitely smaller summer break).

4) Common core CAN lead to a more unified reform of education: Again, Eric and I agree. Because the United States is such a melting pot, it is often difficult to find consensus in anything. Democrat or Republican? Gay Marriage? Edward or Jacob? It’s intense! And so, if the country is able to agree on anything at all, we should all celebrate. When we as a country find such a large consensus on something as controversial as educational standards – well that is on par with Moses parting the sea – it just does not happen. If these standards can become more accepted amongst the education community (specifically teachers), the possibilities (sorry for the cliché) are endless.

I too am excited about these standards. I think that they offer great hope to the education community – but far more specifically – to the students who will be affected by them the most. These standards are nowhere close to the final step, but at least we are going in the right direction.

by eric benzel

The biggest news in the education community this week: the adoption of the common core standards has begun! (photo from http://www.corestandards.org/ state adoption tracker) As of this posting, common core has been adopted in half of the states represented on this blog (New York and Mississippi/Arkansas). Colorado and Tennessee are sure to follow once resolutions are passed in their respective legislatures and boards.

What is a teacher to think!? If you, like most of us, are caught somewhere in between the discourses of increased performance/accountability and the outcries against high-stakes testing, I think these standards have enormous implications on our teaching practice.   Here’s my thoughts about what these new Common Core Standards can and cannot do (***warning*** these are all thoughts of a rookie who is still in his pre-service program. PLEASE dispute these claims… part of this posting is for me to explore these ideas more).

1. Common Core CANNOT fix the national standards problem: the standards are targeted (in increasingly national trend) towards two subjects: mathematics and English language arts. This is incredibly important, first of all, because these are the only two mandatory subjects tested on a national level. Immediately, this will tie the passage of the standards documents to the high-stakes funding and evaluation stipulations of No Child Left Behind. The school curriculum is much wider than the standards address. While science standards are on the horizon of common core, over half of our curriculum is excluded: science (for now), history, art, music, physical health, languages, computer science, etc… Having a standards document that focuses on the two nationally assessed content areas will again drive (perhaps undue) emphasis on these subject domains and the high stakes tests associated with them (which leads to two). As a math teacher, I appreciate the new mathematics standards. They are high quality and have a great focus on the process of math as well as the content. However, I am saddened knowing that many schools will necessarily have to focus on these standards in place of rich art curriculums or history courses in order to keep federal funding flowing. So maybe we have higher standards for math and reading within schools but we do not have higher standards for our schools.
2. Common core CANNOT improve the current testing situation: while I agree that having well articulated, high national standards is essential in developing strong local curricula, these standards do not change testing practice. We may see a more clear alignment of standardized testing to the common standards, and with this, there may be a great connection between classroom and assessment. Still, however, our test reports will be based on arbitrary cuttoffs and politically manipulated pass-rates: these are not tied to the new higher standards. Better tests require higher funding, and if we are going to develop high quality assessments, tests that give us rich information about student and teacher performance, we are going to have to spend more than the 1% of our educational budgets allocated for testing. Multiple choice four hour tests that rely on politically determined pass rates will never be a sufficient accountability gauge for the common core standards.
3. Common core CAN affect classrooms in a positive way: that is, if we, as professional teachers and school leaders begin to use the standards in positive ways. If schools have greater clarity and focus in math and science goals and outcomes, classroom practice can benefit in positive ways. I have looked at ways that the NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) Standards of 89 and 2000 have shaped math education in the US. The resulting curriculum and changes in classroom practice have been widespread. My hope is that the Common Core standards can follow a similar path: improving instruction at a classroom level. This, as many in New York are discussing right now, will be a slow process and one that will take time and by-in from all levels of the system.
4. Common core CAN lead to a more unified reform of education: Several of my courses this summer have looked at the Japanese lesson study model of reform. If you haven’t looked into this at all, please do. It is a reform movement that has started with the assumption that TEACHERS are the professionals who, in collaboration with researchers and politicians should drive classroom reform. Japan has a nationalized curriculum, and this unity has been part of what has made their slow change model effective. The development of exceptional lessons at the local level can be shared nationwide because the nation shares a common set of standards.

I am excited about the idea of the common core standards, and I believe that the math standards that were produced seem strong. However, I think we need caution in making the adoption of these standards the next fix all in our path to reform. They must be viewed as a part of many, much larger, reform progressions.

by Eric Benzel

Motivation was the topic of last Thursday’s teaching math seminar.

Here are some excerpts:

From book: “… you should now have the students realizing that there is a void in their knowledge. They are now motivated to learn how to find the values of trigonometric functions of angles greater than 90°.”

From class: “You can give the kids an extra credit math art project and they will blow you away! The kids really loved math doing this project.”

Really? Ok… I’ll admit that I love math. Geek flows in my in my veins, and solving math problems can be addicting. Hearing these “motivational” recommendations almost had me laughing out loud though! Can the authors of the text book really expect students to find trigonometric identities interesting just because I point out they don’t know this yet? Does the teacher (who happens to work at one of the most prestigious gifted schools in the country) expect an extra credit do whatever you feel like (with a math theme) project to motivate a normal class of students who 1) hate math and 2) have been told they aren’t good at math since they were young?

Yea, motivation is a tough subject and, to be fair, the authors of this unnamed text give lots of other, somewhat decent, suggestions. The gifted teacher was simply presenting a possible project. Yet I think the lack of student motivation is one of the most important issues we deal with. It connects to identity, classroom culture, performance, and future plans! I left the conversation deeply cynical but motivated to learn about motivation!

I don’t have the answers to this yet… so I’m making student motivation my own learning goal for the next year. (Last year I focused on learning about the research and best practices of cooperative learning). I want to be able to help an integrated algebra class love math (something the Regents can’t measure, by the way). I think that my classroom must be a place where students are motivated to work hard and learn lots!

Any places to start? Any recommendations? Here is a list of questions I’m starting to develop:

1. What contexts are motivating for students? I don’t think ‘real world’ is enough… what are characteristics of contexts that are highly motivating for students.
2. How to help students move beyond grade based motivation. Is standards based grading the answer? Ungraded work? What is out there?
3. How does community fit into the motivation picture: are there class structures that not only facilitate higher interaction but also higher levels of collective motivation?
4. Is motivation or interest something that can be tracked? Are there ways of determining my own effectiveness (other than a sense) in increasing the interest and motivation of my students?

Here are two interesting ideas that have come up in the last month. The first is a TED talk that I am obsessed with right now. The second is one of those bizzare prezi things that a friend emailed to me (my favorite recommendation: be less helpful!). Check them out and let me know if you’ve found anything good!

http://blog.ted.com/2009/08/the_surprising.php

http://prezi.com/aww2hjfyil0u/math-is-not-linear/

I was interviewed for Mississippi Public Radio just the other day, and I wanted to share the link with everyone.

http://www.mpbonline.org/news/story/hundreds-new-teachers-are-being-trained-delta

My fantastic teaching partner, in the picture of the article, was teaching Chemistry by playing trashketball.  The jerseys are quite classy!

Reflecting on the piece, my comment in text format is a good reflection of my scattered thoughts. In the audio clip, on the other hand, I think I ramble on enough to get a decent reflection of my TFA experience.

One thing I would like to clarify is that many students do come to class wanting to learn, and for me to generalize all student weren’t motivated was inconsiderate.  I just think when it comes to Chemistry, particularly summer school Chemistry, it usually takes a little more effort for students to be invested because of the rigor and the preconceived notions of a typical Chemistry class.

By Nate Reaven

The question of classroom management has become an issue lately at my summer school. I have always heard of classroom management as something to corral the animals.  I have heard classroom management as the fence surrounding the acceptable, and keeping the unacceptable out of reach. Now, while I just made that simile up, I think it adds value to what it means to have a well-managed classroom.

A fence with a hole will be exploited immediately by the animals inside. Similarly, if I create a hole in my classroom management, my students will exploit this until the end, sealing my downfall as a quality teacher immediately. If I treat one student with any hint of favoritism, or another student with any hint of personal dislike, my students will no longer trust me, and instead attempt to try me as a person, as oppose to challenging themselves as students.

For some reason this does not feel like the silver bullet that I am looking for in my classroom management. So often I have seen teachers fall victim to the “New Teacher Disease,” where they are only able to rule their classroom with discipline and negativity. Instead of praising students for intelligent answers, they will call out students for speaking out of turn or not raising their hands. They believe that a quiet classroom is a good classroom.

I have never really subscribed to this paradigm. I believe that students inherently want to succeed. True, it oddly seems to be cool to be unintelligent amongst urban youth these days, but I sincerely believe that when given the right motivation and finding the right teacher, that intelligence can be seen as the right path to go down. But a student cannot become a passionate learner in a quiet classroom.

Take a second. Think to yourself about the most excited you have ever been in a classroom. Were you silently reading or writing in a corner only academically and intellectually interacting with yourself? Were you listening to the teacher drone on about simple or complex sentences? Or were you instead working on a project? Were you in class interacting with a friend or two about how to make a volcano? Or, were you jumping out of your seat because of the way the teacher expressed their ideas?

I’m not sure what your answer was, but I would bet that it was probably during a time when you were using your hands, your body, your voice and your ability to express yourself. Not just writing down your thoughts and showing them to only your teacher.

Unfortunately, for those new teachers that have contracted the “New Teachers Disease,” this means that their classrooms need to be a tiny bit chaotic (if chaos can be tiny that is). And I welcome that. If my students are not yelling, they are not learning (okay, that might be a little hyperbolic, but wouldn’t that be more fun?).

I guess what I am trying to say is that you need to get your students excited about learning. If they are bored, they will act out. And then they will not be excited about anything except finding a way to get through that hole in your classroom management-fence.