Read this article that ran in the times today.

My only complaint is that this begins to make reformers sound like a unified group:

“Presumably, the deadlock will eventually be broken, and a “winner” will emerge. Either the education reformers will manage to take control of a critical mass of school districts, or they won’t. Before that happens, perhaps the various narratives and counter-narratives will decalcify and some actual debate will take place.”

Maybe the first step towards “decalification” is stopping using “reform” vs “traditional”. Do these terms really mean anything anymore? To make the debate real, we need to talk about actual groups and actual actions. Innovation is happing within and outside traditional structures, and referring to “reformers” taking control seems like a pretty large net to cast.

So, great post in light of the Cathy Black* craziness, but seems to fall into the same rut it rails against.

*in case you hadn’t heard

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.