by Eric Benzel

I thought about titling this post, “Am I Superman?”. Since I sat through the pre-screening several weeks ago at Teachers College, the film has been blogged to death, featured on Oprah, and mentioned by Obama. At risk of saying what everyone else has already said (where are the teachers, film propaganda, eye-opening glimpse into the achievement gap, anti-union blasphemy, reform wake up call, best documentary of the year, worst documentary ever, etc etc etc), I though that instead, I might offer a voice that hasn’t been heard much. Young teachers, like the ones who have been flocking to organizations like TfA, to new School of Ed prep programs, and to fellowships like mine, have started talking about being on the front lines of the fight for equity. Are we the superheroes this movie is asking for? Or are we just a part of the superhero force?

This is a question I’ve been asking a lot this semester. I am happy and excited about taking responsibility for raising students’ test scores in math, helping students become more interested and motivated in studying math, and even helping improve students’ general disposition towards school, college, and most importantly themselves. This seems like part of the teacher job description, and yeah, we should probably be held accountable (in someway… this is the hard part).

Yet isn’t the ’superman’ of this film in charge of so much more? This superhero seems to be in charge of lifting students out of poverty, ensuring their success in college, and restoring healthy communities. The documentary talks about turning around drop out factories, ending discriminatory tracking practices, and transcending deeply entrenched inequalities. I know that it doesn’t specifically put these responsibilities on the teacher, but remember the whole scene about how good teachers can make a difference? Let’s not forget that Hanushek’s study of top/bottom quartile teachers’ impact on student growth was looking specifically at test scores, not student salvation.

Here’s where I think the movie makes a really amazing (but subtle) point. Charters have provided an amazing and valuable insight into helping students succeed: yes, teachers are superheroes of the charters but they aren’t the only ones. One of the strengths of so many great charter schools is the emphasis on parents, community members, paras, principles, security members, and STUDENTS as equally important and influential superheroes. In a way, charter networks and other school networks (especially KIPP, Harlem Children’s Zone) show us how there are lots of superheroes already out there: we just have to get them all ‘flying’ in the same direction: towards our amazing children.

So, in response to my original title: “Am I superman?” I answer an emphatic “I hope so!” But I also know that it won’t be enough if I rely on my superpowers alone. According to some comic ‘traditions’ (power rangers, fantastic four, x-men, etc) it takes a team of superheros to save a city. We could probably learn from this approach.

My recommendation: Davis Guggenheim, you should have titled your documentary, “Where all my superheroes at?”.

Side note: I’ve had a lot of friends ask me if they should see the film. I think everyone should see the film. I also think everyone should take their emotion and reaction and go do some solid, critical research afterwards. There are lots of people offering thoughts on the film and potential ways ahead. Also, there are already great organizations (charter, public, non-profit, and outside the system) already doing great things. Don’t assume that some of the solutions offered by the film are the only ways forward.

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.