Thoughts on Common Core

I've been doing quite a bit of summer reading, as I'm sure that all of you have. I recently came across this article: NFL Adopts Common Core Playbook - Copying Education Reforms by John J. Viall. It's a good satirical look at the thinking process behind the Common Core. Mr. Viall's criticisms are interesting, and I agree with much of the content, however, I think that he's missing a key point...

In February, I was in Washington D.C. for the Kennedy Center's annual Partners in Education conference. During a lunch meeting I heard a presentation by a member of the Common Core's creation team, a woman from Colorado whose name escapes me. I had gotten to the luncheon late and ended up at a table away from my fellows. By happenstance, the only available seat was one at a table with a contingent from Colorado - the very school that this woman was from. Prior to her speech she was discussing the Common Core with her table mates. Again, by luck, I was sitting there quietly looking at my salad and deciding if I wanted to eat the weeds or not. What I overheard, was the following:

ELA instructional shifts -

1. Informational texts will be 50% of the common core. There is a push to put History and Science back at the lower levels. 
2. Deep reading of a text. (what needs to be defined here is "What are considered texts?")  
3. Increased value of "domain language". More content vocabulary.
4. Speaking and Listening. 
5. Emphasis on "Academic Language." compare, contrast, analyze... 

Math Shifts -

1. Automatically function; can they recall math facts at speed? 
2. Think logically - mathematically. Creative process + logic

There were a couple more math shifts, but the waitress invited me to take some coffee and desert and I stopped paying attention at that point to peruse the menu for which pie I wanted... 

These were the highlights of the conversation that I was privy to, though. My fears about the Common Core were quelled quite a bit just listening to these educators table talk. My understanding is that these Common Core Standards are to be more general so that teachers can function according to their own teaching styles within them. 

For example: There are nine National Standards for Music Education. (The standards are really broad. "Read and Notate Music." There are several ways to notate; lead sheets, changes, common notation, symbol...) Each state has based their State Standards on the National Standards. I have never felt pigeon-holed by my standards as a music educator. I use content vocabulary. I have students read informational texts (music) regularly. I teach with domain language (which is inert to music; have someone play/sing forte or piano) In many ways, my colleagues and I are already doing this.

This is the point that I think Mr. Viall is missing. In his satire, he suggests that all of the coaches will use the same playbook. In a way - they do. Every coach has a cadre of running plays and passing plays. Every coach has the goal line formation and special teams plays. Every coach has Punt, Punt Block, and Punt Fake plays. Sure, they may have a quarterback or running back as a place holder for the fake, but it's essentially the same play. The end is accomplished by a uniform means. Different men on the field, different operations, different institutions, but the same play.

There will be different outcomes, of course. Mr. Viall is right about that. I think he was pointedly stating that you can give students equal access to everything and still have varied outcomes. That's true. There is no dispute.

Also, it is true that the coaches need to play to the strengths of their players. In schools though, this translates differently. I was not a strong student in math. That doesn't mean that I didn't need to take math classes. When I coached soccer I placed kids in positions based on their skills, but I still took time to train all players in the basic skills. Every player learned how to shoot, pass, dribble, and chip because those pieces are fundamental to playing the game.

And I think that is where we are right now. Everyone is trying to define what "pieces" are fundamental for success. Education has become the battleground. Politicians treat it as both disease and cure. The thinking is that the Common Core blue print will be everything that a student needs to know to be successful in the 21st Century. The reality is that we don't know what they are going to need. We don't know what jobs will be available in 20 years. Will robots be welding in manufacturing jobs? Will we need to teach that? Will periodic elemental atomic structures be enough for Chemistry class, or do we need to teach them down to the God particle?

My thinking is that our tax money would be better spent developing learning communities for educators to advance best practice among themselves and their colleagues instead of creating bureaucratic legislation for education.

Addressing Critics of PBL: Part 2

A few weeks ago I began a discussion addressing the common criticisms of PBL. Today I would like to continue that discussion...

Item E: "The student's aren't being assessed!" 

Indeed, this was a criticism from administration. I should give some context for this: Like most schools, our administrators change every three years or so. When one of them leaves, a new one comes in and we teachers find ourselves adjusting to new ideas and sometimes new methodology. Our venture into Project Based Learning was actually put together by a succession of a superintendent, and two principals. They stayed for about 5 years, but then left. The new administration was not adequately trained in PBL and found it challenging to embrace.

The assessment piece is particularly difficult for administrators because they cannot fit it onto a nice spreadsheet for state reporting. The solution will come in creating a numeric system that administrators can use on their spreadsheets, but that teachers can still use to assess "mastery". We are currently devising such a system and my friend and colleague Bobby Thompson has devoted a great deal of study and time to this. (Bobby's work is focused on a model produced by Dr. Robert Marzano.)

The reality is that the students are being assessed more than ever before. Assessment does not look like it did when we were in school. It's not a paper that comes back with a big red A on it and some other red marks. This form of assessment is one dimensional. It assesses student knowledge on one item at one time. Assessments in PBL look at several dimensions of the learning experience at once. Soft skills, Standards, Core Skills, Personal Growth; these are all measured broadly and at one time. These criticisms come back to students on Rubrics. The rubrics identify the learning standards and press students toward a maximization of their project by rewarding mastery level work. Sarah and I worked very hard on our rubrics to make them positive and also to prevent kids from task listing. Alas, rubrics are a whole other blog. If you'd like to read more about Sarah and I and our quest for the perfect rubric you can read my article entitled: "Rubrics Cube".

The bottom line is: Students are being assessed in several dimensions of learning at one time.

Item F: "The kids have too much freedom!" 

This took an adjustment for me too. Indeed, to walk into a PBL classroom can be scary for teachers that have spent all of their time organizing students into rows and working to keep them quiet and on-task. To see students in groups around the room, scattered, some working, some waiting, and some perhaps off-task - it can be daunting.

The big buzz word in education right now is "differentiation". A teacher teaching in a lecture is hoping to hit about 70% of the students. The very high level students (top 15%) and the very low level students (bottom %15) are stuck. The teacher delivers a single lecture for a single middle level group in the hopes that it hits home. This is not very efficient.

In PBL we differentiate in several ways. Assigning groups of various levels is one way. The type of tasks that a student completes, the projects themselves, and the products produced by the students are other ways of differentiating. In order for the teacher to produce these varied types of differentiation, the students must be able to work independently. Independence requires trust. A PBL teacher has to be wary of what students are doing, but still trust them to complete the task at hand. The students have to work together. This takes time. The teacher will have to give them time to accomplish the tasks that they are requesting the students to finish. It is a hard concept, but the reality is that the students will need time to accomplish what they are doing, thus it appears that they are unsupervised. Good PBL instructors are on their feet, though and work methodically through the room, motivating students and helping where they can.

If you should visit one of these classes, look at the students, yes, but watch the teacher. They have more control then you know.

Item G: "My kid has too much homework!" 

A favorite criticism of parents. Following up on this, I have discovered that most students have simply mis-managed their time. Kids are inefficient at best when it comes to time management (a problem that seems to get worse through college). On some occasions I've discovered students that had honest issues with homework overload. This was always due to some circumstance. Sarah and I, as well as others on my team, have always given extensions and assistance to those kids as needed. Most of those students self-advocated and came to us, explained their situations, and won their extensions. This is excellent practice for students that may need to lobby for extensions in college.

Usually, though, a student has wasted class time and has to make up the work at home. The parents see this, ask their kid what's going on, and the student blames the teachers. How could a student have so much homework in every class? The answer should be evident, but to many parents, it's not.

Item H: "This place is a mess!" 

Looking back to Item F should iron this out. Students should be DOING. And, when they are doing, the room is going to be a mess. I had trouble with this in the beginning. I'm a person that desires everything to be orderly and in it's place. The students have mocked me (playfully) because I reset the desks after every class period. I like order and logic. Yet I have to admit, I'm learning to enjoy seeing students make complete messes as they learn. The messier, the better.

Take my colleague, Michael Buck. Michael teaches Spanish. His students were doing a project that involved them creating a Spanish version of Mt. Rushmore. Who would the Spanish put on their Rushmore? The students had researched Spanish culture and revolutions and so forth, and had chosen their historical figures. They had written speeches, in Spanish, and were coming up with visual arts displays - not Power Points - actual art. During this time I dropped in to give Michael some paperwork and saw his room was a disaster of paint, card board, paper, tri-fold, yarn, magazine clippings, styrofoam... but the projects! The projects were fantastic! Students had carved and cut and weaved Spanish looking art. There were diorama, and paintings and statues... it was messy, but the creations were unbelievable. Michael invited me to come down and see some of the presentations and I did. I don't speak Spanish well, but I understood that the students were learning.

And that's what's important.  

Until next time...