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.