Common Core (NOT a debate!)

[the anglophile]

Hi guys! I have to write a 20 page research/debate paper on a topic of my choice next year for my school's honor program. I've chosen to write about Common Core and how a "one size fits all" method doesn't work with education. I will also be talking about people with moderate to severe learning disabilities and how standardized education affects those individuals. I go to a private school, but up until last year I had been going to public schools all my life, which is way different than most of my classmates, so I don't have a lot of opinions on this subject in my school. What are your opinions on standardized education, such as Common Core? Thanks!

[Whistler]

from what I've heard from concerned moms with school-age children who have done a little research, the common core isn't that bad. What is bad is some of the hastily-made materials for teachers based on the common core.

[UffishThought]

Yeah, the Common Core (at least for English) is essentially a checklist of skills students should have by the end of the year. Often those skills are things like "Interpret words and phrases as they are used in a text, including determining technical, connotative, and figurative
meanings, and analyze how specific word choices shape meaning or tone." It doesn't even say WHICH figurative meanings it's going for, of which texts to read. It's actually a very open-ended and customizable document. Schools and districts try to get together to hammer out for themselves what it means, and maybe that's where your issue is--teachers are pressured to make that nebulous document into a set of assessments that are standard across all the similar classes. So no matter who a student takes English 10 from, they should all be able to find examples of personification and extended metaphor in Things Fall Apart.

Actually, though, it sounds like you've got more of an issue with special ed (and gifted!) students being in regular classes, which is often called "inclusion," I think. This predates the common core by a long time, and probably has more to do with the "no child left behind" policy that came out during--was it Bush's administration? Clinton's? As I understand it, the theory is that if you separate students based on ability, they rarely transcend their original placement, and they also end up only being comfortable with their own group, instead of being happy and able to mix with all of society, as they'll probably need to do in later life. But at the same time, it seems nearly impossible for teachers to give equal chances for growth to a room full of 40 students that vary from a second-grade writing and reading level to a college level. I'm not quite sure what the solution is, myself, but I do feel like students might benefit from having the teaching specifically geared to their level instead of a one-size-fits all approach that ends up fitting either no one, or a very small fragment of the class.

[Violet]

No child left behind was Bush and incidentally the topic of one of the first persuasive papers I ever wrote. Personally, common core isn't my problem, but if schools lose their leveled education (gifted, co-taught classes for kids being mainlined, etc.) because teaching to the common core standards is the only thing they're worried about, then I'd start to be concerned.

I actually think common core standards are probably a good thing. If you are a family that moves around a lot, having similar goals at each grade level nationwide is probably a good thing. I haven't done enough reading, nor do I have the childhood development background to comment on if the standards are appropriate, but the concept seems like the right direction.

[wryness]

First: Uffish speaks truth. As far as the core standards for English are concerned, they're perfectly reasonable--and there's nothing that says teachers can only teach from the Core. If students already have mastery of the standards for their grade level, their teachers can focus on other things. (Though in my urban school, most of the kids are below grade level in terms of their skills, so we might actually have a problem meeting the standards. Whereas some people are worried that the Core is a "dumbing down" of education, I'd say it's a step up for many schools, and some students--like mine--will actually have a hard time meeting all of the listed standards by the end of the year.)

Math, on the other hand, is a different story. I have heard that a lot of people have problems with the way math classes have been restructured with the core, because that has amounted to more of a curriculum change. This is how it works, to my understanding: instead of having separate classes like "Algebra I," "Geometry," "Precalculus," etc., the classes are now "Math I," "Math II," and "Math III." Concepts are taught in relation to one another, which could be nice (you can actually see how algebra and geometry/trig/etc. relate) and annoying (as there would be a bit less "leveled learning" in these classes).

In regards to what Violet has said--I know that in my school, the students in AP classes are not being required to take the SAGE end-of-year test that is tied to the Common Core (since their curriculum isn't really tied to it). So in that respect, there is still a certain amount of "leveled learning."

Also in regards to Violet's second paragraph, I do agree that standardized curriculum can help to compensate for some of the inequity that exists between states or school districts. It sounds like a few of my students from out of state have gone to some pretty bad schools. And honestly, since colleges are requiring students to take the ACT or SAT for admissions, we already have a nationalized level of expectations, anyway.

[Marduk]

A nationalized level of expectations for students who expect to attend college.

[Katya]

And honestly, since colleges are requiring students to take the ACT or SAT for admissions, we already have a nationalized level of expectations, anyway.

This is a really interesting point.

[SmurfBlueSnuggie]

I'd be really interested to hear what keeps us from having expected levels of competency to enter each level. Rather than brush stroking by age, we would sort by ability in each class. High school does this, but I don't see it as much in the younger grades. A sixth grader who's got a fifth grade math skill level and a high school history level should be taking a fifth grade math class and a high school history class. Or have access to a tutor who can better adapt the workload to their skills and interests.

Ok, just typing that out, I realize the logistical nightmare it would cause is part of the hold-up. But I still like the idea a lot.

[Violet]

SBS, my younger siblings' charter school did that with math, reading, and spelling. Yes, it was kind of a logistical nightmare the first little while, but once it was established, it was great. I don't think you can really level social studies/science classes as easily (even in high school I saw that problem), but there are some classes that are much more measurable.

[SmurfBlueSnuggie]

Violet, that's really awesome that they were able to find a way to give flexibility to students based on their individual propensities.

Looking over my post, I feel like I didn't express my main point very well. I stated my dream, not my reason. :p

I think measurability is important. However, my concern is the idea that a student must be competent in all fields before advancing. My brother is amazing at history. He remembers dates and stories and causes with amazing detail and can explain how prior events changed what came after. However, basically anything in STEM is a huge challenge for him. Even the STEM classes he likes are very difficult. Especially due to the focus on STEM, he has been held back in all levels so that he could get "up to speed" on math. This meant he had to repeat history classes he'd already been amazing at. He loved history, so it wasn't too painful for him, but I feel like it wasn't until high school that he's been allowed to move at his own pace.

I completely support having a minimum expectation in every subject. I think that students should be allowed to advance faster in some subjects than others, if they excel in something particular.

[The Moo]

As a mom and as a math teacher, the common core for math is really well organized and makes a lot of sense. As was mentioned before, classes are not separated out into algebra, geometry, etc., but the concepts are interrelated and used together in a way, to this point, usually only gets done in accelerated classes. The down side in my state is that at the same time, there is a huge push for having all high school graduates college ready, and as a result, they are requiring everyone to have math classes through the level of calculus by the time they graduate high school. This *might* work if they started and worked their way up to it over the next 12-13 years as the kids grow up in the system, but expecting the junior in basic algebra to succeed in calculus the very next year is pretty misguided. That, and the fact that there are students like my 5th grader who just can't keep up with the mainstream. She spends about 40-50% of her time in a resource room and interacts with her main classroom as much as possible. The fact is, though, that she is never going to score at the levels they expect on standardized tests.

[Portia]

What did a junior who's only in Algebra I do from 6th through 10th grades???

[Tally M.]

What did a junior who's only in Algebra I do from 6th through 10th grades???

They're usually in Algebra 2, and then usually are required to take Pre-Calc before taking calculus (which basically doesn't mean they have enough time to take calculus)

[Indefinite Integral]

What did a junior who's only in Algebra I do from 6th through 10th grades???

They're usually in Algebra 2, and then usually are required to take Pre-Calc before taking calculus (which basically doesn't mean they have enough time to take calculus)

Yeah, but sometimes they are only in Geometry, and I have occasionally had seniors in Geometry. What they have done is failed their previous math courses. The old math track in Utah had students hitting Algebra 1 at the latest in 9th grade, but sometimes Algebra was offered in a 2 year course, then fail one year and all of a sudden that is where you end up.

[Whistler]

I took Geometry over the summer so I could take Calculus my junior year (because in jr high they scared me out of taking pre-algebra until 8th grade. Pshh Alegrebra I was easy).

[robotfish]

I know a lot of people who help develop math curriculum for elementary schools, and the main complaint I've heard about Common
Core is that the focus on standardization can discourage people from doing extra. This is all second-hand and probably poorly remembered, but I think I remember hearing about teachers being asked to teach only certain methods to solve a problem (like, getting the right answer through a method other than the one taught is frowned upon), which might not work for every learning style. Also, if I remember correctly, I think I might have heard about some teachers getting in trouble for teaching beyond the Common Core curriculum? I really don't remember the details of the discussion, but it seemed like the consensus was that it's good to have a standard for everyone to meet, but we shouldn't stop those that are able from going beyond the standard.
Sorry if this is confusing or inaccurate, it's based off of a conversation from about a year ago that I only vaguely remember.

[Portia]

Maybe we should be addressing students outright failing a math class, for starters. If they have learning disabilities or dyslexia, then someone should work with them, but otherwise, it's just as unconscionable to allow a student to graduate innumerate as it would be illiterate.

[Indefinite Integral]

I know a lot of people who help develop math curriculum for elementary schools, and the main complaint I've heard about Common
Core is that the focus on standardization can discourage people from doing extra. This is all second-hand and probably poorly remembered, but I think I remember hearing about teachers being asked to teach only certain methods to solve a problem (like, getting the right answer through a method other than the one taught is frowned upon), which might not work for every learning style.

From what I have learned, that actually sounds very anti-common core. At least at the secondary level, process standards such as problem solving actually encourage students to work things out on their own. I don't have them in front of me right now though. I might submit more when I do. However, my first thought is that is misinterpretation and bad implementation.

[robotfish]

I know a lot of people who help develop math curriculum for elementary schools, and the main complaint I've heard about Common
Core is that the focus on standardization can discourage people from doing extra. This is all second-hand and probably poorly remembered, but I think I remember hearing about teachers being asked to teach only certain methods to solve a problem (like, getting the right answer through a method other than the one taught is frowned upon), which might not work for every learning style.

From what I have learned, that actually sounds very anti-common core. At least at the secondary level, process standards such as problem solving actually encourage students to work things out on their own. I don't have them in front of me right now though. I might submit more when I do. However, my first thought is that is misinterpretation and bad implementation.

Yeah, there's a very good chance that I'm completely misremembering the conversation. It might have been an example of an argument against Common Core, or criticism of one state's system at the time, or something I just completely imagined hearing. Sorry about that, in the future I'll try to avoid talking too much about things I know little about.

[Katya]

I know a lot of people who help develop math curriculum for elementary schools, and the main complaint I've heard about Common
Core is that the focus on standardization can discourage people from doing extra. This is all second-hand and probably poorly remembered, but I think I remember hearing about teachers being asked to teach only certain methods to solve a problem (like, getting the right answer through a method other than the one taught is frowned upon), which might not work for every learning style.

From what I have learned, that actually sounds very anti-common core. At least at the secondary level, process standards such as problem solving actually encourage students to work things out on their own. I don't have them in front of me right now though. I might submit more when I do. However, my first thought is that is misinterpretation and bad implementation.

Yeah, there's a very good chance that I'm completely misremembering the conversation. It might have been an example of an argument against Common Core, or criticism of one state's system at the time, or something I just completely imagined hearing. Sorry about that, in the future I'll try to avoid talking too much about things I know little about.

I don't think you have to be an expert to participate in a conversation. (On the contrary, if you don't consider yourself an expert in the first place, you may be more open to learning new things and changing your worldview.)