Common Core Is a Golden Opportunity--- Don’t Throw in the Towel Now!
Last week the Brookings Institution released a report by Tom Loveless declaring the Common Core standards to be a big waste— two years before they even go into effect. The top highlight listed on the report’s website lays it bare:
“Predicting the Effect of the Common Core State Standards on Student Achievement: The Common Core will have little to no effect on student achievement.”
Bummer.
Loveless lays out three “theorized effects” of how proponents believe the Common Core will improve education. They are:
- Quality theory: “The Common Core will raise the quality of education nationally by defining a higher-quality curriculum in English-language-arts and mathematics than is currently taught.”
- Rigorous performance standards theory: “A new Common Core test will presumably end such discrepancies [between state tests] by evaluating the same standards for every state, and these standards are to be more rigorous than those currently used.”
- Standardization theory: “One high-quality textbook— or perhaps a few that are aligned with the same content standards— used by all American students attending the same grade would be an improvement over the status quo.”
Sounds pretty good to all of us doe-eyed educators who have been baffled by the patchwork system out there. But then Loveless shreds those “theorized effects,” wielding NAEP score data with idol-smashing fervor. He writes:
“…[D]o not expect much from the Common Core. Education leaders often talk about standards as if they are a system of weights and measures— the word “benchmarks” is used promiscuously as a synonym for standards. But the term is misleading by inferring that there is a real, known standard for measurement. Standards in education are best understood as aspirational, and like a strict diet or prudent plans to save money for the future, they represent good intentions that are not often realized.”
Sure, standards alone will not lift public education. But better curriculum and better trained teachers will. The transition to Common Core standards is a golden opportunity for high-quality professional development centered on improving instruction and better (though unfortunately not fewer) tests. It’s an alarm clock moment for teachers to share expertise around crafting quality curricula.
The standards themselves provide just the spark— they won’t move mountains alone.
I’ve had two full days of PD on “unwrapping” (great edu-jargon) Common Core standards and it looks good to me. I think these guideposts/standards/benchmarks/aspirations will make classrooms better. I’ve pasted at the bottom of this blog (it’s rather long) the ten College and Career Readiness (CCR) anchor standards for writing, as well as the first writing standards, tracked from grade 6 to 12.
It’s smart, noncontroversial stuff. I look forward to my two-year-old daughter Sadie building these skills in her schooling. Declaring the Common Core standards useless or counterproductive at this point doesn’t make sense to me.
The will and the funds seem to be in place for an unprecedented influx of quality professional development. In 2014 we should have good standards, better-prepared teachers, and better curriculum. Why quit before we’ve begun?
Here are the ten CCR anchor standards for writing:
Text Types and Purposes
- 1. Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.
- 2. Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas and information clearly and accurately through the effective selection, organization, and analysis of content.
- 3. Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective technique, well-chosen details, and well-structured event sequences.
Production and Distribution of Writing
- 4. Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience.
- 5. Develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach.
- 6. Use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing and to interact and collaborate with others.
Research to Build and Present Knowledge
- 7. Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects based on focused questions, demonstrating understanding of the subject under investigation.
- 8. Gather relevant information from multiple print and digital sources, assess the credibility and accuracy of each source, and integrate the information while avoiding plagiarism.
- 9. Draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.
Range of Writing
- 10. Write routinely over extended time frames (time for research, reflection, and revision) and shorter time frames (a single sitting or a day or two) for a range of tasks, purposes, and audiences.
And here is the first ELA standard for writing, tracked from 6th through 12th grade. To my eyes, it builds with logical, appropriate rigor:
W.6.1. Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence.
- Introduce claim(s) and organize the reasons and evidence clearly.
- Support claim(s) with clear reasons and relevant evidence, using credible sources and demonstrating an understanding of the topic or text.
- Use words, phrases, and clauses to clarify the relationships among claim(s) and reasons.
- Establish and maintain a formal style.
- Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from the argument presented.
W.7.1. Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence.
- Introduce claim(s), acknowledge alternate or opposing claims, and organize the reasons and evidence logically.
- Support claim(s) with logical reasoning and relevant evidence, using accurate, credible sources and demonstrating an understanding of the topic or text.
- Use words, phrases, and clauses to create cohesion and clarify the relationships among claim(s), reasons, and evidence.
- Establish and maintain a formal style.
- Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from and supports the argument presented.
W.8.1. Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence.
- Introduce claim(s), acknowledge and distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and organize the reasons and evidence logically.
- Support claim(s) with logical reasoning and relevant evidence, using accurate, credible sources and demonstrating an understanding of the topic or text.
- Use words, phrases, and clauses to create cohesion and clarify the relationships among claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.
- Establish and maintain a formal style.
- Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from and supports the argument presented.
W.9-10.1. Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.
- Introduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.
- Develop claim(s) and counterclaims fairly, supplying evidence for each while pointing out the strengths and limitations of both in a manner that anticipates the audience’s knowledge level and concerns.
- Use words, phrases, and clauses to link the major sections of the text, create cohesion, and clarify the relationships between claim(s) and reasons, between reasons and evidence, and between claim(s) and counterclaims.
- Establish and maintain a formal style and objective tone while attending to the norms and conventions of the discipline in which they are writing.
- Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from and supports the argument presented.
W.11-12.1. Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.
- Introduce precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establish the significance of the claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that logically sequences claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.
- Develop claim(s) and counterclaims fairly and thoroughly, supplying the most relevant evidence for each while pointing out the strengths and limitations of both in a manner that anticipates the audience’s knowledge level, concerns, values, and possible biases.
- Use words, phrases, and clauses as well as varied syntax to link the major sections of the text, create cohesion, and clarify the relationships between claim(s) and reasons, between reasons and evidence, and between claim(s) and counterclaims.
- Establish and maintain a formal style and objective tone while attending to the norms and conventions of the discipline in which they are writing.
- Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from and supports the argument presented.

Comments
What's Wrong with the Common Core Everything
When the first national standards were developed (back in the 90s, when Dan Brown was playing with Legos) I had the same doe-eyed expectation: who could disagree with framing out, organizing and sequencing the most important content?
Wait! You didn't know there were already national standards? Written not by the federal DOE (because that would be against the law) but by disciplinary organizations? (Yes, teachers wrote the first set of standards. You'll find them here, under VOLUNTARY national standards: http://www.educationworld.com/standards/) The current DOE has skirted the federal prohibition against creating national standards by claiming that the National Governors Association thought 'em up--then funding development of aligned assessments with federal dollars.
Those old national standards were, in fact, pretty great. I used the music standards for more than a decade, with significant success. They weren't, however, tied to a assessments or curriculum. Developing assessments and building curriculum was considered teachers' work. Amusing, huh? That teachers would be trusted to do those things? That was a long time ago, before the over de-professionalizing and de-skilling of teaching was launched.
That's what divides the first national standards from the whole Common Core Everything movement. They simply provided a framework. What's going on now is vastly different--and Tom Loveless is right, the Common Core not going to raise achievement. It is, however, something that we can do, since reducing poverty, fully investing in public education and professionalizing teaching are off the table.
The first standards foundered in national debates--very heated debates--about what they should include. Different approaches to teaching math. The relative importance of George Washington. The literary canon (if there is such a thing). Attacks against the social studies standards were led by Lynn Cheney. Those national standards were also voluntary (unlike the Common Core, which is mandated by states, like mine, which hoped to cash in on RTTT funds). After the Clinton administration, when the focus shifted to test-based accountability, they kind of quietly faded away, although many teachers are still using them. Teachers are using them because (as you noted), it's better than a mish-mash. Just wanted you to know, Dan, that high and flexible standards are hardly a new idea.
Since the feds just dropped $350 million on assessments, and Gates/Pearson are developing on-line curricula to support the Common Core, we'll be seeing them for a long, long, long time. Whether they're any good or not, and regardless of the fact that actual K-12 teachers didn't develop them. We're stuck with them. Watch for them to become outdated.
Loveless has correctly identified all three of the arguments for standards. He's also right that the Common Core will have little or no impact on helping the kids who need help most. It is, however, a giant boondoggle for education publishers.
Moving in the right direction
I'm not naïve enough to believe that CCR and CCSS will, on their own, transform teaching and learning. However, as an English Language Arts teacher, I look critically at both the new content and literacy standards and see a vast improvement over my current state curriculum.
Like Dan, I applaud the logical vertical alignment (something that has been sorely missing in my content - how many autobiographies and memoirs did we write throughout our K-12 schooling?) and attention to application and synthesis.
Nancy, like you, I fear that textbook and testing businesses serve to gain a tremendous amount from the new standards, but, as a practicing teacher, I've actually been a part of 3 different Common Core curriculum development projects, all at different levels, all focused on teacher leadership in the classroom, and all compensated. These opportunities have ranged from creating visual snapshots of how standards could be interpreted for my state to leading collaborative professional development for my district to working with the ICCS Team (see their blog posts for the amazing work they're doing!).
I understand the volatile nature and politics associated with standards and curriculum, but, at the end of the day, I'm thankful for the new standards and the framework they provide. As a result, I've seen the following effects – I’ve engaged in more conversations with colleagues about how to bridge the gaps students have and help them achieve the profile outlined in the College and Career Readiness indicators; my department has increased our communication with elementary and high school teachers; and collaboration and content integration within my school has increased tremendously. While it will take consistency and commitment to continue these efforts and fully implement CC, I've already seen the impact of these standards (and the ripples they've caused in the water) on student learning and my own teaching. For that, I'm thankful and looking toward the future.
We'll Learn From History
Nancy,
Thanks for the insightful history lesson on the first national standards. An analysis of why those standards never took off will provide helpful lessons for this next attempt.
Speaking from the perspective of a history major, understanding the past was enlightening, but it was also humbling knowing that perhaps all the great ideas, wisdom, insights were already articulated by those before us- that somehow that the challenges of my and future generations was just to find ways to implement those great ideas, but more importantly to avoid "messing it up" again..
I wonder if the conditions are different this time around for advancing the national standards. Unlike the first time, standards are embedded deeply in everything education- from the foundation of curriculum, to assessments, and soon- teacher evaluation. This level of cohesion did not exist before...
This could create that demand and need for national standards. More importantly, it creates opportunity to engage other stakeholders to support teachers in the classroom. We now have more tools for transparency to see how those efforts may help us- we are better able to avoid the pitfalls...
Will this second time around succeed? None of us can really say with certainty. But we do know that the success of this effort will depend on teachers.
I think it's worth the effort. And if we mess it up again- well, the next generation will learn what went wrong with our attempt... Somehow, I think with teacher expertise engaged with everyone interested in public education- we'll make more progress than what happened in the 90's...
Good conversation!
-Patrick
Steer the ship!
I started teaching in 1974 so I am another Nancy who brings some history to the comments.
Although I have experienced the pendulum swings of educational reform, I feel like we are in the midst of a perfect storm. It is our duty and privilege to get it right this time. This storm has been brewing for several decades, so now it is time to blow up the box, not just think outside the box, and move forward. Command the ship!
Our students and classrooms have changed dramatically, particularly during the last 5 years. Students have facts and figures at their fingertips, but their critical reading skills, their communication skills, their problem solving skills, their persistence, and their evaluation skills have declined.
We want students and teachers to be accountable. We want to hold students and teachers to high standards, and we want to assess these standards fairly and accurately. The CC standards provide a solid framework to collaborate and support each other nationally while upping the ante for our graduates.
Of course the standards alone don’t make a difference unless they are supported with effective, focused teaching and measured with meaningful and appropriate assessments. The language is clear and rich, with careful sequencing to support vertical alignment, but they require complex and careful teaching. The standards themselves have already initiated meaningful conversation around what we want our students to know and be able to do, and how we can make sure that happens. These conversations are cross curricular, so we are really focused on teaching “students” and not just “content.”
During my teaching in the 70s,80s, and 90s, I don’t recall having conversations like these, except with my work with Senior Project in the 1990s. Ironically, the Senior Project was developed in the late 80s, but a rigorous Senior Project program is an authentic, performance based assessment that measures many of the CC standards.
During the last decade, the conversations have narrowed to “how do we get the kids to score high on the standardized tests?” . We have lost the discussions about the art and power of expert teaching.
I am embracing these standards as a first step in moving educational reform in the direction that will ensure success for our graduates. Because of technology, we can now support each other in this movement, share ideas, voice our concerns, and help make this happen. Looking carefully at the language of the standards, I don’t think we can find anything that is restrictive. The curriculum decisions and teaching strategies will be defined and determined by teachers, but this time, we are collaborating nationally as well as across disciplines in our own schools.
If effectively implemented K-12, our kids will be more than college and career ready. They will be “life ready.”
Command the ship INDEED!
Command the ship INDEED! Well said, Gardner. These are all great points about the Common Core movement, but I think the success of these standards boils down to the level of involvement of teachers as most of the comments above suggest. With that said, it's going to take more than passionate teachers. We will need the support of all involved in education reform. Nancy brings up a good point that the Common Core could end up in the hands of publishers instead of teachers. Teachers, administration, policy makers, and more need to understand the importance of teacher leadership in this process. Teachers need to demand the leadership role in this movement and administration and policy makers need to trust teachers to take on this role.
Post new comment