It had been my long-held belief that it is ridiculous to attempt to teach a multitude of skills shallowly - which were usually repeated as students matriculated. I mean, how many years does it really take to know what nouns are and how to use them? Under this model, teaching standards was nothing more than briefly introducing and objective and repeatedly assessing all "covered" standards. There were too many standards to effectively teach to mastery in an academic year that is shortened by the frequency and number of assessments.
Consider my formula for instructional days from the 180-day/36-week school year based on the last year I taught.
5 - # of days spent pre-testing
18 - # of weekly or bi-weekly common Teacher-made assessments (Mandated)
18 - # of review days for aforementioned Teacher-made assessments
15 - # of testing days required for 3 week-long DWAs (District-Wide Assessments)
15 - # of review days for aforementioned DWAs
15 - # of days for MAP testing
10 - # of review days for MCT2 (state-wide, end-of-year assessment)
+5 - # of days for MCT2, including make-up testing
101 assessment days
180 days of compulsory attendance
-101 days of assessment
79 instructional days
Keep in mind that instructional days were also impacted by assemblies, field trips, PBIS parties, field day, inclement weather days, fire/tornado/lockdown drills, actual lockdowns, widespread absenteeism due to H1N1 Influenza (Swine Flu), professional development days, early-release days, parent-teacher conference days, and any other number of things.
Many have suggested that the solution is a longer school year. I wholeheartedly disagree. The answer is less assessment. Oddly, the answer has been more, not less. Since leaving the classroom, additions to the assessment calendar include STAR testing for AR placement; Code of Conduct testing (student handbook); and pre-testing at the beginning of every term rather than just the beginning of the school year. I'm sure there are some other things I'm forgetting.
Am I the only one that thinks education reform itself should be reformed?
So, now to the bears...
I fear that the promise of the Common Core State Standards will prove to be a failed promise because of a narrowing curriculum unintended by the standards themselves.
The CCSS are equivalent to Papa Bear's oversized chair. A booster seat in the form of a little more specificity would make this chair a better fit.
PARCC's Model Content Framework is Baby Bear's chair that doesn't support the weight of teacher autonomy. Local educational agencies (state education agencies, district-level curriculum personnel, and building-level administrators) may be enticed to strongly encourage (read: mandate) teachers to focus narrowly on what PARCC considers important and has specified as a "model" (read: will be tested). Now we're back to teaching to the test, the very thing that the high, clear, and few CCSS were to deliver us from.
Where is Mama Bear's just-right chair?
I hope Pathways to the Common Core can help me figure it out. Chapter 3 gave me more questions than answers. What are your thoughts?
~TF
I have to disagree with your last statement. I thought chapter 3 was quite clear in that students need to have literal understanding of the text that is read. Also they should move through appropriate grade level text complexity. Chapter 3 to me also seemed to be a call to go back to reading classic stories. Also there seems to be a slight implication that the standards should be taught/practiced in the order they're presented.
ReplyDeleteI think the CC is in fact "just right." What do you mean by specificity/what exactly should be more specific?
@Christie Neise
ReplyDeleteChapter 3 itself was clear to me, but because the standards do not specify what instruction should look like (which it never intended to do), PARCC & SBAC are using their interpretations of the standards to create the CCSS assessments. So, instruction (in some places) will be based on PARCC's & SBAC's interpretation, not necessarily what the teachers believe it should be. The moment assessments are created, curriculum narrowing begins to match the expectations of the assessment rather than capturing the full spirit of the standards themselves. CCSS should have eliminated teaching to the test.
What I was trying to convey is, the CCSS themselves were great, until the assessments came. The assessments themselves warp the implementation. If something low-stakes, such as the NAEP assessments are used to assess the CCSS, the full potential can be realized because the test is given to randomized samples and based on non-specific content, so no narrowing or "teaching to the test" is required.