Adoption of the Common Core
To understand why we are at this place in educational reform, we must first understand the path that education has taken over the better part of 20 years. When the No Child Left Behind program was put into law in January of 2002, schools were placed in a position that required them to scrutinize student data from state standardized tests, knowing that they would be held accountable for the results. During this process, schools and districts saw the need to take it one step further by creating a set of local standardized tests and using the data from those to identify areas of concern for both the individual students and their subgroups. Each of these steps had the right intentions. Schools wanted to identify areas of need and fill them. Timely interventions took place, assist classes formed, and teachers began using this data to identify ways that could increase student achievement on both state and district standardized tests. It is at this point that the problems started to surface. Were we focused on the students and their education, or was it more about the test score? Ravitch (2010) states it best when she said, “It produced mountains of data, not educated citizens.” For this reason, a change was necessary and adopting the common core state standards was a positive step in rectifying the damage done by No Child Left Behind . However, without other drastic changes, the common core will inevitably fail, and it is those changes that must be at the forefront of the education reform movement.
The goal of the common core state standards is simple. The standards are meant to prepare the students for entry-level careers, college courses, and other training programs. To do so, teachers are now required to deliver a subject based curriculum, while developing a student's ability to think critically, solve problems, and analyze various forms of material. (Corestandards.org, 2015) English and Language Arts standards also include literacy requirements in Science, History and Technical Studies, subjects that did not appear in the previous model. The standards have received their share of criticism because of the new methods and techniques used to complete very classical tasks, especially in math, but the intention to create critical thinkers and problems solvers has met little resistance. Teachers also welcomed the idea that the rewritten standards would be simplified, allowing the teacher to spend more time with each standard, giving the students time to gain a deeper understanding of the curriculum. This idea was appealing teachers.
The Testing Dilemma
With a new focus on problem-solving and critical thinking, a new approach to testing and data collection would be necessary. After all, one cannot test someone's ability to think critically, and use problem-solving skills using a multiple choice test. To meet this need, computer-based testing would open up the ability to introduce a variety of question types. Computers allow for constructed responses, models, graphs, etc. which would give us a greater understanding of a student's ability to not just understand the curriculum, but to use it in ways that a paper and pencil test would not allow us to do before. There was also an understanding that computer-based testing would create instant results, allowing teachers, schools, and districts to diagnose problem areas and work with students to increase their achievement level.
The problem here, however, is that testing and data collection is beginning to move to the forefront once again and after experiencing testing after year one, a few major flaws surfaced. The first problem, and most obvious, is that a computer-based test is taking students too long to complete. Sometimes the time to test is in upwards of eight hours (McCabe, 2015). In a middle school with a traditional schedule, that equates to over two weeks of instruction. In districts that are not operating within a one to one computer model, this easily turned into a testing window that required almost two months to complete. Some students may have been tested in early April while others in the same grade and subject tested in late May. It is impossible to compare the two student groups when one receives nearly eight weeks more of classroom instruction. Nor is it fair to hold a teacher accountable who is forced to test their students eight months into a school year on a curriculum that is based on a ten-month schedule.
From what I have experienced, districts have also found it difficult to move away from the data analysis model that became institutionalized during the No Child Left Behind era. How could they test and gather data on their students throughout the year with these new standards in place? With the promise of interim assessments in the works, the problem seemed to have a solution. To understand why this is not working, we need to look at how it is structured. For each grade level and subject, anywhere from five to ten assessments are available. Teachers have the ability to administer each test three times throughout the year that gives them the opportunity to see growth. However, the assessments have two major shortcomings.
First of all, they are based on blocks, not a sequential curriculum. Teachers following a state adopted curriculum find it impossible to find a point in time, during the year, where the assessment can be used to test proficiency. Now if the idea is that a teacher should use it as a pre, mid, and post-test, you are creating a situation where a teacher would be required to test a student roughly 40 times (three times for each block) to see progress in both math and language arts. We have already discussed how long students can take to complete a computer-based test, so this creates a significant dedication of time to testing and time away from teaching. Creating, once again, mountains of data, not educated citizens.
Interim assessments, as well as the summative, also offer no item analysis, making it nearly impossible for a teacher to find any real diagnostic value to the test. (McCabe, 2015) When scored, interim assessment only offers three scores. They include Not Met, Nearly Met, and Met. This information tells all stakeholders very little about student progress and provides no real value when it comes to designing timely and immediate interventions, which is one of the main reasons to collect and analyze data.
In her interview at Vanderbilt University, Randi Weingarten stated that it is the belief that the government is more concerned with implementing the curriculum quickly, instead of implementing it well. She ended it by saying that this would doom the common core (Education Writers Association, 2014). It is my thought, because of what I have read, heard, and experienced, that people must be given time to work with the standards before facing the scrutiny that testing and test scores bring. The problem may not lie in the standards, but in our approach to remain data centered with all of the changes. Holding on to the test, collect, and analyze data model, many have lost sight of the primary goal of creating students who have the ability to think critically, solve problems, and analyze various forms of material.
School Structure
If common core is to be successful, not only will the testing model need to be reworked, but we must also look at the structure of our schools. The question that all educators and administrators need to answer is, "How should a school day be structured and what tools are required, for our students to be successful with common core?" The common core requires more than a 45 minute class period. How can a student be expected to think about a problem critically, get constructed feedback from others, and create something of value, within such a short period. We must also provide teachers with the appropriate tools and time to provide the students with an environment that will encourage the above behavior. Why are we still working with textbooks based on prior standards? Why are we slow to move to the new science and history standards? Why are classic novels, which are below grade level, still a major part of our curriculum? By addressing these issues, we can move in a positive direction towards full implementation of the standards.
At some point, one should expect for schools and teachers to be held accountable for the implantation and success of their students. Weingarten outlines three keys to teacher effectiveness. Are teachers provided with the necessary tools and conditions to teach a curriculum? Did they teach the curriculum? What the curriculum learned? (Education Writers Association, 2014) In our current state, schools very well may not be structured to provide a teacher with the conditions necessary to be successful. Depending on funding, districts may find it difficult to revamp a teacher’s classroom while providing them with the tools necessary to be successful. If this is the first condition that must be met for a teacher to be successful, how can we expect the curriculum to shine and proficiency to be the expectation? We must build this base first, to support the successes that will follow.
Next Steps
To clarify, I strongly agree that the movement towards the common core state standards is positive for our educational system. The idea of providing our students more time with fewer standards is a significant first step. I also agree that if we are to reform our educational system, we must continue to provide our students with opportunities to think things through, ask questions, solve problems, and create various things with the knowledge they have. This, however, is not going to be enough. To provide students with these opportunities, we must continue to find a way to minimize testing, placing more value on the daily formative assessments that are taking place in the classroom. Doing so would allow more time for the teachers so they can allow the students to become the educated critical thinkers we hope they all become. We must also look at the tools that are available and make all necessary improvements so that the classroom tools enable the teachers to reach the expected outcomes in the classrooms. Weingarten said that teaching is both an art and science (Education Writers Association, 2014). The result of the common core initiative will only come to fruition if we allow the artist to do the wonderful things they are capable of while embracing the science that supports the direction their instruction takes.
References:
Diane Ravitch's blog. (n.d.). Retrieved December 3, 2015, from http://dianeravitch.net/
Education Writers Association. (2014, May 19). Randi Weingarten on Measuring Teacher Effectiveness. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/FfbDY7xWq_U.
Education Writers Association. (2014, July 24). Randi Weingarten on Testing and the Common Core. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/J8WA4Wbq4Cs.
McCabe, D. [Daniel McCabe]. (2015, April 14). @DianeRavitch on @allinwithchris. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/nMw5ivMZtzo.
Preparing America's students for success. (n.d.). Retrieved December 3, 2015, from http://www.corestandards.org/
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.
Diane Ravitch's blog. (n.d.). Retrieved December 3, 2015, from http://dianeravitch.net/
Outstanding block. Your ideas are worth telling the world about. Looking forward to following you!
ReplyDelete