Common Core

The Common Core State Standards Initiative’s K-12 standards have far exceeded the expectations of those of us who want to return content to the center of our children’s education.  Remarkably they have done this while still being skill-based standards.  By which I mean they do not lay out what children need to know at each grade, but rather describe what they need to be able to do.  They describe skill development, not knowledge mastery.  That said, unlike most skill standards (and nearly all standards are skill standards these days), the CCSSI standards lay out skills in a manner that is not only friendly to content but actually requires the mastery of content. 

Let me explain.  In the reading standards for literature for grades 3-5 students are required to “compare and contrast thematically similar tales, myths, and accounts of events from various cultures” and “compare the treatment of similar ideas and themes (e.g., opposition of good and evil) as well as character types and patterns of events in myths and other traditional literature from different cultures.”  This cannot be done without reading and deeply comprehending mythological stories. 

In the same grade 3-5 reading standards there is this:

“Explain major differences between poems and prose, and refer to the structural elements of poems (e.g., stanza, verse, rhythm, meter) when writing or speaking about specific poems.”

And this:

“Explain major differences between drama and prose stories, and refer to the structural elements of drama (e.g. casts of characters, setting descriptions, dialogue, stage directions, acts, scenes) when writing or speaking about specific works of dramatic literature.”

Again, students must read texts closely in order to meet these standards.  The standards do an excellent job covering the list of textual features one should become knowledgeable of—(e.g., poetic and dramatic structure).  They are less effective at describing what students should do with these tools—use them to appreciate the beauty inherent in great works.  And that is in part because these are skill standards, not content standards, and hence they avoid absolutely requiring students to contend with great works.

Though they certainly push schools, teachers, and students hard in the direction of reading the best of the best.  And do actually require students to read some very important works in the “informational text” sections of the standards.  Again, let me explain. 

The standards are accompanied by a lengthy appendix listing dozens upon dozens of specific works that the CCSSI is putting forward as exemplars of texts of appropriate rigor at each grade.  There are few selections here that cannot be described as excellent.  And we hope that teachers will use these.  But that will depend primarily on the quality of curricula schools adopt once these standards come in to use. 

In the informational text section the standards-writers have all but removed any doubt that a few key works will be taught.  In grades 9-10 they require students to “analyze documents of historical and literary significance including foundational U.S. documents (e.g., the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights) for their premises, purposes, and structure.”  And in grades 11-12:  “Analyze how various authors express different points of view on similar events or issues, assessing the authors’ assumptions, use of evidence, and reasoning, including analyzing seminal U.S. documents (e.g., The Federalist, landmark U.S. Supreme Court majority opinions and dissents).”  In essence, these standards do provide a short required reading list of key American historical documents.

The CCSSI standards create a space for truly excellent curricula and teaching materials to be used, and for serious, content-rich teacher professional development to occur.  We hope that organizations with the expertise to create those materials will seize this rare opportunity and do so.

Lynne Munson

We are always interested in hearing about what’s important to teachers. So the Gates Foundation and Scholastic deserve major kudos for their new report out today. Primary Sources: America’s Teachers on America’s Schools collects the results of a survey of 40,000 American teachers and provides a useful snapshot of teacher opinion on a number of topics, including merit pay, teacher retention, and raising student achievement.

Gates and Scholastic say that the survey’s goal is to “plac[e] teachers’ voices at the center of the discourse around education reform.” The survey makes clear that teachers believe that curriculum – the content of what’s transmitted to students – needs to be at the center of that conversation.

From the report: “Regardless of their views on the single most likely reason for their students’ lack of preparedness, teachers are largely united in their views on the in-classroom resources necessary to sustain academic success. Nearly 9 in 10 teachers agree that a high-quality curriculum ensures academic success for their students (88%). Ninety-three percent agree that digital resources like classroom technology and Web-based programs help academic achievement, with a similar percentage (91%) agreeing that classroom magazines and books other than textbooks do the same.”

Teachers were equally certain of a content-rich curriculum’s role in retaining good teachers. “Access to a high-quality curriculum and teaching resources” was ranked as “absolutely essential” in retaining good teachers by 49% of survey respondents, “very important” by 41%, and “somewhat important” by 10%. When asked to choose only the top two most important factors for retaining good teachers, 26% of respondents chose “access to high-quality curriculum and teaching resources” as one of the top two, just below supportive leadership (52%), higher salaries (45%), and time for teachers to collaborate (28%), and ahead of professional development, work environment, and working conditions.

Disappointingly, the survey does not ask teachers about how test-based accountability affects their classroom practices or their management of time in the classroom. These are questions that deserves close scrutiny. The Gates report is a good start.

James Elias

Common Core board co-chair Diane Ravitch has written a trailblazing new book about education reform. In The Death and Life of the Great American School System (Basic, 2010) she indicts, well, almost everyone associated with school reform (particularly foundations that have invested heavily in this area) with mistakenly trying to reshape schools in the image of business and setting them back even further. NCLB takes a big hit, largely for the effects the law has had on narrowing the curriculum, as Common Core also has pointed out. But skills-based accountability is at the top of a long hit list that includes choice, charter schools, and merit pay. 

We take an interest in all of this but call it to your attention because the liberal arts and sciences comprise the spine of the solution Diane recommends. She believes our schools need a national curriculum clearly describing what American students should be expected to know. Coupled with this would be a series of short, grade-by-grade reading lists putting forth which great works all students should be taught. Here are a few entries on her lists:  Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Henry David Thoreau, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Walt Whitman, Emily Dickinson, Ralph Waldo Emerson, W.E.B. DuBois, Herman Melville, Nathaniel Hawthorne, William Shakespeare, John Milton, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Lewis Carroll.

Together, the curriculum and reading lists would ensure that all students receive at very least the basics of a broad liberal arts and sciences education. Which is a great deal more than most students are getting now.

Threaded through all of this is a series of stories taken from Diane’s own work in ed reform — from her grad student days working at Carnegie to today. The whole thing amounts to an absolute must-read certainly for anyone who frequents Common Core’s blog. Keep a lookout for an interview we plan to publish with her soon.

Lynne Munson 

There are bad ideas and there are ludicrous ideas. Last week we and the millions who watch ABC’s World News Tonight or read the New York Times were treated to a doozy. Both newssources ran pieces about an experiment in 8 states to end high school (for a self-selected group of students) after 10th grade. These students, whose goal (it appears assumed) is to enter the workplace quickly, can simply test out of the last two years of high school and go on their way. Of course, these students’ reason for leaving school could be anything, including a desire to drop out without appearing to do so. But advocates for this idea appear unconcerned about this or about any other of the many potentially harmful ramifications this idea could have. Those include reducing the college-going population to a richer and less diverse group of students, namely those who know as high school freshmen that they are going to college. And creating within high schools a very clearly defined two-tracked system (basically two schools in one) populated by two rather starkly separated classes of students. Also – and this, fundamentally, is what bothers us most – embracing the idea that people who go from high school into the workforce do not need to possess a rich base of knowledge in a range of subjects.

We are all citizens. And we are all learners. No matter what we become – professors, small business-owners, burger-flippers or “just” moms or dads – possessing knowledge will help us to do what we do well, to enjoy our lives, and to exercise the responsibilities of citizenship.　To say, as states would be if they made 11th and 12th grade optional, that only the college-bound need to know anything beyond possessing basic reading and math skills is essentially to give up on the education of a huge portion of the population. Yes, this is a pilot program, and it is likely – like most dumb, faddish ideas – to fail. But we should recognize that the widespread adoption of anything resembling this program would be tantamount to giving up on providing many American children with anything beyond a bare-bones education. And we just can’t do that.Lynne Munson

Texas has just released a side-by-side comparison of their English and math college and career readiness standards with a draft of the same type of standards produced by the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) led by NGA and CCSSO.  I’ve been waiting for a state to do this sort of analysis and it is an interesting read. I was most struck by the fact that the Texas team found “strong alignment” between the Texas and CCSSI standards in many areas. Their gap analysis does list standards that Texas has but the CCSSI does not (at least in the summer 2009 draft they were working from). These items are worth paying attention to. They include: 

• Analyze works of literature for what they suggest about the historical period and cultural context in which they were written;

• Use effective reading strategies to determine a written work’s purpose and intended audience;

• Identify and analyze the audience, purpose, and message of an informative or persuasive text;

• Geometric reasoning that makes connections between geometry, statistics and probabilities;

• Connecting mathematics to the study of other disciplines by using appropriate mathematical models in the natural, physical and social sciences.

What becomes clear as you read this is that it comes from a state with a great deal of pride in their standards. There hasn’t been a chance yet to see how these new standards will affect their NAEP performance, for example. But after finishing this report one is left wondering how the CCSSI standards might have benefited from Texas’ input at an earlier stage when it really could have mattered.

Lynne Munson

In its zeal to support the creation of national ELA and math standards, the Obama administration is making strategic mistakes that threaten to bring down that effort altogether. Yesterday no less than President Obama himself announced that his administration will seek to tie eligibility for Title I funding to a state’s having career and college-readiness standards in place. Coming on the heels of the Dept. of Education restricting its Race to the Top funding competition only to states participating in the National Governors Association/Council for Chief State School Officers standards initiative, this sends the clear message that states not willing to adopt these standards are no longer welcome at the department trough. Even for formula funding that they have been receiving for decades.

This is a huge mistake. Not only will tying Title I funding to the standards effort further isolate independent states like Texas and Alaska, which have refused to participate in the standards initiative all along, but the move will also threaten more than a half dozen other states such as Massachusetts, Indiana, and California which have good standards already and for which adopting the new NGA/CCSSO standards might be a close call. States that adopt the standards should be doing so because they improve upon their current standards, not because the federal government is, in effect, forcing their hand.  

Folks at NGA and CCSSO—which are, after all, state-based organizations—must realize this. I can only assume that today they are shaking their heads over what their “pals” in the federal government are doing on their behalf. Who needs enemies with friends like these?

Lynne Munson

The Chief Academic Officer of North Carolina’s Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) has announced that the state’s widely criticized draft standards for U.S. history have been scrapped. Common Core first wrote on February 4^th about the state’s move to drop pre-1877 history from the survey course taken by North Carolina 11th graders. Our criticism was picked up and amplified by Education Week, Joanne Jacobs, and others. NCDPI has since received 7,000 letters criticizing their draft standards.  

Now NCDPI says they will revise their proposal to change the state’s U.S. history standards and that they plan to release a new draft in April. We’ll be watching.

James Elias and Lynne Munson

Marc Basnight, president pro tempore of the North Carolina state Senate and “one of the most powerful political figures in the state” has circulated a letter opposing the proposed changes to the state’s U.S. history standards.

North Carolina - a Partnership for 21st Century Skills leadership state – plans to eliminate the Revolutionary War, Andrew Jackson, the Mexican-American War, and the Civil War and most of Reconstruction from its high school American history classes. 

Newly proposed standards would mean that, over their high school career, students in North Carolina would take an ambiguous course called global studies in 9th grade, take study civics and economics in 10th grade, and study U.S. history from 1877 to the present in 11th grade.

Remember that in Common Core’s Still at Risk study, only 43% of respondents knew that the Civil War took place sometime between 1850 and 1900 and only half knew that the Federalist Papers were written to support ratification of the Constitution. The Lexington Institute’s recent report, The Teaching of American History: Promise and Performance, documents the country’s growing indifference toward its own history. How can students assume the responsibilities and privileges of democratic citizenship if they don’t know the basic facts of our national experience?

James Elias

Williams College’s Susan Engel took to the op/ed page of the New York Times yesterday to argue that education reform must include overhauling the curriculum. Engel’s column focuses on reforming the notoriously content-free early grades, starting with a lot of reading:

In [our hypothetical] classroom, children would spend two hours each day hearing stories read aloud, reading aloud themselves, telling stories to one another and reading on their own. After all, the first step to literacy is simply being immersed, through conversation and storytelling, in a reading environment; the second is to read a lot and often. A school day where every child is given ample opportunities to read and discuss books would give teachers more time to help those students who need more instruction in order to become good readers.

One qualm we have is that Engel doesn’t appear to be concerned with the quality of what students are reading or listening to. She seems, like skill-based education advocates, to consider all content equal. She in fact identifies a list of “essential skills” that should be emphasized in elementary schools: “reading, writing, computation, pattern detection, conversation and collaboration.” We concur. But we also know that these skills cannot be effectively acquired unless children have a base of knowledge to use when they are trying to figure out how to “read, write, compute, detect patterns, converse, and collaborate.” We say to Engel what we say to P21: Where’s the content?

Lynne Munson and James Elias