9:30

9:40

I read a excellent article this morning in defense of the Standards, by Jason Zimba, one of the writers of the Common Core.   I suggest it to all of you!
Find it here:http://www.edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadfly-daily/common-core-watch/2013/critics-math-doesnt-add-up.html

Things I have learned…

            There are actually schools out there (project-based learning, expeditionary learning, technology-focused schools, and more!) that are using innovative, creative, challenging curricula that inspire both students and teachers.  I have truly enjoyed learning about each of the different types that are being used throughout the United States, and would love to see parts of them incorporated into my own school.

            I have learned an immense amount of information about new uses of technology available for use in the classroom, from classroom blogs, with class scribes, to audio podcasts and video podcasts, as well as possibilities with VoiceThread.  I would like to try a few of these in my own classroom this year, including a class blog for each class.

            The chapter of Habits of Mind really struck a chord with me, especially the shift in learning from knowing the correct answer to “knowing how to behave when the answers are not readily apparent” (p.223)  I would like to try to keep this as a challenge to myself and my students throughout my classes.

            I was both encouraged and enlightened by a number of articles by international educators (Yong Zhao, Se Hoon Park), who said that America offers a much better balanced approach to education than a lot of other countries who are scoring better on international tests, and given a choice, parents in those countries would send their children to school in the United States. 

            The information about test scores, and the article about how countries that don’t use test scores to penalize schools or teachers, but rather to inform instruction, are doing better than the U.S., was not anything I had ever heard before.  Everything we hear in this country is that our students don’t compare well to other countries, and we need to test them more and more.  Also, one author addressed the issue (not usually mentioned by critics of the U.S. education system) that America tests all of our students (including the economically challenged, the homeless, the transient population, those with mental handicaps) in our state and national tests, while many of the countries who do better than us on international test comparisons don’t test these populations.  I am glad that in America we teach everyone, not just those who will do the best on our tests.  I was encouraged that there is much to emulate in the educational system in the United States.

Key Ideas

“As educators, our challenge is to match the needs of our learners to a world that is changing with great rapidity.”(p.7, ch1)

 “Form should support function and not lead it.”(p.14)

        Rethinking our views of the school schedule, grouping of students, grouping/usage of teaching personnel, and use of space is a major topic in Chapter 1.  A drawback of the standards movement is addressed as well – the negative focus on testing.   “…One dominant influence in schools during the first decade of the 21st century has been the focus on establishing clearly delineated standards as a means of setting high learning targets. I have often heard the catchphrase “standards, not standardization.” The implication is that teachers need latitude to help individual learners reach proficiency targets. Yet, in practice, classroom experience too often locks in rigid standardization with an overemphasis on low-level testing and dated standards. The intention may be to help schools reach for targets, but the reality is that often educators feel that teaching to the test is what counts, and the tests are often suspect in terms of value.”(p.9-10)

         In addition, Jacobs addresses some myths about education in society at large, one being that “too much creativity is dangerous – and the arts are frills”(p.17).  This really resonated with me, after all the reading and research we have done in this class.  The students of today need to be educated and proficient in technologies that don’t even exist yet!  They need to be able to creatively problem solve, and to figure out how new technological tools work on their own (usually by trial and error, like our own children, not by reading a manual.)  These are talents that are utilized by the creative right-side of the brain.

            In Chapter 2, Heidi Hayes Jacobs encourages us to make a commitment to replace assessments slowly and thoughtfully over time, adding to a pool of potential 21st century assessment types such as documentaries, podcasts, blogs, screenplays, films, and websites.  She challenges us to deliberately upgrade one assessment type each semester.  I believe that this is a commitment I can make for the coming year, and would like to encourage my fellow educators to do so as well.

            Upgrading content is the focus for Chapter 3.  “What content should be kept? What content should be cut? What content should be created?” (p. 30)  Jacobs challenges us to examine our curriculum from a global perspective, focusing our individual subject matters in a multi-national way.  For example, using the Galls-Peters Projection Map of the world, which displays all areas according to size, as opposed to the traditional Mercator map, which distorts the size and shape of large objects, could help our students have a more accurate view of the world.   English classes can include international perspectives in genre studies.  Math could look at world economies with statistical data analysis, using graphs and charts at all grade levels.  Exposure to world languages and cultures should started at the youngest age, and built upon over the years, instead of being studied by only some students for two years at the high school level.

            In Chapter 4, Heidi Hayes Jacobs elaborates in much greater detail some of the material from Chapter one.  Scheduling, grouping of students, use of space, and group patterns of professionals are the four topics she addresses.  One thing that really struck me  is her discussion of rethinking how we schedule our school day.  Instead of asking, what can we fit into our 40 minute block of time, we should ask “What type of time frame matches the nature of the task? What kind of time do my learners need to carry out a specific task?”(p.64)  This truly could help our focus as we plan our school days.  Cross-discipline collaboration has occurred at my school, where freshman team teachers shared blocks of teaching time, adjusting class times based on activities planned in other classes.  Although this has only been used for a couple of years, I believe it has a lot of potential.

My Vexing Issue

      My vexing and persistent problem at the high school level is an overabundance of standards to cover in too little time.  As mentioned in my last post, there are 127 basic math standards required of the Common Core at the high school level.  These need to be covered before juniors take the state assessment at the end of their junior year.  (This current is the SAT's, but will soon (2015) be replaced by the Smarter Balance test.) Our performance as teachers, and as a district, are interpreted in light of these test scores.  127 standards equates to covering one standard about every four days.  Since we use block scheduling, that means that every two classes, students should be covering another standard. There is no way to consider this mastery!
     Searching out a solution from what other educators have to say about this left me with no clear cut answers.  Some educators just acknowledge that there is no way for them to cover everything well, so they spend more in-depth time on some topics, and skim over others.  Others said that they viewed the Common Core as having too little rigor, and should be much more demanding at the high school level.
     Having to teach everyone, and not just those who excel in math, I gravitate towards agreeing with the first set of educators.
     I did run into some interesting articles about teaching math in a more integrated fashion, as apparently 90% of the world does, instead in a "layer cake" fashion, where topics are separated into Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2.  Through integrating the topics, statistics and geometry are woven into algebra, and creative problem solving is more deeply encouraged.  Real-life applications make much more sense by incorporating statistics and data analysis throughout the curriculum.  Also, I think these would better mirror the approach of the Smarter Balance test items that we are soon to see.
    

My Take on the Common Core

       I have done more reading on the Common Core this week than ever before in my life, much beyond our few required readings.  I was completely unaware of most of the debates circling around the Common Core.  But my own view of the Common Core, before my research in this class, was simply the burden it has brought in the last two years on an individual level.  By departments, we have spent our time aligning our curriculum to the Core, and tried to figure out how to cover every last standard in mathematics in just three years (there are 127 basic math standards at the high school level).  This has lead to a just a bit of stress at times!
      So, not a big surprise, my view of the Common Core before this was rather negative.  However, after quite a lot of research, I can see a few positive things about it.
      One thing I began to realize, in my interview with my district's curriculum coordinator, was that before standards appeared (NCTM, Maine Learning Results, the Common Core), there was no "standard" for teachers.  Each individual had to kind of guess what to teach each year.  Ever since I started teaching, we have always had standards to follow (first the Maine Learning Results, then the Common Core.)  So I can't quite imagine what it would be like to not have any standards.  But for teachers who have been teaching a long time, they remember when they didn't have that additional guidance.  So, in comparison, I can appreciate a little better what I now have.
     I think the Common Core has more to offer than I first thought.  And I think that if it is treated as a good set of standards to refer to, as opposed to the ultimate, end-all for exactly what we should teach every day, then we can perhaps find some balance.