The Common Core: Friend or Foe?

Complaints about the Common Core are usually made by whiny republicans who are holding on to the state's rights concerns, so they always sound more radical than they actually are. The biggest beef I usually have with these are that they are based on principles and not the actual standards In my two years in Roosevelt I saw poor district implementation and yearly teacher training that teachers said didn't help. 

Before I list my problems, Here is a list of why I like it (the whiny republicans never do this, which always makes them seem more crazy, because the unwillingness to cede anything, even the obvious, in an argument usually is a characteristic of someone blinded by personal interests and is being irrational. 

Why I Like it

1. My first thought was that it's about time. The highest performing countries all have state-run education systems (and by state I mean national) that are linked to the states forecast of economic needs. The difference is that these states (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan) are only as big as a US state. And the CCSS weren't developed in line with any outlook on the economy, which is different in each region. 

2. I like the idea that each state is actually on the same page. Going to an institution like BYU with a national base of students opened my eyes to the different educations you get from each state. It may not be the best reason to create a nationally implemented curriculum, but for a 'United' States that depends on each other it really troubles me to think how little people care that one state can fall so far behind another's educational standards. To be able to actually compare students from one state with students from another based on common assessment is not a horrible idea, either. You just have to make sure the assessment actually is worth it then implement it well. More on this later.

3. It focuses on good math solving skills, not just math skills. The rigorous nature of the math curriculum is great for assessing a students' true understanding of the subject. This is great, but it doesn't look great due to flawed implementation, which I'll touch on later, and makes assessment-writing difficult as well. 

4. English teaching that matters. As much as I love reading, and enjoy reading the classics, we really don't need any more English majors. Kids need to learn at a young age how to effectively read informational texts. Why? Because this way students will be able to understand the wording in math problems and science lab instructions, which are two of the greatest contributors to math anxiety and disinterest in the sciences. Aside from this advantage, people need to know how to read boring forms because life is full of them, and if nothing else, it might prevent people from getting in line at the DMV just to ask stupid questions.

Problems 

1. Poor implementation. districts like he one I formerly taught in throw it all all grades at once and hope for the best. This predictably leads to failing students in the higher grades because they did not grow up in the system, and therefore are unaccustomed to the types of high-level of expectations dictated by the curriculum. I witnessed a higher than usual amount of 9th graders who failed (or nearly failed) and went on to fail yet again in the the 10th grade, and definitely will in the 11th grade as well because they were the test run of the secondary math curriculum.This really only shows the incompetence of local leadership, but I think this is happening in a lot of other places, too. 

2. Poorly trained teachers. Teachers are being tossed into the fire of teaching for new types of outcomes without really knowing how to do so. They are asked to attend a week-long unpaid training every summer that teaches them about teaching the CCSS, but I have not heard a single favorable report back from those (I went to a special education one that was separate, paid, and really, really helpful, but that's special education for you). Now, teachers are generally cynical about changing anything they do, so many likely immediately shut down upon being asked to change and shown how to do so effectively. And when they are pulled away during the summer to be trained without pay, usually sacrificing time from a summer job that they have in order to make ends meet, it doesn't exactly help the attitude. The problem of poor teacher training will lead to all sorts of problems with the implementation of CCSS and, consequently, student learning.

3. Poor Assessments. The first two concerns alone will drive CCSS into the ground, and it will have nothing to do with the actual quality of the material. That being said, the material (specifically math) has led to difficulty in assessment. When proving the effectiveness of CCSS, all that will matter is the test results. Standardized tests have come a long way since I was a kid. I couldn't believe the amount of useless testing that was going on when I started teaching. The end of year standardized assessment used when I began teaching was the NWEA. It was administered three times during the year, and the results were treated by teachers like Angry Birds high scores. So this testing did not do anything for the teachers or students and yet the kids took four different tests (math, science, reading and langauge) three times a year, taking away instructional time, and developing in some students (and most teachers) test apathy. 

I asked my colleagues serious questions about it because the results were so abstract and time-consuming to interpret that I wondered if they took the time to analyze the results of their 180 students. None of my fellow teachers had any idea how to use NWEA scores to direct instruction. The only training they had received was how to administer the test. I was in attendance at the monthly principal's meeting when they had a training on it, but it was from a school administrator from another district who was trying to sell the state on adopting it state-wide and the information did not make it to other teachers in the schools and focused mainly on interpreting school-wide results. What it really showed me was how much we don't know from student test scores*, affirming my belief that the test was a waste of money.  

I mention all of this because I believe that standardized testing in any form is flawed, it's not new, and I actually don't hold much hope in that changing (at least not in the district I taught at). The year after I left the district picked up the new SAGE test compliant with the new CCSS, and it turned out that it was just more of the same. Do you know why? Teachers were not given adequate training, and students were also left in the dark about what to expect, so the test apathy developed from the NWEA was perpetuated. 

The Common Core? Well, if what I've seen is any indication, the poor results in the classroom and on standardized tests will likely cause people to really question its worth. Maybe questions about how it was implemented will be asked and answered, maybe not, but if nothing else it gives the opportunity for someone to come up with another program that will be touted to "increase educational outcomes in our schools". I am perfectly confident that the next one won't fix the previous, and also that the current isn't actually that bad, but there are some major problems with implementation, training and assessment.

Recap

This has been long, but I want to quickly revisit what I said in the first paragraph. I agree with the whiny republican who is in charge of www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.com in that education is a responsibility not granted to the federal government and therefore should be reserved to the states, and that wheels are in motion signaling greater federal control of the education system. This is not okay, especially since it is the states that fund their schools and have the right control them. If they want to usurp some power from states there is a perfectly constitutional process to do that in the form of amendments. That being said, I can't think of the last time the country was able to do anything about executive overreach (or should I say, "I don't recall"), but if Republicans can put it on the agenda for 2016 and find a candidate who's not a time bomb of frequent racist/sexist/anti-leftist fear-mongering/plutocratic/crazy comments, something might change. 

What I really want to know is where these guys were during NLCB. They could have saved us from years of horror.

*I could talk about this, but I won't because 1)It's boring 2) They aren't doing that test any more in that district and 3) It'd be really long.

State Reciprocity

The term "state reciprocity" is used by universities to describe a degree or license awarded that is recognized by other states as well. Most schools claim to award teaching licenses or certificates that are recognized by nearly every other state of the union. So with my certificate from BYU I've been applying for jobs all over the country, including 19 states and the District of Columbia, not to mention a job in Calgary, which was both my first application and my first rejection letter (no one promised reciprocity with other countries). I thought expanding my horizons would give me a better chance at getting a job, and at first that idea held true. My first real interview (not a screening interview) was with a school in Wellton, Arizona--a town known for its massive feed lot and more recently, for a psycho shooter that drove into Yuma. The interview went well and the principal explained the licensing process I'd go through upon getting the job. It was easy-take a few ESL courses and teach for a year, then apply and BAM, it would be mine. Well, I didn't get the job, and my count is at 132 jobs I've applied for, and among the rejection letters/emails, most have been from out of state schools. I didn't think anything of it, but then I had a screening interview with Phoenix Union High School District. The interviewer asked me if I had started my application for an Arizona teaching credential. I answered "Why pay over a hundred dollars for something I only need if I actually get a job?" He answered that every teacher in the district must hold and Arizona teacher's license at the beginning of the school year. So much for state reciprocity.

The idea of the state having control over its education system is based solely on the founding fathers failing to enumerate public education as a power of the federal government. It would take a constitutional amendment to create national control of public education, and that's not going to happen anytime soon. That's because even though everyone in the country believes that we should provide free public education to all children we must A) stick to the constitutional verbage written by the founding fathers (who did not believe in national education--except for Thomas Jefferson) and B) localize control of what our children are learning.

Local control is one of those phrases that gets a lot of use and a lot of respect in education policy circles. This makes a lot of sense to me because funding for schools is locally based, so the control is locally based. Funding does come from the federal government, but the bread and butter of every district is local. States try to standardize things and streamline their programs, which creates this whole mess regarding teacher training reciprocity, not to mention high school education reciprocity.

But this is the reason for public education. Any nation's public education is built for a single purpose, which is to indoctrinate the youth of a nation with the culture of the governing class. However, because our national government is handcuffed from controlling education, the indoctrination includes the fundamental beliefs of the predominate culture of the state and in some cases even the areas of school districts. In America we created public education to perpetuate the idea of the American Dream (one's ability to succeed in "attaining the fullest stature of which (he or she) is innately capable, and be recognized for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position). That is the only common stream in the education system--anyone can succeed (We might also compare this to the myth of the medals in Plato's Republic, but that's a story for another time). Our education system lacks a common thread because of the need for state and local control, breeding the indoctrination of state and local culture, not national culture. This organizational fault is part of the reason we see so much disparity between states and between urban-rural-suburban schools. Because the curriculum and teacher credentialing standards are different from state to state and district to district the education of students from one state or district to the next will be inherently unequal.

So ending this on a slightly different vein than I started, I would like to say a word about winning the future: it won't happen unless we centralize our educational system. It's the only way we can properly work together as a nation to meet the changing needs of the American workforce. But there are two reasons this will never come to pass: 1) Conservative interpretation of the Constitution and the difficulty of creating an amendment empowering the federal government to provide public education and 2) America is not a 'melting pot' as much as it is actually a grocery store. Yes, there are a variety of cultures here, but they are--for the most part--compartmentalized into different regions and even different areas of cities and towns. Therefore the predominant culture within the district will beg/cry/fight for its right to push its agenda (strong words, I know, but it is what it is) on the children in its jurisdiction, and it will do so under the assumption that it is what the parents want and what they believe is best for their children--regardless whether or not it is what is best for the country represented by the flag to which they pledge allegiance every morning in the classroom.