Children Learn Through Play

Reid is about to embark on his first school journey. Next week he'll join the world of "Ready 4 Learning", or PreK, or 4K, or you could just call it regular old Preschool. Seriously, why are there so many different names for it?  Anyway, he had his open house today. It mostly went as expected.

First, we found his "coat room" hanger, and hung his backpack up. Then, we waited in line to meet his teacher. I was more than impressed. She was so kind and patient. There was a rather large line waiting to greet her and head into the classroom, but she didn't rush anybody and listened to all their comments and concerns as they entered the classroom.

She was probably relieved when we simply shook her hand and told her our names, moving right along to the 10 point checklist of things to do for the day. Inside Reid's classroom I was immediately relieved. Every corner was a play station. One corner of the room had a large play kitchen with buckets of accessories. Across from that was a nursery with several realistic baby dolls and changing items. Another corner had building blocks and car garages. My favorite corner was the comfy and inviting reading center, adjacent the puppet theater. In the center of the room tables stood as a gathering place for school supplies. "Here Reid, let's open up your backpack and start putting away your supplies," I said.

"No Mama! I want to do it all by myself," he replied while busying himself with the task at hand.

Perfect, then I'll start filling out five different permission and volunteer forms while simultaneously trying to stop your little sister from pulling out every toy she can see and also avoid drowning in your baby sisters drool, as she ravenously lunges from/for my chest. That part was rather chaotic. But Reid's part was wonderful. He loved the whole experience and as we were leaving I even pretended to be a bus driver and showed him exactly where he'll be dropped off and picked up each day.

He told me his favorite part of the whole adventure was finding his name (near the coat hanger, on the bulletin board, and elsewhere). He was pretty bummed the boy he instantly became buddies with is in the AM class. He told me he can't wait to meet a friend who can come over to our house to play, "because our house is so much fun."

After 50 minutes of filling out forms, wrangling my children, and searching for the answers to all my questions we packed up and headed to the library. Nell was in hysterics most of the morning. That little room was three-year-old heaven and she did not want to leave. One mother said, "Oh, my kid feels the same way. Is she AM or PM?"

"She's two," was my quick reply. "So, she's neither."

"Oh!" she said with a little shock, "then I guess you can't just tell her to get over it, she won't be back on Tuesday."

I chuckled a little bit, "No, if she really understood this is where her big brother is going when he leaves her everyday, I think it'd just add to her misery."

We love play at our house, and having such an inviting play space just out of reach was crushing my little Nell Bell.

Now, as I'm typing this, all three children are quietly sleeping and I'm reading the entire Ready 4 Learning Handbook. As I soaked up the words on the "Philosophy" page and thought back to our visit, I can't help but feel grateful for this Preschool opportunity.

That Philosophy just speaks to my soul. Little kids learn through play! Pretend play builds problem solving and critical thinking skills. It helps them learn to think abstractly and build empathy. Play is crucial for healthy childhood development. And while I think I've done my best to foster a safe play environment during Reid's first five years of life ...

Building every Duplo set we own,

pulling silly faces until we laugh ourselves silly,

and bonding with little sisters. 

Attending special story times

and hands on community preschool classes.

Mud painting

and snake watching.

Pretending we're baby robins, eating delicious gummy worms and drinking from our special (tiny) bird baths.

Splashing in puddles,

exploring streams,

and understanding the wonder that is water.

Completing our library summer reading program (and scoring these sweet free books!).

Play is crucial and I love playing with my little boy, but I'm ready to let a well trained teacher help me in my efforts to give Reid the best. From the Philosophy: "Children learn more through play when they have well-trained teachers who know how to respond to, guide, and extend their play to increase learning -- and how to assess their development by observing their play."

I love my role as mother, and I love, love the toddler/preschool stage, but I am not cut out to be an Elementary teacher. I'm just not. I'm so ready for this next stage in motherhood. Bring on the school days!

The Tale of an Upside Down Lion

Or why I'm really afraid of sending my child to preschool.

left: Nell's lion, right: Reid's lion, courtesy library story time

At our most recent trip to Library Story Time we found an unfamiliar face leading the rambunctious group of preschool-ish toddlers. Her hello song was more solemn and her picture books too modern. Now, this isn't a story complaining about the new librarian. As I observed her I couldn't hep but notice several of the regulars felt more comfortable in her presence, and my children were handling the change just fine.

She taught us sign language, which I loved. Instead of moving our bodies frequently, we only stood once and moved only upon specific instructions. Watching my children under more rigorous structure was interesting, and I was glad they could keep to the task, the task of sitting still and quietly much longer than usual.

Then it was craft time.

In the back of the room there were two tables with about eight spots each. Each spot had all the supplies needed to make the adorable lions pictured above. Once set loose, my two mobile children ran to the back of the room. They each picked a spot on separate tables, and I had to wrangle the two-year-old next to the four-year-old because the Librarian's only words when she set us loose were "parents will need to help their children with the glue."

She'd obviously never crafted with my kids. Because they do not need help with their glue. And sure enough, before any instructions were given Reid had already begun gluing his Lion's mane -- which was a mistake because the first step of this art project was to tape the ears to the back of lion's head. A step I quickly completed for him.

Why did I do that? I don't know, because I have crafted with my kids and I should know better. I have a pretty strict "hands off" approach to our craft time. But this craft had a set of instructions to follow, it had order, and I just really wanted to help my kids follow that order.

Nell was as clueless about the ears as Reid. She took her paper plate and immediately introduced it to her best friend, the marker. That girl loves markers, and not a day goes by that I'm not scrubbing some color off her elbows.

After I frantically taped the ears on both lions I began helping Nell glue her eyes and nose on, which was the proper step number two. I didn't have the time or attention (I was holding Coraline in one arm through out this entire ordeal, minor detail) to notice Reid had glued his eyes all by himself. He used waaaay too much glue and was about to put the nose on upside down, but he was so proud of his independence. And yet, I interrupted him to have a conversation about whether our noses are under or above our eyes -- something I really thought he shouldn't have to stop and think about. Confused, he glued his nose under the lion's eyes.

Next, it was time to draw the faces. Reid hadn't really left any room for a smile or whiskers, so I just secretly hoped he wouldn't notice the instruction given -- he hadn't noticed the first two (it was total chance he glued the eyes on at the same moment everyone else did). I knew he'd been most eager to glue on the mane, so I let him loose on that task and turned to help Nell.

By the time I'd returned to Reid he proudly showed me the face he'd drawn on his lion -- a totally upside down face. I asked him what the raised brow was and he assured me it was the lion's smile. I tried to have the whole, ears, eyes, nose, smile order conversation again and he clearly became frustrated. It's like he had no idea what I was talking about. Then he looked at his Lion and realized the nose (that I had placed under the eyes) was in the wrong spot. He tried problem solving on his own but when he realized it had already dried up he totally lost it.

I mean really, really lost it. He scanned the room and noticed all the other lion's looked different than his, and he wasn't sure he could fix it.

I whispered in his ear to calm down, and the librarian came over to check on things. She offered him a new nose and I quickly ripped off the old one. His lion's face was finally all put together, but the ears were 100% in the wrong spot.



And now he had no desire to finish the mane -- the part of the art project he'd been so excited about had lost its appeal. His desire for independence was gone. And to make matters worse he had glue all over his fingers because the outer ring of his lion was covered in a thick line of the gooey stuff. To try and stop the mess I threw a handful of tissue paper pieces on the  glue and quickly collected him and Nell and left the room.

On our way out of the library I reminded myself not be frustrated by this failed story time experience. I reminded myself the new librarian was wonderful and had beautiful moments with the kids.

I threw my children in the car and we headed off to preschool registration. Yes, I registered my dear sweet Reid for preschool today the day I wrote this (more than two weeks ago).

Come September he'll load that little yellow school bus and head off into the great big world. I'm not scared to have him live life without me by his side. The tale of the upside down lion only shows he'd be better off without me.

You see at bedtime, when I'd nearly forgotten about the entire experience, I spotted that little lion on the dining room table and I realized something. Reid approached that table with complete confidence. He saw the paper plate, he saw the tissue paper and he knew exactly how to make his lion. Unfortunately for him, there was a set of specific instructions that needed to be followed. Only, needed isn't the right word. It would not have mattered if he'd done the mane first, eyes second, face third, nose fourth, and ears last. Sometimes instructions and proper orders only serve to confuse and frustrate kids.

And that is why I'm terrified to send him to preschool. I've been a teacher. I know that the kids who don't follow the instructions quickly become the behavior problems. But I also know they're often the smartest kid in the room. 

At Home Preschool: Approach

I wrote this more than four months ago and never published it. I had ambitious intentions of citing/linking all the Early Childhood journal articles, Teacher of the Year Essays, and research based findings I studied that helped me form this philosophy. Buuuut, I never got around to that, and now it's been four months since I spent those late night hours, engrossed in the research that supports this philosophy. So, you'll just have to trust that what I discovered was based on reputable sources. I know I relied heavily on findings from the National Association for the Education of Young Children, and I've also borrowed ideas on letter learning from The Measured Mom and a specialist at our local library. As far as my philosophy that themed based learning is better than letter based learning, I give credit to personal friends for that one: the two moms I did preschool co-op with and an old college friend I really admire.

After writing my blog post on how I organize our at home preschool, I felt I needed a post that explains why I don't think letter of the week preschool curriculum is the most effective way to teach literacy. That may seem strange, since I organize our preschool by letter, but hear me out as I explain the amazing things I've learned while researching early childhood education best theories and practices.

I've been amazed by the pressure to teach kids the alphabet so early on. I had a friend who was certified in Early Childhood Special Education once say "I'm not sending my kid to preschool without him knowing how to count up and down from 1 to 10, spell his own name, and recognize all the letters in the alphabet. He's got the counting and his name down, but sometimes I'm not sure about his letters." At the time our boys had just turned two.

I remember thinking something like "Reid will shout blast off if he realizes you are counting backwards, and he knows most his shapes and colors ... but I'm not sure I'll put a lot of effort into your list. Shoot, should I? Wait, isn't that what preschool is for? Are they really suppose to know all that stuff before?"

The pressure to know the alphabet so early on has got me asking, why? Why is there so much focus on letters? Isn't it more impressive that a four-year-old can describe, in great detail, how the archer fish catches spiders? Shouldn't I be more focused on play?

But I still find myself wanting Reid to recognize all his letters. It'd be awesome if he could write his own name, but surely our first family portrait brings me much greater joy? So why the push for letter recognition?

I think a lot of this comes as people mix old methods with hopes of consumer based goods. I still remember my own letter of the week Education. Every Monday in my Kindergarten class, way back in the 88-89 school year, each student was given a new work book which focused on a new letter. There was cut and paste activities, phonetic activities, coloring and more -- all about that one letter. It was exciting; I always loved learning, and I kept those books for years and years.

Then, sometime in the 90's people in search of lots of money started selling parents the idea that kids could read as early as 18 months old. You just needed to buy the right product. Inundate babies with the right technology and you'll have a genius.

Well, current research tells us the 80s method of learning literacy (letter focus) isn't the most effective way to approach literacy. It also tells us that kids who read at age 3 or earlier aren't fully literate, but the companies pushing these products are making loads of money convincing you they are.

So what are kids capable of learning at such a young age, and how should we teach them literacy? I am no expert on this matter, but the research I've done has shaped my approach to our letter of the week preschool lessons. Both the ones I created for our preschool co-op last year and the ones I created for our ABCs of Fall.

What we do know is kids have to learn shapes before they learn letters. You cannot talk to a preschooler about the letter Dd without discussing straight lines and curves (or bends). I did not know this until I attended an early literacy class at our local library. It makes complete sense though.

We also know kids don't learn letters well in isolation. If you teach b and d separately and weeks apart you'll have confused kids. If you look at b, d, and p all together and focus on similarities and differences kids will better understand each letter.

Also, kids are more engaged in learning when lessons are organized by topic rather than a single letter. They'll learn more about the letter R if you design a short unit of study on robots than if you spend a full week exploring every R word you think a preschooler might enjoy. While you study robots you can (and should) give kids opportunities to identify and create the letter R. But the overall lesson plan should focus on the learning theme: robots; not the letter: r. Letter identification and literacy will flow naturally as kids learn about themes and topics that intrigue them. The letter R in and of itself is not that thrilling; robots are! (Reid loves discussing all things nocturnal, and I totally credit the awesome letter N lesson one of the moms in our preschool co-op group did).

Exposure is another important way kids learn letters. When they recognize letters in their everyday environment they will begin to understand the alphabet and its function. We talk about letters on road signs and businesses all the time. We read together multiple times a day and occasionally notice some of our letters in the stories we're reading. "Hey mommy, look, that's the letter H. See it has two straight lines and a line in the middle."

So even though the preschool co-op I was part of and the ABCs of Autumn unit I did with Reid each focused on a letter of the week/day activity, neither of them truly were letter of the week curriculum. I so prefer it this way. You've probably noticed that in our ABCs of Autumn unit we take time to practice forming the letter (not tracing it, handwriting practice only comes once a child can identify all letters), but we spend just as much time creating crafts, playing games, and reading stories about our topic.

Letter formation, not tracing, is so vital to learning the alphabet. Just as seeing letters in their everyday environment enriches kid's learning, so does tactile exposure to letters. Kids need to touch and shape letters. The more they feel letters in their hands, the more they can understand them.

Because I know all of the above mentioned approaches are the best way to learn letters, I do have to remind myself that it is okay if Reid goes into preschool not knowing all his letters. Some kids are going to need more exposure than others. Sticking with one letter until they know it will not lead to success. Creating a rich learning environment where kids can engage in alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, concepts of print, and oral language will lead to success.

Unfortunately, the research I've done has me so engulfed I know I'll be a little turned off by our local school if it uses a letter of the week approach to learning over a thematic, literacy rich approach. Yes, on back to school night I am going to be *one of those parents* that asks for the thematic sequence for the year (or yearly roadmap, or list of units of study, whatever the teacher wants to call it). I won't be so annoying I'll hold them to every date and transition (I was a teacher myself once upon a time), but I'm already eager to get my hands on the yearly overview of our local preschool.

Learning is so fun!

Reading Common Core Standards is Not Difficult; Highly Recommended Before Forming Opinions

I've written several different posts about the Common Core State Standards. In the first I purposefully left out my opinion on the matter, hoping readers would come to their own conclusion. I wasn't as kind in following posts. My support for Common Core is obvious to anyone who follows me here or on facebook. However, I am not such a die hard supporter that I have ignored valid arguments against the Core. Unfortunately, I've met very few people who can craft an argument against Common Core that uses logical reasoning and relevant evidence. When challenged, few people can show accurate and credible sources that back their outlandish claims. Basically, most arguments I come across wouldn't earn higher than a C in my 8th Grade Language Art classes (because using relevant evidence, logical reasoning and accurate and credible sources is an 8th grade learning standard -- one I was passionate about helping my students master). To prove I am not against rating an anti-Common Core argument higher than a C, I would like offer some ideas for a thesis that could drive an A paper. The valid arguments I've heard people make include (but are not limited to) 1) Education shouldn't be standards based 2) The K-2 standards are not developmentally appropriate, and 3) States should not have complete control over which standards local districts use. I do not agree with any of those arguments, but when approached with those concerns I acknowledge room for debate and I honor any opinions that oppose my own. The problem is those aren't the arguments most people make. Those arguments require a deep understanding of Education reform, early childhood development, and federal and state laws. Most people who form opinions about Common Core lack that understanding and to be honest, I do too. However, I do have a deep understanding of how standards are formed. I am experienced in turning learning standards into curriculum and then using that curriculum to fit my own daily lesson plans. I've studied the facts of Common Core, and there are three myths I am tired of hearing. When/if I find these myths in an argument I will destroy it. Claiming the Common Core is controlled by one company, that it equates to a federal government takeover of Education, or that it will result in the indoctrination of our public school children are all patently false statements.

There are many corporations who have a heavy hand in Education. I have no solution for this. If you know how schools can buy and use textbooks and supplies without anyone making any money, please advise me on the matter. Assuming you don't have a solution for that problem, here's some things to know about corporate influence in Education reform and the Common Core. Each individual for-profit Education provider that had representation on the Common Core committee made up less than 1% of the total committee involved in drafting, reviewing, and publishing the standards. Less than 1%! To date Pearson holds the greatest number of contracts with individual states and the District of Columbia, so they take much of the blame for corporate control. Total, they have 18 contracts with the 50 states and DC. That's roughly 35% control on the standardized testing market (which is just one small market in the world of Education). Their largest contract is held with a non-Common Core state (Texas). Most the states they have a contract with have contracts with various other Education companies -- companies like Scholastic, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill, Follet, and many, many others. It is also worth noting Pearson runs a national for-profit charter and several on-line Education markets. To think corporations are limited to public school and the Common Core is absurd. As I stated earlier, I don't know how to take capitalism out of Education. But here are some things I do know: I know there isn't just one corporation profiting off Common Core, there are hundreds; I know tossing Common Core will not change the influence those companies have on Education; and I know corporations do not, and will never, own Common Core.

The National Governor's Association (NGA) and The Council of Chief State of School Offices (CCSSO) own the Common Core. The Federal Government did not create and was not consulted about the creation of the Common Core. When the NGA and the CCSSO published the Core Standards, the Federal Government gave the standards a thumbs up. The 24 hour news cycle (now there's a group of people who would do anything to make a profit) has created a lot of lies and myths as a result of that thumbs up. Shame on anyone who falls for it. The NGA and the CCSSO -- both non-profit, state based agencies -- hold the copyright to Common Core. They are the organizations who selected the committee. They are the organizations who found funding to pay the committee members. Common Core is neither a corporate nor a federal take over of Education. It is, perhaps, the most bi-partisan, federalist (state led) movement I have seen in my lifetime (and likely yours). I am baffled by all the confusion that surrounds this reality. The nation should be championing this as the perfect example for how states (and political parties) can work together without federal influence. Each state can opt in or out whenever they'd like. According to the copyright, states can adopt the whole or selected excerpts or portions according to their choosing (Minnesota did just that). Common Core is non-profit, bi-partisan, federalism at its finest.

At its core the standards are merely learning expectations. In all my attempts to discourage the myths surrounding Common Core my most repeated phrase is this: standards are not curriculum. Somehow I have failed miserably in helping people understand that simple truth. I'm going to make one last attempt here, and it will be painfully basic. The word standard and the word curriculum are both nouns. The Webster-Merriam dictionary defines standard as a level of quality or achievement that is considered acceptable or desirable. It defines curriculum as the courses that are taught by a school, college, etc. So not only are these two words not the same, they aren't even synonyms for one an other. Claiming standards = curriculum is as stupid as claiming plow = tractor. Are the two related? Sure. Are they the same thing? No. Common Core are learning standards. They encourage and support critical and analytical thinking. They are not a curriculum. They are not a set of facts kids are to memorize. They are an expected level of achievement considered acceptable to Education experts. Teachers (and parents) are tasked with helping students master standards. Teachers use Common Core standards to create a curriculum that promotes mastery of said standards. Teachers who share the same curriculum will not have identical lesson plans. Teachers who have identical lesson plans will not execute those plans in an identical manner. There is no indoctrination going on here. There is no mystical force that is making every 4th grade classroom across America look the exact same. Local schools still control curriculum and individual teachers still drive instruction.

Becoming familiar with the standards is not difficult. They start on page 11 of the following documents: Mathematics and English Language Arts and Literacy in History, Science, and Technical Subjects. Opinions about those standards will vary, but facts surrounding them are not debatable. Common Core is not the corporate take over of public schools. Common Core is not a federal program. Common Core is not an attempt to turn all our kids into robots that think exactly alike. Though my opinion is clear, I still encourage readers to come to their own conclusions. Read the standards for yourself. Ignore the radical voices of liberals like Diane Ravitch (who has never taught in a primary school) and conservatives like Glenn Beck (who has never taught in a school setting period). Visit your local schools, where the Core is being implemented. Watch two teachers who share a curriculum and see for yourself if their lessons are delivered in identical form. Go to a neighboring school, where teachers are using the same set of standards as your local school, and see for yourself if those standards somehow translate into the liberal brainwashing of our nation's children. I'm confident that anyone who reads the primary text of Common Core  and/or visits local schools where Common Core is being implemented will conclude, as I have, that Common Core is neither a corporate nor a federal plot to take over our schools and it certainly isn't a danger to our children.  

Teacher Reads

Ben's away for the next three nights (which means I won't post this until he's back -- I'm not super private on this blog, but I will never tell the world when I'm home alone!). You would think this would motivate me to get some "office" work done. But nope, I followed my usual habit of laying in bed and reading interesting articles I found on-line.

Tonight's theme was: Education.

I spent a lot of time over at NAEYC's (National Association for the Education of Young Children) website. I was digging through peer reviewed and published journal articles and official statements on everything from Common Core to best practices (to summarize what I found: they are vague (aka politically safe) about their support of Common Core, but they are direct in saying challenging and rigorous standard based education is best -- totally agree!).

Then, just before bed I came across a summary of a new book I'd like to read: 50 Myths and Lies that Threaten America's Public Schools. 

The author interview I read highlighted the effects poverty has on Education. The author mentions that when you compare all public school students in the US to students in other nations, we look like we have second rate schools. But (a truth I've known for years and years) this is because international tests compare ALL American children with only the richest and most privileged children in many other nations. The same could be said of public school vs private school testing data. When comparing results we compare ALL public school children with the selective private school population. But when you compare students from the same socioeconomic and racial backgrounds, public school students actually outperform their private school peers. That bears repeating. When comparing apples to apples, public school students fair better than private school students.

Addressing poverty, the book points out the most accurate way to look at American schools is to say "some of our schools are not doing well, and almost all of these are schools where poverty is endemic.

This kind of blows my mind. Mostly because I know it to be true, but I have never put it into such simple words. But also because I imagine an America where this realization is the force with which we handle school reform. Imagine how greatly our reforms would change if we simply recognized that many public schools are doing awesome and the real problem was poverty? Wow! One fact that should motivate us to take this approach is the realization that if America had the same low poverty rates as Finland, we'd be competing with them for first place. The problem isn't our Education system, the problem is poverty. And here's a hint, the former can not fix the later.

There were other ideas presented that I hadn't put much thought into. For example, there is no data that proves school uniforms improve learning. People trying to sale the uniforms will tell you otherwise, of course. The same could be said of iPads.

There is research to support the need for Humanities. Good economic research, in fact. At age 55, which is the peek earning age, people who work in the Humanities actually out earn people in business.

Research also supports the value of early childhood programs. I thought this was interesting, especially since I am familiar with Finland's system and know that Finnish kids don't start school until age 7. These two pieces of conflicting info led me to some quick independent research and my discovery was profound. It is correct to say Finnish children don't attend formal schooling until age 7, but it is incorrect to assume this means there is no preschool. Ninety-seven percent of Finnish children between the age of 3-6 are enrolled in some type of daycare program (anything from full time daycare to twice a week preschool). Those daycare centers have their own set of standards and rigor that create quite a rich early childhood experience. All employees are required to have at least a Bachelor's degree in early childhood development. Can you imagine, if all US daycare providers had degrees in early childhood development? Not even all of our classroom aids meet that requirement.

I really need to check the book out from the library. I can already tell some of the research and rebuttal will have me cheering while other sections will help me learn new facts and possibly even break down some myths I hold myself.

No matter how many years at home remove me from my career, I will always be an Educator at heart. 

The Truth

I love truth. I always seek after truth. So here is the truth about that common core math problem you've been seeing all over the internet since last Spring.



First and most important truth, Frustrated Parent gets a lot of things right. There are a lot of reasons this is a ridiculous problem to ask a 7-year-old to solve. Simplification should be valued over complication, even in 2nd grade.

Second and equally important truth, this math problem is not a reflection of Common Core. It is a reflection of poor teaching (a mistake we all make from time to time).

Let's dissect those two truths. Why is this question ridiculous? Well, it appears to be assessing four different 2nd grade learning standards (understand place value, add and subtract within 1000, explain why addition and subtraction strategies work, and represent whole numbers on a number line). I'm all about intermingling standards and subjects where appropriate and natural, but when it comes time for assessment it is best if one question equals one standard, not four (and if you want to get technical, the number line isn't an appropriate model for place value, so those two standards are conflicting from the start).

The correct answer, in case you are interested, is something to this affect:
Dear Jack,
You did an excellent job of subtracting your 100s. It looks like you jumped from 127 to 107 though. You forgot to place 117 on your number line, and therefore your answer is off by 10 points. Please remember to double check your work next time.
Sincerely,
Caring Classmate

But how in the world is a 2nd grader suppose to know that? The number line is horribly scaled, and you can't tell what part of the problem is Jack's work and what part of the problem is the teacher's. I mean, who really drew that number line? Jack or his teacher? And how is a 2nd grader suppose to try and figure that out? Sure, 2nd graders may love to play "school," but that doesn't mean we can expect their writing to reflect the criticism a teacher would offer a peer. This question fails as a math assessment AND a writing assessment.

I would suggest rewriting this question entirely (at a minimum, drop the number line), but if I was forced to use the same methods to fix the problem here is what I would do.

First, I'd break the problem into two questions. One assessing the math portion of the problem and one assessing the writing portion. The new math question would say, Jack was asked to solve 427-316. He drew the number line below to solve his problem. Can you circle the part of his number line where he made a mistake? Then I'd draw the number line below to scale and in kid friendly handwriting, so that it is clear a child wrote it.

This fixes two problems in the original question. One, it makes it clear Jack wrote the numbers on the number line; and two, it gives the child a chance to demonstrate they understand the math concept being tested, even if they don't understand the writing concept being tested. They'd either circle the dash where 117 is missing (the right answer) or they'd circle some other portion of the line (the wrong answer).

Now, for the second part of the question you could ask the student to write Jack a letter telling him how to fix his mistake. There really is no need for the students to tell Jack one thing he did right and what he should do right to fix it. This new, separate question would give kids a chance to explain how they might do the math problem. Which is fabulous because each kid might "fix" Jack's problem a different way. How enlightening for a teacher to learn! As Frustrated Parent demonstrates, some kids might tell Jack to skip the number line all together and use carry over instead. Other students may tell him to use a base ten formula. And some students may stick with the number line and simply remind Jack a number line goes from 100s, to 10s to single digits. This gives kids a chance to think about what math method is best for them while also giving the teacher a chance to assess their writing skills and learn about their preferred math strategies. Win, win.

Most importantly, breaking the question into two parts gives the teacher a chance to figure out what a student can and can't do. Maybe one student can't figure out what is wrong with the number line, but can tell Jack to use carry over instead. Maybe one student can figure out what is wrong with the number line, but can't write a complete sentence. Whatever the child's struggle is, being more direct in the assessment of standards eliminates a lot of confusion for the students and the teacher.

Now, for dissecting the second truth, why this math problem is not a reflection of Common Core. The most basic explanation is that Common Core is not curriculum. Common Core is a set of learning and teaching standards. Curriculum is the lesson, text, assignment, and assessment used to try and teach each of those standards. Basically, Common Core states what every child is expected to know in the subjects of math and Language Arts by the end of each given school grade. Curriculum is how various teachers and schools try to help students meet those expectations. Lesson plans, texts, assignments, and assessments will vary from school to school and classroom to classroom, all while the Common Core standards remain the same. If a drama teacher is expected to teach students about tragedy and she chooses to study Shakespeare's Midsummer Night Dream to do so, it isn't the standard's fault her students won't understand tragedy! Common Core gives Educators, parents, and students the learning expectations children are suppose to master. Decisions regarding lesson planning, textbook purchases, homework assignments, and exams are left up to individual districts, schools, and teachers.

As stated above, this particular math problem aims to assess four different Common Core standards, two of which should not be combined. Either way, if the student answers the question right, the teacher still wouldn't know if the student has mastered all four standards. The problem with this question stems from poor curriculum, not poor standards. If people want to critique the standards, then critique the actual standards. They are readily available at corestandards.org.

Finally, I'd like to point out that Frustrated Parent wrote a lengthy follow up post, explaining the context of this assignment and his actions. He noted that his son is Autistic and suffers from ADHD. He explained that his son excels in math and despises writing. In his exact words, this question "might as well have been a doctoral dissertation." The father noted he supports teaching kids various different approaches to math, but that the multi-layered approach of this particular question frustrated him. He acknowledged that Common Core is a set of standards and that their flaw does not lie in the standards themselves but in their application. I agree with him on that and think it is important to note (though he didn't) that their application will vary from school to school. He is obviously frustrated by the "gobbeldygook presentation (North Carolina implemented) which must be interpreted" and by the way his child's school is forcing teachers to use the standards in a "multilateral way, all day long." But those problems are best addressed at the local level; not through viral Right Wing websites. Each state has printed their own version of the standards, and if their explanation is too difficult for an Electronics Engineer to understand then they need to fix it. If their student's are becoming frustrated by the constant multi-disciplinary approach they have taken then they need to fix it. They do not need to change or drop the standards all together.

Look to Indiana to find out what happens when a State gives in to all the ill informed naysayers. Mid year Indiana let its Legislature decide the fate of its school standards instead of leaving that decision to the experts in Education. The Legislature decided to override Common Core, and that left Indiana's Education Department the huge burden of writing new standards mid year (and teachers and students were put in an odd limbo). The Legislature then had to hire the state's best Educators to create a new set of standards, and guess what? Those new standards look an awful lot like Common Core. And there is a good explanation for that. If you want your state to have the best standards possible, they are going to look a lot like Common Core. You can either accept that or go Indiana's route and waste valuable resources re-inventing what you already have set in place. 

Education is a choice, highway systems and defense contracts are a force.

image from caltech.edu

Today was election day in Wisconsin. A referendum for learning was on my local ballot. Oshkosh area school district has one of the lowest amounts of spending in the state, and thanks to Scott Walker's wild decisions during his first 100 days, the area is unable to raise spending without voter approval.

Note, there is not a cap on the actual amount districts spend. So districts that were already spending top dollar can stay at that range. Districts like mine, that were spending frugally, have to continue spending frugally. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it? No?

Anyway, two years ago we had to vote for an old run down elementary building to be torn down and rebuilt. This year we are voting to keep art and PE in elementary and to invest in technology at all levels. I imagine every few years we'll have to vote on something.

I also imagine it will always pass. The new elementary school won with something like 54%; today's referendum won with 60% of the votes. People vote yes when it comes to spending money on education, on children.

You know what I would not have voted yes on? I would not have voted yes on many of the transportation projects our area and our state are pouring billions of dollars into. Not surprisingly, the WDOT budget doesn't need voter approval. It can balloon and balloon all it wants. Likewise, the Justice budget doesn't need voter approval.

I do not think this is coincidental. Leaders in each party love offering huge defense, infrastructure, and safety contracts to their buddies and campaign donors. There is no way they'd let the public have a say on those spendy projects. Education though? The most basic, most fundamental, part of a communities infrastructure ... well if the people want to pay for that make 'em fight it out and take it to the polls.

Am I the only one bothered by all this? 

The New Math

image from Reddit.com

For years (yes, even before Common Core) I've been hearing about this "new way" of doing math. Parents complain about it endlessly, they feel like they can't even help their elementary students do math. Finally, one summer afternoon I asked my neighbor to explain it to me. So she told me how they taught her son to subtract large numbers by the nearest ten. My smile must have exploded, "That's how I do math in my head!"

"Really? My son hated it. He's so smart," (now a High Schooler) "but he struggled so much in elementary math. I finally told his elementary teacher one day that I was going to teach him the old way and he caught on right away. He never struggled again. He was so happy when I showed him how to write it all out and follow the basic carry over steps we were taught as kids."

Ugh ... I hated carry over. I still do. The other day, just for fun, I tried to sit down and divide 5 by 52 using the old algorithms I was taught as a kid. My answer, 14. Which I knew was wrong. I knew, in my head that the answer was 10.4 How?  Well, 5 goes into 50 ten times. Two-fifths is more than one-third but less than one-half. So that means the decimal has to be point-four. That is how I do math! That is how I have always wanted to do math. But I was taught algorithms. Yuck, I hated algorithms. Algorithms didn't let me divide to the nearest ten (or double or third) and then fraction out the remainder. Algorithms made me carry over, and subtract, and follow some stupid formula that I had to use to show all my work or I'd loose points. Ugh, algorithms.


One summer (or spring break) when I was home for a week during my college years I pulled out my old school box. Each of the kids in my family had a school box. It was a sturdy paper box that we filled with school work and class reports. Some of the items were purposefully kept by our parents, others were things we choose to put in there. If it ever got too full, we'd have to go through it and throw away things that we no longer cared about. Eventually, I threw it all away. But I'll never forget the discovery I made that sunny day in my parents basement. During my elementary years I was fabulous at math and almost horrible at Language Arts.

The standardized test scores that sat in front of me proved this. I was rarely proficient in Language Arts, and almost always advanced in science and math. My 21-year-old self was in shock. I hated math! I loved reading! Then there were the class reports. Hand written messages from some of my favorite teachers. They all had a common theme. "Alizabeth needs to read lots of books this summer to work on her reading skills. Keep up the great work in math." WHAT???

Apparently my parents followed that advice well, because I remember having such a strong love for reading. Did I, in my earliest elementary years, love math? Maybe I had, maybe I learned to hate it during my older years -- as it began to challenge me more.

Maybe, I hated it because of the way it was taught. Just like my young neighbor hated the way he was taught.

Now, whenever I hear someone complain about the new way of doing math I try my hardest to explain I hated the old way. I yearn for anyone with common sense to know that each child learns in a different way. A teachers job is to teach enough variations of "right" that the student can figure out what works best for them.

Had I been taught number sense and frame tens my whole life path could have been very different from the one I chose. Who knows, engineer, accountant, statistician -- but probably still English teacher. Nothing excites me more than a good book and the challenge of creating critical thinkers.

Ah, critical thinkers. In the past I've always thought History, English, and Science were the only subjects that really taught critical thinking skills. Math had an absolute -- one way and only one way to figure things out -- an algorithm.

Looking over the Common Core State Standards for Elementary Math, I realize Math can teach children to be critical thinkers.

When you see 6x7 does your mind jump to 42 because you have it memorized? Or does your mind jump to 42 because you know 21+21 is 42? Either way, you are right. Math isn't absolute. Anyone who gets into the complexities of Algebra knows that there is more than one way to look at numbers. Heck, by the time you make it to Algebra you start using letters to understand numbers. Whoa!


I remember my High School Algebra classes well. I was one of only three ninth graders in my Algebra II class. Some of the smartest Sophomores in our school were in that class. And I figured my teacher, one of the nicest men I've ever known, was just over complimenting me when he said I understood math better than most the kids in the class. How could that be, I felt so lost every time he taught the lesson. I was dazed and confused, constantly worrying about what I'd say and how I'd act once we were free to work on our problems. I knew two of the tallest, cutest boys in the Sophomore class would turn their desks to face mine, and they'd make me laugh while simultaneously solving problems without effort. I'd pretend to be completing my assignment, knowing full well I'd go home and do it all on my own. In my own brain, in my own way. I'd review the textbook's explanations and then I'd figure out how to do it easier for me. I was always shocked when whatever I was doing matched the answers in the back of the book. Then I'd continue doing it my way.

In my college Algebra class I was once again sitting behind an attractive boy one year my senior. Once the teacher (one of the best I ever had) finished the lesson she'd tell us to pair up and occasionally ask me to tutor him. Looking back I realize that was no coincidence. He understood math the way I did. After each lesson it seemed as if she came to my desk to watch me do the problems my way, just so she could catch any mistakes I might be making, my way, and then she'd let us loose. Or if my way wasn't working quiet right, she'd help me sort it out or stick with me until I understood her way, the textbook's way, the old way.

Sometimes, for fun I tell Ben how I do long addition or multiplication in my head. I don't carry over. I hate carrying over. If I have to carry over I need a paper and a pen -- no a pencil, I'm bound to erase something. I can't just carry over in my head. But I can keep track of rounding up and down from tens in my head. The problem is, I always doubt myself. I always assume I'm going to get the wrong answer, because I was told time and time again that I had to use the algorithm. I had to do math the old way or I'd mess it all up.

I'm not here to argue that the old way was bad form and teachers should only use the new way. I'm not even 100% sure I know what the difference is. I know that during the elementary years they refer to one way as "number sense" and another as "math counts" and one as "algorithms." I also know that Common Core does not dictate which version a teacher uses. It simply outlines the set of skills a child should master by the time one level is finished. The core is the floor, not the ceiling. The skill set listed there is the minimum, not the max.

I hope my children have elementary teachers who are skilled enough to teach them all possible approaches to math and numbers. I hope my children are smart enough and confident enough to think critically about which approach works best for them on each equation.

I hope they don't grow up thinking they hate math.   

Money, money, money

I had money on my mind a couple different times today. Here are some truths about money that I believe in.

1. Having money and the pursuit of it are not inherently evil, how you choose to spend your money is what determines it's goodness/evilness.
2. Money does not equal happiness (studies prove this), but being financially secure ($80,000 a year) does lower stress.
3. No matter how much money you have, you should always care about price tags.
4. Poverty is much more complex than people with money make it out to be.

Why were these thoughts on my mind? Well, Ben and I discussed point #2 on our drive home from Illinois this past weekend. I read the article highlighted in point #4 a several days ago and absolutely love it. Also, whenever I go to the YMCA I am filled with gratitude for their scholarship program -- which uses donations from the community to assist families like mine. We get a $14 discount each month. Nothing extreme, but still $14 in savings is $14 I can use to drop my kids off at the Y daycare while I work out, or $14 I can use to put Reid in swimming lessons. So yes, that $14 pretty much goes back to the Y anyway, but I am grateful they have a program that allows your monthly fee to be adjusted to meet the demands of your income.

And finally, tonight I attended a L'BRI PURE 'n NATURAL event. The founders, Linda and Brian Kaminski, were there to celebrate my sponsor's promotion to Executive Manager. I think L'BRI is a fabulous company and it has been exciting to watch women I know succeed in this business model. Still, no matter how long I'm with L'BRI I'm just not motivated by the free vacations or the free cars. Money is not a motivator for me. I know that puzzles many of the people I work with within L'BRI. At one point in the evening Linda asked something a long the lines of "Why are you at your current job?" The answer was money. I laughed inside. I would never teach (or stay at home with my kids) for the money. In fact, had my teaching salary been less I still would have done it and loved it.

As much as I appreciated the motivational speeches presented this evening, and I'm grateful they reminded me of the importance of goal setting and personal improvement, I'm just not motivated by money. I suppose that would be my truth #5.

5. Money does not motivate my career choices.

Applying criticism to reality

Okay, it is time for an other common core post. Why today? Well, I just scrolled through the NPR page and found the typical common core news bit. If you've read as many common core news articles as I have you will find a theme. They all start by saying a majority of Americans in the know support the CC. Teachers, parents, business leaders, politicians, the majority of them support it. Each article acknowledges that right up front, but then the entire article goes on to give the critics -- the far right pundits and the far left nut-brains -- all the attention. It has gotten so frustrating!

Take a deep breath, count to four.

Okay, with that wild introduction I can now calmly shed some new light on the Common Core debate.

One common complaint is that the Common Core teaches all kids the same thing. This is true, and it was true before the CC. Teachers have a set of standards that are used to guide their lesson planning and their instruction. Those standards are taught to all kids, special ed kids, English language learners, advanced kids, average kids, all kids are to learn those standards. This is how Education worked before CC and it is how it works after CC. The differentiation comes through the instruction. Special ed kids have IEPs (Individualized Education Plans) that modify their classroom experience. English language learners receive altered schedules that give them the time they need to learn their new language. Advanced kids are given extra credit opportunities, honors classes, AP schedules, extra curricular activities, etc that are designed to challenge them. None of this changes with CC. Classrooms have always been driven by standards, CC doesn't change that. Defeating CC won't change that.

Another complaint is that money will be a driving force. This is true, and it was true before the CC. Big businesses make millions of dollars designing curriculum -- text books, work books, exams, intervention strategies, etc. Big businesses make millions of dollars designing classroom management models -- discipline plans, security teams (remember, I taught inner city, security teams are a thing), professional development meetings, etc. I can think of absolutely no way to make this problem go away. No level of reform will stop people from trying to make money off our schools. If anyone reading this has a brilliant idea feel free to share it in the comments, but the problem existed before CC, and defeating CC won't eliminate it.

What if we are pushing our kids too hard, too soon? Haven't we taken away enough recess time? Yes! and Yes! Kids need three recesses a day. They need art and music and PE classes. High Schools should have tech classes available -- home ec, shop, drama; they all need to be part of our children's public school experience. But ... these programs were getting cut long before CC came around, and they aren't going to magically reappear if CC is defeated. The funds are gone. Local school boards and local voters are choosing to defund Education. Instead we are choosing to supplement the kinds of businesses mentioned in the above paragraph. Our society has its priorities all mixed up. Fighting common core because we want more recess isn't going to help anything.

People are battling the wrong beast. People don't understand what common core actually is.

Classrooms need to be standards based. Classrooms need to be driven by data. The best way to guarantee your child has a quality education is to make sure your child's teachers are following a set of learning standards. Otherwise the classroom learning experience is a free for all. Kids show up and the teacher gives them any assignment they want. They teach them whatever strikes their mood for the day. Standards guarantee there is an end goal, an achievable learning outcome. Data is the only way to find out if the standards are being taught and learned.

Teachers don't love spending a lot of time defending standards and analyzing data. We are in it for the teaching. We want to enrich our student's lives. We are performers, therapists, artists, explorers, moderators, guides, and so much more. Most of us have accidentally been called mom a time or two. We know how to differentiate our instruction. We know how to infuse our lessons with a balance of teachable life skills. We know how to plow through a consumer built textbook and find the pieces of literature (or math equations or hypothesis, or ...) that are worth studying.

Stop giving the critics voices! Start thinking critically about their criticism. Is Common Core really the root of all their complaints.

Glenn Beck (previously featured weenie) said, Common Core will "destroy America and the system of freedom as we know it." Take one moment and think critically about that statement.

And then pick which side of the common core battle you want to stand on. 

The truth about Common Core's flaws

Last month, when I first wrote about the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), I mentioned that there are some flaws in the initiative. Today, I'd like to discuss them, and then point out that such flaws do not merit complete abandonment of the CCSS.

The most common complaint I read about CCSS is that it is the federalization of Education. That could not be farther from the truth. A week or so ago I stumbled across an excellent editorial written by a conservative, rural Georgian. I'd like to use his sports analogy in debunking this federal take over myth. I'll always be a Utah Jazz fan at heart, even if I don't watch the NBA at all anymore. If Scott Walker announced that he was a Utah Jazz fan I would not suddenly start rooting for the LA Lakers. Gross! I would never root for the Lakers! This is what happened with the CCSS. It was a state led initiative, organized by the Governor's Association, funded by corporate Education reform leaders (Gates, etc), and designed by teachers with input from parents nation wide. Once it was all compiled and ready for the presses Obama and his Education Secretary Arne Duncan announced their approval ... and suddenly it was Obamacore (please envision my giant eye roll right about now).

Along the same lines that this was a federal takeover, some are arguing that the federal government has bribed states to participate. Funny story, my local state representative showed up at my house one Saturday afternoon and he and I had a quick chat about common core. He, as are many, was under the impression that Race to the Top money is being used to bribe states to participate in CCSS. There is a short answer and a long answer to this myth. The short answer is simply that Race to the Top grants are rewarded to states that have college ready standards and internationally benchmarked standardized tests. CCSS meets those standards. So do Virginia's non-CCSS standards and standardized tests. In fact, Virginia was rewarded Race to the Top money a few years back without adopting any part of the Common Core initiative ... so obviously this bribe theory is a misrepresentation of facts.

If that short story satisfies your curiosities you can skip the next three paragraphs. If you want a history of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Race to the Top then keep reading.

Many people have little understanding as to what No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top actually are. The later did not replace the former. No Child Left Behind is still the law of the land. No Child Left Behind was a bipartisan, federal law (I know, it is shocking that those once existed) that was passed in the first 100 days of Bush II's tenure. NCLB used the typical Republican push to make schools more accountable through standardized tests. This business model that is data driven has long been part of the GOP plan for education reform. Having spent my entire teaching career under the NCLB model, I'm not entirely against it. Though schools can't run exactly like businesses, making schools use data to track growth and success yields wonderful outcomes. Combing through data helped me drastically improve the reading abilities of at least two of my students. Had I not spent hours looking over various different test scores and aligning those scores to specific reading skills, two of my students would have never been referred to a reading program, taught by another teacher, that eventually helped those two students pass standardized tests as proficient readers. Last I checked one of those struggling students is on her way to a respected East Coast college. Data and standardized tests are not everything there is to tracking student success, but it is an important piece of the pie. So, thank you NCLB for that push.

One major flaw in NCLB though was the funding piece. Under the original NCLB rules, schools that failed to meet data goals set at the federal level were severely punished. The funding piece of this law directly led to my departure from Dunbar High School, the first DC school I taught at. I was not invited back for Dunbar's 2009/2010 school year because under NCLB law the school had to let go of more than 60% of it's staff. I was, however, still employed by DCPS and quickly found myself a job at the districts top performing middle school. Imagine my surprise when even this highly successful middle school, with a proficient rate of nearly 90% in math and reading, still didn't meet the NCLB data requirements set by the federal government. Race to the Top changed a couple things about data driven goals and funding. Instead of requiring schools to meet the data goals set by the federal government, Race to the Top allowed schools to set their own data goals that could be approved at the state level. Not surprisingly Obama critics claimed this move made him racist. Another important change to the data/funding law is that instead of letting states create their own standards (that could be dumbed down as much as they'd like) and their own standardized tests (that could be dumbed down as much as they'd like), Race to the Top encourages (but does not force) states to adopt and/or create college ready standards and standardized tests. And finally, instead of punishing schools who fail to meet arbitrary federal goals, Race to the Top rewarded schools that demonstrate a commitment to college ready standards and internationally recognized standardized tests. Anyone who understood the flaws in the original NCLB laws would welcome these changes. People eager to gain attention for conspiracy theories would claim these changes create a government takeover that spies on our children and bribes states to teach a socialist agenda.

Is Race to the Top perfect? No, even my super liberal father thinks the reward money was distributed very politically (Utah was left out of the first round). But is it an improvement from the first NCLB laws? Yes. States are no longer rewarded for dumbing down their standards and tests. They are no longer punished for challenging their students but failing to meet federal goals. Instead they are rewarded for efforts to prepare students for career and college. They are not forced to adopt CCSS and they can opt out at any time.

(Welcome back to my readers who may have skipped ^that^).
I'll repeat that last bit of my previous paragraph, states can opt out at any time. In fact, the most recent CCSS news seems to be that several states are opting out of the standardized test, but not the standards themselves. I'll focus on Massachusetts (Mass) for this portion of my post. Why Mass? Mass is a leader in education reform. Twenty years ago they followed a path that looks much like CCSS. They set state standards that would align with high stakes standardized tests. They pumped more money into schools. They had a lot of parent and public push back. Their early results showed that students were behind and struggling. They persevered, and they now have the best educated students in the union. If ranked as their own country, Mass would be fourth in the world for education. I have no doubt that if Mass (like Virginia) had wanted to keep their old standards and their old test (the MCAS) they would have easily qualified for the Race to the Top grants (like Virginia did). But Mass didn't. They adopted the CCSS early on, back in 2010. To me this speaks volumes of the standards. I have read the standards for myself and I do find them to be more rigorous than previous standards, but I sleep well knowing Mass seems to agree with me. But, and this is a big but, Mass has delayed the standardized tests that go along with the CCSS; the standardized test is called Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC). PARCC is very open about their tests, and you can even sample questions online.

There is growing concern about PARCC. The conspiracy theorists will tell you this is a data mine used to collect private information about your children. Please, please do not believe that garbage. If you let yourself get distracted by that garbage you will miss the relevant complaints about PARCC -- mainly, the reasons Mass has delayed using PARCC. The best analogy I can give for why Mass has delayed PARCC is a runner's analogy. I've only ever run 5Ks (and to be fair I ran/walked one of them). Mass has only used MCAS for the past 20 years. If I decided to run a marathon I would be crazy not to keep running 5Ks. Naturally I'd up my game and add in a few 10Ks. Before the day of my big marathon, I'd also sign up for and run in at least one half-marathon. Then, after all the training and after all the smaller trial races (5Ks, 10Ks, and half-marathons) I'd be prepared for the big day. Only then could I run a full marathon. The Mass Board of Education has simply decided that they will keep using MCAS as they slowly transition to PARCC. They plan to have fully implemented PARCC by 2015. The model CCSS would like states to take has PARCC implemented in full by 2014. Naturally, some states are wanting to give their teachers extra time with CCSS before expecting their students to use PARCC. If you've been following the news on CCSS you may already know about Arne Duncan's "white suburban mom" comment. Tho his words were distasteful, I had already concluded what Duncan was getting at. Parents, schools and states are nervous that the PARCC will show just how far behind our students really are. Standardized test scores will plummet. In the past states could use their own tests, dumbed down as much as they liked, and pat themselves on the backs for great accomplishments. Now, the 45 states plus the District of Columbia who have signed on to CCSS are having to use PARCC or other approved tests (*see my father's comment below). That scares many of them.

I personally think Mass decision is wise, and it shows no sign of abandoning CCSS. Remember my runner's analogy. Mass is simply giving themselves time to prepare for the marathon. They are still designing lesson plans with CCSS. They, like always, are still striving to give their students a world class education. It is time the rest of the Union follow their lead. 

In Defense of Reason: Educating Oneself on the Common Core

Several events that happened yesterday led me to spend most of my children's nap-time studying the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). I approached this research with some knowledge on the subject. As a former teacher, I know exactly what is meant by the word "Standards" in the CCSS title. CCSS was set to be implemented the year after I left the field, so though I have a basic knowledge of how standards drive classroom instruction, I have never actually taught with CCSS. I felt like this basic background knowledge but lack of immediate contact with CCSS would give me the critical eye that is much needed in the debate over the CCSS.

First and foremost, I learned too many Americans have no idea what is meant by "common" and what is meant by "standards." In fact, a Gallup poll showed 62% of Americans have never even heard of CCSS. Whoa, then what is all the fuss about? 

Well, there are three key groups opposing the CCSS. Like most opposition forces, they are the fringe. Still, their voices deserve to be heard. But I wanted to hear other voices, particularly the voices of high quality teachers. Study after study shows that educators and parents in the know actually support the CCSS. One study even found that 44% of teachers think the new CCSS are as good as their old state mandated standards, and 49% believe they are actually better than their old state standards. Surely this has to be viewed as a victory for education reform.

What is meant by standards

I believe much of the misunderstanding out there exists because non-educators do not know what a teaching standard is. Want an example? 

     8.W-I.1. Write stories or scripts that include 

          • well-developed characters and setting, 

          • dialogue, 

          • clear conflict and resolution, and

          • sufficient descriptive detail.

And how about one more example, for comparisons sake?

• W.8.3 Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective technique, relevant descriptive details, and well-structured event sequences.
• W.8.3a Engage and orient the reader by establishing a context and point of view and introducing a narrator and/or characters; organize an event sequence that unfolds naturally and logically.
• W.8.3b Use narrative techniques, such as dialogue, pacing, description, and reflection, to develop experiences, events, and/or characters.
• W.8.3c Use a variety of transition words, phrases, and clauses to convey sequence, signal shifts from one time frame or setting to another, and show the relationships among experiences and events.
• W.8.3d Use precise words and phrases, relevant descriptive details, and sensory language to capture the action and convey experiences and events.
• W.8.3e Provide a conclusion that follows from and reflects on the narrated experiences or events.

To you, my dear reader the above two standards may seem foreign at first glance. Let me help 

decode them for you. The 8 in each standard's title indicates that these are both 8th grade English standards. The W indicates that they are writing standards. The I-1 and 3 indicate what number the standard is in their respective documents. The bullet points are the set of skills a student must demonstrate in order to be considered proficient in this standard, the rubric if you will. Now, I'd ask you to go back and read through both of them again, asking yourself which standard you think is more rigorous. Both standards are asking students to do the same thing, and that is (in simplest terms) to write a story. Which standard would you want your 14-year-old to master?

Did you re-read them? Do you have your answer?

Well, the first standard is the DCPS standard that I used to grade a student's proficiency for story writing. The second standard is what CCSS considers proficient. I have my opinions as to which is more rigorous, but I won't taint your decision with my opinion. Decide for yourself which is more rigorous. And then know, that the DCPS standards were considered some of the most rigorous in the country (only because they were adopted straight from Massachusetts) prior to CCSS. 

If you have more questions about how teachers use standards in the classroom, either in their lesson planning, teaching execution, or assessment development, feel free to ask me those questions in the comments. I'd love to address those complex dynamics, but it would probably require a completely separate post. I'll do it if there is interest. 

What is meant by Common

Let me give you a scenario that plays out in every school across America -- the new kid moves to town. 

When new students arrived at the middle school where I taught there was often confusion as to what math class they should be in. Our school offered pre-algebra, algebra, and geometry to our 8th grade students. Students coming from other states would show up with a transcript that said they were in 8th grade math. Well, what was the equivalent of 8th grade math for our school? These students would be given a test, to assess their proficiency in math. One such student was found highly proficient and more than ready for the rigors of Geometry. But we soon found out that 8th grade math in their former school was algebra. So what was to be done? Place the student in the class that would provide the best challenge for their skill set, or keep them in a "lower" math class so that they could obtain all the learning necessary to move on to those more rigorous classes in High School? The later was always the conclusion we came to. It was more important that a student gain all the skills (ie master all the standards) they need to succeed in later math classes, than to have them worrying about "status" amongst their peers. But the whole process always came with a lot of frustration on the part of the student, their family, and the math teacher. 

Common, as in Common Core State Standards, will eliminate this problem. Well, almost eliminate it. There are 5 states who have not adopted the Common Core State Standards, so if you move to or from one of those 5 states you will still run into this frustration. CCSS assures that all 3rd graders, regardless of where they live, will be taught to multiply and divide within 100. Can you imagine the frustration you would have as a parent if your child had been taught only multiplication in 3rd grade, and then at the beginning of their 4th grade year you moved to a new state, where all your child's peers had been taught multiplication and division in 3rd grade. Your child is immediately disadvantaged and almost a year behind their peers. Outrageous!

At its Core

It was this kind of lunacy that prompted the birth of CCSS. Despite what you may hear on the news, this was NOT a federal government mandate. It was a bi-partisan initiative that started with state governors. Award winning Educators helped prepare the drafts and design the standards. Research and rigor guided their cause. This was in no way a brainchild of the Department of Education. 

There are a lot of rumors circulating about what is wrong with the Common Core. I would be more than willing to write a follow up post explaining exactly what can (and will) go wrong with the implementation of Common Core. But I assure you that dumbing down education, teaching to the middle, mandating curriculum, and government takeover are not likely outcomes of this initiative. The people who are accusing it of such lack the basic background knowledge needed to understand how standards are used in everyday classrooms. 

I fully support everyone coming to their own conclusion on the topic of Common Core State Standards, but please be informed about whatever conclusion you come to. As you read the opinions of others (even mine) ask yourself what their motive is. Is the veteran teacher who is complaining about it just too lazy to make meaningful changes? Is the pundit tearing it down using fear and controversy to improve their ratings? Is the textbook company praising it looking to make millions off its implementation? 

When it comes down to the bare bones, look over your state's previous teaching standards and compare them to CCSS. Ask yourself which set of learning standards you'd rather have your child master. Then get involved at the local level, ensuring that whatever standards are used, your child's teacher has the support and resources needed to help your child master them. 

Teachers shouldn't have to invest their time and energy fighting politicians who don't put our kids needs first.

Their future is my motive

Updated posts:

Common Core Part II

Common Core Part III