Public needs clarity on Common Core Standards; Brooks isn’t helping

David Brooks’ main premise - that the public’s understanding  of  the merits of the new Common Core standards is becoming yet another victim of the current political environment – is one I agree with.  Unfortunately, by failing to accurately articulate the objections of the “left” from his pulpit at the Times, Brooks is only adding to the public’s confusion.  

As Brooks himself points out, over 75% of teachers are generally in favor of the new standards (in spite of the fact that teachers were minimally consulted in their creation, but that’s an argument for another day.)  So what’s the issue? Teachers’ unions in New York, for example, are objecting to the fact that teachers haven't received adequate time, proper training, financial resources, curricula, and the other support that will be needed in order to successfully bring the standards into their classrooms.

Most teachers have yet to receive training on what, for many, would be a significant shift in their practice.  Further, we have no baseline of evidence on how well the new ‘Common-Core-aligned’ tests will actually do in terms of assessing the new standards -  the tests are still being written, for God’s sake!  (In fact, I would argue that with its greater emphasis on critical-thinking, and the ability to articulate that thinking, the Common Core may not be compatible with high-stakes, standardized testing.)  And yet, in many states,  how well students perform on these untested tests is going to impact performance reviews, pay and even careers, starting as early as the next school year. Elsewhere, states are implementing the new standards – but measuring it with the old non-aligned tests!  Are you kidding me??

For anyone who actually cares about education, these would be very reasonable and important concerns. Using the new state tests (based, theoretically, on the standards) to evaluate educators and schools may well destroy the benefits the standards might have provided before we even get off the ground. The fact that these concerns are essentially being brushed off as ‘whining’ is what leads one to question motives.

Some of this I attribute to the arrogance of policy-makers who fail to understand that  large-scale change cannot come all at once, nor solely from the top down. (See my reference above to the lack of teacher input.)  And some of this, frankly, is opportunism on the part of those who really do want to undermine the basic principle of public education. (“Just because you’re paranoid…”)

But let’s be optimistic! I’ve been making the case for some time that the standards, by and large, are pretty good, and that the implementation, by and large, has been pretty awful. Let’s keep the former and fix the latter. And take time to do it right.

Preparing our Students for the Future – Intentionally

There’s a danger when a phrase becomes so common that it begins to lose its meaning. With that risk in mind, this post will be about “21^st-century skills”, the educational framework that includes critical-thinking, collaboration, creativity, communication (beyond reading and writing), and to which I’ve added a 5^th ‘C’: ‘citizenship’

There’s an increasing recognition that the skills today’s students will need to live successful lives are not entirely the same as they were thirty or forty years ago. Information that once would have required a trip to the library and hours of research can now be obtained in a matter of minutes, or even seconds. It is now no harder to communicate with someone on the other side of the world as it is with your next-door neighbor. There are far fewer jobs that require only an ability to read and follow instructions. Just doing what we did in education forty years ago, only harder and faster (more ‘rigorously!’) is not going to get us where we need to go.

And yes, the so-called 21^st-century skills have always been a part of a good education; (typically in the better schools, taught by the better teachers). If that was your experience you should feel privileged, because equipping every student with higher-order thinking skills has never been an intentional goal of our education system. Which perhaps was ok when a relatively small percentage of the population went on to college and/or professional jobs (and you could make a decent living even if you didn’t). 

Which brings me to the  Eighth Grade Academic Literacy Course Proposal which our Board approved last week. Here are some of the highlights of the proposal, with some paraphrasing on my part, (and my comments). Boldface is mine.

What is the Rationale for this Course?

Academic Literacy 8 will offer inquiry-based learning through extensive reading, thinking, collaboration, and communication in an effort to prepare students for success in high school and beyond… <recognizing that>  teaching and learning in the 21st century requires a blending of specific skills, content knowledge, expertise and digital literacy. (I think it’s a big deal that this is an intentional goal.)

We believe this course will assist our students in meeting the following benchmarks and expectations:

• All students demonstrate acquisition of 21st Century Skills (including creativity & innovation; critical thinking & problem solving; communication & collaboration; and information, media and technology skills) via authentic learning experiences; (We’ll have to develop ways to measure this; standardized tests probably won’t do it.)

• All graduates are equipped with the knowledge, skills, and understanding to participate as active citizens in a global society. (I see citizenship as an essential 21^st-century skill. This has been a district goal for a long time – we just haven’t been very intentional about it.)

As Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening are an integrated part of every content area, teachers will support each student’s development with the following learning experiences: (Especially in terms of what is tested, ‘speaking and listening’ are essential, but almost completely overlooked. The recognition of the importance of these skills in every subject area – not just ‘English’ - is another big deal.)

• Read and comprehend complex literary and informational text independently and proficiently;

• Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects based on focused questions, demonstrating understanding of the subject under investigation; (“Demonstration of understanding”, not regurgitation of facts, should be the preferred means of assessing our students’ learning.)

Effective reading has become a cognitive science that requires students to interact with texts in an effort to construct meaning. Throughout this course, students will be explicitly taught to:

• Gather relevant information from multiple print and digital sources, assess the credibility and accuracy of each source, and integrate information while avoiding plagiarism. (That’s not something we paid a lot of attention to forty years ago; the encyclopedia was pretty much authoritative.)

• Draw evidence from literary and informational text to support analysis, reflection, and research. (Reflection is an essential, often overlooked, component of learning.)

• Make strategic use of digital media and visual displays of data to express information and enhance understanding of presentations. (I am particularly excited by this last item because it recognizes that having good communication skills goes beyond the ability to write a 5-paragraph essay, and that the arts are a key component of communication literacy.)

Some examples of content related activities may include:  

• English: research, non-fiction text, literary works, writing;

• Social Studies: research, non-fiction text, investigation of historic documents and cultural awareness; (You cannot communicate effectively in a global society if you do not understand culture.)

• Mathematics: Critical thinking and real world application of research and statistics; (Everyone has the capacity to become mathematically ‘literate’; this is how you do it. An understanding of statistics is essential in the modern world – and an important component of citizenship.)

• Science and Technology: Inquiry-based learning through thinking, writing and communication. (It’s no longer “just the facts, ma’am”; even scientists must be able to communicate effectively. Also important: self-directed inquiry.)

As part of the district’s literacy initiative, teachers and administrators will continue to be provided with professional development in the area of academic literacy. (This might seem obvious, but as we speak, the Common Core is being implemented in 46 states, asking teachers to make significant changes in their practice, yet with minimal professional development. This is a recipe for disaster.)

Having the opportunity for teachers to plan collaboratively within the school day will provide students with more frequent integrated learning experiences. (If there was one thing we could learn from Finland, it would be the value of giving teachers time to collaborate. If teachers don’t collaborate, how can we expect students to?)

Now, all of this sounds great in theory, but the most exciting part of this proposal is that we have already seen the 7^th-grade Academic Literacy course in action – and the demonstration of higher-order thinking skills by these students, and their enthusiasm, is just astonishing.

Finally, if high school is going to evolve into a highly individualized experience, as it should, than middle school is precisely the time and place to do this.

School Climate, locally owned and operated

Is it possible to teach and learn in a dysfunctional school environment? Certainly, anything is possible – but it’s like swimming against the current. It’s just common sense that, long-term, teachers are more effective if they’re in a school in which they feel respected and supported, where collaboration and innovation are encouraged, and where teachers are not held accountable for things beyond their control. In a time when resources are at such a premium, one would think that we would jump at an opportunity to make our educational system more effective - yet many ‘reformers’ have been pushing us in exactly the opposite direction.  

How did this happen?  It’s a vicious cycle that began with policies (i.e., NCLB)  that relied on the threat of sanctions to make them ‘work’ (although they didn’t work), and that have continued (well-intentioned or not) with Race to the Top. So we have the DoE twisting the arms of state education departments, who threaten school administrators, who intimidate principals, who then – whether consciously or unconsciously - bully their teachers into ‘doing what they’re told’. And what the teachers experience inevitably affects the students. (It takes a lot of courage to break the chain. See: Are You Stuck With Their Mindset?)   

Here’s one example: we’re beginning to see some pushback from parents and educators against the misuse of standardized tests; tests that consume significant resources in time and money with little value in return.  But testing abuse is only a symptom of the larger problem: education policies that have tried to ‘reform’ the system through coercion. This runs counter to everything we know about human nature.

It is true that ‘fear’ can be an effective motivator – in the short term, maybe. But you can’t live that way. Education is a marathon, not a sprint - living in an atmosphere of high tension will quickly exhaust everyone. 

This is the great overlooked issue of ‘low-performing’ schools. Leadership turns over constantly, so there’s no continuity of expectation. Instead of a culture of collaboration and innovation, teachers bunker down and try to stay out of sight. (As Debra Meier recently noted: “teachers are treated differently in low-income schools.") Just being in a school that is ‘low-performing’ places everyone under greater scrutiny and stress. Why would anyone want to work there?

Unsurprisingly, this results in high turnover, which means you don’t have the luxury of filling open positions with the ‘best’ candidates; instead, you get a lot of kids just out of college, who typically have no idea how to survive, let alone thrive, in such an environment. 

Yet, we continue to believe in the fictional “To Sir, with Love”: the superstar teacher. (Key word: fictional.) But how many superstar teachers did you encounter in school?  Is this really a viable model?  Besides, in today’s environment, Poitier’s character would burn out in three years (or be fired for insufficient test scores) and wouldn’t be given enough autonomy to make much difference, anyway. The reality is that teachers want an opportunity “to serve with kindred spirits” – a key ingredient to ‘retaining teachers in high-need schools’  - where they can collectively make a difference. 

So the only viable alternative is to build a ‘virtuous’ cycle. This takes time and cannot be done from a thousand miles away in Washington. (That’s not to say Washington shouldn’t have a role in providing resources, training, best practices, etc.)  It begins with school leaders who consider the long-term impact of their decisions. They see the annual budget as a tool for getting where they want to be ten years from now. They measure student success not by a one-time test score, but by the quality of life their students have twenty years from now. 

They expect competence, professionalism and improvement - but they know that mistakes are inevitable, and view them as opportunities to learn. And so, people do. Over time, teachers and staff of similar disposition are hired, until a ‘culture’ develops – one in which quality teachers want to stay and build careers, turnover is low, experience is valued – and there is a healthy competition for the relatively few positions that become available each year. Only then is it possible to create an environment that is  emotionally and intellectually safe for students, where everyone feels they are part of something important.

Ultimately, this is the choice: education policies that are based primarily in fear, or those based primarily in, well, love. One works, the other doesn’t.