Problem: The National Core Curriculum and the Impact it will have on Teachers
By
Kathy Craig
A Research paper submitted to Jeffery Bloom
Professional Problems of Teachers ECI-696
Northern Arizona University
July 6, 2011
Abstract
Teachers have always had new curriculum and expectations given to them. There seems to be no end in sight. These new agendas come from the school districts, state, and federal government. Some become law such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. This has been one of the most influential and controversial piece of federal education for some time. The promises it gives come with the hope that all American students will be proficient in math, reading and science, but are these hopes real? Deadlines have been set for these goals and teachers have been thrown into the pot as the care givers of this legislation. Challenges have been many. At this time the country is adopting, state by state, the National Core Curriculum. Again, teachers have to ask themselves, what expectations belong to me, what challenges are before me and are these goals attainable?
The supporters of Common Core State Standards Initiative believe this will increase higher level thinking skills and create a country with students competitive in the world. Those that disagree feel that this is just another political agenda and will not improve test scores nor will it improve student creativity.
Problem: The adaptation of the National Core Curriculum and understanding the impact it will have on teachers and their students. What should teachers do when new curriculum is given to them?
The National Core Curriculum is upon us. It is here to stay for the time being. Thirty seven states and territories thus far have adopted this new educational agenda and have made it the legal law of their land. My questions concerning this new agenda are trying to understand the impact this will have on students and teachers. I wanted to know who was on the governing board in creating these standards. I was interested in trying to see if these new standards are any different from the ones I am now teaching. Teachers are constantly given new programs to teach. They are expected to become experts and knowledgeable on these new programs. Change always brings challenges. Is the National Core Curriculum something that was a needed change to bring the students in the United States competitive in the world job market? As states adopt this plan, will this be the “magic” solution to our academic failure, if in fact we are failing? Most states seem to be on board in adopting the common core curriculum, but will the teachers jump on board? I can remember when the Dibels (Diagnostic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) became part of the state, district and my school’s agenda. I was not on board with the program. I thought, “How dare “they” tell me that a one minute timed fluency test would be the data I needed to evaluate my students and put them into different reading fluency groups. I could tell by the first month or earlier, which students were high, medium and low readers. “ I was given training for the program, but I felt that I was still left on my own as far as my attitude was concerned about the value of the program. Teachers should be given that privilege. Teachers need to take the initiative by researching data, forming valid opinions, and applying best teaching skills to any new program and THEN take from that inquiry the information gathered to either have the program become a driving force in their curriculum or have the program be a laissez faire part of teaching. The latter was what I did for several years with the Dibels program. I used it minimally at first because that was all that was required of me. I didn’t see it as a valued part of my teaching day. But as I took classes for my Masters, I discovered the importance of reading fluency. It was more than just reading words fast; it had to do with comprehension and much more. I understood and applied the Dibels program more consistently in my instructional teaching. It became a part of my agenda and the students did benefit from it in many ways. This year as a second grade teacher I will be using the National Common Core Curriculum as part of my teaching. I will have to change some of my teaching style. I will be able to use and improve on the teaching style that I all ready have as part of me. The reason for choosing this topic is to gain a better understanding of this new agenda and form an opinion using data and other research information so that I can at least have a foot in the door as to the questions of what am I teaching and why? As I have researched these questions I have gained an understanding of the National Core Curriculum. Is the National Core Curriculum the solution to our nation’s educational failures and economy? Maybe the only answer to that question will be answered years from now. Will time tell?
As a teacher I had to ask myself what is the National Core Curriculum? Was it another program just to be another new program to see if this one works this time? I wanted to see if there was substance to this new national agenda. The mission statement is as follows:
The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them. The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need to succeed in college and careers. With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy. (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2006)
The very first sentence that states the CCSSI will provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn might be too bold. How is this going to be consistent when each state has been given the opportunity to interpret these standards? Each school district? Teaching and implementing these will be up to the interpretation of the each organization. I think this is almost an illusionary dream for America as is the NO Child Left Behind law. Of course we want this for everyone, but is it realistic? I will provide insights into the pros and cons of this initiative.
For teachers to understand this initiative we must understand the beginnings. ”In 2009, governors and state commissioners of education from 48 states, two territories and the District of Columbia committed to developing a common core of state standards for English-language arts and mathematics for grades K-12. CCSSI is a state-led effort coordinated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). In a news article posted on the Common Core State Standards Initiative website date June 2, 2010, CCSSO Executive Director Gene Wilhoit was quoted as saying, “We currently are developing a governance structure to ensure the standards will remain strong, supported by states and lead to desired student and system outcomes.” (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010). He also said, “We’re committed to ensuring students are achieving to their highest levels and given every opportunity throughout their educations to do so.” (National Governors Association, 2009) Different governors and educational leaders have their own visions of the CCSSI. A comment by Florida’s Commissioner of Education, Dr. Eric J. Smith gives insight as to the role he feels teachers will have in this process, “Our best understanding of what works in our schools comes from the teachers who teach in our classrooms every day. That is why these standards establish what students need to learn, but do not dictate how teachers should teach. Instead, the standards enable schools and teachers to decide how best to help students reach the standards. “(Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2006) I was pleasantly surprised to see the list of members that developed these academic standards. There were teachers from early childhood specialists to elementary, middle and high schools, math and reading specialists, professors of education, directors of education, principal and administrators, dean of schools, retired teachers to research scientists. I was very impressed that there was not one cooperate organization named as being part of this team. They were educators from across the country that has a true interest in the education of the children of the United States. It was a refreshing discovery to feel that this is a good start to a program that will truly be beneficial. I couldn’t see myself explaining to a heart surgeon how to repair a valve nor should the country expect a doctor to know what is best for a student. Apples to apples. Or is it? Educators helped create it, but it is federally funded and has corporate ties.
Along with the mission statement given at the beginning of this paper the following is a list of bullet items that make up the Common Core Standards:
• Aligned with college and work expectations
• Be clear, understandable and consistent
• Include rigorous content and application of knowledge through high-order skills
• Build upon strengths and lessons of current state standards
• Informed by other top performing countries, so that all students are prepared to succeed in our global economy and society and
• Evidence-and research-based
There are going to be problems that teachers are going to face when trying to apply these new standards into their lessons. I was at a workshop in June that was designed to help me understand the new math standards that Arizona has adopted. I asked the instructor what materials would be available that would help me teach the higher order thinking skills such as critical thinking. She said that Pearson, who happens to be tied in with the new standards, has assured the district that they would be available to the teachers. That evening a teacher went onto their web site to get some of these activities and she came back the next day and reported that you had to pay a fee before you could log on and get the information. The instructor of the class was unaware of the charge. At this time, the teachers in that class are not sure if the District has paid for or will pay additional fees for materials so that teachers have a clear and concise understanding of what they are to teach as the mission statement states. Hopefully, teachers are not going to have to create myriads of materials to incorporate these new standards into the classroom instruction. That seems to always be a problem for the teachers. I am also concerned that because of budget cuts could acquiring new materials take the place of increasing teacher salaries or even teachers that are needed in the classroom?
The CEO of the National Parent Teacher Association stated that he felt that these new standards would increase high school graduates with the skills they need in college or a career. The Vice-President of the National Education Association, Lilly Eskelsen, has said that she believed these new standards would prepare students to, “thrive in a democratic society and a diverse, changing world as knowledgeable, creative and engaged citizens and lifelong learners.” (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010). In my opinion, Dr. Hung-Hsi Wu, Professor of Mathematics, University of California at Berkeley has a better check on the reality of this program when he is quoted as saying, “The Common Core mathematics standards succeed in being both mathematically coherent and grade level appropriate. Overall, they are the best standards that I have seen in the past twenty years. If we can design a professional development program of the same caliber to go with these standards, then our nation will be making a substantial first step towards educational excellence in mathematics.” (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010). He made two key points to me as a teacher. He said they are the best he has seen in twenty years. He included a time frame, indicating a look at recent tried improvements. He also said IF we can design a professional development program of the same caliber then we are making a first step toward excellence. Each state will be designing their own professional development classes for teachers. I took one in June focusing on math practices of the Common Core. The teachers had many questions that the instructors could not answer. One has all ready been stated, “Where are we going to get the materials to teach, for instance, critical thinking?” If I just went on the information above, I would say, that the CCSSI is a good thing for students. It is suppose to help them transfer school knowledge to real life learning situations. It will open them up to be a more critical thinker by asking predictive, challenging, analyzing questions. It will be beneficial to have students that have been taught the same skill concepts, but here in lives the problem? What happens when you get a student that is from a state that has not adapted the National CCSSI? How will the gap in their education be accounted for? How long will it take to see results? And if a student does come from a state that has adopted the core standards, there is no guarantee that their learning instruction has been taught in the same way.
One of the questions I purposed to myself at the beginning of this paper was whether or not adopting the CCSSI was going to bring the students in the United States competitively into the world’s job market? According to C. H. Tienken we do not need academic scores to make the U.S. competitive in the world job market. Education does not mean economic strength. “The contention that a test result can influence the future economic prowess of a country like the United States or any of the G20 nations represents an unbelievable suspension of logic and evidence. The fact is China and its continued manipulation of its currency, the Yuan, and iron-fisted control of its labor pool, has a greater effect on our economic strength than if every American child scored at the top of every international test, the SAT, the ACT, the GRE, or the MAT. According to Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman, China’s undervaluation of its currency cost the U.S. almost 1 million jobs and over 200 billion dollars in lost economic growth and 1.5% of its gross product last year. Economic strength of the G20 countries relies more on policy, than education achievement.” (Tienken, 2011) He contends that no valid measurement has been made to support the NGA and the CCSSO’s development of the need for the National Common Core. And he refutes their argument for the need of national assessments as part of their claim that American children are behind in academics internationally and that the economic future of America is dependent on outranking other world countries. As I was at the common core workshop other teachers and I were discussing the consensus from the supporters of the common core that American students are lacking when it comes to educational skills and we had one of those “Ah Ha!” moments were we said to one another, “Hey, wait a minute! If we are lacking then why do so many other countries send their students to the U.S. to get their university education and why do so many students from other countries choose to come here? Don’t we have some of the highest ranked universities in the world?” We also discussed that we felt that since all children are expected to go to school, don’t we have a greater challenge in meeting the educational needs of children when there is such a diverse U.S. population? How does that compare with other countries? Do all children attend elementary school and beyond or are some sent into the work force, are they staying at home being unaccounted for? Are we comparing apples to apples when data is given? Tienken addresses these questions. “The U.S. already has one of the highest percentages of people with high school diplomas and college degrees compared to any other country and we had the greatest number of 15 year-old students in the world score at the highest level on the 2006 PISA science test. The U.S. leads the world in what are known as utility patents or patents for innovation. The World Economic Forum (2010) stated that the U.S. has an outstanding university system. It is home to 11 out of the top 15 universities in the world; the United Kingdom is next with three out of 15. It seems illogical that the country with the best university system in the world can have a failing PK-12 education system that needs to be placed under centralized curricular control.” (Tienken, 2011) Why can a small group of teachers validate his premise that America’s education is not a total train wreck and also question the need for a national common core? We questioned this need also when we thought about previous national tests such as the Iowa Basic Skills and the Stanford’s. What didn’t work for them? In a report by Jones (2010) a study was done in England assessing the impact of rising pupil achievement testing and the actual learning that takes place. The report concluded that “there were serious negative implications and among these were the effects of stress on both pupils and teacher, negative effect of testing on motivation for learning, peer intimidation, disaffection with the curriculum and a stifling of children’s creativity.”
Tienken also suggests that the new national curriculum is not from data-driving decision making, but a system that is hoping to create supporting data.
Teachers are faced with another problem when confronted with standardized testing—cheating on test scores. Tonight (July 5, 2011) on the CBS Evening News school administrators and teachers in Atlanta were accused of changing student test scores for the better. In fact, a high percentage of those accused admitted cheating. Will having a National Standard create a bigger dishonesty problem in school districts as more and more emphasis is placed on federal money/test scores/accountability? This news is not encouraging. The focus of curriculum and test scores tied to money was also a problem found in a United Kingdom study. “As parental choice in enrolment is influenced by a schools’ position in the league tables (or what we would call performance scores), the test results have the potential to impact strongly on the financial status of schools and thus on the quality of education they can provide…and can be a driving force behind the actual curriculum taught at many schools.” (Jones, 2010).
A compelling view that C.H. Tienken presented as he discussed the National Core Curriculum had to do with the composition of the students. Along with my discussion with fellow teachers about the diversity of our country and the challenge to educate everyone to proficiency, Tienken also noted, “The U.S. has a population of over 300 million and is more ethnically, religiously, and racially diverse than many of the smaller nations that outrank it on international tests. The U.S. has the third largest population in the world behind China and India and it has the largest population in any country that participated in the TIMSS and PISA testing. Size matters because size brings complexity. Finland, the country that usually ranks in the top five on international tests has 5.5 million people. In the U.S. we call that Wisconsin.” (Tienken, 2011)
When you research and acquire insights from other reports or opinions you begin to understand that even though many educated people have created and have supported programs this does not mean it is the best we can give to our nation. The question we have to continually ask ourselves is, “What is best for the children”? Tienken again makes a point when he says that research has found “that the closer to the student that the curriculum is designed, deliberated, and created, the greater influence it has on learning. Children do not have a seat at the policy-making table. Policy is thrust upon them, not created with them.” (Tienken, 2011). The teacher is the key to giving learning opportunity choices to the students.
Solution
Teachers need to be aware of the policies that are put before them. They can actively become knowledgeable about changes. I did not take the time initially to learn about the DIBELS program. I wasn’t pro-active in deciding for myself if this was a good thing for my students or not. I just grumbled about it and used it minimally. Eventually, I discovered the importance it had in the education of my students. I decided it was a good thing and that decision became a driving force in my instruction for reading fluency.
For the most part, we cannot change national policies and laws such as the National Common Core Standards. But we can do what we do best. And that is teach. We still have opportunities to be role models for our students. We can take advantage of creating an environment where children want to learn. We can give them choices in their learning processes. We can appreciate the value of thoughts and opinions of each student. We can recognize diversity and academic differences. We can form opinions and be a force in providing the best education possible.
References
Common Core State Standards Initiative. 2010. “National Governors Association and State
Education Chiefs Launch Common State Academic Standards”. Accessed June 29, 2011.
http://www.corestandards.org/articles/8-national-governors-association-and-state-education.
Jones, H. (2010). National Curriculum Tests and the Teaching of Thinking Skills at Primary
Schools-Parallel or Paradox?. Education 3-13, 38(1), 69-86.Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
National Governors Association.2009. “Common Core State Standards K-12 Work and Feedback
Groups Announced”. Accessed June 29, 2011.
http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.be806d93bb5ee77ee28aca9501010a0/?vgne.
Tienken, C.H. (2011). Common Core State Standards: An Example of Data-Less Decision Making.
AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 7 (4), 3-18. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.