Myths and
facts surrounding Common Core State Standards are as varied as the standards
themselves. If you are like my colleagues and myself, you have listened to your
administrators and simply thought that CCSS was just another initiative that
would soon be replaced with the “next new thing”. But time has proven that this
isn’t so.
Once I
realized that CCSS was not going away, I began researching and attending
meetings, just to better understand this hurdle in education. I also
have a good friend, that has fast become an expert in CCSS. She provides me
with a great deal of information. She hosted a series of informational meetings
for parents, teachers, school officials, and citizens. She also repeatedly asked the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) to come and share the pros of CCSS. DESE refused every invitation. This raised my suspicions. Why wouldn’t a representative from DESE
attend?
CCSS is
made up of 4 different components. Once you start peeling back the layers, it
becomes very complex. I’ll start with
the standards since most educators are interested in what will directly affect
them in the classroom. Future blogs will address each component separately in
order to help you have a better understanding of the initiative.
In
comparing the CCSS to our former grade level expectations (GLEs) and objectives, it appears that there
isn’t a great deal of difference. I do
like the increased focus on non-fiction (informational text). Our
students are not exposed to enough informational text, therefore, limiting
their ability to comprehend and analyze non-fiction. Informational text will make up the vast
majority of the type of literature that they will read as adults, so it makes
sense to teach them how to interpret what they are reading. Elementary teachers will notice less of a
difference than secondary teachers. However, elementary teachers should be
familiar with the secondary requirements for scaffolding purposes.
I was pleasantly surprised to find
some classics on the Scholastic elementary list for recommended literature, as well as,
informational text. Books by Jean Fritz, Russell Freedman, Jim Murphy, Jim
Arnosky, and the “If You Lived” series were on the list! There were even books, for older students,
about the Holocaust and Civil Rights movement.
I am concerned with the secondary reading lists. I focused on the ELA standards since this is my area of interest. RI stands for Reading Informational Text, non-fiction, and RL stands for reading literary text, fiction. As a Christian, I was disturbed by the Bible being classified as fiction, along with myths and traditional stories. There are some titles that I would not recommend for use in the classroom.
Books on depression, divorce, and drug use are better suited for counselors to
reach students with specific problems.
While several of the books on the secondary list were classics, most had
a ‘dark’ theme. I found this list to be
in contradiction to my goal as a teacher of reading- I want my students to
make connections AND to love reading. Several
parents have complained that literature selected by their children’s secondary
teachers, from various CCSS recommended reading lists, contained objectionable
material.
The CCSS book list I accessed from Barnes and Noble, Scholastic, and Booklistonline contain several books with the same train of thought. I like to introduce my students to a variety of literature themes and genres to
help them develop into life-long readers. I confess that I have not read all of the titles suggested, not even close to all of them, but I did read plots and book summaries on Sparknotes and the Barnes and Noble site. I also read a blog in the Washington Post about suggestions made by common core authors.
Rigor is
one of the new educational buzz words. A great deal of emphasis is being placed
on rigor, in reference to expectations.
I believe that rigor is the CCSS replacement for depth of knowledge in
regard to GLEs. I am concerned with the
lack of rigor. At first glance CCSS does appear rigorous, but upon
implementation, seasoned educators will discover that some of the standards lack a certain amount
of rigor that was present in depth of knowledge expectations. A veteran
educator can (and will) continue to teach the standards with the skills
necessary for student’s to achieve this solid knowledge base. Without past
experience to draw from, and only these
standards (with their time restrictions) to use as a reference, I am concerned
that our new teachers will become frustrated as they implement CCSS. It will require more mentoring of newer
staff. This brings us to another issue:
veteran staff mentoring newer staff on an initiative that is new to all, in
which all components have not been in practice long enough to have a ‘track
record’. One thing is certain: teachers
will have to spend more time collaborating so that beginning teachers will have
the support that they need. Where the additional preparation time will materialize from is yet to be seen.
ADVERTISEMENT:
If you are looking for basic, yet effective, teaching materials to make your life easier check out my teacher stores.
Monday is the last day for my cyber sales at Teachwise, Teacher's Notebook, and Teachers Pay Teachers. Enjoy the savings!
