Explain "Common Core" to a non-American

[rose]

I keep seeing this pop up on the boards and was hoping someone could enlighten me about what the fuss is all about. All I know is that it's some gov't policy to standardise education. Care to enlighten me?

[Southern Ivy]

I currently teach 4th grade, so this is just my own opinion of CC based upon experience. :)

Simplest explanation: Common Core is a collection of learning goals/standards for each grade to learn. It was originally up to each state to determine their GLE's or Grade Level Expectations (or whatever they determined to call them), however Common Core is supposed to bring all students to the same level so that everyone has the same playing field.
You can do some more exploration at www.corestandards.org  

My experience?
It sounds like a great idea. It is so hard to get kids from other states and even neighboring school districts caught up if we have already covered a topic. However, Common Core does not regulate when topics are taught, so we potentially have the same gaps from district to district even though we are teaching the same things. 
Also, some standards are way too easy, some are way too hard. They aren't as "grade appropriate" as it's presented to be. 
Finally, my least favorite issue with CC? Our testing has grown exponentially and I feel that we spend approximately 1/4 of our time testing. (I could be wrong, but that's how it feels.) 

There are many issues - some true, some not. A lot of the uproar has been because false information goes viral due to sensationalist journalism....like these crazy Facebook links saying that certain math problems are "Common Core", that certain sex ed books are Common Core, etc. And sadly, people are misinformed and believe the hype. 

[Farrar]

Agreed with the above and adding...

 

It doesn't standardize content such as for history and science, only math and language arts skills.

 

It's not federally mandated and a few states have not opted in or have left. It was spearheaded by a non-governmental group that included a number of influential business leaders and textbook publishers, which has led to a lot of the controversy about who should decide educational standards.

 

The implementation has been really uneven. It has led some districts and states to do things - some good, some terrible, some in between - and say, "Common Core made us do it!" about, say, getting rid of paper textbooks or changing a schedule around or other things that really don't directly relate. This along with the issues mentioned above has really made the conversation about CC extremely confusing to even have. Parents or educators in one district versus another may have had a very different experience of the "effects" of CC. That's sort of the opposite of standardization, but that's a big part of the complaints.

[Southern Ivy]

Farrar, thanks for adding that! I was rushing on my break to write what I wrote and realized I missed this. I was coming back to add what you said. :) 

[ElizaG]

Just wanted to add that the standards were explicitly designed to promote "college and career readiness."  Not as a major goal, but as the goal. 

 

Even if they turn out to work very well for that (which seems doubtful to me), there are purposes for education that don't fit in either of those two boxes.   I've read several other countries' standards, and they do recognize this, in their overall vision statements as well as their specific goals.   For instance, they tend to have a broader view of communication skills, and put more of a value on cultural knowledge for its own sake.   

 

Given that there's a limit to how much the states are permitted to add to the standards -- and that the burdens of testing are so high already -- my concern is that some very important aspects of education are going to get put on the back burner, indefinitely.  (If they haven't been put there already, during previous rounds of reform.) 

[Southern Ivy]

Eliza, this is already the case. My 4th graders get little to no science or social studies. It is integrated into our Language Arts curriculum, but the amount of social studies and science they get is laughably small. Last year, my students thought Christopher Columbus came over on the Mayflower. They think that our town is a state and have no earthly idea where we in on a state or country map. 
But, we don't teach any of it because it's "not on the test". 

[MotherGoose]

You have to also understand, as a non-American, the concept of state's rights. Originally, the states were more like separate countries, until they united to fight against Britan in the Revolution. States retain the right to impose sales taxes, decide on penalties for certain crimes, impose income taxes, decide on laws about marriage, decide on legal drinking ages, and other things. One reason that people are upset about Common Core is that it puts the US government in charge of deciding what educational goals the individual states will pursue, therefore overstepping state's rights to take care of their schools. I'm not saying I entirely agree or disagree with this whole idea. Not wanting to start a debate. You must also understand that the US is composed of millions of diverse people, and that they are geographically spread across thousands of miles.

[CAmomof4]

Yes, and many of us just do not like the idea of bureaucrats dictating what our children should, and should not, be learning.  Plus in addition to the standards, there are also mandates as to implementation, and some dicey requirements about collecting data - including, supposedly, with regard to students' disabilities and such.  Although CC is technically optional to the individual states, it is of course tied to receiving federal funding for the schools.

 

Personally I just do not favor any method that requires schools to "teach to the test."  Bush's "No Child Left Behind" was another version of the same thing, and is largely considered a huge failure in the education community here.

[Crimson Wife]

The CCSS was originally a voluntary effort by a bunch of state governors. Then the Obama Administration decided to tie Federal education money (called Race to the Top) to adopting CCSS. So it went from being purely voluntary to a "voluntary only if you are willing to give up Federal money" thing.

[Farrar]

Mostly I wish the debate and discussion centered around the bigger questions about who controls education and how to ensure standards without such a barrage of tests... not whether or not mental math is a good thing (DUH) or whether or not all the exemplar texts (which aren't even required anyway) are great literature.

[maize]

Increased testing, loss of local control, and poor implementation (lack of teacher training and quality textbooks/materials) are the issues I hear talked about in my community.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I currently teach 4th grade, so this is just my own opinion of CC based upon experience. :)

 

Simplest explanation: Common Core is a collection of learning goals/standards for each grade to learn. It was originally up to each state to determine their GLE's or Grade Level Expectations (or whatever they determined to call them), however Common Core is supposed to bring all students to the same level so that everyone has the same playing field.

You can do some more exploration at www.corestandards.org  

 

My experience?

It sounds like a great idea. It is so hard to get kids from other states and even neighboring school districts caught up if we have already covered a topic. However, Common Core does not regulate when topics are taught, so we potentially have the same gaps from district to district even though we are teaching the same things. 

Also, some standards are way too easy, some are way too hard. They aren't as "grade appropriate" as it's presented to be. 

Finally, my least favorite issue with CC? Our testing has grown exponentially and I feel that we spend approximately 1/4 of our time testing. (I could be wrong, but that's how it feels.) 

 

There are many issues - some true, some not. A lot of the uproar has been because false information goes viral due to sensationalist journalism....like these crazy Facebook links saying that certain math problems are "Common Core", that certain sex ed books are Common Core, etc. And sadly, people are misinformed and believe the hype. 

 

Thanks for explaining this.  I have heard some very crazy things about common core (unfortunately mostly from angry parents who pulled their kids from school).  The craziest thing I heard was that it's the government's goal to implement some weird plan where all kids are funneled into one of 16 career tracks by 8th grade based on their performance up to that point.  These would be career paths they would follow for the rest of their lives.  Someone posted this on a local homeschool board.  I asked for some proof, information, website, anything that supports this, but she never answered.  I searched high and low and could not find anything like that.  I think some crazy people out there think that the goal of Common Core is to I dunno create robots so the leaders can control them.  The misinformation out there is extremely bizarre.  

 

 

[MiMi 4under3]

 I think some crazy people out there think that the goal of Common Core is to I dunno create robots so the leaders can control them. 

 

But wasn't this the point of public education in the first place?  :lol:  :lol:

[HS Mom in NC]

One thing many people from countries that are more culturally cohesive or homogenous might need to be reminded about it that the US is an incredibly culturally diverse place and because of that the challenges of publicly educating all subcultures of children can vary dramatically.  As control is handed to a group of people (the federal government) far removed from those different challenges, you get worse decision making. 

Even in places that seem similar, like poor inner city PHX, one group of poor kids can live in a subculture where there is a harsh social stigma attached to doing well academically and teachers are seen in an adversarial way by parents while another group of poor kids have parents who are very genuinely appreciative of everything the teachers are doing, but have had such poor academic experiences themselves, they can offer little hands on help for a child at home and often don't speak English at all. 

Overcoming these very different challenges require different approaches and frankly, we haven't really solved the problem of negative social attitudes toward academics and teachers. There are different challenges in urban, suburban and rural environments.  There are many different challenges in different ethnic subcultures.  There are different challenges at different income levels.  Governments are good at standardizing and regulating but many people in public education say from their experiences that being more flexible and innovative are what really need to happen do address all those different challenges.  Many see the Common Core standards and the threat of ties to federal funding as going in the opposite direction of flexibility and innovation.

 Anyone who doesn't have first hand experience in those kinds of situations has no business dictating what people who teach in those and plenty of other challenging situations should be doing, when they should be doing it and how they should be doing it.  If the power of the federal government gets behind those who are not qualified to decide, it will really upset a lot of Americans. Very generally speaking, Americans are less confident in government to solve their problems, especially the federal government.  Generally speaking, we like more immediate things decided at the state or local level because it's thought that there's more first hand knowledge at the state or local level and politicians are more directly connected to those they represent at the state or local level.  I'm usually nervous saying anything about the 300 million Americans as a group because we're such a diverse bunch, but I think I'm representing things fairly with my general statements.

[SparklyUnicorn]

But wasn't this the point of public education in the first place?  :lol:  :lol:

 

LOL...I suppose.  I guess I just don't buy into the conspiracy.  She had an impressive number of web links about the situation and ODDLY none of the links worked. 

 

I have heard some dumb things about common core that I do believe and I think are ridiculous.  I suspect part of the problem is lack of teacher training and incorrect interpretation of some things . For example, teachers not accepting that math problems can be done more than one way and insisting they be done exactly as taught.  That just strikes me as something a teacher insists on when he/she doesn't grasp the concepts well.  I am on board with requiring showing the work in math, etc., but to say that one can't arrive at the same answer in more than one way seems ridiculous to me.

[HS Mom in NC]

This is an article by a former homeschooler, private school teacher and tutor who details her issues with some aspects of Common Core as it relates to math:

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/09/uncommon_not_core.html

[rose]

Sometimes I'm glad that I live in Canada. We have our own issues (like the BC teachers being on strike for the first 3 weeks of September) but that sounds like a nightmare. It seems to me from this side of the border that given just how messy US politics are that if the various political camps represented in the US were more geographically separated that civil war would have erupted years ago.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Before CC, who dictated what the kids should be learning ? Was it a school by school thing ? Or state bureaucrats ?

 

 

Combination of state, federal, and local.  This really is just one of the latest buzzwords we are told will be magical.  Since I've been a parent with school aged kids (so we are talking about 7 years) this is buzz word number three. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

So...people are upset because the feds have more of a say now than they used to ? but it hasn't gone from complete local control to complete federal control ?

 

 

No it's not complete federal control.  I don't think it's more than before.  It's more like they developed a set of standards (probably a combination of states and feds).  Schools still have leeway in terms of how to achieve those standards.  Also, states do not have to adopt CC.  It's just the feds probably dangle money or won't give a state certain funds if they don't adopt it.

 

I do understand people's anger in my neck of the woods because they did a lousy job of transitioning to CC.  For example, they have already started testing students on the concepts even though those students were not taught those concepts.  They also retroactively lowered test scores.  So some kids who were considered meeting the standards were suddenly told they are not.

[OneStepAtATime]

So...people are upset because the feds have more of a say now than they used to ? but it hasn't gone from complete local control to complete federal control ?

 

Agree with Sparkly, it isn't really that the Federal Government was granted more control with Common Core.  All CC was supposed to do was standardized what was being learned from grade to grade across all states.  In other words, if a child moved from Arkansas to California in the middle of grade 4 the thought was that he/she should still be taught the same basic subjects, even if the implementation in each classroom was a bit different.  

 

My dad was military.  I ran into issues whenever we moved because sometimes a school would be teaching concepts that included needing a foundation I had not yet been taught at my previous school or I had already learned what they were teaching and was bored or they were teaching something totally different than everyone else and I didn't have a clue how to function.  Like when we moved mid-year and one school had been teaching standard measurement (inches, feet, etc).  The next school was only teaching metric.  I had this horribly steep learning curve to catch up in metric but we were only there part of a year.  The next year I was back to standard measurement and was shaky on it.  I was also weak in metric.  I had not mastered either.  CC theoretically would fix that.

 

The reason people are so up in the air about CC is actually pretty varied because this really is a very complex matter.  Also, many don't even really know the specifics of why they are upset.

 

One issue is that some of those involved in creating CC are tied to big business testing and curriculum.  They appear to be creating a sort of closed loop where certain things are required to be taught across all states so that these big businesses can standardize what they produce in the way of curriculum/standardized tests without having to create a different thing for each state.  This would in turn allow them to pump up test scores since the material would theoretically be "teaching to the test".  There are several people involved that really have a conflict of interest here.  As mentioned upthread, it appears that money making was part of the impetus for CC.  Whether that is true or not I don't know.

 

Another issue was how it was brought in to being.  There was a huge Federal campaign to show that this CC thing was State led and the other states should be excited about everyone coming together in this wonderful consensus of what should be taught at each grade level.  Only it wasn't state led.  That was essentially a lie.  And then the Federal Government tied huge amounts of money to joining CC.  Basically, from the perspective of many states, the Federal Gov. was trying to strong arm each state to adopt CC and do it quickly, before anyone had a chance to really examine in any detail what it was about.  This made some people wonder why that was necessary and what CC was really doing, especially since the process started long before the details of what CC was had even been finished and released to examine.

 

Still another issue is that administrators and teachers alike have frequently NOT been trained in how to implement some of the changes and kids are being tested as if CC had already been in place for a while so in some states they were not yet taught concepts they are being tested on.

 

Still another issue is that everything under the sun is being blamed on CC when frequently it has nothing to do with CC.  It still gets blamed.

 

And yet another issue is that with the CC implementation there is also the continual press for more and more standardized testing even at very early ages and stages when that is honestly not developmentally appropriate or an accurate determination of how a young child is doing.  Scientific studies have proven over and over that we all develop skills and understanding at different rates, especially in the early years.  The elementary years should be about solidifying foundational skills at whatever pace is right for the individual child.  You can't effectively apply standardized test scores in those early years since some kids are not as far along developmentally and others have made a huge leap or two.  It would be like saying ALL 2nd graders have to wear a certain size of shoe.  CC didn't create the atmosphere of constant standardized testing but it IS encouraging it.

 

And with standardized testing comes the big mess with students being taught strictly to the test so all students are being taught one way in many schools, whether that is the most effective way for them to learn or not.  When I was a child, at one of the schools I was at the teacher had us learning in centers.  It would be called differentiated learning today.  I was very advanced in certain subjects, average in others and behind in certain areas (moving around had left gaps in my core knowledge and math had always been a bit more challenging for me anyway).  She was able to put me in whatever materials were appropriate for my specific level of understanding/exposure.  She did that for all the students in her class.  It was a large class.  It worked just fine.  We were not given any standardized testing.  In fact, I don't recall taking a single standardized nationally normed test until 8th grade.  Today, apparently, she would not have been allowed to do that.  She would have had to teach the same things across the board to all her students, whether it was appropriate for that child or not since her salary/job performance is now tied to how students perform on standardized tests.  CC is being blamed for some of that as well but it was around long before CC.  CC just pushes this even further.

 

There are many other issues as well.  It is a very complex situation.  CC itself as a general idea isn't really the issue.  In fact, there are a lot of people fighting CC that actually like the IDEA of CC.  It is all the other things tied to CC, including implementation, that are really causing the kerfuffle.  

 

But I don't have my PhD in CC.  I am sure others will have a different opinion.  Best wishes.

[maize]

I worked with a charter school on curriculum selection this past summer, and it was a mess. A lot of choices we wanted to consider (tried and true resources) ended up being rejected because they did not cover enough of the common core standards at each level and would have required too much supplementation. Some choices that were CC aligned seemed to have been thrown together too quickly and with poor quality control.

 

The adoption of integrated math at the high school level has been particularly problematic as the textbooks the schools have used for decades are not integrated. Many schools do not have funds to purchase all new textbooks (and at this point the options for integrated texts are quite limited). What is happening at the local schools is mostly that the students are given no textbook at all and must rely exclusively on class notes.

 

I think integrated math has some significant advantages, but so far the transition has been quite messy and students are being shortchanged as a result.

[Crimson Wife]

Starting in the 1990's, states began adopting grade-by-grade standards for what students should learn. Having state standards became mandatory under No Child Left Behind, which was passed in 2001-2002ish. A few states (like MA and CA) adopted really rigorous standards that were better than CCSS (whether local schools actually were successful in teaching to those standards was a different story). Other states adopted very weak standards. The developers of CCSS decided not to adopt the most rigorous standards so in my state, the switch to CCSS has resulted in a "dumbing down" of the curriculum.

 

Proponents of CCSS kept repeating the phrase "it's a floor, not a ceiling" but the way my state department of ed has implemented CCSS in its textbook adoption HAS resulted in it being a ceiling. Singapore Primary Math CCSS edition got rejected because its S&S is ahead of CCSS. Also, many districts have eliminated middle school algebra & geometry in favor of CCSS Math 7 & 8.

 

One of the arguments made in favor of CCSS was that it was supposed to make schools more equitable. What is actually happening in my state is that it is exacerbating the differences between wealthy districts and mixed or poor ones: http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_26726897/math-education-parents-push-schools-accelerate-middle-schoolers

[8filltheheart]

It is incredibly complex and has a lot of issues that are concerning. These are the concerns I have.

 

The developers of CC have publicly stated that alg 2 is the benchmark for college readiness and only those seeking STEM degrees need math beyond alg 2. Many districts took that as a signal that they no longer needed to offer higher level coursework.

 

David Coleman, CEO and president of College Board, which is the source of the SAT and AP exams, was also completely involved in the development of CC standards. CB has developed curriculum, Springboard, which is promoted as teaching to the high standards set forth in CC. http://springboardprogram.collegeboard.org The SAT is also used by many colleges as a screening test for college preparedness. (Starting to see a conflict of interest yet? Will it be at all surprising if Springboard students score higher on screening tests? Can you get any more teaching to the test than to have the testing provider also publishing curriculum?)

 

CC is connected to PARCC. PARCC is connected to Race to the Top funds (federal $$). http://www.achieve.org/parcc-consortium-awarded-race-top-assessment-funds PARCC has designed a test which if students pass, participating state universities MUST place the students is college level, non-remedial, courses. Those universities will no longer be allowed to give institutional placement tests to determine college vs remedial level placement. Thus, k12 schools and testing start to directly influence college level content.

 

As for all the rest in terms of standards, etc, I think it is small potatoes compared to impacting the U.S. university system. This country's k12 system is so broken that CC is not going to fix it. But, it just may have a strong negative impact on our great university systems.

 

Eta: I am someone who does not see great value in multiple choice testing and our entire educational system is being reduced to those terms.

[OneStepAtATime]

Ran out of likes.  Consider yourselves liked.

[SKL]

That's interesting about science and social studies.  My kids are in 3rd grade in a private school.  The private schools are not required to follow common core nor administer the state achievement tests, but our school has decided to do so anyway.

 

In 1st grade, my kids had a traditional textbook and classes in social studies, science, and health.  In 2nd, health was dropped (yay) but they still had science and social studies as regular graded subjects with textbooks.  This year, they have science and social studies on the paper schedule, but they dropped the textbooks and I haven't seen any work come home nor any grades.  The teacher sent a note saying that as part of cc / state standards, they are doing those subjects as integrated parts of LA, at least for part of the year.  They also switched to a different curriculum and I have no access to said curriculum.  The current science topic they are supposedly studying (per the teacher's weekly newsletter) is "how and why scientists communicate"; the social studies topic has been "what makes a community" for a while.

 

On one hand, it's kind of relieving to have a couple fewer graded classes for me to support at home.  On the other hand, I can't imagine how this is going to help us keep up internationally, which is what they said CC was for.  Especially on the science side.

[justasque]

Just wanted to add that private schools and homeschools can continue to teach more-or-less whatever they think is appropriate for their student body; CC does not directly apply to them.  While certain standardized tests may be correlated with CC, it's up to the school to decide whether that will drive any of their curriculum.  (Homeschooled students and those in private schools have significantly fewer testing requirements than public school students anyway, generally speaking.)  Thus families who are wealthy enough to homeschool or send their kids to private school may be largely unaffected by most of the CC issues.  The ability of homeschools and private schools to tailor the curricula to the specific needs of their students rather than follow the CC standards can, ironically, give their students at an educational advantage.

[Library Momma]

Agree with Sparkly, it isn't really that the Federal Government was granted more control with Common Core.  All CC was supposed to do was standardized what was being learned from grade to grade across all states.  In other words, if a child moved from Arkansas to California in the middle of grade 4 the thought was that he/she should still be taught the same basic subjects, even if the implementation in each classroom was a bit different.  

 

My dad was military.  I ran into issues whenever we moved because sometimes a school would be teaching concepts that included needing a foundation I had not yet been taught at my previous school or I had already learned what they were teaching and was bored or they were teaching something totally different than everyone else and I didn't have a clue how to function.  Like when we moved mid-year and one school had been teaching standard measurement (inches, feet, etc).  The next school was only teaching metric.  I had this horribly steep learning curve to catch up in metric but we were only there part of a year.  The next year I was back to standard measurement and was shaky on it.  I was also weak in metric.  I had not mastered either.  CC theoretically would fix that.

 

The reason people are so up in the air about CC is actually pretty varied and many don't even really know the specifics of why they are upset.  

 

One issue is that some of those involved in creating CC are tied to big business testing and curriculum.  They appear to be creating a sort of closed loop where certain things are required to be taught across all states so that these big businesses can standardize what they produce in the way of curriculum/standardized tests without having to create a different thing for each state.  This would in turn allow them to pump up test scores since the material would theoretically be "teaching to the test".  Whether that is true or not I don't know.

 

Another issue was how it was brought in to being.  There was a huge Federal campaign to show that this CC thing was State led and the other states should be excited about everyone coming together in this wonderful consensus of what should be taught at each grade level.  Only it wasn't state led.  That was essentially a lie.  And then the Federal Government tied huge amounts of money to joining CC.  Basically, from the perspective of many states, the Federal Gov. was trying to strong arm each state to adopt CC and do it quickly, before anyone had a chance to really examine in any detail what it was about.  This made some people wonder why that was necessary and what CC was really doing, especially since the process started long before the details of what CC was had even been finished and released to examine.

 

Still another issue is that administrators and teachers alike have frequently NOT been trained in how to implement some of the changes and kids are being tested as if CC had already been in place for a while so in some states they were not yet taught concepts they are being tested on.

 

Still another issue is that everything under the sun is being blamed on CC when frequently it has nothing to do with CC.  It still gets blamed.

 

And yet another issue is that with the CC implementation there is also the continual press for more and more standardized testing even at very early ages and stages when that is honestly not developmentally appropriate or an accurate determination of how a young child is doing.  Scientific studies have proven over and over that we all develop skills and understanding at different rates, especially in the early years.  The elementary years should be about solidifying foundational skills at whatever pace is right for the individual child.  You can't effectively apply standardized test scores in those early years since some kids are not as far along developmentally and others have made a huge leap or two.  It would be like saying ALL 2nd graders have to wear a certain size of shoe.  CC didn't create the atmosphere of constant standardized testing but it IS encouraging it.

 

And with standardized testing comes the big mess with all students being taught to the test so all students are being taught one way, whether that is the most effective way for them to learn or not.  When I was a child, at one of the schools I was at the teacher had us learning in centers.  It would be called differntiated learning today.  I was very advanced in certain subjects, average in others and behind in certain areas (moving around had left gaps in my core knowledge and math had always been a bit more challenging for me anyway).  She was able to put me in whatever materials were appropriate for my specific level of understanding/exposure.  She did that for all the students in her class.  It was a large class.  It worked just fine.  We were not given any standardized testing.  In fact, I don't recall taking a single standardized nationally normed test until 8th grade.  Today, she would not have been allowed to do that.  She would have had to teach the same things across the board to all her students, whether it was appropriate for that child or not since her salary/job performance is now tied to how students perform on standardized tests.  CC is being blamed for some of that as well but it was around long before CC.  CC just pushes this even further.

 

There are many other issues as well.  It is a very complex situation.  CC itself as a general idea isn't really the issue.  In fact, there are a lot of people fighting CC that actually like the IDEA of CC.  It is all the other things tied to CC, including implementation, that are really causing the kerfuffle.  

 

But I don't have my PhD in CC.  I am sure others will have a different opinion.  Best wishes.

 

I really like this post except for a few points.  My kids are in a public school that has transitioned to the common core standards.  It really has not been a major change.  The standards are lower than our previous state standards, but like those, CC is just a baseline - The lowest level to achieve.  There still exists differentiated learning levels at every grade starting with Kindergarten.  There are enrichment programs and gifted programs as well for students that are further advanced.  There is a standardized test once a year to examine these levels starting in 3rd grade.  It just transitioned to being from being a test to measure against the state standards to a test measuring against cc.  The hard part is that the new test is administered via computer and it's been a learning curve for many students.

 

I do hear parents complaining about CC but usually it is because of the math curric used in the early elementary grades.  The same complaints were there before cc was implemented as it was the same curriculum (just an earlier version).  The majority of the complaints though stem from those crazy posts that circulate on Facebook. 

 

The only issues I've seen so far are actually in Middle School where the science standards come into play.  There are so many concepts included that most teachers have already covered in elementary that it is hard to avoid duplication.

 

I understand though that this is just our school system.  I still see students that have moved from other states that have different experiences and were never offered the differentiated education that would have better served them leaving them "behind" their peers in the new school.

[OneStepAtATime]

I really like this post except for a few points.  My kids are in a public school that has transitioned to the common core standards.  It really has not been a major change.  The standards are lower than our previous state standards, but like those, CC is just a baseline - The lowest level to achieve.  There still exists differentiated learning levels at every grade starting with Kindergarten.  There are enrichment programs and gifted programs as well for students that are further advanced.  There is a standardized test once a year to examine these levels starting in 3rd grade.  It just transitioned to being from being a test to measure against the state standards to a test measuring against cc.  The hard part is that the new test is administered via computer and it's been a learning curve for many students.

 

I do hear parents complaining about CC but usually it is because of the math curric used in the early elementary grades.  The same complaints were there before cc was implemented as it was the same curriculum (just an earlier version).  The majority of the complaints though stem from those crazy posts that circulate on Facebook. 

 

The only issues I've seen so far are actually in Middle School where the science standards come into play.  There are so many concepts included that most teachers have already covered in elementary that it is hard to avoid duplication.

 

I understand though that this is just our school system.  I still see students that have moved from other states that have different experiences and were never offered the differentiated education that would have better served them leaving them "behind" their peers in the new school.

Thank you for sharing this.  I only rarely hear a good story about implementation being done well.   When it is implemented well, there doesn't seem to be as much of an issue. Which is why CC itself does not seem to really be the bulk of the problem.  It is the implementation that is the issue for many.  

 

It is nice to hear about the places where implementation appears to have gone really smoothly and the schools have been able to maintain quality, differentiated instruction.  Sadly, it appears that is not the case in many schools but I suspect there are issues in many of those schools because of poor administrative handling and teacher training that were probably there before CC even came around.  It would be nice if there was a way to have administrators/teachers go train with schools that are successful in how they function so they can maybe have a more solid foundation for successful implementation in their own schools.

 

FWIW, I see a lot of the griping as being at two different levels.  At one level are the people who are more concerned with how CC was created and then sort of forced on the states before it was even completed or tested out.  

 

At the other level are the parents that are frustrated with implementation at the school level.  They blame CC itself for the issues when CC isn't really the problem.  It is poor implementation in many schools that is the problem.  That is really an oversimplification but that's how I sort of see this whole thing.

[Ad astra]

I recently moved to the U.S. from a small country where the K-12 curriculum is nationally standardized and all students learn a number of the exactly same subjects each year until they get to choose between the Literary Track and the Science Track in their sophomore year of high school. So this thread is also enlightening to me and helping me understand what's the real issues are behind the fuss. I've seen those Facebook posts and comments about supposed CC problems and thought they were ridiculous and overreacting. I see much better explanations and arguments here in this thread.

 

FWIW, I can see some benefits of CC, if it is well implemented. The college admission in the U.S. is quite subjective IMO, and CC may help improve efficiency of testing and validity of high school GPAs, and provide fair and equal ground for everyone at some extent and promote meritocracy in the U.S. If your state's standards were higher than CC, you won't like it, but I guess the implementation of CC might help improve the educationally inadequate status of some states or school districts.

 

Of course, CC is somewhat against the individual approach and whole philosophy of homeschooling so I understand many homeschoolers are against it. But when did we have much freedom to choose in public schools anyway?       

[Crimson Wife]

 At the other level are the parents that are frustrated with implementation at the school level.  They blame CC itself for the issues when CC isn't really the problem.  It is poor implementation in many schools that is the problem.  That is really an oversimplification but that's how I sort of see this whole thing.

 

From where I stand, the fact that CCSS represents a "dumbing down" from the previous state standards *IS* the problem. The architects could've picked the best of the 50 state standards and tried to bring everyone up to that level. But that wasn't what they did. It's not an implementation problem but an inherent design flaw.

[maize]

I really like this post except for a few points. My kids are in a public school that has transitioned to the common core standards. It really has not been a major change. The standards are lower than our previous state standards, but like those, CC is just a baseline - The lowest level to achieve. There still exists differentiated learning levels at every grade starting with Kindergarten. There are enrichment programs and gifted programs as well for students that are further advanced. There is a standardized test once a year to examine these levels starting in 3rd grade. It just transitioned to being from being a test to measure against the state standards to a test measuring against cc. The hard part is that the new test is administered via computer and it's been a learning curve for many students.

 

I do hear parents complaining about CC but usually it is because of the math curric used in the early elementary grades. The same complaints were there before cc was implemented as it was the same curriculum (just an earlier version). The majority of the complaints though stem from those crazy posts that circulate on Facebook.

 

The only issues I've seen so far are actually in Middle School where the science standards come into play. There are so many concepts included that most teachers have already covered in elementary that it is hard to avoid duplication.

 

I understand though that this is just our school system. I still see students that have moved from other states that have different experiences and were never the differentiated education that would have better served them leaving them "behind" their peers in the new school.

Re: science standards--common core does not include standards for science so the school must be pulling these from somewhere else (likely state standards).

[OneStepAtATime]

I recently moved to the U.S. from a small country where the K-12 curriculum is nationally standardized and all students learn a number of the exactly same subjects each year until they get to choose between the Literary Track and the Science Track in their sophomore year of high school. So this thread is also enlightening to me and helping me understand what's the real issues are behind the fuss. I've seen those Facebook posts and comments about supposed CC problems and thought they were ridiculous and overreacting. I see much better explanations and arguments here in this thread.

 

FWIW, I can see some benefits of CC, if it is well implemented. The college admission in the U.S. is quite subjective IMO, and CC may help improve efficiency of testing and validity of high school GPAs, and provide fair and equal ground for everyone at some extent and promote meritocracy in the U.S. If your state's standards were higher than CC, you won't like it, but I guess the implementation of CC might help improve the educationally inadequate status of some states or school districts.

 

Of course, CC is somewhat against the individual approach and whole philosophy of homeschooling so I understand many homeschoolers are against it. But when did we have much freedom to choose in public schools anyway?       

Hi and welcome to the U.S.!  :)

 

Actually, I don't think there was ever any freedom as a parent to choose material in the public school.  You are absolutely right about that.  I certainly don't think it ever occurred to my parents to question what I was being taught or even how I was being taught unless I fell way behind.  And my mother is a teacher. :)  (Shifting to a homeschooling mentality was a bit of a shock for her at first when we chose this path a couple of years ago.)

 

Teachers, though, used to have a bit more say so in the choice of materials in their own classroom.   Mom definitely had influence when the School District was buying new textbooks and had choices in how she implemented the material or any extras she chose to bring into her classroom.  That, however, appears to be an issue now in many schools systems.  Teachers in many school districts are apparently being discouraged from bringing in enrichment materials or teaching beyond or in a different way than what has been handed to them as CC.  

[OneStepAtATime]

From where I stand, the fact that CCSS represents a "dumbing down" from the previous state standards *IS* the problem. The architects could've picked the best of the 50 state standards and tried to bring everyone up to that level. But that wasn't what they did. It's not an implementation problem but an inherent design flaw.

I see what you are saying.  And I agree that a design flaw is a huge part of the current problem.  This situation is so complex I think there is more to the problem than just a design flaw or an implementation issue but yes, design flaws when CC was created is definitely a significant and foundational issue.  

 

I also agree that the architects SHOULD have picked the best of the 50 states as the benchmark and then started a much slower implementation which included training for administrators and teachers and with a clear understanding that to successfully bring those states with lower standards up to that level it would take time and very careful implementation so whole swaths of kids wouldn't get left behind.  Only the architects did neither.  They failed at both ends.  Some schools have managed to make it work.  Others, not so much.

[Ad astra]

Hi and welcome to the U.S.!   :)

 

Actually, I don't think there was ever any freedom as a parent to choose material in the public school.  You are absolutely right about that.  I certainly don't think it ever occurred to my parents to question what I was being taught or even how I was being taught unless I fell way behind.  And my mother is a teacher. :)  (Shifting to a homeschooling mentality was a bit of a shock for her at first when we chose this path a couple of years ago.)

 

Teachers, though, used to have a bit more say so in the choice of materials in their own classroom.   Mom definitely had influence when the School District was buying new textbooks and had choices in how she implemented the material or any extras she chose to bring into her classroom.  That, however, appears to be an issue now in many schools systems.  Teachers in many school districts are apparently being discouraged from bringing in enrichment materials or teaching beyond or in a different way than what has been handed to them as CC.  

 

Thank you for your explanation! Yes, I guess there is a difference between where there existed a certain amount of discretion for teachers to choose materials and where none existed in the first place. :)

[Crimson Wife]

Some states have long had mandatory textbook lists, while other states allow more district choice in materials. If my state allowed districts to choose any CC edition of any textbook, then the fact that CCSS is below the old state standards would be less of a problem. But whereas before districts could choose Singapore Primary Math CA Standards edition, now with the adoption of CCSS and the rejection of Singapore Primary Math CCSS edition for having a S&S ahead of CCSS, schools are being deprived of a strong option. Most districts didn't choose Singapore but at least they *COULD* have.

[OneStepAtATime]

The US had a tradition in the one room school house of working to the highest level that one could obtain. No one was held back by other students; any holding back was due to the teacher not being able to teach at that level.  Even when I was in rural public school, the teachers would offer the 'next level' to those who had had finished the grade level material. We were grouped by instructional need. By jr year of high school, I was offered a transfer in to a city high school that had higher level coursework. (I didnt take it, as my math teacher was perfectly capable of teaching me calc, my English teacher was individualizing, and the rest werent worth the travel time plus the stress of coping with the violence in the city school).

This was my experience as well, in most of the schools I attended.  This was NOT the case when my kids were in school or their cousins but obviously that is not a large sampling.  It does seem, though, that many schools are not doing this now, but I don't know with certainty if CC is exacerbating this.  It appears to be in some school districts, but there are many factors involved.  Our public educational system is incredibly complex.

[kiana]

What other factors besides CC are you seeing that are driving the public schools to low expectations for all?

 

Schools being rewarded for having a small gap between the highest achieving students and the lowest achieving students.

[Elisabet1]

In other countries, curriculum is often written by experts in that field. In the US, it is written by government employees and textbook writers with completely unrelated background to the subjects that are writing for. What goes in to a book is generally voted on by people who are not experts in the field. So the people writing it have little expertise in the subject area and with children and child development and how the brain works and so on.

 

I have seen a little bit of what appears to be some what of an attempt to imitate what is seen elsewhere. Only, it is clear they do not have a grasp of what is being taught elsewhere.

 

Common Core is introducing a lot of developmentally inappropriate ideas based on the political agenda of the people setting it now, and is providing very little actual education.

 

 

[Elisabet1]

Whether it is common core or not, the current methods of teaching in the US are just awful. I know every area is different. But where I live, the public schools, even top ranked, are clearly inferior to private and home school.

 

For example, in math, the kids have to write about their feelings about the math. Or they have to write about what they did to contribute to their community or a hobby they have. 

 

As far as the actual math problems go..they will be given a problem and told to set up how to solve it. That is the extent of their solving. And then they use a calculator. They never learn how to solve the actual math. Then, when the kids get to algebra and cannot do any of it, there is just a huge disconnect.

[Laura Corin]

In other countries, curriculum is often written by experts in that field. In the US, it is written by government employees and textbook writers with completely unrelated background to the subjects that are writing for. What goes in to a book is generally voted on by people who are not experts in the field. So the people writing it have little expertise in the subject area and with children and child development and how the brain works and so on.

 

I went searching to see how it works in the UK and came across this article, which suggests that text books are mostly written by experienced teachers here.  That's certainly the case at Galore Park.

 

ETA: FWIW, we do have a 'common core' National Curriculum.  It's different in Scotland from England/Wales/N Ireland because Scotland's education system has run separately for centuries.  We also have high stakes testing for university entrance.  There's not a link between that and text book writing - all the text books that are sold to schools will meet the requirements of the National Curriculum, but they won't, as far as I know, be written by non-experts.  So I think that's a different issue.

 

L

[scott777]

Here is part 1 of a 3 part series by Saxon Author Stephen Hake on CCSS.  His perspective is pretty interesting.  I will be publishing parts 2 and 3 over the next week.

 

http://wp.me/p4nApj-1j

 

 

[Library Momma]

Re: science standards--common core does not include standards for science so the school must be pulling these from somewhere else (likely state standards).

 

 

Ahh you are right - Those are still the state standards.

[ElizaG]

The craziest thing I heard was that it's the government's goal to implement some weird plan where all kids are funneled into one of 16 career tracks by 8th grade based on their performance up to that point.  These would be career paths they would follow for the rest of their lives.  Someone posted this on a local homeschool board.  I asked for some proof, information, website, anything that supports this, but she never answered. 

I'd never heard of this before your post, but this article seems to be the one that a lot of people are linking to.

 

I don't know if what the representative told this woman in Wisconsin is correct, but if so, it's being presented as a way to bring the US in line with current practices in some European countries, such as Germany.  This isn't something that fits with historic American views on education, but it's not "crazy" to be open to the possibility that it's what some of the authorities have in mind.   (Especially given that the whole US public school system was based on a dumbed-down version of the German system in the first place.  It's practically a tradition!   :tongue_smilie: )

 

Her comments, and those from the school superintendent who was quoted before her -- about limiting the curriculum at each high school, and tailoring it to the needs of local businesses -- do seem to fit with what Heigh Ho is experiencing in her area.  

 

There's also this local district in Colorado, which is being held up as exemplary (by the data collection people, anyway):

 

http://p20.aurorak12.org/

http://www.dataladder.com/blog/2014/04/25/the-p20-experience-in-aurora/

 

Their middle schools already appear to be pretty specialized, to match up with the particular "career clusters" that this district is focusing on.  (Colorado is going with a total of 17 clusters, which are identical to the 16 federal ones, except that they've spun out "Energy" into its own cluster.)  If you go the page on Implementing Pathways and read the document, the students are supposed to have made their personal career plans between 6th and 8th grade; see the table on p. 9.

 

I don't know what the official relationship is between the Common Core standards and this "P20 education pipeline" model, but they do seem to go hand in hand.

 

Interesting times.

 

Thank you for pointing that out.ʉ۬

[Southern Ivy]

It is incredibly complex and has a lot of issues that are concerning. These are the concerns I have.

 

The developers of CC have publicly stated that alg 2 is the benchmark for college readiness and only those seeking STEM degrees need math beyond alg 2. Many districts took that as a signal that they no longer needed to offer higher level coursework.

 

David Coleman, CEO and president of College Board, which is the source of the SAT and AP exams, was also completely involved in the development of CC standards. CB has developed curriculum, Springboard, which is promoted as teaching to the high standards set forth in CC. http://springboardprogram.collegeboard.org The SAT is also used by many colleges as a screening test for college preparedness. (Starting to see a conflict of interest yet? Will it be at all surprising if Springboard students score higher on screening tests? Can you get any more teaching to the test than to have the testing provider also publishing curriculum?)

 

CC is connected to PARCC. PARCC is connected to Race to the Top funds (federal $$). http://www.achieve.org/parcc-consortium-awarded-race-top-assessment-funds PARCC has designed a test which if students pass, participating state universities MUST place the students is college level, non-remedial, courses. Those universities will no longer be allowed to give institutional placement tests to determine college vs remedial level placement. Thus, k12 schools and testing start to directly influence college level content.

 

As for all the rest in terms of standards, etc, I think it is small potatoes compared to impacting the U.S. university system. This country's k12 system is so broken that CC is not going to fix it. But, it just may have a strong negative impact on our great university systems.

 

Eta: I am someone who does not see great value in multiple choice testing and our entire educational system is being reduced to those terms.

This is fascinating. I honestly had no idea about this. 

[wapiti]

More on the history of Common Core http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bill-gates-pulled-off-the-swift-common-core-revolution/2014/06/07/a830e32e-ec34-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html  This is a somewhat lengthy article though not the whole story.

 

I'm not sure whether it's mentioned in this one, but realize that the deadline for states to sign on for the RttT funds was so close to the publication of the standards that many/most states voted to adopt CC before anyone read, much less analyzed thoughtfully, the actual standards.

 

eta, it's in there:

Applications for the first round of Race to the Top were due in January 2010, even though the final draft of the Common Core wasn’t released until six months later. To get around this, the U.S. Department of Education told states they could apply as long as they promised they would officially adopt standards by August.

 

 

[Southern Ivy]

Whether it is common core or not, the current methods of teaching in the US are just awful. I know every area is different. But where I live, the public schools, even top ranked, are clearly inferior to private and home school.

 

For example, in math, the kids have to write about their feelings about the math. Or they have to write about what they did to contribute to their community or a hobby they have. 

 

As far as the actual math problems go..they will be given a problem and told to set up how to solve it. That is the extent of their solving. And then they use a calculator. They never learn how to solve the actual math. Then, when the kids get to algebra and cannot do any of it, there is just a huge disconnect.

This is very dependent on the district and certainly not a standard. My students are plodding along through enVision (a math curriculum) which is based upon Singapore math. It is very difficult for them. Very challenging. When we do write, we write to explain how we got to the answer (which should include very detailed answers, reasons, and explanations), but never how they "feel" about it. And calculators? We never use calculators and in all my years and districts, we've never allowed that. 

Sounds like the district you're referring to needs to go back and reconsider what they're teaching!  :huh:

[SparklyUnicorn]

Well that's at least "some" information that vaguely relates to what that woman said. 

 

I don't like the sound of that.  I don't absolutely hate the idea of having these tracks so long as they aren't too rigid and leave no room for changing one's mind later on.  Even though they have something like that in Germany it's not like you are doomed for life if you decide later on you want to go to college or whatever. 

 

The thought of tailoring things to local business need seems quite absurd to me though.  People move around a lot. I can't imagine being boxed into a career path that only works with the area I happened to be born in.

 

So I dunno. 

 

 

I'd never heard of this before your post, but this article seems to be the one that a lot of people are linking to.

 

I don't know if what the representative told this woman in Wisconsin is correct, but if so, it's being presented as a way to bring the US in line with current practices in some European countries, such as Germany.  This isn't something that fits with historic American views on education, but it's not "crazy" to be open to the possibility that it's what some of the authorities have in mind.   (Especially given that the whole US public school system was based on a dumbed-down version of the German system in the first place.  It's practically a tradition!   :tongue_smilie: )

Her comments, and those from the school superintendent who was quoted before her -- about limiting the curriculum at each high school, and tailoring it to the needs of local businesses -- do seem to fit with what Heigh Ho is experiencing in her area.  

There's also this local district in Colorado, which is being held up as exemplary (by the data collection people, anyway):

http://p20.aurorak12.org/
http://www.dataladder.com/blog/2014/04/25/the-p20-experience-in-aurora/

Their middle schools already appear to be pretty specialized, to match up with the particular "career clusters" that this district is focusing on.  (Colorado is going with a total of 17 clusters, which are identical to the 16 federal ones, except that they've spun out "Energy" into its own cluster.)  If you go the page on Implementing Pathways and read the document, the students are supposed to have made their personal career plans between 6th and 8th grade; see the table on p. 9.

I don't know what the official relationship is between the Common Core standards and this "P20 education pipeline" model, but they do seem to go hand in hand.

 

Interesting times.

Thank you for pointing that out.ʉ۬

 

[kiana]

This is very dependent on the district and certainly not a standard. My students are plodding along through enVision (a math curriculum) which is based upon Singapore math. It is very difficult for them. Very challenging. When we do write, we write to explain how we got to the answer (which should include very detailed answers, reasons, and explanations), but never how they "feel" about it. And calculators? We never use calculators and in all my years and districts, we've never allowed that. 

Sounds like the district you're referring to needs to go back and reconsider what they're teaching!  :huh:

 

There have been some pretty awful examples -- such as "if math were a color, what would it be?" given as assignments.

 

Most of those extraordinarily silly ones were pulled in later editions of the curricula. 

[Crimson Wife]

What other factors besides CC are you seeing that are driving the public schools to low expectations for all?

 

The changing demographics of my district has made tracking a much more "hot button" issue than when nearly all the students were non-Hispanic whites. If some demographic groups are overrepresented in honors or accelerated coures while others are underrepresented then the issue gets politicized.

[kiana]

Well that's at least "some" information that vaguely relates to what that woman said. 

 

I don't like the sound of that.  I don't absolutely hate the idea of having these tracks so long as they aren't too rigid and leave no room for changing one's mind later on.  Even though they have something like that in Germany it's not like you are doomed for life if you decide later on you want to go to college or whatever. 

 

The thought of tailoring things to local business need seems quite absurd to me though.  People move around a lot. I can't imagine being boxed into a career path that only works with the area I happened to be born in.

 

So I dunno. 

 

I'd seriously question whether the 'tailored to local business' is factual. I'm aware of a few cases where that's true -- where there's something like a laser company down the road so the high school runs a lasers program -- but as long as it's voluntary I think that's an awesome idea.