This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Community Corner

Common Core is Common Sense

As a current education studies major, I have spent the last semester dissecting the components of an effective curriculum in my curriculum and assessment course.  I have been fortunate to learn about the most up and coming research that has informed the implementation of the Common Core.  Additionally, I have been able to see what effect the Common Core has on students in my clinical classroom experiences.  After reading a number of articles I have found that those who speak against the CCSS are somewhat misinformed of what its intent is and what it is meant to do.  

To understand the CCSS initiative, it is essential to know what inspired its creation.  It was created to provide year long goals for students to achieve and master as learners.  While many complain that this is "teaching to the test" it is actually quite the opposite.  If one actually reads the standards, they will see how life skills, thinking and learning strategies are present in the standards.  I find it ironic that the author of the most recent posting on the CCSS said that we should be teaching our students life skills, while the CCSS website itself states it was created in order to acknowledge, "the value of consistent, real-world learning goals."  The operative word here being, "real-world learning". These learning goals are crucial skills all individuals need to muscle through every day life occurrences and learning. The CCSS also acknowledges on their English Language Arts standards page that these skills are, "critical-thinking, problem-solving, and analytical skills."  If you do not believe that those skills are necessary for creativity, science, athletics and information technology, well then I encourage you to do some reflection and rethinking; skills that are also implemented in the CCSS.  

There also seems to be a notion that students will be deprived of learning the familiar content of the past.  This is not true.  Through standardized testing and student feedback, it has been found that students really aren't learning.  I direct you to this famous Calvin and Hobbes Comic:http://compsci.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/calvin_and_hobbes_ch940127.jpg

Memorizing facts and outcomes of novels and algorithms is not learning.  It is being hard-wired to a think in the certain manner in which one was taught.  We are not teaching students to think for themselves.  Learners demonstrate mastery by always looking to get the right answer that was taught via a constructivist blackboard.  We must develop skill such as metacognition, reflection, critical thinking, problem solving and analyzing to create active and engaged learners. These skills are useful in all areas of academia as well was everyday life!  Standard curriculums do not always utilize these skills; they are content focused.  I believe this is where the United States is falling behind, and falling quickly.  Until college, I was not a conscious learner.  I was a bright child that always worked for the A, and did so by doing what I was taught was the best way.  I did not independently and actively take control of my learning by using those skills.  I believe this is a result of not having developed them in grade school.  It must be understood that the CCSS allows for this.

It also needs to be understood that math is not the universal language we once thought it was.  This is also why United States students are falling behind mathematics; we have been teaching it incorrectly.  Standard algorithms rob students of developing number sense and problem solving skills.  They use the standard algorithms as a crutch to solve problems.  Programs like Everyday Math are teaching students those skills, and that there are multiple entry and exit points to math problems, which ultimately reaches more students as individual learners.  This supports a fairly new idea in education that learning is not "one size fits all."  I apologize that encouraging students to verbalize their mathematical thinking may be tiresome, but it has been proven that putting a concept into ones own words enhances understanding.  This metacognitive skill is crucial to learning and even understanding oneself.  What a shame that this flawed system is encouraging students to reflect on their own thinking and practice.

Contrary to popular opinion, the CCSS also allows for creativity in what content is taught and how it is taught.  I recently completed a midterm that required me to complete my own unit and forms of assessment.  This involved creating learning objectives for students, which were aligned with the CCSS and the unit that I chose.  For example, I had planned to teach a weather unit for a second grade class.  I had the freedom to chose weather.  Then, I created my objectives by choosing which standards are used in second grade reading, writing, math, social studies and science. While there are not social studies and science standards, I was pleasantly surprised to see the flexibility of the standards.  I was able to create activities and objectives that taught social studies and science about weather by pulling from a number of standards.  

A quality teacher will be creative and able to align the skills your children need to learn with interesting content of all subject areas. A quality teacher will differentiate instruction for your gifted child or for your child that needs specific attention.  A quality teacher will actively engage your child and relate the content and skills to their everyday lives.  A quality teacher will be capable of all of these things, which is possible through the Common Core.

I had plenty of freedom in choosing what I wanted to teach and how I wanted to teach it from the standards.  Some may argue that yes, there was freedom, but under the standards terms.  And to that I would respond that it is necessary we hold our system to some sort of standard for our students to reach and exceed their potential.

Since a course-worth of educational theory and ideas cannot be explained in one internet post, I digress.  As for the political issues surrounding the matter, I suggest you brush up on your policy and history of ESEA, A Nation at Risk and NCLB and think about how that may play a role into this topic.

If parents are truly as concerned as they claim to be, maybe they should critically think about all factors that play into this reform.  Perhaps they could problem solve to fix the flaws in the system.  Or even think analytically about the outcomes of not teaching students to master such skills.  But I guess I have to consider that until recently, it was no ones responsibility to teach them.  

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?