I have just finished reading Diane Ravitch’s monologue against the Common Core standards. (I’ve linked to the English Language Arts section because I am, or was, and English teacher.) As always when I read something, a bunch of stuff comes to mind.
First – I am impressed that Ravitch embodies the concept that there is no public stance that can’t be retooled. In the Washington Post, February 26, 2010, and coinciding with the publication of a brand new book, the reviewer writes, “Diane Ravitch, an education historian, now renounces many of the market-oriented policies she promoted as a former federal education official with close ties to Democrats and Republicans.” She was excused at that time as being brave enough to say when she was wrong. While I recognize my suspicion of her motives, the sincerity of her comments, as something of an ad hominem fallacy, Ravitch is guilty of bandwagoning. In the Post article from January 18, 2014 there is the transcript of a speech in which she comes out against the Common Core, not so much because it is trying to run a school like a business (her 2010 revisionist stance), but because it is associated with testing businesses like Pearson. So, if you’ll excuse me, I’d rather think this through myself.
Second – Teaching to the test? Nope. I hold with Janet Allen’s comment that if you teach well, teach skills that kids need to know in order to become good readers and active learners, the tests would take care of themselves. (My source here is a workshop I attended in the summer of 2001.) In my experience, my goals in teaching kids how to think critically, and use evidence to support their arguments – even if the argument is just “This is a cool place; here’s why.” – is above the normal standardized test scenario. The world is an infinite variety of colors, tones, and textures that can be honored, even in a classroom, while teaching to the test forces an unnaturally black and white world on all concerned.
When is “teaching to the test” useful? Vocabulary. But not the kind of vocabulary where you learn Latin or Greek roots (although this kind of awareness of language might be part of it). Kids learn the buzz words that test makers use. Jim Burke’s Academic Vocabulary is super for this. Using the words in context is far more important, however, than just learning it by rote. They also need to know the vocabulary of how we talk about the tools we use, so words like “ellipsis” and “metaphor” and even (maybe) “zeugma.” And I’m big on “analogy.” For other subjects, more content driven, these English-y concepts and skills are the perfect tools for discussing the causes of historic events, or the processes involved in distinguishing different biological or chemical interactions.
Third – Teachers, as do students, need to get back into the habit of thinking for themselves. I know that we have faced a reign of terror with the NCLB assault. But do we really, honestly, want to go to a prescribed system of classroom work? With the list of exemplars and models, we get into the issue, not of teaching to the test, but of teaching a uniform rostrum of work. These accompany the Common Core as explanation, but are not, as I understand it, the Standards themselves, rather just examples. Certainly it is easier for administrators to deal a prescribed system. Certainly it means that the teachers themselves can be much more plug ‘n’ play. (This further brings to mind the scene in “Catch 22” when one of the characters considers applying stationing rods through the hips and hands of soldiers, forcing their arms to remain in sync with their march step. I digress.) But we know that the best learning takes place when teachers and students are both excited and engaged. If students need to learn a skill, let them practice it using topics that engage them. Let teachers present that skill using topics that interest them. Teachers get to share the topics of their own passion, and students get the lure of knowing they will be able to get to their own ideas and demonstrate competency of newly learned skills. I have been to too many workshops where content is dictated.
“What books do you teach?” is a question that makes me cringe. Frankly, I’ve never taught books. I’ve used books to teach reading, presentation, and research skills. I’ve used them to teach reflection and analysis. But, with rare exceptions, do I find books, or stories, or articles, so important that I want to share the content of those. One of those exceptions is Catherine Ryan Hyde’s “Pay It Forward”; everyone should understand and practice that concept – but I recognize that as a personal philosophy, one that a local community might espouse, but not necessarily a Federal Government (although it would be nice). Yes, there are books I love and use as exemplars for the skills and strategies I am addressing with a class, but I consider my audience in choosing which ones I will use. I think of their interests, their reading levels, and the prior knowledge they bring to the party. I want them on board, not an entrenched enemy. I certainly don’t want to be wed to the “Federalist Papers,” or “Moby Dick,” or “Little Women,” or “Hamlet” just because they are classics and on someone else’s list. I read them once (OK, not more than 5 chapters of “Moby Dick”) and it was good for me. I can justify a good case of the chicken pox as a good exercise of my immune system, but I don’t want to go through it on a yearly basis. I believe we want kids to take the skills they learn and be able to apply them to a variety of situations.
Fourth – Let’s separate the list of the Common Core elements from the rather lengthy narrative about how it should be assessed, anchor papers, and exemplar reading material. The roster of skills, whether math or ELA, is far more descriptive than prescriptive. ELA-CC describes the primary three modes of communication: reading, writing, oral. Math looks at numbers, manipulation, and problem solving in a variety of modes. The two are tied together using logic and situational analysis. All these can be applied to any content area. There should be this sort of cross pollination. I make equations of English concepts; a math teacher uses language to describe problems. Yes, this is overly simplified; yet the potential for a textured, colorful world view is here. Don’t we go about the world, in our communities, encountering problems, figuring them out and then sharing our solutions? Isn’t this how we got light bulbs, cars, and dynamite?
I bring in dynamite on purpose. It is the heart of this analogy: just like dynamite, the Common Core can be used to clear space for productive thought, or it can destroy the fabric of education. We know that only the depraved would set off a explosive in a crowded stadium. Well meaning people also know that some well placed explosive can clear away a derelict building with a minimum of fuss and leave the space for something new, and more useful to be built.
