And Common Core is the culprit:
Have you ever looked up the definition of “common” as in Common Core? According to Merriam-Webster, common serves a number of meanings including “occurring and appearing frequently” and “relating the community at large”. But the one that caught my attention highlights “falling below ordinary standards” and “lacking refinement“. I believe the Common Core may be doing more harm than good for instruction is not only lacking refinement, but falls short in creativity, artistry, and innovation; the key components supporting the natural “love of learning”. This is due to the pervasive use of scripted programs and textbook guided instruction in every classroom.
I cannot continue to remain silent about what I am seeing across the country related to implementation of the Common Core. Specifically, I am astounded and disturbed by a pattern I see in elementary classrooms within the public school system: Students are forced to spend disproportionate number of hours on literacy-themed activities and written expression in contrast to a well-rounded curriculum. For example, within a typical elementary classroom, students are scheduled to spend up to 90 minutes a day on reading and writing activities within the context of “literacy”; sometimes, this extends beyond 2 hours a day, especially if a student struggles meeting grade-level standards and may be required to “double-dip” through additional time dedicated toward reading and writing. In addition, students as young as first graders are expected to feature pen and pencil explanations of their understanding of math reasoning and problem-solving instead of being engaged in developmentally appropriate hands-on activities including models, manipulatives, and game-like simulations.
Also, it’s highly unusual when I observe typical classrooms featuring laboratory activities, hands-on projects, and other experiential lessons within math, science, and social studies; which used to be the standard within most elementary classrooms. Not long ago, science was one of those subjects which engaged students through high-interest activities and transcended the limitations of a student’s reading or writing skill levels. For science often served as a featured component of an “inclusion-based” curriculum; allowing students to access the wonders and curiosities found within this content area. However, many principals and teachers have explained to me the lack of project-based activities for the science program is now embedded within the “ELA [English Language Arts] curriculum” via the Common Core. Same goes for social studies. What used to be a fantastic way to engage a wide-range of skill levels through cooperative learning, simulations, and constructivist project-based learning, elementary schools embed history, geography, and cultural curriculum within the reading textbook highlighting writing as the primary source of assessment and a demonstration of learning. So if a student struggles with reading and writing, like many students who experience dyslexia (reading) or dysgraphia (writing) then the social studies experience takes on the same level of frustration as one might face within the reading program.
I also served in the Elementary Program for many years as a principal, teacher, and program coordinator. So my understanding of the situation today is filtered through my experiences in the past. Back in the day when I was teaching elementary school in the 1980’s, or when I was a school administrator in the late 80’s and 90’s, the following professional exemplars or standards were expected within our classrooms. See if it looks different today for you or your child:
Both reading and math were guided by district or state curriculum; the text was one of the many tools I utilized as I developed lessons reaching a wide-range of skill-sets at their instructional level. The textbook was not the only tool which guided our instructional decisions. In fact, a district developed professional development program in instruction was an on-going part of our work schedule. Today,many teachers follow a scripted text and do not feature a differentiated set of instructional strategies teaching reading or math. There appears to be a limited amount of resources put forth toward training an in-depth understanding of reading, math, and writing, and at the same-time, there appears to be an emphasis on textbook implementation and high stakes test assessment.
Also, both science and social studies were also guided by district and state curriculum; however, it was expected that the lessons I presented were developmentally appropriate and presented the highest level of critical thinking, problem-solving, and cooperative learning possible. These subjects were guided by the principles that creativity, interest-based learning, and inclusive learning strategies would be the keys to engagement. Today, unless a student attends a STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math] focus school, the typical elementary classroom presents an emphasis on reading and writing in these two areas and hands-on learning activities or project-based approaches may be diminishing. I don’t see both rigor and a rich curriculum in the science and social studies within many elementary schools; these subject areas appear to be supplemental to the basic english language arts program.
In contrast, I often read how schools feature within their mission statement something that sounds like “fostering a love of learning” or possibly far-reaching commentary about “developing skills to become independent and self-sufficient adults who will succeed and contribute responsibly in a global community”. However, I don’t really see either happening within so many school across the country and most notably, the whole “love of learning” seems to have gone by the wayside in lieu of high stakes assessment tests, an emphasis on common core, and pushing hands-on learning activities out of the classroom.
At the same time, elementary age students today are different than what I personally experienced as a child of the sixties, and definitely, it’s a much different within the classroom today when I compare to what I found within my classroom in the 1980’s. Today’s kids are more sophisticated in light of available information, less compliant to just follow along, guided by interest-based and meaning-centered learning, and often, bring to the classroom, a host of complex issues which may get in the way of learning: ADHD, autism, anxiety, sensory processing disorders, and social language & related skill deficits. So when the foundation of the instructional program leans toward a one-size-fits-all, formulaic, canned program, like what we find within the Common Core, we have more students today disengaged from the learning experience than ever before. As a result, we begin to see the escalation of frustration, disenchantment, and stress. And these qualities are found within the teachers. When we take a look at the students, we begin to see dis-regulation of behaviors, more opposition defiance, and less time on task engagement as a result of a program which fails to align itself with the student’s needs. Furthermore, learning and mastery does not happen for all students as a result.
If we don’t make changes now in the direction we are taking, within curriculum and instruction, and continue to maintain a headstrong desire to follow the course called Common Core, I believe we may be at risk at losing a much larger number of students at the end of the K-12 educational system. For I believe the love of learning, and inspiration to pursue the best within ourselves, is guided by a balanced instructional approach which includes:
Extensive professional development in the latest neuro-brain development research, and it’s application to learning.
Relationship building within the school and classroom, creating a dynamic sense of community as well as supporting the primary connection between students and learning, through relationship.
Slowing down the instructional process by establishing developmentally appropriate learning targets rather than doing everything for everyone, and establishing an approach often referred as “mindfulness” as one of the building blocks in support of creating peace & calm within the schools and minimiing stress.
Supporting a well-rounded learning experience highlighting creativity, arts, and innovation, in addition to STEM like models, and allow interest-based learning to unfold.
Finally, creating classrooms and schools founded upon the notion that every child is a gift waiting to uncover; where our primary role is to support this discovery, in contrast to the outdated educational model of the empty-vessel theory; where we our primary purpose is to fill up each child with necessary skills and knowledge till they graduate.
What do you think? For this is what I see everyday. In fact, just yesterday, I was sitting in an IEP meeting for a high school student, when a new Language Arts teacher continued to express her concerns about the situation as follows, “I don’t see how modifying the program or the curriculum will serve any purpose for he will be tested through the SBAC program on what I am teaching him … the Common Core dictates what we are doing in the classroom everyday! I am accountable for this and so … it’s imperative that I teach my students in preparation for the tests.” I could not have stated this any clearer: Language arts is not an art anymore, it’s an obligation, a requirement, and another hoop our students jump through. Where’s the love in this?
Sure, I am probably biased for I am an education advocate and I receive an endless stream of calls and emails every day from parents related this situation described. However, I am in the schools almost everyday as well, and this what I see. So if you have insights which contradict what I am sharing here, I encourage you to write back and support a running dialog related to your experiences with the Common Core.