I have in general been a fan of the movement toward national standards. There is obvious sense in it: there is no such thing as Georgia algebra or Oregon reading. We are one (mobile) country, and local control of curriculum and assessment has led to a hodge-podge of courses and tests that have little relation to what students need once they leave high school.
In addition, there are the benefits of economy of scale. Already countless products, tech tools, and services have grown up in support of the Common Core, and that array of resources will only grow exponentially. It will also permit many more small product and service providers to find a niche than can happen in a non-system of 50 states doing different things.
The problem of allowing each state to do things its way has resulted in states low-balling expectations for kids on their tests. (Readers are no doubt aware of the fallout in Florida this year as the FCAT tries to move toward a saner cut score in the face of pushback from people who don’t get why the scores are lower.) We worked in Mississippi for 2 years and were stunned at how bad many of the schools were. No surprise, really, given the fact that it is dead last in the US on NAEP. But then look at their test results: they claim that over 65 percent of their 8th grade ELA students are “proficient” or “advanced” in reading based on state tests. Huh? By NAEP results only about 21% of MS 8th grade students are competent. A terrible scam has been going on for decades where kids and their parents are led to believe that graduates are college and workplace ready when they are not – simply because no one has had the guts to set a valid passing score.
So, yes, let’s make the K-12 system more seamless and more aligned with college and workplace readiness. Yes, let’s greatly expand available resources to support teachers to achieve these standards.
But…
But…
I keep asking myself this question: why is there only one set of graduation requirements in this modern world? Why can’t kids major in a favored area in middle and high school? Where are our plumbers and carpenters going to come from? Why can’t there be many different kinds of diplomas, as there used to be? (Common standards have wiped out many fine voc. Tech. programs in New York once the varied diplomas were abolished in the name of standards a few years ago). How will budding artists and musicians be fully supported in school? Given that so few people use higher mathematics in their jobs, why will we “fail” the weak math students who would otherwise be highly competent and productive members of society?
I wrote here about the idea of a different kind of high school diploma, one designed backward from adult life. I have little hope that such a diploma will come to pass. But it is certainly feasible – and desirable, as I am arguing – that we have a wider array of academic and career options for older kids than we now do in this wildly diverse world of ours.
Take my older son: he is finishing up at Musician’s Institute after dropping out of a fine liberal arts college. He is taking courses in the physics of sound and electrical engineering, business and marketing bands, and voice lessons. Why aren’t such options available to younger students? Why do we still assume – in a world of 16-year-olds doing Internet start-ups and the Glee project – that the liberal arts college track is what all students should do?
This is no pipe dream. When I started teaching in the early 1970’s, this was the world we worked in as teachers. There were few required courses. Most distribution requirements in our school in English, for example, could be met by courses such as Satire, Death & Dying, Existentialism, and Film; there was no bland English 9, English 10, etc. Laugh if you will: we produced really interesting and competent students, far more imaginative than many of today’s compliant high-schoolers – and they liked school because there were lots of great options.
Even more extraordinary: in the same school, when I was a student in 1967, I was able to take an entire term off from going to classes to pursue an independent study. I did mine on the history of rock n roll; using 2 reel-to reel tape decks (and a lot of hiss) I produced a multi-layered documentary that honored my deepest passion as a student.
Here’s the irony: high school bears NO relationship to college anyway. Look at schedules: most kids only go to class a few hours a day, and can take classes they like in college. Indeed my daughter, headed to Stony Brook next week, has her first class of the day every day at 4pm!! (As an athlete, her schedule was built to accommodate soccer). And she is finally able to take courses in meteorology and sociology after a long slog through courses she hated. Very little in high school actually prepares you for the freedom of college: we over-schedule and over-scaffold everything. My other son’s three former room-mates in two years all dropped out of Ursinus or were asked to leave because they couldn’t handle time-management. My kids all had more executive control of their learning in Montessori pre-school than they did as high schoolers. This is ‘readiness’???
In short: just because we will be living in a world of academic standards does not mean that we should be closing off options for kids or making their lives more grim and uniform. There are painful unintended consequences to national standards, and it behooves policy-makers and school-people to pay close attention to the most basic question of all: what approach to goals and programs will serve all students, not just those of a certain bent?
PS: Coincidentally, an interesting post by Catherine Gewertz in Ed Week on new players in the national readiness test game: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2012/07/college_and_career_readiness_t.html
PPS: Check out this provocative post by Yong Zhao on the lack of correlation between high international test scores and entrepreneurialism: http://zhaolearning.com/2012/06/06/test-scores-vs-entrepreneurship-pisa-timss-and-confidence/
PPPS: Fantastic video on student-run schooling for a semester in a MASS HS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTmH1wS2NJY
Finally: I have been taken to task in a few tweets for conflating standards and curriculum here. I know the difference. My point here was the unintended consequences of standards: everywhere at the local level, people are confusing standards with standardization (something I argued 20 years ago here) and I should have clarified that point to avoid the confusion. Indeed, central to our training for common core is to remind people over and over that standards ≠ curriculum, either in terms of course design or course sequence. I plan to address this issue soon in another post.
Categories:
Tags:
22 Responses
Thanks, Grant. Living in Canada, I have been looking at the ‘mass products’ and ‘training opportunities’ that seem to blossom [? word choice] every day. How will they help the schools we speak of that are at the bottom? How will they help teachers become more competent? I have not been able to find an answer to that in reading these materials.
As I also started teaching in the 70s, I do remember the days when we designed courses to meet the interests of our students…mine included ‘Science Fiction: Where’s the Science?’ among others team taught with a science teacher. We know why they worked – students who wanted to learn – teachers who were excited about the concepts.
I guess, I just have more than a ‘nagging doubt’ that the Standards movement is going to make a difference. Thanks for the Blog.
Marcy
Liked your thoughts, Marcy. Your last comment about “students who wanted to learn” and “teachers who were excited about the concepts” makes me think that these two things are different in today’s schools. We can’t use the lack of interest or excitement in our students and teachers as the problem. But we do have to deal with both in our schools today which makes the teaching and learning more difficult.
A powerful post- thank you for your thoughts!
Always A Lesson
Seems to me that you have just cogently argued for a serious reconsideration of what national standards should mean and what subjects should be standardized. Since high stakes tests are being developed around these standards, the cry has been that we need standards for every subject we might possibly want to teach, so we can rate their teachers (using this junk science). All those exciting and worthwhile activities you report on as part of the 70’s are in danger of disappearing under the standards movement. I see it happening in my home district which had prided itself on its progressive approach to education. With state test scores placing the district in the same class as elite private schools, the district is moving toward testing their way to even greater heights. What a joke!
While I, like you, see the benefits of “economies of scale” and shared language regarding the Common Core standards, I often question the entire notion of a “standard.” When you go to the new car lot or department store, do you dream of walking away with a “standard car” or “standard washing machine?” Of course not. You want individualized upgrades that appeal specifically to YOU, not a version designed for the masses. How can we allow students to personalize their learning if standardization is our end goal? Perhaps we need to find ways to make the phrase “flexible rigor” more than an oxymoron. Thanks for the great post!
Good point, Kristen, but I think you are using the term in a slightly different way than I am. I want any car or doctor to be certified as up to standard. That is necessary, but not sufficient. Right now graduates of our school are not certifiably ready for adult work in too many cases – the remediation rate of 35% in NJ, for example, is shockingly bad (since these are all ‘successful’ graduates of NJ schools). That’s why I think some outside measure – IB, AP, etc. – will always be needed to help local people calibrate internal expectations.
During my last two years of school in England in the 1970’s I was able to drop math and study book keeping. Along with my shorthand and typing (manual typewriter) and economics I was able at age 16 to secure a clerical job with a law firm. I had to take algebra for the first time in my life at age 55 in order to satisfy a degree requirement in the U.S. I oftern wonder how I reached 55 without knowing the ‘value of y’, I still don’t, but my clerical skills have kept my head above water a few times over the years
Having never been a fan of a single national standard or national exam or national curriculum in the first place, I am pleased to see the blog open up the idea of more varied options for students. One broad and fixed national educational anything implies that all kids are essentially after the same thing — going after it the same way — and are the same in the first place. State-to-state variations present their own problems: merely a national standard on a 1/50 dimension.
So, variety in pathways immediately offers more hope than despair, despite the problems inherent. Who gets to choose the paths? What are the paths? What is the accountability about? All these issues and more would be real. But these to me are “good problems” compared to the rigidity of one immense national behemoth of a system for learning input-and-output, which dulls the mind and kills the imagination.
The hope of variety resides in choice: can I try humanities? Science? Engineering? Creative writing? Art? Psychology? Teaching? In short – can I follow more of a college model starting perhaps at the middle school level? Retool the entire system? It would be a mammoth effort. But within five years we would have more motivated and engaged students, more excited and committed teachers, and a nation actually involved in dynamic education of its young citizenry.
Could it cost a billion dollars? Who knows. Right now, what we’re doing is costing us a billion times a billion in lost resources, lost minds, and lost opportunity. More choice, more innovation, and more student learning as a result of educational openness. What a thought!
As a college professor of the same generation (I graduated from high school in 1971), I find myself in agreement with two of your points here: common standards have become necessary to prevent the rapid erosion of standards in places like Mississippi and teachers had the freedom to create somewhat more interesting high school classes back then (though few actually did).
I like the idea of returning to multiple high school degrees—the current college-for-everyone, one-size-fits-all emphasis ends up being unsuitable for most kids, as neither the advanced kids nor those who need vocational training get what they need.
I’m not so sure I agree with all your points in A Diploma Worth Having, though.
I think that your training at St. Johns makes you discount the value of modern scientific education too much. Learning physics from Newton sounds cool, but it requires an awful lot of effort to end up over 300 years out of date. Physics teachers are probably doing more that any other group in secondary education to improve the way students are taught based on examination of the results of different teaching approaches, rather than the fads of the education schools.
I’m also not convinced that teaching psychology in school will have any of the effects you desire—there is certainly no evidence that pysch majors in college are any more emotionally stable or able to handle interpersonal problems than students who study no psychology. Your call for instruction in parenting is probably good, though unlikely to get past political censors in most of the US.
I think you miss the point of St. John’s and overestimate the understanding of current physics students (as suggested endlessly by the physics tests of misconceptions). It wasn’t just cool to learn that way – it gave me a laser-sharp set of analytical tools for determining big ideas and watching them play out over time. When I first read Einstein’s thought experiment on speed of light trains, I immediately thought – of course: he’s exploring the weakness in newton. Same with studying Lobachevskian geometry: I know more than almost all students of math how axiomatic thinking works, how Euclid’s model was overthrown as a source of epistemology (though people still talk as if it were valid), and how the axioms paradoxically come later than the theorems (in the sense that we determine the logical grounds later to buttress the proofs we want to build upon). That’s what St John’s gave me, so it was not a light survey of an out of date past at all. You need to explore it further. (Yes, I am a bit defensive on this point because it is a very common mistake made by outsiders who don’t get that these texts are neither sacred nor treated as truth.)
The standards movement will make a difference, but not in the ways that I think we will want. Perhaps we will eventually end up standards so that some end up Alphas, some Betas, some Epsilons, and some Gammas (and throw in some soma, probably delivered via an app on a phone). I recommend watching the movie “Schooling the World.” Much of it applies to the 1st world as well.
[…] Grant Wiggins, renowned for his work with Jay McTighe in UbD, articulates some concerns about Common Core State Standards. Some of his concerns, though, seem less about Common Core and more about the chasm of disconnect between high school and college and, I would assert, between college and career. We have a long way to go. […]
Thank you for sharing these thoughts and recognizing some strengths and weaknesses of the CCSS.
As a parent of a child with autism, I find that his narrowly focused classes ONLY focus on those students that are struggling. His entire class must learn content aimed at the students who struggle. As a mere 4th grader he is questioning the purpose and value of education in such an industrial format. The CCSS will place all students on a single highway to a diploma, or force them off the road. He can neither pass those that are needing a slower pace, nor able to access extra help if he is struggling because he ‘passed’ screening tests. He has entered an educational Twilight Zone.
As an educator for the last 20 years, our society seems to focus on the teacher as an industrial processor (especially now with so much DI and narrow focus on intervention curriculum), and not on students needing to be ready to learn. We must expand our vision and purpose as a society.
Parents need support on how to send a child ready to learn (please, no more late night movies for 8 year olds…. etc). A child that is tired, hungry for healthy food, and/or suffering through trauma at home is not able to access learning. Modern brain research clearly demonstrates how such trauma prevents the brain from retaining information and interacting with new content.
A student is NOT a product. They are shaped by their home experiences as well as the quality of their education. Parenting responsibility must be brought into the equation as we measure the success or failures of schools.
Please continue your message, talk to the politicians and the others that shape policy. Please help bring sanity into our Common Core ‘system’. Our students need options and choices that allow them to become part of our adult society in an area that they are best interested and motivated.
Grant, your thoughts on the loss of opportunities in high school creates apathy and disinterest for our students. As a supporter of the arts, I am particularly concerned about the inability for many students to take electives in order to successfully pass high level math and science required courses for graduation. For many students, the courses they have success in, and are the reason they come to school, such as choir, band, technology and career classes, are crowded out by the required courses. When high school reform was studied and enacted in Michigan in 2006, the three areas of focus were Rigor, Relevance and Relationships. Schools all over the state jumped on increased rigor. However, revelance and relationships were largely ignored. Relevance for learning is critical for students and feeling connected with teachers and their peers is essential.
Grant,
Years ago we worked together in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana on developing middle school science curriculum. After many years of successful teaching in such a effective school district using UbD, I decided to continue my formal education which lead me to the earning a Ph.D. in secondary education, specifically science literacy. Today, I teach and prepare future secondary education teachers and I implement the things I learned from UbD.
Thank you for sharing your perspective of National Standards, and you perspective on Mississippi’s failure. I was born in Mississippi and much of my family still lives in South Mississippi. But I was a lucky little girl. My father was military and I gained quite an extensive range of educational experiences. During my K-12 years, I attended DOD schools as well as international schools and schools in Florida and Mississippi. My experiences were diverse and rich. They provided me with a very unique but clear vision of effective teaching and learning.
In 2006, I returned to Mississippi after 21 years of living in St. Tammany Parish with hopes of helping the children of Mississippi. While I understand the cultural problems and the resistance to change, I’m hoping I can make even a small difference. Any advice that you may be able to offer is much appreciated.
Smiles,
Bridgette
We recall our work in St. Tammany fondly – and Margo of course now works for us as a great consultant. Good for you for keeping the faith!!
Dr. Wiggins, you are recalling for us some of the best qualities of good schools. Having a good school seems to be getting buried under the weight of accountability to a single way of doing things.
In the wave of individual accountability, we have set aside much of what we know about high-performing teams (whether in Education, Business, or other venues), strong school communities, a professional workplace culture, and the nurturing of multiple intelligences.
While it’s hard to argue with the goal of “a great teacher in every classroom” — this is certainly on par with Motherhood and Apple Pie — good schools know how to emphasize community, collective responsibility, diverse ways of doing things, and creating a climate in which students and teachers alike look forward to being there.
It does not seem that “all the accountability in the world” has gotten us consistently closer to good schools. In some ways we have gained, but in others, we have reversed progress, especially in ways you pointed out, but also in crafting workplaces where good teachers don’t just want to drop in for a couple of years, but want to stay and make careers.
If I am running a school, or placing my own children in a school (the ultimate test, I think!) I don’t need a consistently “great teacher” in every classroom. First of all, I’m not going to get one in every classroom. Just as I don’t have greatness in every doctor’s office, every baseball position, or every-anything-else in my circles of life, including ourselves. I want diverse, good, decent, capable people with varied strengths, pulling together as a team and a community, and doing whatever it takes to build a culture of learning and imagination among the students and a receptive atmosphere for parents.
It’s not about outsourcing our standard-setting to any one national standard. As you point out, national standards do have their place, but they are being mistaken for the keys to a good school. This inflated trust accountability in has now extended to yet a better mousetrap: this time for a national standard for licensing teachers — with the implementation outsourced to a prominent educational publisher!
Let’s not confuse the desirability of appropriate national standards, that do have a place in school improvement, with making good schools. I wish everyone responsibile for education policy would read your posting now — and read it again on a regular basis — along with some of the other outstanding literature about good schools, good workplaces, multiple intelligences, and high performing teams. There’s fabulous stuff on our bookshelves, in our experiences, and in our hearts, that’s getting squashed while we’re busy holding everyone accountable.
You nailed it – this is about safeguarding really good (and often idiosyncratic good) schools, not just ‘standards’. I had the good fortune to attend some of the finest schools in the country, but the Standards movement isn’t taking its cues from such models. That leads inexorably to mere uniformity – or, as I put it in an article title 20 years ago, I’m for Standards, not Standardization.
Great posting Grant. I’d propose we adopt the goal of training students to think at whatever level they feel will allow them to navigate the life they choose. If it doesn’t work out, they can come back for another try.
As someone who “did” school in the 70s too, the middle years were simply a waste of time. In fact they were damaging and defeating and that’s all the taste of “standards” I’ll ever endure again. Standards are for meat and concrete mixes in bags. For humans? People have standards or they don’t and outsourcing something as fundamental as your personal values just doesn’t work.
Can someone tell me what standards are for? If we value something we should attempt to pass it on. We should pay what it costs and monitor what we get rather than fall back on trust in the experts who helped all of get in the mess we are all in right now. Maybe the first standard would a mandatory adult ed course in social engagement? Why leave something we know is faltering to another generation of bad decisions when the potential and talent is all around us?
No, there’s a place for standards understood as certifiably competent in intellectual work. That’s what we do in college admissions, so why not worry about readiness? As I noted above, the remediation rate in most states is appalling – there is too big a disconnect between schools and college/modern workplace. So, let’s attend to that. But from there we should not fall into the trap of defining standards as mere standardization and that’s the mistake we make over and over in education.
Agree that standards have to be in line with desired competencies. At the community college where I’m now working the successful courses for the trades attempt to cover a few vital principals and then let the students go out into the field to find out for themselves what’s important. We’re w0orking on a course right now using two subject matter experts, one experienced teacher who hasn’t been in the trades for years and one currently working. Interesting mix of perspectives on not just what specific skills that are needed combined with what principals are important to understand.
What I hear from employers is “job ready” in many trades now involves the rookies being less versed in specific skills and more able to observe and analyse. These are difficult to train for in a classroom setting and best learned on-site where you can mix with accomplished practitioners. When the students come back for labs they have a sense of what they should learn without anyone having to promt them. Most of becoming a competent practioner just can’t be replicated by “training” in a class.
My school experience was of an imaginary world structured to serve the interests of that world. Never did figure out what the purpose the was for all that desk time beyond learning to sit still.
Enjoyed your post on curriculum too. Add “Simulation and its Discontents” by Sherry Turkle to the reading list. Good discussion on the limits of technology.
Insightful…Reflective…Thoughtful, as always.
Making others ‘think’ is the true meaning of ‘teaching’…. you do that well.