One of the big concerns that I have about Common Core is that they are not being implemented in the way that they were intended. Instead they are being layered on to existing systems already in place, in order to speed implementation and save time and money. What results is a messy almalgam that doesn’t serve our students.

Despite all this, I remain hopeful that Common Core could be a real opportunity to do some things better than is currently being done. Another post to come on that. 🙂

I think there are many factors that have come into play at the local, state, and national level not the least of which is that the people who would have to implement curricula based on the Common Core did not/do not believe change was needed. I can also tell you that my experience with a state’s work around the Common Core Standards left me shaking my head and convinced that there would be absolutely no positive impact on curricula, teaching, assessment, or learning. Those in charge of the work from Pennsylvania Dept. of Ed. seemed to have one goal – make the CC Standards fit the already existing PA Standards so the assessments that have already been created (at a HUGE expense) could be maintained. So, a “research study” was done (I was part of this for mathematics) to examine the alignment between the current PA Standards and the CC. The person who led the study, coincidentally, is the same person now leading the study for new teacher/principal evaluation model.

It was very clear to those of us who worked on the mathematics study that there were significant differences between the Common Core and the PA Standards. Amazingly, though, when all was said and done, the PA Dept. of Ed. reported that the alignment was very strong. The very poorly constructed assessments – including the most recently created ‘Keystone’ exams – will be kept. The assessments in Pennsylvania have been developed based on what PA calls the “anchors” – very discrete, often trivial, pieces of content. The “roll-out” for the Common Core was supposed to be done by the regional Intermediate Unit personnel – often times people who have gotten out of the classroom and districts because of their ineffectiveness or a desire to ‘escape’ the type of work at the school level. As far as what was done at the school/district level – I think you end up with a product that reflects the ability of those in the district. In our case, that thinking often starts and ends at the knowledge/fact level.

To be honest, I am not sold on the Common Core standards for mathematics. Outside the standards for mathematical practice, I think there is too much emphasis on traditional algorithms and procedural content and a lack of understanding of child development. I just do not think we will see any positive changes until the types of assessments we use change. I love Tony Wagner’s perspectives on this and have looked at the CWRA assessment he mentions. For all the time, effort, and discussion that have gone on concerning the Common Core I see little impact. But then, there is so much other “noise” in the world of public education I do not know that they had a chance!

It seems there is a much greater desire to measure the ‘effectiveness’ of teachers and principals to show how terrible so many are & to allow business experts to come in and ‘fix’ all that is wrong with education. I am the first to say there are significant issues that need to be addressed in education, but in all honesty, I do not see common standards, value added evaluation models, or the takeover of public education as fixes. I listened to a presentation sponsored by Scholastic in which Tony Wagner and M. Chen from Edutopia talked about Learning & Instruction in the 21st century. I think they had some solid thoughts about what is needed and what is possible!