There’s a Lot to Like about Common Core

There’s a Lot to Like about Common Core

So much has been said and written about the Common Core State Standards (CCSS); and, as with any new and controversial idea, the public is left with the task of separating the truth from the hype -- on both sides.  I like the Common Core, however.  I’ve ‘met’ the standards, and there isn’t one I don’t like.  I contend that the best of our country’s teachers have been teaching common-core-style for years.   

To illustrate, I picked two examples, somewhat randomly, from the English Language Arts CCSS.  Meet “Read closely to make logical inferences” and “Describe the logical connection between particular sentences and paragraphs in a text.”   I wouldn’t mind going to work with either one because they are more authentic and more demanding than some common educational practices in the recent past. 

Let me explain.  As the English Department Chair and a strong curriculum leader in my past, I cringed when I saw students taking reading quizzes.  ‘Where does Of Mice and Men take place?’ ‘List the main characters in Romeo and Juliet who are dead at the end of the play?’ ‘In Cather in the Rye, why does Holden go to New York?’  Questions of this nature measure either compliance or memory, not comprehension.  The students have either read (or at least read the Cliff Notes) … or they haven’t.  They either remember the intricate details or they don’t.  

The Common Core State Standards for Language Arts demonstrate to me just how far we have come from a “Trivial Pursuit” style of learning in this new century.  I also like the CCSS’ potential to affect changes in instruction – particularly to change the level and depth of the deeper questions we ask.

One argument against Common Core states that the emphasis on close reading strips children of the joy inherent in reading.  Studying the text ruins the experience.  The opponents ask if it isn’t important to help children develop a love of reading … and not just read for information or to evaluate, critique, and compare?’  The ‘just’ is my emphasis because the argument isn’t either/or –either you read closely or you enjoy what you read. 

Let’s look at the first CCSS above and consider “Jack and the Beanstalk,” a story with which most people have some familiarity. Typically, a teacher might want to assess whether or not students comprehended the story: ‘What did Jack get when he traded the cow?’ (Magic beans.)  ‘What did Jack find at the top of the giant beanstalk?’ (The ogre. ‘What is an ogre?’ might be a logical follow-up question.)  ‘What was the first thing Jack stole?’ (A golden egg.)  ‘The second thing?’ (The hen that laid a golden egg every day?) ‘The third thing?’ (The golden harp.)  And so on.

Common Core, however, expects teachers to change their style of questioning and pursue concepts which are not obvious or can’t be found through skimming the text -- concepts which require close-reading.  These questions require kids to both reread and to read between the lines.  A good Common Core question asks, “If Jack already has the hen that lays a golden egg each day, why does he go up the beanstalk for the harp?”  I would contend that as a young reader I would have been much more fascinated by the ‘why?’ than the ‘what?’  Asking me to reread and go back to the earlier pieces of the story for a closer look at Jack would not have ruined it for me.  It would have given it ‘dimension.’

Another argument against common core is that it is too often expects students to fill in the missing pieces when a text is not explicit. ‘How can they do that?’ critics complain.  Kids can’t know what isn’t there.  I once read this example about building bridges in America and it resonated with me.  The first paragraph told about building the Brooklyn Bridge, a suspension bridge, across a large expanse of water, with its pylons under water.  Another bridge crossed the very expansive Mississippi River; and another, ridiculously high in the air, crossed the Rio Grande.  Each paragraph gave details about how the bridges were built.   

In the second CCSS above, we see that excellent readers sometimes need to connect a series of ideas to arrive at the author’s purpose.  In this example, in each case, the bridge was built despite the difficulties each unique setting presented.  So, the author’s purpose was not “to show how hard it is to build bridges” but “to show how American ingenuity overcame obstacles to get the job done.”  There’s a subtle, but important difference.  It’s our job to make sure our children have opportunities to talk about and refine their conclusions. 

Because I’m in the business, I frequently read and think about the CCSS, which expect kids to think deeply and problem-solve.  I know the standards are challenging, for students and teachers.  But there isn’t one I would dismiss as nonsense. 

[If you would like to read the CCSS yourself, click HERE.]

Budget Season is in Full Swing

Budget Season is in Full Swing

To date, this year's budget season has been both challenging ... and rewarding.  The challenges have been coming quickly to grips with the existing line items, from personnel to paper clips, and understanding the needs behind any new requests.  The rewards have been realizing how caring and supportive of staff and children the Board and the Litchfield community have always been.  I appreciate that the community wants to be both conservative with spending and generous in support of kids' needs.  The administrators and Central Office staff have been thoughtful.  I ask a million question, all of them beginning with 'why?' and they are still thoughtful.

The budget supports current staffing and benefits (77% of the budget) and fixed costs such as utilities and transportation (13%).  The remaining 10% supports programming, curriculum, materials, and supplies.  In addition to meeting our contractual obligations, here are the three priorities of the 2015-2016 budget: 

First, a new Math curriculum for grades K - 5.  

We are investigating a Common Core aligned program that is rich in differentiation materials and teacher and parent resources.  Common Core is not the demon so many groups paint it to be.  It is a rigorous set of standards that expect hands-on learning, complex problem-solving, and communication of ideas.  As with any new change, it's what you do with it that counts.  Litchfield’s previous math program was aligned to the requirements of the old CMT with 26 different content strands each year.  We’ve come to call that approach ‘a mile wide and an inch deep.’   The new Common Core State Standards require far fewer concepts per year and a much deeper level of understanding.  The new requirements also add ‘math practices’ to the core content expecting teachers and students to change their old strategies and incorporate more hands-on problem-solving, more conversation about how and why an answer is right, and greater fluency and facility with number sense.  The math practices expect students to persevere if a multi-step problem is difficult.

Second, the technology to support a new Math Curriculum.  

Any math program worth our investment will support this new Common Core math content and a student-centered instructional approach.  Any worthwhile program will also offer rich technology supports such as pre- and post- assessments, online skills work with opportunities for immediate feedback, teacher resources for differentiation at all levels, SmartBoard-ready lessons, and online parent supports.   We’re looking at programs which offer computer-adaptive activities that look like games, but are individualized to each student’s ability.  They repeat skills the child is struggling with until they are mastered… or escalate the skills until a child is being challenged.  The data is readily available to teachers and paraprofessionals.  We've looked at one program which when parents scan their child's homework from a device, an instructive video opens re-teaching the lesson.  The same videos are available through online links.

Finally, retaining the class sizes at the elementary schools and the diverse program offerings at the high school. 

At the elementary schools, class sizes average at or below 20.  Caseloads in Special Education are also very manageable at about 12 - 15.  We are expanding pre-school for 3’s and 4’s, but keeping classes at or below 12. 

In a small high school such as Litchfield’s, class sizes are much more variable.  Several factors play with simple arithmetic:  number of students who elect a class, weighted classes (AP, Honors, and Academic); heavily-enrolled core classes (band and chorus), and specialty courses with only one section, called singletons (AP classes, Tech-Ed, World Languages, art).   

This is easier to see by example.  Imagine this year’s junior class, for example, with 84 students.  Simple division would yield four English classes with 21 students each.   But, there may be only 12 juniors who elect AP Language and Composition and 48 students who want Honors English.  The schedule then becomes further complicated when, of the 48 students taking Honors English, 20 are in Band and cannot take English during that particular Band block.  If 14 of the 20 Honors/Band students are also taking AP US History, another singleton class, an extra section of English may now be needed to cover the inflexibilities caused by selecting these three classes in combination.  Litchfield is committed to providing programming which does not cause a junior to choose between AP US History and Band.  We do the best we possibly can in honoring students’ individual program needs through flexible scheduling and recently through the flexible (asynchronous) scheduling of a few virtual high school courses.

The Board of Education budget is understandably a collection of static numbers with a bottom line.  But, more poetically, it is the foundation on which we are building our future through the education of our children.  So side-by-side with our analysis of the figures, we should remember our accomplishments throughout the district and celebrate our children and teachers at work.  Ours IS a people business, and this budget continues Litchfield’s tradition of supporting the individual growth and development of every child.  Simply put, it’s what’s best for kids.

To view the budget presentation in easy-to-read slides, click HERE.