The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) have their origins in the late 1980s, when the National Governors Association (NGA) first took control over shaping the future of American educational policy (Shanahan). Within the space of a few years, systems in all fifty states had designed their own sets of standards--though academic rigor in the fields of math, science, reading, and writing was generally uneven. Some states pushed to enact very high standards as early as 1993, with Massachusetts seeing student achievement levels that have become the envy of our national education model.
Things became complicated along the way, as 2002's No Child Left Behind act tied federal funding to educational progress. As some schools (and entire districts) struggled to meet the federal benchmarks, we discovered that "the result wasn't higher achievement, however. Instead of working more diligently to meet these standards, most states simply reduced their already low criteria to keep the federal dollars flowing" (Shanahan 5).
Fast forward twenty years and you'll find that forty-six states and the District of Columbia have now agreed to adopt all or part of the CCSS initiative. While some detractors have called this movement a corporate approach to homogenizing education (and indeed, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is one of the initiative's most ardent supporters), the National Governors Association insists that teachers will keep their autonomy in the classroom:
- Fact: The best understanding of what works in the classroom comes from the teachers who are in them. That's why these standards will establish what students need to learn, but they will not dictate how teachers should teach. Instead, schools and teachers will decide how best to help students reach the standards. (Shanahan 5)
These decisions will have far-reaching impacts for the students we serve at Florida State College at Jacksonville (and our other twenty-seven member institutions across the state). With more than half of our students entering the college in need of some form of remediation (most frequently in math, but also in reading and writing proficiencies as well), I think we will see a reduction in overall student achievement rates as students forgo these important classes that help them build a foundation for success. In a freshman college writing class, for instance, our aim is not to teach punctuation, mechanics, spelling, and grammar. Those are fundamental skills that students should possess prior to admission in order to have success in classes that instead teach rhetorical methods, critical analysis, and professional writing competencies. Educators will not deviate from the traditional curriculum in order to teach materials that were previously offered in ENC 0020 and ENC 0021--a pair of courses on basic writing fundamentals (sentence to paragraph composition, for instance).
FSCJ defines student success as successfully completing a course with a minimum of a 'C' grade or better. I expect, beginning with student groups that we will see in January of 2014, that those aggregate success rates will begin to drop as students opt out of college preparatory classes. The outcome for the individual who does not achieve success at our institution could be devastating, both psychologically and materially. Students that do not pass a course twice must pay out-of-state tuition, more than tripling the cost of attending school.
And this says nothing of their ability to garner financial aid with such poor student progress.
The stakes are high in Florida. In my view, there is more uncertainty in the future about where our educational system is going than at any other time in my eight years here. But what do things look like for the rest of the country and, in all actuality, how prepared are our students for success in higher education?
Educators in American high schools generally believe that they are doing a good job of preparing students for success in higher education, but statistics from the U.S. Department of Education suggest otherwise. In a report filed shortly after the No Child Left Behind legislation went into action, it was found that only "70% of all students in public high schools graduate, and only 32% of all students leave high school qualified to attend four-year colleges" (Greene and Forster).
When those statistics were revisited two years later, the findings were a bit more positive:
- Nationally, the percentage of all students who left high school with the skills and qualifications necessary to attend college increased from 25% in 1991 to 34% in 2002. The finding of flat high school graduation rates and increasing college readiness rates is likely the result of the increased standards and accountability programs over the last decade, which have required students to take more challenging courses required for admission to college without pushing those students to drop out of high school. (Greene and Winters)
Did increasing academic standards ultimately lead to better student preparation? That's a pretty interesting question if you participate in the system (and almost all of us have a stake in this, from taxpayers to parents to the children attempting to earn an education) and are concerned about America's future...
Those figures account for students entering four-year colleges, where admissions standards are more rigorous and access to a higher education becomes more competitive than what we see at an open-admissions institution such as FSCJ. I have not yet worked with freshman as an educator at the University of Central Florida, and so I can't estimate with any accuracy the preparation levels of that student population, but I do think that the students I work with in ENC 1101 at FSCJ generally exceed that level. In other words, I do believe that more than 32% of my students come into my English Composition I classroom with a set of skills that will allow them to earn a 'C' grade or better before moving forward with their educations. Many of my current students, however, are hovering at the borderline for student success. Attendance issues, missed or late assignments, and the proverbial "life issues" always play a large role in determining student success, of course.
Influential universities and colleges are now devoting a considerable number of resources to the problem of coordinating our national K-12 education system with our institutions of higher learning:
But as I personally learn more about the CCSS and the changes being made throughout K-12 and higher education, both locally and nationally, I thought I'd like to solicit further commentary on these topics. The poll below is open to all; of course, it's merely an informal poll. I encourage students and parents to participate with comments, but I'm especially interested in what those working in education think about these developments.
Please don't hesitate to leave comments or thoughts in the forum below based on these (or any other) questions:
- Is adopting the CCSS a good move for the future of American education?
- Are the students that you are working with adequately prepared to experience success in your classrooms, either at the secondary or post-secondary level?
- How can America do a better job of preparing students to "gain full access to our country’s economic, political, and social opportunities"?
Works Cited
"About
the Standards." Common Core State Standards Initiative. corestandards.org.
2012. Web. 8 Oct. 2013.
Caputo, Marc.
"Read Rick Scott's Common Core letters, order. A Jeb Bush dis? Not quite.
Will Legislature
abide? Yes." miamherald.typepad.com. The Miami Herald Blog, 23
Sep. 2013. Web. 7 Oct. 2013.
Ellis, Rehema.
"Massachusetts boosts academic success with tough standards." nbcnews.com.
NBC Nightly News, 7 Oct. 2013. Web. 7 Oct. 2013.
Greene, Jay P.
and Greg Forster. "Public High School Graduation
and College Readiness Rates in the United States." manhattan-institute.org.
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Sep. 2003. Web. 7 Oct. 2013.
Greene, Jay P.
and Marc Winters. "Public High School Graduation
and College Readiness Rates: 1991-2002." manhattan-institute.org.
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Feb. 2005. Web. 7 Oct. 2013.
John W.
Gardner Center for Youth and Their Communities. Stanford Graduate School of
Education. jgc.stanford.edu. 2012. Web. 7 Oct. 2013.
Lawrence,
Julia. "Gap Between Perception and Reality in College Readiness Remains
Wide." educationnews.org. Education News, 23 May 2013. Web. 7
Oct. 2013.
Ordway,
Denise-Marie. "Florida colleges to drop remedial classes for
thousands." orlandosentinal.com. The Orlando Sentinal, 3 Jun.
2013. Web. 7 Oct. 2013.
Strauss,
Valerie. "Why I Oppose Common Core standards: Ravitch." washingtonpost.com.
The Washington Post: The Answer Sheet, 26 Feb. 2013. Web. 7 Oct. 2013.
10 comments:
I'm all for Common Core State Standards. If we want the students in this nation to be prepared for the future it only makes sense that we set a common bar as a minimum. Anything less is doing a disservice to these young students. The question I still have: In what way is Federal funding tied to the CCSS?
If a certain performance level is required to attain funding, then I can see this system fundamentally failing. Areas with traditionally lower standards could in theory continue to stay below the bar and slip further due to lack of funding.
Hey Jason,
Good to hear from you! I tend to agree with your view here in theory (CCSS definitely seems like a noble goal), but your question raises the political hot potato that really hasn't been addressed in full yet: federal funding and the CCSS.
As is the case with any sweeping policy implementation, there will be tinkering along the way. Here is a pretty good discussion of some of the early interpretations of the CCSS effects on the educational landscape:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/06/18/the-common-cores-fundamental-trouble/
Here is an excerpt of that piece:
For starters, the misnamed “Common Core State Standards” are not state standards. They’re national standards, created by Gates-funded consultants for the National Governors Association (NGA). They were designed, in part, to circumvent federal restrictions on the adoption of a national curriculum, hence the insertion of the word “state” in the brand name. States were coerced into adopting the Common Core by requirements attached to the federal Race to the Top grants and, later, the No Child Left Behind waivers. (This is one reason many conservative groups opposed to any federal role in education policy oppose the Common Core.)
So there has already been some discussion of an established connection between federal dollars and these standards. I believe that Oregon went pretty hard in securing those Race to the Top grant dollars, if I'm not mistaken.
Academic rigor is vital to the quality of our system, and I think education can go a long way toward re-establishing a solid American middle class. I'm intrigued by where this is going, and will be watching intently on how it will impact Lyla beginning just next year (can you believe how quickly time flies?)...
Hi Dan,
I appreciate the post, as this is a big topic in Oregon education. It seems like there are too many kids falling through the cracks. A 70% graduation rate is unacceptable! Maybe it's time for a shake-up in policy of this nature.
I would be interested to hear how Florida designs it's approach, and then compare results with CCSS states. With our little ones around the same age as Lyla, we will be dealing with these decisions for years.
Scott N.
Hey, Scott! Good to hear from you.
We're a little bit rudderless right now out here. The leader of the state's board of education recently resigned under scandal, and our governor can't seem to articulate a specific vision about what our educational identity should be.
So, in the interim, we test like crazy (ours is the FCAT) and watch our completion rates plummet in the public schools.
But I'll post an update when we figure out a little bit more what the "Florida-centric" approach will be...
Dan,
As you know, I work with both high school and collegiate populations as a dual enrollment teacher for SLS classes. I think, generally, that this initiative will be positive. I see Ravicth's side and I empathize with her concerns (I like a lot of what the Gates foundation is pushing, but certainly not all of it), but I think the "willy-nilly" approach to district standards has hurt our students. Even here in Duval County you can see huge variances in what they know and how they are taught.
I like the MBTI personality type test to get a better handle on learning styles, then grouping students according to those styles. I think we should focus on that task--setting these kids up for success--long before we even think about the curriculum. Once we take care of that, we can focus on the bigger picture.
But I like the idea of elevating standards. If we do it appropriately, and at all levels, perhaps we can restore some of the deficits we've seen in student performance levels in the last few decades.
Nice post, and thanks for sharing.
Roger
Hey, Roger!
Nice to hear from you! I remember discussing the MBTI test with you, and I agree that there are some tangible benefits to conducting such an assessment.
I'm not sure how much longer you will be working with both student populations, but it will be interesting to see what we do here in Florida and how this shakes out on the national stage. That piece in the post by NBC News gives me some hope, but that was a twenty-year process!
Take care, and drop by the office when time permits!
Dan, great insight, thanks for raising the topic.
I think our country should have a common set of educational standards for what is expected to be taught and learned in K-12 to ensure students are prepared for college or careers upon high school graduation. However, just as important as the standards themselves is the path we take to achieve them. The corestandards.org site explains that "The Common Core State Standards were written by building on the best and highest state standards in existence in the U.S., examining the expectations of other high performing countries around the world, and careful study of the research and literature available on what students need to know and be able to do to be successful in college and careers. No state in the country was asked to lower their expectations for their students in adopting the Common Core." Meanwhile, the testing generated from the No Child Left Behind initiative revealed significant discrepancies in student (and educational system) performance across the country.
Since the CCSS is designed from the best and highest state standards, there may be minimal change to the current educational processes and expectations in high performing states like Massachusetts, however, other states will be asked to adhere to a much higher standard. We need to ensure that we have a thoughtful bridge plan to help under performing schools, districts or states transition from their current state to desired state without threat to their funding plan.
Thanks,
Dan A.
Hey, Dan! Good to hear from you! Hope all is well with the family (and I think our kids will be dealing with these guidelines in Oregon, to be sure).
Your points (and Jason's) are really well taken. Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut...I don't think they'll see huge growing pains. I think Oregon will, though. These standards are pretty tough, and Oregon isn't in the top half of aggregate testing in fields like math and science.
I have no clue what we'll be doing in Florida. DCPS, where Jeanne works, spent tens of thousands of dollars over the summer training teachers on the common core, then our governor decided to go the opposite direction. We had a bridge, but then we just nuked it.
Now, who knows what we'll do?
I like the idea of tough national standards, and I actually like the idea of a literary canon. It's good to think about all students having a basic understanding of a core group of texts. But we'll need to account for academic flexibility, fund all districts at an appropriate level, and create testing instruments that effectively measure our progress.
I almost jumped at that Demaryius Thomas trade. Dude is talented, but I like Bernard too much right now!
Take care,
Dan
DP, after seeing some additional material on the Common Core Standards, I feel that we've been mislead on what the standards entail. They do not appear to be built upon the best and highest standards in the states or abroad. Instead, at least in the two math examples that I saw, they appear to be irrational and time consuming methods of problem solving. In one case, a mother from Arkansas raised concerns about the practices and provided an impressive example. In another case, a father expressed difficulty solving one of his children's math problems in the manner instructed. In both cases, simpler techniques that were taught when I was in school appeared to be not only passed over, but also deemed incorrect for solving the problems. Both examples are linked below.
Thanks,
Dan A.
Looks like the URL's didn't post... Here they are in free text.
http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/common-core-parent-facebook-post-indiana-school-181841158.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZEGijN_8R0
Post a Comment