by Andrew Foster
Twitter @abfosEd
Today, we introduce a new columnist, Andrew Foster, who will write mostly about the Math part of the Common Core State Standards. Look for his columns on Wednesdays.
Through personal experience and the challenges of life in the classroom, I’ve come to the not-so-startling conclusion that education is inevitably changing. We know from science and psychology that change is not easy for us, and in education it may be even more difficult because we are so emotionally invested in our work. In my first blog post here (Hello, Blogosphere!) I’d like to share some thoughts about my current philosophical approach to the CCSS. Maybe these musings will start a conversation that can be developed in future posts. And maybe my ideas and outlook will change as we continue this journey of Common Core implementation.
In education generally, and specifically when big change comes our way (think CCSS education reform here), it can be so easy to throw our hands in the air, vent and fume about the “bigwigs,” and console ourselves with prescriptions for foolproof improvement, “If I were in charge.”
But those reactions victimize us. Those reactions make us small, incapable, and ineffective in our own eyes. I prefer to see educators in a different role, as technicians in a public laboratory with an all-important goal product: The Future.
All of the money, politics, science, and emotion that get wrapped up in education is for good reason. Our product and the effect of our product will be long-lasting and decisive. An educated citizenry — the foundation of a prosperous and democratic society — is universally desirable, so I prefer to assign good faith motives to most (if not all) those involved in education decision-making.
The role of the educator, then, is to engage completely with the goals, processes, and reforms that are shaping public education so our voice will be heard as an expert, someone knowledgeable in both theory and practice, and willing to conduct the necessary labor and testing to prove that current trends are effective or not, reasonable or draconian, progressive or regressive. When it comes to education policy and reform, we must be ready to make our voice heard, but not in the “Hear me roar!” disgruntled and disgusted way (save that for the collective bargaining negotiations!). Rather, our voice must be heard as a voice of experience and reason, bringing solutions to the table to advance ideas that are good for students and society as a whole.
Are the Common Core Standards perfect?
Absolutely not!
Are they a step in the right direction?
Very probably.
Are the promoters of this reform completely pure and unselfish in motive?
Probably not.
Do they have a vested interest, with the rest of us, in school improvement?
Definitely.
With all this in mind, I’d like to share with you an excerpt from a book called Attitudes by Charles Swindoll.
The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude to me is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, than education, than money, than circumstances, than failures, than success, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, gift, or skill. It will make or break a company … a home … a relationship.
The remarkable thing is we have a choice every day regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change our pasts, we cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the string we have, and that is our attitude.
I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% how I react to it. And so it is with you … we are in charge of our attitudes.
What do you think? Agree or disagree? I’d love to hear from you in the comments below or on Twitter: @abfosEd
Happy husband, father of two, Middle School Math Teacher, team leader, quality systems coach, lifelong learner. Residing in New Mexico, Land of Enchantment.
I ahve been reading everything I can get my hands on that has CCSS stamped on it. I have an aggravating issue that I just can’t find guidelines for. Regarding the written sequence of the math domain 5.NBT.1 through 5.NBT.7, was their a rationale for the sequence for which they are listed? More importantly, what is your professional recommendation for the order in which they should be taught? I’m trying to make sense of my district’s rationale for sequencing the NBT standards as teaching NBT.2, NBT.5, NBT.6 and NBT.1 during first quarter and have them spread between the NF domain. That would be followed by NBT.3 and NBT.4 in the 3rd quarter. From your professional perspective, would you, as a classroom teacher, have concerns with that particular sequence? I appreciate kindly your reply.
Robert
Robert, thanks for your question and for engaging in the conversation on commoncorestandards.com. Like you, I am still learning and studying to make the standards practical. Let me address your questions to the best of my ability in several parts.
1. What is the rationale for the sequence in which the standards are listed? My understanding of the sequencing of the CCSS-Mathematics comes from the CCSS document itself as well as some training I recently completed through MC2 and New Mexico State University. As with many educational pursuits, the answer is “yes and no”. In theory, the standards were designed so that they could be engaged by teachers and students in their current sequence and would lead to deep understanding of the concepts in a logical progression. However, the CCSS authors recognized that learning is fluid and may not always follow those theoretical lines of progression. See the introduction to the CCSS-M. The rationale for the listed sequence is also contained in those introductory paragraphs.
2. What is your professional recommendation for the order in which they should be taught? In my view, the CCSS-M represent an excellent outline of the skills and concepts that should be taught, in order, at each grade level. However, I envision many situations in which a teacher will make informed decisions about changes that should be made in sequence or depth of instruction based on the needs and prior knowledge of students in the classroom. It is very likely that two or more standards should be taught and uncovered simultaneously. For example, standards 5.NBT.1 and 2 really MUST be taught together in order to achieve meaningful depth. This is where the “Instructional Shifts” come into play. Have you looked into those? Each grade level has particular focus areas that encompass several clusters or standards. An excellent resource on the idea of “FOCUS” and overlapping standards in major, supporting, and additional roles can be found at engageNY.org Here is a link to the document, then scroll down to your desired grade level. It is difficult for me to make a concrete recommendation other than that the CCSS-M should be a helpful guide when considering scope and sequence of instruction.
3. Would you, as a classroom teacher, have concerns with the particular sequence prescribed by my district for 5th grade Numbers & Operations. In a word, “YES”. It seems to be the nature of district curriculum maps to attempt to make standards better, or more practical, or more “user-friendly” by changing the sequence of adopted standards to match the textbook or the way things have been done in the past. In this case, I think it is a big mistake. How on earth can we believe it is a good idea to leave the foundational concepts of reading, writing and comparing decimal values to be taught AFTER students have been required to manipulate those decimals with arithmetic operations? The fact there is an actual district document that suggests such a thing boggles my mind (please email it to me if you can: abfosEd@gmail.com). This gets to the heart of the instructional shifts and how we must in many cases change not only WHAT math concepts we teach, but also HOW they are taught and presented. Your district sequencing of these vital 5th grade Math standards suggests a focus on algorithmic process instead of deep conceptual understanding. I would encourage you to begin the professional conversation that many of us are having across the country about how to stay true to the CCSS-M while allowing for individual teaching styles and rich educational experiences. But PLEASE DON’T agree with the sequencing you described.
Thanks again for your question, Robert, and I apologize for the length of this reply. I hope it is helpful.
Andrew