Discussion of Common Core: Synchronized Learning?

This is my second post on this subject. My first is here. The issue of paced learning was one we addressed on the radio program "For the People", so below is a summary of the answers I was given about Common Core from Tami Pyfer, state school board member, and Dave Long, former principal who now works for the school district. And  of course, I'm including my many thoughts pertaining to them.

First, two quotes from utahpublicschools.org.
"The purpose of Utah's Core Standards [newspeak for Common Core] is not to drive everyone to achieve the same specific goals for each student or for them to achieve at the same pace."

"The standards are used to help teachers understand in a broad manner what individual children should be able to know and do at each grade level."

And from schools.utah.gove/core:
"The collaboration between states provides continuity for students who move to a new state."

Question #2: (asked on air and went something like) How can Common Core be beneficial to students moving from state to state and within the state AND NOT drive students to progress at the same pace.

Answer: I challenge YOU to find the answer in the responses! It took a while to get to, and was never clear or succinct. So the best I can give you is:

My take-away: Both aspects of Common Core - it's flexibility and benefit to moving students - has been overstated. However, where there was no uniform standard before, as concerning moving students (a tiny fraction of the whole), it will be easier for those families to "sync up."

I gathered from the responses from both Tami Pyfer and Dave Long that flexibility concerning the pacing of student progress will be limited within the grade level. Students will be expected to progress and tested according to grade level. However, if you move mid-year, there is nothing to determine where a class would be in completing any of those expectations. If you've moved from a class of more capable students to one who struggles, you would likely be repeating some of what you've heard in the year. And if you've come from a struggling class, you might find yourself thrown forward in content and skill. There is nothing in the core which dictates a teacher would be unable to respond to a student's specific needs.

Interestingly, however, there are no additional tools provided in the Core Standards to help teachers respond to various student needs. As Tami Pyfer put it when I asked her what the "treatment" would be for students who discover they are falling behind: They would receive "the same educational practice that we've been doing for decades." For parents whose children are falling behind, the Core offers no new help, so hopefully current methods of addressing discrepancies in learning progress are sufficient.

As the State School Board repeats often, the standards are just standards. I will comment on that sentiment later. However, it DOES mean that districts still have flexibility to chose their own curricula. (Some have wondered if they would really be free to adopt curricula which doesn't follow the core. However, since 45 states have adopted Common Core, it is unlikely such curricula will continue to be available widely, as there is no longer a sufficient market for it.) Flexibility to chose curricula goes back to the overstated benefit to moving families. Again, unlike before, 45 states will be on the same page of grade-level expectations, however, quite literally, those pages will not be in the same books. So the look and feel of familiarity in textbooks WON'T exist. (Not that is should. But as long as it doesn't, how seamlessly will the few who are moving really be able to exit one school and jump into another without any lag time?) Dave Long stated it perfectly: "Different schools, different set of challenges."

I would add, "Different kids, different interests that drive different paces of learning." Tami talked about skills "developmentally build on year by year." In my personal experience, I've been surprised by how often this is NOT the case. On air, I mentioned science because Tami had just mentioned it. Perhaps more powerful examples would have been the subjects the core dictates pacing for: Math and English.

My now-7 year old (party today!) writes a "book" a day. She began this practice before I had ever sat her down to show her how to write. The more she writes, the more her letters look uniform and her spelling corrects itself, because she wants me to READ her books without difficulty. I can only imagine her frustration if I had this little creative author work on letter formation first. She is NOT interested in writing A's 20 times. From her view, what adult does such nonsense? I actually hope, in a year or two that I might suggest adults DO practice their writing, but I see no point in trying to coral her creativity now when it's fully blossoming. She began writing long before she could read. Writing has been her inspiration to know how to read. And incidentally, I don't know if she can still say her ABC's without a mistake. But as she isn't alphabetizing anything at the moment, we find that knowing her letters and their sounds suits her needs just fine for now. I'm sure at some point, she'll make the last few adjustments to her ABC song and hardly notice she did so.

And in math, like a dutiful parent, I began "teaching" my oldest basic math in kindergarten. (This may come as a surprise, considering our family's approach to learning now, but I did begin homeschooling asking questions like, "what are they teaching at this grade level in public schools?" and "if I don't follow their schedule, how do I know my kids' learning won't have holes?") He struggled, we both hated it. Somewhere, I got the idea that we could just wait until his mind received the concept that 7 + 7 is always 14 and he could remember that. We waited until he was about 7. Wanting to take my own energy left over from our failed math attempts out of his learning, I put him on khan academy. I just spied on his progress. In a week he had moved from basic addition to subtraction, and then quickly on to multi-digit addition and subtraction. I saw, as he worked, that he was still counting on his fingers, and almost made the mistake of telling him he had not mastered the basic facts and needed to go back and do that first before he ventured into higher skills. Thankfully, I kept my mouth shut. And I discovered, as he followed his own pacing, mastery came. Meanwhile he was engaged at the skill level he found the most interesting. He was caught up to within grade level in a matter of a few months. No tutoring, no labels, no practice sessions during recess. And no sense that math was "hard," or something he "couldn't do."

Last week, someone in our family wondered aloud how long it would take Rapunzel to brush her hair after we read in a book that it was 72 feet long. I suggested that if we knew how long it took me to brush MY hair, we could figure out how long it took Rapunzel. My oldest, now in 5th grade, got excited. He measured, timed me, and worked out the equations all by himself. I didn't make any announcement about learning algebra. I administered no tests to prove him ready for the task. I instructed a bit here and there when he got stuck. And when we were done, we had him, mad scientist fashion (lab coat, big glasses, messy "lab"), make of movie of how his great mind had solved this crucial mystery... just for fun. (And a sneaky way to review the process a couple of times .)

I LOVE homeschooling, where discrepancies in learning progress are to be expected! When we remember that learning is the process of acquiring skills we need to do what we WANT to do, we quickly realize not only is standardized pacing NOT the best idea, but it can suck the fun out of learning. Homeschooling CAN put it back, and learning that learning is FUN becomes the most important lesson.