Discussion of Common Core: Nonsensical Logic

A problem for the experts: 

I have a frozen hamburger patty. At 8am it is 25 degrees. I am serving the hamburger at 6pm. Cooked hamburger needs to reach 160 degrees. How do I go about cooking the hamburger?

An answer from the experts:

There are 10 hours during which time the hamburger needs to heat a total of 135 degrees. You should therefore raise the temperature of the hamburger 13.5 degrees each hour.

BRILLIANT! Only the answer assumes that each time increment holds equal value to the hamburger, which everyone realizes it does not. 

So why have so few with so much experience in education not made the same realization about Common Core? Tami Pyfer described the development of the Core standards how I just described cooking the hamburger: they took the information that needed to be covered by high school graduates and broke it down over the time kids spend in school. If only our experience with children led us to believe that each year we can take the same stride to reach the end goal.... if only our experience led us to believe all children take the same size stride at the same time... if only averaging everything (kids, information, test scores) gave us numbers that were ideal for the progress individuals, THEN perhaps Common Core would be all it claims to be (when it's not "just standards"): the next evolution in improving public education in America.

I am currently reading the book Boys Adrift. LOVING IT! In the second chapter the author, Leonard Sax covers challenges unique to boys in public education. He cites a study on the brain where it was found that, developmentally, a 5 year old girls brain compares to a 3.5 year old boys brain. One of his conclusions (there were a few on public education) was that beginning school at 5 for many boys is setting them up for failure. I'm not going to comment on that point.

MY point is that many parents have found it is easiest to teach crucial life skills like walking and going the bathroom when a child shows he or she is ready. I'm guessing there are evidences of readiness for those skills in children when their brains (who might develop along the lines of the averages in the study Dr. Sax mentioned, OR may follow their own unique schedule) have developed a readiness for the skill.

Why do we not wait to teach reading and math when the child shows he or she is ready? Do we believe they won't show signs of readiness? Do we believe these skills aren't as crucial as walking or going the bathroom? Do we believe their crucial nature is not readily evident to children?

Another interesting point: One of the lamentations of those pushing Common Core is that we need to do better on standardized tests when compared with other countries. And everyone nods, wishing our kids were the math wizzes Asian kids seem to be. Right? Yes, those Asian kids go to school practically all year, 10 hours a day, starting at 3 or 4. (And that is true. My husband and I have both lived in Asia and can confirm it.) So perhaps our students need more school - more info drilled into their heads for longer periods of time. (I will argue in another post the faultiness of the logic that doing so will raise our test scores.)

For now I want to reveal what I, myself, didn't know. Finland (NOT an Asian country) is number one in rankings (or consistently in the top) year after year. And Finish kids don't begin compulsory education 'til 7 years of age! GASP! Perhaps Finland knows something about brain development we do not? So much for the fear mongering that if a child isn't doing this or that by the end of kindergarten, it spells ignorance and doom for the rest of his or her education. And why aren't we proposing reforms to education to look more like Finland's anyway?

I'll leave that hypothetical question, to share other points from an article I read which discussed a study on the rankings. The study shared conclusions on how we might reform our education to make it better. The "bottom line findings" included:  A- "teachers need to be treated as the valuable professionals they are, not as technicians in a huge, educational machine"; B- "The cultural assumptions and values surrounding an education system do more to support or undermine it than the system can do on its own. Using the positive elements of this culture and, where necessary, seeking to change the negative ones, are important to promoting successful outcomes"; C- "pressure from [parents] for change should not be seen as a sign of hostility but as an indication of something possibly amiss in provision... Education systems should strive to keep parents informed and work with them"; and D- "Many of today's job titles, and the skills needed to fill them, simply did not exist 20 years ago. Education systems need to consider what skills today's students will need in future and teach accordingly."

I'll close with one final question: Judging by this study's findings, how do YOU think Common Core measures up? More on MY take to come! ;)