Our Common Core

I have been writing the governor and our local representatives about Common Core. I've been asking them to identify the end they hope Common Core's adoption will serve. Are we going for higher graduation rates, fewer remedial classes needed in college, higher rankings compared to other countries on test scores? Common Core propaganda commonly references becoming "more competitive in the global marketplace." I DOUBT we intend to measure success by jobs - after all, Common Core only effects primary education. I doubt high school graduates will be employed doing much that would impress the general populous. (In fact, I doubt the outcomes of Common Core's adoption are being measured at all. That's too much accountability. But that's for another post.)

But, in fact, employment IS part of the aim of MY homeschooling efforts. I want my soon-to-NOT-be-minor children to BE impressive. I want them to be desirable as employees (or students, with an eye on securing a job after college graduation because of their experience). So I have my own set of standards. And I believe MY standards are going to give MY homeschooled kids an edge over most kids in high school.

I almost hesitate to share them because my kids would lose their competitive edge if MY standards became standard. But as the school systems seem to refuse most reforms that would actually positively effect outcomes, I'm pretty confident letting these get out won't change things a bit.

My standards that will give my kids a competitive edge when it comes to employment are relatively simple. I don't need 450 pages to spell them out. OR 150 pages. I hardly need a paragraph. They are these:

1. Good Posture
2. Clear Enunciation
3. Eye Contact
4. Diligent Work Ethic

I realize these standards don't cover nearly all the skills my kids will need to survive, to be gainfully employed. But neither are the bare skills of math and language arts all that is needed. I'm not poo-pooing high academic achievement. I AM saying what may really make a difference to an 18 year old looking for a job or trying to impress anyone in the "real world" might not be what is covered in school at all.

Governor Herbert Wants to Hear From ME about Common Core?

Coming back from SLC recently, I heard a news excerpt about the Governor's requested review of Common Core by the State Attorney General to determine if, legally, the Common Core represents federal intrusion into the public schools. With this announcement, he included a survey at utah.gov/governor/standards which he encouraged everyone to visit and chime in to.

I was impressed, hopeful, and a bit skeptical. 

What struck me, before even visiting the website, was the time frame. The survey is only up through August. This reminded me of the "ample opportunity for public input" that was allowed before Common Core's adoption. Ha!  Try a few weeks in the summer when school, and especially school policy and bureaucratic headaches are farthest from what anyone wants to think about. So, they're doing it again, I thought to myself. Still, I didn't want to miss THIS tiny summertime window to chime in, so I visited the page I mentioned above.

And the rest of my skepticism was confirmed. Turns out the Governor doesn't want to bring people to the same point of reference, find common ground, really hear concerns, or field other suggestions. The survey is a joke if it claims to be anything but a propaganda piece for supporters of the Core. There are no fields to list real concerns about federal involvement, data mining, loss of public control. There is no legitimate place to call for a change of anything but the edu-speak language of what is taught and when. He doesn't want to hear from me. Or you. Or anyone, unless you are one of the few, the proud, the bold who have read through the 450 page document on English standards, and would like to tweak a few things here or there - and please be sure to list standards and the age to which they apply specifically. (Oooh. The Math standards are only 155 pages!)

I know I'm supposed to swallow the suggestion that a group of removed experts have come up with an answer to all our educational woes and that their agenda really has my child's best interest in mind. I am surprised such "smart" people hope to gain that trust without any REAL opportunity to hear from those who really do care most about the kids: their parents. Nice try, Gov'nah. You'll find true listening difficult while your primary concern is that you appear to be listening.

Some Education on Education

This clip is from a Canadian TV program so I have no idea what educational reform or revolution it is they mention in the beginning. Here in the US public school system, it seems we are stuck doing the same ol', same ol'. The clip indirectly addresses where our current system came from and it's limitations. You will probably also hear in there the limitations of Common Core, and come to understand the thinking behind some of it, though none of that is directly addressed either. But it was a great discussion and I felt it could be helpful to parents taking the job of education on themselves - to understand what has been emphasized in the past and how and why some of that may be changing.

Enjoy! Let me know what you liked from the clip and why in the comments below!

Reason #844: Cultivating Our Greatest Natural Resources

Deep vacation thoughts. :)

I learned many things on our recent trip to Disney World. (One being that I am a definite Disney humbug. Too late I remembered IT IS AN AMUSEMENT PARK. Why I go thinking I'm going to experience "the most magical place on earth" I don't know.) In fact, I think there is a TON to learn there, and if we lived close, I'd like to have season passes to go absorb instead of treating it like an amusement park and running from ride to ride. (Maybe I'm not a TOTAL humbug.)

BUT one thing I discovered there was a quote by Walt Disney that has me thinking. Apparently he said,

"Our greatest natural resource is the minds of our children."

Great quote. I couldn't agree more.

So, America, what do we DO with this resource? Mine it? Extract it? Harvest it? None of those verbs conjure up very pleasant images when we are talking about the minds of children. I landed on the verb "cultivate," and the image of a farmer creating the circumstances under which a plant can thrive and be productive.

Now, America, reflect on what public education looks like. With the adoption of Common Core, now more than ever before, our greatest natural resource is being ripped from it's natural environment, plopped down in a row, and fed a steady stream of processed fertilizer and pesticide. It's very sterile. Very safe. We've been promised a cash crop of students "fully prepared to compete in the global economy." We've identified certain traits of the fruit of these tender plants, decided those traits - perhaps size and ripening time are the most ideal, most beneficial for the masses - and are pursuing a course to wipe out all other strains that may be smaller, or later, but perhaps sweeter or with a different texture.

Just as many are going back to our roots when it comes to food production, valuing the organic and environmentally sustainable, perhaps it is time as a country to return in education to a more wholesome, even old fashioned idea of what this natural resource, the minds of our children, is and how we go about cultivating it. While we homeschoolers have already enjoyed the joys and the fruits of doing so and it is certainly a GREAT reason to homeschool, do take the time to try to affect education policy that will restore this resource to it's greatness for the public at large. The good of the country is, in very fact, at stake.

Oooh. PS. :) I discovered while jumping around on my blog, that this image of cultivating minds, again, is not my own, nor am I the first to call for a massive shift to a more natural approach. Go here to view a TED talk by Sir Ken Robinson and hear his thoughts on the subject.

Common Core Debate

I missed it! Yesterday was a hard day that left me almost in tears. Almost. I explained to my 4 year old I wanted to cry and she said, "Moms don't cry." I don't know where SHE has been! I cry at every good book we own! Anyway, the frustration was about happy stuff, but it was real frustration and I chickened out last night, fearing I wouldn't be able to handle any more frustration at the debate.

So I went looking for a recording of the debate, and found these questions for it. Posted by those who oppose Common Core's adoption, obviously. But I loved them because they got at so many of MY beefs with Common Core. Check them out.

And, in case you are using this blog as YOUR Common Core source, here is a link to the debate too. :) Please, please leave a comment and tell me what you think!

Questions for the Common Core Debate

Utah Common Core Standards Debate

6:00 - 8:00

MONDAY, JANUARY 6, 2014

MT LOGAN MIDDLE SCHOOL

875 NORTH 200 EAST

LOGAN, UTAH

The schools.utah.gov website states "The [Common Core] standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers. With American Students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy."

How does something that is simultaneously promoted as "just standards" do so much? Isn't this sort of rhetoric, if Common Core really is "just standards" a little over the top?

The claim that the Common Core standards will somehow create students "ready to compete in the emerging global market" (from utahpublicschools.org) is an idea found throughout the school board's defense of Common Core. ("Locally driven, globally competitive" from schools.utah.gov)

Just what sorts of global jobs do you think a nationally standardized high school graduate will be ready to compete for?

Follow-up question: Clearly, to be competitive in a global marketplace, specialized training and education beyond high school would be required. How does focusing so much energy on making sure our students learn the same info at the same pace for Math and English as the rest of the nation's high school students lead to "global competitiveness?"

Follow-up question: Clearly, the school board is trying to answer concerns about students readiness for college level math, and overall preparation for the global job market. How has Common Core and it's focus on math and English standards demonstrated it will meet these needs better than other alternatives like charter schools and specialized programs within the schools? Would not our efforts and resources be better spent increasing student access to THESE alternatives? Are we really to believe new math standards will result in MORE students enrolled in college level math? Isn't that faulty cause and effect logic?

The Common Core standards were not released until June 2010 (see utahnsforpublicschools.org). How is it possible to get "14 months of public input" between their release and their adoption on August 8, 2010?

follow-up question: How many parents did the school board interact with at that time whose primary concern in education was that our students were NOT learning the same information at the same pace as the students in Wisconsin?

Question for Tami Pyfer: You stated on a radio interview that, as Common Core IS just standards; there was no additional prescription to help kids who were falling behind or struggling. If we aren't helping more kids, or making learning better, isn't it more accurate to describe the standards as a change to education instead of an improvement?

The Gates Foundation spent 3 million to develop Common Core standards (edutooia.org/common-core-state-standards-resources). Bill Gates invested heavily with the benefit in mind he described as "a large uniform base of customers looking at using products that can help every kid learn and every teacher get better." (youtube.com/watch?v=xTK_6VKpf4) If the Common Core succeeds by Mr. Gates measurement, what interest does the state school board have in a "large uniform base of customers"? And why should parents be excited about this intended outcome? (Gates full quote is: "Identifying common stands is just the starting point. We'll only know if this effort has succeeded when the curriculum and tests are aligned to these standards. Secretary Arnie Duncan recently announced $350 million of the stimulus package will be used to create just these kinds of tests.... When the tests are aligned to the common standards, the curriculum will line up as well... For the first time there will be a large uniform base of customers looking at using products that can help every kid learn and every teacher get better.")

What is the direct benefit to students and families of the State School Board's mandatory adoption of Common Core in all public schools throughout the state? Why could we not allow districts to vet the standards according to the local desires of parents?

In answer to the outcry over the Common Core standards, the State School Board has reminded us we have always had state standards. Why was adopting the Common Core preferable to simply upping our own standards, perhaps even beyond standards set by the core?

follow-up question: If our standards were so woefully below the rest of the nation, and are now targeted to be on par, by what mechanism, measurement, or target date will we determine that we would like to exceed the standards to allow our students "to compete in the global market place"? Or is the plan to remain in-step with the rest of the states going forward? And if that is the plan, how will this increase our competitiveness?

Question for Tami Pyfer: You have said that despite public resistance, you are unwilling to stop short of full implementation of Common Core and to do so would be irresponsible. (KVNU FTP Broadcast in July 2013) When WILL you assess the success or failure of the adoption of the standards? How will you decipher a failure of the standards from a failure of the teachers, schools, or students?

The current cost of a public k12 education in Utah is around $85,000 per student. How will Utah's adoption of national standards affect that figure?
follow-up question: Doesn't that seem a little pricey for an education only promising to meet "minimum standards?"

The state's p20W data system encompasses pre-kindergarten through higher education and workforce training. From schools.utah.gov/data, it reads "Utah has a robust state student logitudinal data system collecting on a wide range of student data." What is included in the "wide range of data"? Where can a parent find an exhaustive list of what is included? The state has had issues in the past with data security. What assurances are provided to parents that their data will not be stolen, inappropriately shared or misused?

Meet the Experts

I wrote this for fun. I don't know if it belongs on my blog, but if you think I should remove it, feel free to speak up in the comments. Perhaps these are the experts who would answer the question I posed on an old post about Common Core. Hope it makes you smile. (And if you are inspired to make it into a video, share it here!)

Meet the Experts

Media: In news reports on cable TV, the internet, and network television, reporters, such as myself often refer to a group of faceless, nameless commentators as “the experts.” Just who are these experts? And why do we place so much trust in them? We decided to go in depth and find out.

In this segment we’re calling “Meet the Experts,” we’re going to come face to face with this honored group and find out why they have become so invaluable to society, AND our news broadcasts.

(to expert) Good afternoon.

Expert: Actually, it’s 11:58 so I’m going to respond, good morning.

Media: (sincerely) Thank you, thank you. An invaluable correction. Good morning...

Expert: (interrupting) For another 1.3 minutes.

Media: We’re here today to meet that group we most commonly refer to as “The Experts.” We aren’t accustomed to seeing faces or knowing names. I’m shocked, actually, it’s such a small group. But pleased to know you better all the same. And how shall I address you?

Expert: Expert works fine for me.

Media: Expert?

Expert: Well, we aren’t especially comfortable having our faces seen, OR our names known. But it was decided that in the face of a rising distrust in The Experts, it was a good PR move.

Media: It doesn’t appear there is much diversity among you, Expert. You are a small group of bearded white men.

Expert: I know it APPEARS that way, but Sherman, back there, is Hispanic. And Albert is actually a woman.

Media: Oh, I stand corrected. You are quite diverse, then!

Expert: We are. Our diversity is something we uniformly pride ourselves in.

Media: There is certainly great diversity on the subjects which the media quotes the experts on. How do you cover so many topics with such... expertise?

Expert: As a group, we have a broad range of specialties. For example Albert knows how to make THE best pb and j. While Larry can name 27 species of chipmunk.

Media: Impressive! And which one is Albert?

Expert: As I mentioned, we aren’t comfortable being identified as individuals. The Experts asked that I act as the spokesperson for the group.

Media: My apologies, Expert. Continuing on, I’d like to ask a question many Americans have asked from time to time, though ironically, perhaps this is the first time the Media has dared ask it aloud. That is: How many times can an expert be wrong before he’s not considered an expert anymore?

Expert: Actually, it doesn’t work that way. We meet bi-semi-annually at a conference of experts, ExCon, and at that time, vote someone out of the herd. (Glancing back) Lou! What are you doing here? We voted you out last year!

(Lou walks off, dejected)

Media: Why was Lou voted out?

Expert: His beard was not nearly thick enough.

Media: And so now he is out of the “herd”?

Expert: It’s a term of affection we use to describe ourselves because we like to move as a group, like a well-oiled drill team. In fact, we have some formations we’d like to share, may we?

Media: Sure.

(Expert Spokesman blows a complicated series of puffs on a whistle. Experts shuffle around and form a straight line. He blows a different series of sounds, the experts shuffle and form another straight line. And again, during the last, Lou shuffles in from off screen finding a place.)

Expert: (Proud expression) What do you think? (glances back) LOU! Get out of here!

Media: (a bit puzzled) They were 3 straight lines.

Expert: Ah yes. Figure 1 was The Experts lined up according to height. Figure 2 was The Experts lined up according to age. And Figure 3 was The Experts lined up according to birthdays in the fiscal year. Except Lou ruined it, because his birthday is in January.

Media: I noticed Lou’s beard was a bit thicker than the expert... you know it’s really difficult to describe an individual amongst a group that looks so similar.... That expert there has nearly no beard at all.

Expert: Yes, but he is our mascot.

Media: Mascot?

Expert: Well, he’s not in his mascot suit now, but would you like to see it?

Media: May we?

Expert: (calling mascot forward) We call him Muscles. (Muscles takes off sport coat and flexes.)

Media: It’s difficult to see Muscles' muscles beneath his shirt.

Expert: It’s not really about seeing as much as believing. At our last ExCon we did a series of complicated calculations and Muscles had the largest muscles of us all. I won’t go into how we arrived at that, but we all agree Muscles here is the most qualified to be Muscles.

Media: (in lighter, joking tone) They must cover how to dress at ExCon too.

Expert: We all attend a workshop there: Experts Dress for Success.

Media: You mentioned moving as a group, and certainly when the media quotes the experts it’s not like citing a supreme court ruling, 3-1 or 2-6. How do you find consensus considering your great diversity?

Expert: Oh, we don’t. Like this interview, we let one be the spokesperson with whom we all agree.

Media: And how is that spokesperson chosen?

Expert: It’s whomever covers that particular field of expertise. Since we kicked Lou out, we need to do some reshuffling.

Media: Reshuffling?

Expert: We draw our fields out of a hat. Sherman covers Celebrity Match-ups and Israel. Albert is Internet Laws and (pause) Domestic Tranquility, I believe. Larry is on Consumer Goods and the Constitution. Lou had been Animal Rights and International Relations, but those will have to be reassigned, obviously.

Media: And how about you, Expert?

(Another Expert comes up, taps Expert on the back, and he leaves and is replaced by the new expert.)

Media: (confused) Uh...

Larry: I tapped him out. Were you asking a question?

Media: Yes.

Larry: Oh. Then, officially I believe it’s 44.

Media: Thank you, uh...

Larry: Larry.

Media: (surprised to get a name) Larry. But I’m not sure you heard the question.

Larry: I stand by my figures, and I think in time, you’ll see that I’m right.

Media: Well, we’re about to wrap up, here. Expert and I were just discussing his field of expertise.

Larry: Albert? He covers the Economy.

Media: I believe he said Albert covers Internet Laws and Domestic Tranquility.

Larry: Oh, Albert the woman does. Albert the man is on Economy.

Media: And there was one expert whose field we hadn’t yet named.

Larry: Beg your pardon?

Media: Well, we have Sherman, Albert the woman, Albert the man, and Larry. Lou was voted out of the herd. That leaves one extra expert back there.

Larry: Muscles. He’s just the mascot. Just a body, really. No brain to speak of.

Media: Yet he is included in this exclusive group, “The Experts?”

Larry: Well, we believe in being incredibly inclusive, and diverse.

Media: Larry, thank you so much for speaking with us today! Please thank your colleague whom you tapped out.

Larry: Albert the man.

Media: Yes, Albert the man. The Experts seem to be a model for us all of inclusivity, diversity, consensus building, and polite decorum. You truly inspire the trust of the American People!

Larry: Thank YOU.

Discussion of Common Core: Forgotten American Values

 "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."

This quote was one conclusion (of 5) from a study done on why US education ranks low among developed nations, and how it can be improved. (See the article here.) In my last blog post I asked how you felt Common Core was doing to implement the study's suggestions. Now it's time for my opinion. :)

The point has been made by the media, by parents, and by educators that Americans just don't value math like the Asians. Where, in their cultures, math proficiency is revered, our students can be heard to call those good at math nerds, or use phrases about themselves like "I don't like math." Or, "I'm not good at math." If you were to ask me about my school experience, I'd say something like, "I liked English because I was good at it. I struggled with math. It wasn't my thing."

I'm not suggesting this can't be changed. I'm not suggesting we give up on teaching kids math. However, advocates of Common Core love to suggest we will score higher in Math because we "raised our standards to be globally competitive." Now, because we've tweaked how kids learn math, and ensured that everyone learns MORE, America will be cranking out Math geniuses. At least that is the story.

It is an interesting work of fiction.

America DOES and WILL have math geniuses. My guess is they will STILL value what OUR culture DOES already value: creativity, ingenuity, individuality, and self-expression. These values run deep. They permeate the American experience for our entire history. These are the values that make America the world's foremost innovator in business AND science AND technology AND social media... and the list could go on.

My husband and I both served LDS mission in Asian countries. We have lived in a culture that largely does NOT value creativity, individuality, and self expression. Which is not to say all of Asia lacks these qualities. Obviously that is not true. But for everything we love about the culture there (and the list is lengthy, and you can experience much of it in a visit to our home) we feel our country's constant comparison to educational models in Asia is unwise. Asians are doing what works for them in their culture. And they might be outscoring American students in math. Let's get over it. If we'd like American students to value math or score better, let's begin with reforms that VALUE creativity, ingenuity, individuality, and self-expression. If such an approach was ever given a shot, not only might it meet with less resistance, it might actually have a prayer of working. Exhibit A: Homeschooling! Sadly, Common Core is not that reform.

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! ;)

Discussion of Common Core: Personal Disclaimer

If you've read my other two posts on Common Core, or been anywhere else on my blog, this post will be no revelation. But I thought, if you were an advocate of Common Core and standards, it might be helpful for you to read that I realize Common Core, by it's very nature, can never provide the kind of education my kids receive at home. For better or worse, and time will certainly tell, our home education is NOT trying to duplicate the school experience.

Asking me which standards I have a problem with in the Common Core is the wrong question. Inviting me to suggest "better" standards is impossible.

I have no hidden suspicions that Common Core has a secret social agenda. I DO think it presents risks in the vastness of it's adoption. To argue that point, I need only suggest to an educator that we throw out Common Core and adopt Steffanie Casperson's approach nation-wide. "Well it's unproven, untested!" True. But as the standards of Common Core were written in June 2010 and adopted August 6 of the same year, I might respond with the same protest. "But if Steffanie's approach fails, we lose a generation." Exactly. That is the risk. If Common Core fails to deliver on it's promises (and here is one example of those promises I find especially humorous, for something claiming to be "just standards": "The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers. With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy." from schools.utah.gov, italics added).... Anyway, if Common Core fails to fully prepare us for the future or position us for successful competition in the global economy, we've lost all the time it's taken to realize the failure. And not only has each traditionally public schooled child lost it for their elementary education, but practically our entire nation has lost it as well. THAT is the risk of the vast adoption.

So I find myself in opposition to Common Core adoption not for the evil that it is, but for the good it isn't. I see it at No Child Left Behind 2.0. I see it as another step down the failed path traditional public education is on. It's not an emergency, which is a good thing, as it was adopted before the public was involved in any meaningful discussion so our ability to do anything about it is almost non-existent. Common Core is practically a done deal, and from my view, simply another tally mark in the lengthy column of failed attempts to improve America's educational system. Though I suppose this tally mark will be a bit larger than some of the others.

This makes the discussion of Common Core a bit tricky. It's not just Common Core I oppose, but nearly all that represents our educational status quo. I am on a completely different page than almost ALL of anyone with a career in education. AND I have no experience. In fact, measured the way standardized education measures, I don't have an education myself, as I never went to college. (You can view my profile for a sense of the education I DID receive.) Of course, the educational philosophy we adhere to I am not making up as I go along. It is based on the views and experience of the experts I follow (see my influential books list) but I am not those experts. Were I an educator in the public systems today, I'd certainly be annoyed by a mere homeschooling mom questioning the establishment, their experts, and those who "teach for a living."

But question I do. I'm not advocating the country adopt Steffanie Casperson's approach. But what if we give Common Core a few years to prove itself in other states? We've been so concerned we'll be left out of the educational feast it promises that we've hardly stopped to wonder if the food is rancid. If Common Core is merely a set of free standards, why can't we allow schools to adopt or not as the parents in each district find it beneficial, or not. If Common Core is the miracle reform we're told it is (when it's not being questioned, at which time it retreats to being "just standards"), then won't all schools adopt it eventually on their own for the good they see the standards deliver?

As I wish the State School Board would be a bit more honest, or at least realistic, with what Common Core is and will do to education, I thought I needed a post about what I am: just a parent observing the evolution of public education and wondering why evolving one way is so much better than any other way. If we can't trust ourselves to find our own path in broad policies, how can we expect implementing those policies will teach individuals to find their own paths of progression? What would I do to education? Affect the change that would allow that path-finding by individuals. I see that as one of life's prime objectives, and so far, standardized public education is missing it entirely.

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.