Then came the slicing of the apple. One test was introduced and given each year. (We gave the ITBS.) Objectives were written that were different from the textbook, and more children were staying at school for lunch. As time progressed, additional slices of the apple were removed as "before and after" school programs became necessary for children and free lunches became common place. In addition, more than one test was required because now the district and the state wanted data. History and geography became social studies, and phonics and spelling were replaced with the whole language approach. I was directly a part of our district's benchmark test writing project where much money and time were devoted to the test that would reveal all, make teachers better, and students smarter. Of course, none of those things occurred, and the money wasted could have been better spent on teachers who really make the difference in the classroom. (By the way, all of those assessments are now gone.)
minimum each grade level is to master. Think of the CCSS as the core of an apple; there is no "meat" on the core, just the left over part of the apple. The basics are there; but teachers need to add the meat, but will they, especially since the high stake tests that are imminent will most likely only test the core? My question is: How much testing will be required; how often, and at what expense in money and time? And who will pay the price?
I did some of my own reading of the CCSS, particularly those for the "key" grades of K-3. Yes, the CCSS requires the multiplication tables be taught through 10, but does that mean a teacher shouldn't go to 12? I personally want all of my algebra students to know the doubles through 25 because it makes finding the square root so much easier. Since the multiplication fact is in the student's head, no calculator is required! I also observed that money is not mentioned anywhere in the common core for grades K-3 except in second grade. Covering that standard is going to be a daunting task for 2nd grade teachers if students have never seen it before. (I did find the money standard in grades 4th, 6th, and 7th, and after that, money was considered Consumer Science.) In addition, there is no standard for patterns in kindergarten which I find quite disturbing since all math is based on patterns. Time and introductory place value have also been deleted. If students do not get these basic concepts in kindergarten, it is obvious they cannot grasp the more complex ones in later grades.
As I read the many different responses on the TPT Forum as well as various articles about the Common Core, I realized that many teachers are viewing them as the all-in-all. If that is all that will be taught, education is in BIG trouble. I would suggest reading a rather thought provoking and eye opening article by Carol Burris, principal of South Side High School in New York. She was named the 2010 New York State Outstanding Educator by the School Administrators Association of New York State, and she is co-author of the book Opening the Common Core.
My primary concern is that the Common Core will become so focused and fixated on a limited number of standards that little will be left of well-rounded education except a very inadequate and flimsy core. If a teacher only follows the common core and nothing more, students will miss important building blocks in between. I believe education is an exciting and engaging lifetime journey, not a final destination or a binding contract with any government. I trust and hope parents (families) are the constant in this equation (a math word!) while schools and teachers are the variable. (both will change over time) How can any test adequately measure that?
Here is a ten minute video which explains the Common Core so that
anyone can understand it. Check it out at: Common Core