Today was a good start to the new Common Core Algebra 2 curriculum. But, I am left with a question to share with you...
How COMMON is the Common Core?
I
have been struck with this up-until-now rhetorical question since the
Common Core came out. If states can choose to adopt the Common Core,
states can choose what parts of the Common Core they adopt, and states
can elect to drop out of the Common Core, just how COMMON will this Core
be? For the PARCC assessment, states involved in this consortium can
choose certain assessments that they want to give. (Others will be
mandated.) Just how COMMON is the assessment for learning the Common
Core Standards, then?
Those have been questions I have
been muddling around for a while. The "How Common is the Common Core?"
question was renewed in my mind as I drove home today. My curriculum
writers spent much of the time today unpacking the common core standards
for Algebra 2. Why, if the Common Core is so common, are we having to
unpack and analyze the standards? We are writing our curriculum using
the Understanding by Design approach developed by Wiggins and McTighe.
Part of writing a unit and lesson using this design is to unpack the
objectives. However, as my writers began to unpack the Common Core
Standards, I realized just how vague and open to interpretation these
standards are. Throughout the day my writers asked questions like, "How
far do we take the content under this standard?" and "What part of this
standard are they learning in Algebra 1 and in Honors College Algebra,
so that we don't go too far or not far enough in Algebra 2?" and "What
exactly is meant by a 'modeling' standard?" These questions echoed in my
brain as I drove home. Then, I reflected on the fact that the Maryland
State Department of Education developed a Framework for Algebra2, which
included cluster notes, skills and knowledge statements, and other such
clarifications. PARCC just released spreadsheets explaining the Midyear
Evaluations and the End of Year Evaluations, and included in these
spreadsheets are clarification statements. Progression Documents have
come out of the University of Arizona in an attempt (a beautiful
attempt, that is) to explain how the standards span over the grades and
courses. If all of these documents, consortia, committees, boards, etc.
are coming together to unpack and interpret the Standards, just how
COMMON will the Common Core be? A brief glance through all the documents
and resources I just listed will show quite a range of publishing dates
and the word 'draft' is very prominent on many of them. As I type this,
I am reminded of when I spoke with several teachers back in April 2013
at the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics conference in
Denver. They claim to have been 'already teaching the Common Core for
two years'. Really? How is that possible when the testing consortia are still moving content and Standards around?
So I am left with the question that I hope you will take the time to answer...
How COMMON is the Common Core?
How common too are the terms that we use when discussing the CCSS - curriculum, task, standard, cluster, culminating event? Do these words mean the same no matter the state, the districts in that state, the schools in these district, the classrooms in the schools? The equity issues that can come from NOT having a common understanding of the meanings and uses for the vocabulary of the CCSS, as well as the "standards" of the CCSS would complete deteriorate any rigor intended by the standards. Everyone must be on the same page with the CCSS.
ReplyDelete