The designers of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) determined that the purpose of a K-12 education was to insure that children were “college and career ready” by the time they completed high school. Having determined that our students were not “college and career ready”, they looked at what would be required of a graduate in the areas of literacy and mathematics to be deemed ready and built the standards backwards from high school through middle school to elementary school to provide stepping stones that would lead to that final goal. Holding aside for a moment whether this design construct makes any sense, can we say that “college and career ready” is the appropriate target for public education? And further, if it is not the appropriate target, why have the developers of the Common Core put so much stake in it?
Who could be against standards designed to make children “college
and career ready?” It sounds wonderful doesn’t it? Perhaps I have become too
cynical. Whenever I hear a slogan that sounds too perfect, I get suspect and go
into my Orwellian doublespeak mode. A great example of this is the Bush era “Healthy
Forests” Act. The Healthy Forests Act was nothing more than a handout to the
lumber industry allowing them to cut down trees and earn profits in areas where
this had not been allowed before. It is telling that the “Healthy Forests” Act
was opposed by every legitimate environmental group in the country, but
supported by Bush’s big business friends. Is “college and career ready” nothing
more than a gift to the education privatizers and wealthy corporations who are
eager to support the CCSS?
For me “college and career ready” is too narrow a goal for
public education. The problem with narrow goals is that you may find ways to
achieve them and you may even find ways to demonstrate that you have achieved
them, but because your goal was too narrow, you never achieve the larger goals
necessary. For example, you may set a goal to have children learn to decode
words. You may focus on that goal and you may, and likely will, achieve some
measurable success. The problem is that you spent so much time teaching
decoding, that you failed to focus on the real purpose of reading, and so you
have created kids who have improved in decoding, but still can’t read. Getting
meaning from reading is the true goal, not decoding. In public education, an
informed and participatory citizenry is the goal. Does “college and career
ready” get us there?
I would propose a broader target for public education. It is
a target that I believe most of us would easily say “amen” to and yet we have
watched as the goals for public education have been narrowed to something “measurable.”
To my thinking the education of any human being has four dimensions.
1. The
life of the citizen
2. The
life of the mind
3. The
life of the body
4. The
spiritual life
The spiritual life is, and should be, outside of the purview
of public education, but all three others are necessary targets of schooling.
The United States of America is the world’s greatest
experiment in democracy. In order for that experiment to sustain itself, an
informed populace is necessary. This is, of course, the original purpose behind
public education since the days of Horace Mann. This has not changed. In a
world where “news” organizations have become little more than political
organizations flogging partisan viewpoints 24/7 and where all sorts of
unsubstantiated opinions (like this one) are readily available on the internet,
it is as important as ever to prepare children for informed participation in
our democracy. Of course this preparation will include many of the abilities
discussed in the Common Core, including critical thinking, problem solving and
communication skills. It would also include empathy for fellow citizens or
citizens who are less fortunate. Despite CCSS author David Coleman’s disdain
for “how you feel or how you think”, how you feel and how you think are
critical components of being a contributing member of a democracy.
Despite what appear to be longer and longer work days for
many Americans, we can safely say that most Americans will spend at least 1/3
of their waking lives at leisure. The quality of how that 1/3 of a lifetime
will be spent is determined, at least in part, by our education. One target of
public education, then, should be developing the habit of mind that leads a
person to be a lifelong learner. Lifelong learners spend their leisure time in
a variety of pursuits, not one of which is the “right” one. The key is how rich
and rewarding these pursuits are for the individual.
That is one reason why in public education a dynamic arts
program is critical. Despite President Obama’s view of art history majors, the
arts are at the center of a quality public education. Children need exposure to
all the rich visual and performing arts, the chance to participate in a chorus
or a band or a dramatic production. They need to develop the teamwork that is a
part of these activities. They need the chance to experiment with a variety of
artistic expressions and they need to get a sense of the history of the arts.
We are failing our children and our country if we do not provide them with
opportunities that will allow them to have a lifetime of continued learning and
the joy that comes from being an informed witness or participant in artistic
performance. Public education should prepare our children, then, for the life
of the mind.
Finally, there is the life of the body. Strong public
education includes strong physical education programs and strong sports
programs. It includes health education and nutrition education. One of the
consequences I have seen from the three decade long push for higher
standardized test scores is the continued diminution of the importance physical
education programs and recess in schools. I recently visited a school where the
children get one forty-minute physical education class a week and recess is a
part of a 25-minute lunch that barely gives the kids time to get their lunches
and eat. This is not acceptable, but unfortunately it is also not unusual.
Children need plenty of opportunities for directed physical education and
unstructured play during the school day. In addition the public school should
provide organized sports programs, not only for talented varsity level
athletes, but intramural programs for all children who only wish to participate
in organized sports.
I am reasonably sure that these goals for public education
are shared by most Americans. Some might rightly point out that the architects
of the Common Core recognized that “particularly in the early grades social,
emotional, and physical development are important considerations (CCSS).”
Unfortunately, despite such qualifiers as this, with the CCSS tied so closely
to standardized tests and teacher evaluation, they are bound to become the
defacto curriculum for public schools.
It appears that the authors of the CCSS recognized that
there was more to a public education than these standards. Why then the focus
on the narrow goal of “college and career ready?” I think the explanation can
best be understood if we look at who has funded the CCSS, who are the biggest
boosters and what other initiatives the Common Core is tied to.
The development, roll-out and promotion of the Common Core
was underwritten to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars by Bill Gates
and The Gates Foundation. Why would this captain of industry want to spend so
much money on these standards? If you asked him, I am sure Gates would tell you
that he was looking for a way to do good with all his money and this was the
way he thought he could do it best. The problem is, of course, that this means
the CCSS is representative of Gates’ world view. That world view is colored by
his status as a wealthy “self-made” man. What was good for Gates would be good
for all America’s children. So we get corporate, privatized education designed
to produce a bright and compliant supply of employees for our multi-national
corporations.
The true goal of the Common Core State Standards also cannot
be understood without viewing them as a part of a total package that includes
standardized testing and teacher evaluation. The CCSS had to be narrowly cast
because student achievement of the standards was to be subject to standardized
testing. It is very difficult to measure empathy, artistic appreciation and
physical well-being with a standardized, fill in the bubble test. The CCSS gets
rid of all that messiness by simply focusing on narrow, testable standards. Learning is complex and measuring learning is a complex activity that often must be done on the local level; that is, in the classroom, by the teacher who knows the children. The CCSS and the standardized tests they are tied to cannot capture the complexity of teaching and learning.
Why are the standardized tests necessary? Well, one reason
is to gauge student progress, but the other reason is to evaluate teachers. The
CCSS cannot be separated from the desire to quantify teacher performance. The
Common Core leads to standardized tests of children, which leads to “value
added” measures of teacher effectiveness. Despite the overwhelming evidence of
the fallacious nature of “value added” measures, value added teacher evaluation
remains a part of the reform agenda and are inextricably linked to the Common
Core. Teachers who like the Common Core, but abhor all the testing and test
driven accountability need to recognize that these are all a package.
So, why “college and career ready?” Why design standards
that are “standardized test ready?” Why evaluate teachers with a widely discredited
value added statistical model? Why take the easy road of an easily quantifiable
set of standards that ignores the complexity of learning in all its messiness,
all its potential and all its beauty? Why? Because these “reforms” serve the
agenda of the corporate privatizers who wish to eliminate the bothersome
democratizing impact of public education.
No comments:
Post a Comment