Yesterday I made some pretty bold statements about power standards - or the lack thereof - within the Common Core Standards, and suggested that our friends at the Kentucky Department of Education are misguided, at best, if they think the entire CCS can be taught to mastery.
Today some colleagues close to KDE tried to broaden my perspective on this a little. As my colleagues described it, KDE is not against prioritization of standards - but that should be done in such a way that less essential standards get folded into the power standards, recognizing that many of the skills and concepts in the CCS actually support other, more rigorous and demanding standards. Their concern is that by using the term "power standards," we're suggesting that some standards just get thrown out altogether.
Okay, I get this - and I see we are almost talking about the same thing. I'd have to see or seek out examples of less-essential standards that could be folded into larger, more important ones. I'm still skeptical that such a process could cover everything that's in CCS - necessitating that we do, indeed, throw some things out.
But the point remains that the Common Core Standards - as they are written - are still too many in number. An intentional process of prioritization is still needed, whether you call it identifying "power standards" or something else. And as yet, KDE has not formally acknowledged this or offered structures and support to do so (that I'm aware of).
So it still falls to school leaders to lead their teachers through thoughtful, intentional processes of culling through the CCS. I sense that this isn't happening - anywhere. Maybe students or colleagues can set me straight on this too. Until we do this process of prioritization, we are still not offering the "guaranteed, viable" curriculum Marzano and others argue is essential for high-levels of student learning.
