Some of my classes are currently studying "power standards" and reading a book chapter by Doug Reeves of the same name. Reeves, writing in 2006, argued that the scope of curriculum taught in most schools is far beyond anything that could reasonably taught to proficiency. Reeves (and Mike Schmoker and Robert Marzano) argued that schools must cull through the state-mandated curriculum and identify the most essential standards for instruction. Reeves provides guidelines and criteria for identifying and prioritizing curricula in this way, and claims that schools making power standards the focus of instruction will make a better investment in student learning. Whatever is lost in breadth will be made up in a depth of learning. More students will master more key standards and ultimately do better on state proficiency exams.
Reeves, Schmoker, and Marzano were all key figures who, in part, inspired the move toward Common Core Standards. The CCS were intended to be clearer, fewer in number, and better aligned K-12 than previously-existing state standards. On two of these counts, CCS was indeed an improvement. And while, in math perhaps, CCS may include fewer standards than Kentucky's previous core content for assessment - there is still far too much there to teach to proficiency.
We know this, but to my surprise, state education bureaucrats must be in total denial.
At his presentation on grading practices last week, Steve Ventura launched his talk with an argument that schools still needed power standards. He also said that, when he gave this same presentation to Kentucky superintendents last summer, staff from the Kentucky Department of Education approached him and said, "Don't you dare talk to these people about power standards." (I assume since Steve defiantly talked about this last week he won't mind me putting it writing here on this blog). The KDE folks argued that all of the CCS is important and therefore they wanted to be united in insisting that schools should teach it all. To proficiency.
The absurdity of this is staggering. As Steve Ventura pointed out, other countries that out-perform schools in the U.S. teach far fewer standards and have much longer school years. This has not changed with CCS. One can argue about how American standards compare with other countries in depth and scope, but on the face of it any reasonable person can look at the CCS and know that, as our schools are currently structured, the likelihood of teaching every standard to mastery - especially when many students are already working below grade level - is nil.
Instead of foolishly insisting otherwise, our state education leaders ought to be having real, meaningful conversations with teachers and school leaders about how to best approach the implementation of Common Core Standards. That implementation ought to start with a thoughtful, intentional, collaborative process of prioritizing standards from essential, to important, to "nice to know."
This is not easy work because none of the standards are superfluous and no teacher wants to leave content untaught. But if we don't make intentional, collaborative decisions about what we won't teach, then what gets left out will simply be what we run out of time to "cover." Which is exactly where we were before CCS.
It's a terrifying prospect for educators, of course, because there's always the fear that what we leave out will be on the "test." But I believe (and here, I stand confidently on the shoulders of Reeves, Schmoker, Marzano, and others) that by teaching fewer standards, we can get more students to a richer, deeper level of mastery on core concepts and skills that will pay off in higher test scores.
Risky? Possibly. But one thing you can guarantee: we won't teach all the standards to mastery as they are currently constructed.
Comments