School Leader

Cage Busting the Common Core

Last week I wrote about the serious reservations many are now voicing regarding the Common Core Standards (CCS), so much so that even here in Kentucky (the first state to adopt CCS - before it even officially existed) legislators have introduced a bill to halt its implementation.

The truth is, though, that Common Core is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future.  The Kentucky House Education Committee chair has declared the bill dead on arrival, citing widespread support for CCS among educators.  And polling data suggests that teachers and administrators do, by and large, want to carry on with the new standards for now.

There are probably many reasons for this.  Many educators recognize that in some cases, the Common Core Standards do represent a better set of learning goals than many of the state standards that preceded them.  Also, teacher views on this issue are probably much more practical than philosophical.  Rather than fret about the implications of federal encroachment on state and local authority, educators are much more focused on the potential consequences of making yet another curricular change to their day-to-day work with students.  I sympathize wholeheartedly, as I have participated actively in Common Core implementation both as a district administrator and as a professor training aspiring school leaders.  Millions of dollars and untold human hours have been devoted to this work so far, and it's only  now beginning for science and social studies.

So, how do we make the most of this situation?  Educators must accept the Common Core with all its limitations and make it work for them.  In this, I take inspiration from Cage-Busting Leadership, the lastest book from American Enterprise Institute education guru Frederick Hess.  The trick to using Common Core - or any other state or federal mandate - is to become masters of our own destiny, rather than perpetual victims of bureaucrats and policy makers.  Here's how.

1.  Articulate your own vision for what you want your school or district to be.  Too many school leaders operate in a completely reactive mode, passively waiting for district or state officials to give them explicit directions on what to teach and how to teach it.   "Ask yourself: What is your vision of a terrific school or system?" Hess writes.  "That's the school of system you want to lead."

Curricular standards are an essential part of a school's vision, but they ought to function as just that - a tool used to create the kind of school you want to work and learn in.  School leaders need to figure out what kind of school they want, and think big. 

• Do you want a highly-personalized environment that gives students lots of choice and the ability to move through hands-on learning experiences as they demonstrate mastery of particular standards? 
• Do you want a school where students get rich, descriptive feedback on their progress toward specific learning targets and actively participate in their journey toward mastery? 
• Do you want a school that places a special focus on technology, or STEM, or the arts, as the major theme that will unite all learning experiences?

These are but a handful of the kinds of visions bold school leaders might articulate, and this is the place to start in making curricular standards serve teachers and students, rather than the other way around.

2. To help articulate your vision, ask yourself, "What problem am I solving?"  According to Hess, "Cage-busters try to begin every conversation by talking about the problems they've identified and how they might solve them."

Limited examples: How do we deliver better feedback to students and their families about their progress?  How do we better differentiate learning experiences for every student?  How do we improve students' skills in generating and testing scientific hypotheses?  How do we improve students' skills in drawing inferences from texts? 

Note three things:

• These problems help you articulate a vision for what kind of school you want to become.
• These problems help point you toward the specific kinds of strategies for improving teaching practice that you will engage in.
• These problems are not focused on raising test scores, though improved student performance on test scores is likely to be a happy result.

Note how practical and straightforward these problems are.  As Hess points out, cage-busting leaders can dispense with unnecessary efforts to be "innovative" (which often just amounts to engaging in high-profile gimmicks) and make their mark as real problem solvers.

3.  Prioritize standards.  Once you understand the problems you are facing and have figured out the kind of school you want to become, then you are ready to do something that seems like near anathema to many educators: you can decide which curricular standards you will teach, and which you won't.

The case for this is clear: there are far too many standards to teach to proficiency in any given year.  Trying to do so leads inevitably to an over-emphasis on "coverage" and test preparation instead of carefully tracking student mastery of individual learning targets and supporting meaningful mastery learning. 

Cage-busting leaders are willing to take the chance that students will do better on state tests (which are just an afterthought to the learning process) by focusing on depth of mastery versus breadth of coverage, and staying true to their vision of what good instruction and learning looks for their school.  Read more on prioritizing standards here.

Note that there is nothing in the Common Core Standards - or in federal or state policies - that would keep a school or district from doing the bold things described above.  It would require, however, confronting a lot of fear, complacency, and that tendency to think that the way we've always done things is the way they have to be.

My advice to school leaders is to use the CCS to meet your needs.  But to do that, you have to know what kind of school you want to become.  Changes in standards, testing, and accountability will inevitably come around again.  Your vision should be strong enough to weather whatever changes come your way.

Latest on Doug Reeves assault case

I have been following the child sexual assault case against prominent education author Douglas Reeves with great interest.  Reeves' work has greatly influenced my own teaching and my thinking about educational leadership, but the nature of the charges against him are so serious, many educators (myself included) are exercising great caution in using his books and materials until the resolution of this case.

Reeves is accused of indecent assault against a nine-year-old girl in his Masachussetts home in 2006.  He has denied the charge. 

Reeves' trial was scheduled to begin earlier this month, but the Swampscott Patch reports that it was postponed until next Monday, February 3.  The trial was also moved to a different district court, though no explanation for the change of venue was readily apparent.

I'll post more information as the trial unfolds.  See previous posts on this topic here and here.

UPDATE, 3/1/2014: After several delays, a source close to the case tells me the trial is now scheduled to begin April 1.

UDPATE, 4/3/2014: Reeves was found not guilty today.  See more here.

UPDATE, 4/8/2014: Read coverage of the trial and verdict from the Lynn, Massachusetts Daily Item here and here.

UPDATE, 4/16/2014: Read about my interview with Reeves, in which he reflects on the trial and his future, here.

Bill to halt Common Core in Kentucky has merit

Kentucky lawmakers have filed a bill that would, among other things, halt implementation of Common Core Standards (CCS) in the state and direct the Kentucky Board of Education to recommend new content standards to local districts, which would ultimately be granted autonomy over curricular decisions.

While I can see the merits in CCS, and have dutiful ensured that my education administration students are fully prepared to implement the new standards in their schools, I have also counted myself a Common Core skeptic from the beginning.  Now I am increasingly convinced that states should, indeed, consider back-pedaling on Common Core and revisit the topic of who has authority over curricular standards and how schools should be held accountable for implementing them.

House Bill 215 was introduced in the Kentucky General Assembly last week by Rep. Tom Kerr of Taylor Mill and nine co-sponsors, all of them Republicans.  You can read a thorough description of the bill, and get a link to its full text, at the Bluegrass Institute blog.  The bill is more than a simple repeal of Common Core and the Next Generation Science Standards.  Rather, it establishes a framework for ensuring that Kentucky - and especially local boards of education - maintain full control and autonomy over curricular decisions.

Defenders of the new standards, including some of my friends at the Kentucky Department of Education, will have you believe that the only people who are concerned about Common Core are right-wing extremists.   Kentucky House Education Committee chairman Derek Graham tried to blame talk radio for cooking up the controversy.  But careful study of the issue, including a review of who is writing in opposition to the CCS and what they are saying, suggests that these concerns are shared by a wide, diverse, and intelligent array of people.

Just to illustrate the depth and breadth of concerns about the Common Core, consider the following:

• I am definitely no fan of Diane Ravitch as no two people could be farther apart than she and I over on the issue of educational improvement.  But consider her many thoughtful arguments against the Common Core in her recent speech to the Modern Language Association.  I repeat: those opposed to Common Core represent both liberals and conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, and otherwise.
• Anthony Cody (again, not someone with whom I agree much, or who would agree with me) makes an excellent case for how the Common Core Standards were rushed into development with little meaningful input from educators or parents, and how the federal government coerced states into CCS adoption with the carrot and stick of NCLB waivers and multi-million dollar grants.
• Dick Innes, education analyst for the Bluegrass Policy Institute, shows how concerns about the Next Generation Science Standards have little to do with evolution and a lot to do with squeezing out chemistry and physics.  Furthermore, Innes argues that because Kentucky has no actual ownership over the CCS or NGSS, we have little control over how to improve their deficiencies or the inevitable national tests that will be used to assess student progress.
• Joanne Yatvin, past president of the National Council for Teachers of English, exposes flaws in the Common Core Standards for English/Langauge Arts, but to Dick's point above, what is to be done about it?

The truth is, Common Core has been fraught with problems from the beginning.  Kentucky, in a rush to implement 2009's Senate Bill 1 that once again overhauled the state's accountability system, became the first state to adopt CCS before the standards were even finalized.  Some 0f this urgency was actually driven by Republican lawmakers who wanted assurances that Kentucky schools were performing on par with other states, and Common Core promised a framework that would provide consistency of curriculum on a multi-state scale.

Many educators welcomed the idea of Common Core because we recognized weaknesses in the existing state standards.  Curricular experts like Robert Marzano, Doug Reeves, and Mike Schmoker had taught us that, in order to ensure a "guaranteed, viable curriculum" for every student (the foundation of meaningful school improvement efforts), standards need to be clear, well-aligned across grade levels, and few in number.

The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, an education reform think tank whose work I typically admire, has argued that the Common Core Standards represent a real improvement in terms of curricular organization for most states.  But as I wrote over two years ago, however the CCS may have improved curricular clarity or alignment, any educator can see that there are too many standards to effectively teach to proficiency in a single year.  And at any rate, as Eric Hanushek argues, what makes a difference in student outcomes has far more to do with how teachers teach curricular targets than the targets themselves.

It was clear even then that Common Core was likely to be a huge, expensive educational undertaking that had little promise of actually improving student achievement.  And the cost was greater than time and money: Common Core represents a massive loss of local and state autonomy over one of the most critical realms of education. 

We know that gross standardization of the learning process is a key, failing feature of existing educational structures.   We need more choice, innovation, and personalization in our experiences of schooling.  The more standardized and nationalized the education industry becomes, the less likely such individualization can occur.

As Jay P. Greene artfully argues, top-down accountability mechanisms are not the answer to our educational problems, and Common Core represents the current pinnacle of top-down efforts to nationalize schooling in America.  Curricular choices certainly do matter, but if schools are to improve it will be through effective instructional leadership and teaching practices implemented at a local level, hopefully with a healthy dose of bottom-up accountability structures that ensure failing schools can't hold families captive.

For all these reasons, Kentuckians should give House Bill 215 a serious look, and should keep the focus of instructional improvement where it ought to be: in the local school and its classrooms and in the marketplace of educational choices.

Is differentiation really possible?

I am frequently critical of the prevailing model of American schooling in part because it fails to adequately differentiate for individual student learning needs and interests.  Practicing educators know this.  The challenge of differentation is huge: how do you take a diverse group of 20-30 kids who share little but the same chronical age and design a learning experience that meets them at the level of their readiness and also responds to their unique learning style, personality, and personal interests?

The truth is, we can do a lot better at this, even within the confines of traditional schooling structures.  It's not easy, but the work of Carol Ann Tomlinson makes it clear that better differentiation is within the reach of most teachers and schools.

But even the best teachers will struggle to provide meaningful differentation in classrooms that are structured as they are in the vast majority of schools.  That's why I think, if we want to get beyond the rigid, uninspiring, one-size-fits-all structure of schools, we have to imagine a totally different kind of learning environment, with a different kind of teacher-student and student-student relationship, and a different kind of approach to curriculum and assessment.  I think this could happen in three different ways:

 1.  A marketplace of schooling options.  One way to offer scalable differentiation is by fostering a real marketplace of educational choices for families.  In any community of moderate size there should be schools that specialize in traditional, "classic books" curricula, other schools that are technology rich and STEM focused, others still that are geared toward specific career interests, and still others that offer student-centered philosophies like Montessori (more on this below).  The idea here is that you don't have to differentiate for every single child if you can offer a learning experience that appeals to groups of students and families who share common interests and needs.  Of course, perhaps the best method to begin creating this marketplace is through some mechanism of school choice (vouchers, for example, or charter schools) that make these options affordable to all families regardless of income).

 

2.  Alternative learning models that, by their very essence, offer differentiation.  Examples here would include Montessori, which is much more highly-structured than is readily evident, but also is based heavily on students working at their own pace through a curriculum that is largely hidden under high-interest, hands-on activities.  While students have the opportunity to collaborate in their learning, there are no grades, no tests, none of the other structures of traditional schooling that typically lead to competition, ill feelings toward school, or gross standardization.  A more radical model would be the Sudbury approach, which is a form of "unschooling" that places the student entirely in control of his or her own curriculum.  Before you dismiss this idea, learn about the Sudbury experience and how it works so well for many students.

 

3.  Homeschooling (or blended homeschooling) offers perhaps the ultimate form of differentiation.  This is becoming an increasingly viable option for many families because of technology and the rich network of homeschooling families that are growing in many communities.  I'm also really excited about blended models ("a la carte" education) wherein a student might have a brick-and-mortal school that is her "hub," perhaps where she takes some classes or goes for career counseling or other resources, but spends the rest of her learning time in a mix of online activities, community-based service, apprenticeships, etc.  See also my thoughts on online learning and the future of schooling here and here.

Ultimately, rethinking the whole notion of "school" is fundamental to offering meaningful differentation.