Dear Math Curriculum Director,
Throughout
the last year we have read a lot of negativity towards the Common Core in
relation to textbook companies monopolizing the Common Core and to the
difficulty. I find that neither of these statements is true and we have the
opportunity to improve our mathematic classes during our transition to these
benchmarks by participating in the regional initiative to use Assessment
Literacy (Assessment for Learning) in
the classroom.
Within the
middle school we have two texts currently that we have used as a resource for
the Common Core. Both claim to be aligned to the Common Core, but have very
different ways of assessing students’ knowledge of the same standards. The
Common Core is loosely framed and is not intended to be a curriculum. The
Common Core website states that it is not a curriculum. Since the math teachers
are already using their time to create classroom units including activities and
assessments based on the Common Core standards it would be essential for the
teacher to deconstruct the standards at a local level to allow real local
interpretation of the standard versus the textbook loosely aligned versions.
This is one of the focuses of the training in Assessment Literacy. I found that
when I completed a classroom unit after going through the process in my
training the focus, expectations, and outcomes were much clearer for the
teacher and student and the students assessed at a much higher level than in
the past.
Another
perceived drawback to the Common Core is the difficulty level for the students.
There are several examples of outlandish problems that students have to be
completed posted by parents on social media websites that are created by the
textbook companies. Again, if the teachers had the time to deconstruct the standard
they could alleviate a large portion of the difficulty. Another reason it is
perceived as difficult is due to the way students are assessed. Common Core
encourages for problem solving and critical thinking vs. the old skill driven
standards. However, it is hard for students and teachers to change their
classroom when assessments are perceived as a threat. In fact, in my
experience, for many students after being told they are wrong or are pushed to
deepen their understanding they often quit. It is easier for them to quit than
to fail. In a recent TED talk by Ken Robinson he discusses how in Finland , one of
the world’s highest ranked school systems, there is a low dropout rate because
testing supports learning and doesn’t obstruct it. When testing is used in this
fashion standards are clear, learning has the opportunity to extend and seem
more natural, and the tests are not perceived as a threat to the teachers and
students for their futures. However, we continue to give homework and grade
homework when often it is the child’s first attempt at trying.
Assessment for Learning would allow
our students and teachers to work with less threat, at a local level. After a
teacher learns how to deconstruct standards they also learn how to properly
create activities that are assessed formatively in a way that gives information
to the student and teacher. Things are still “graded” but do not count against
the student’s grade until the summative test. They are simply used as a tool to
allow the students and teachers what skills need to be studied and what skills
are already mastered. This allows the students to take risks, increase student
participation, and self efficacy. At the district level we performed action
research with this program and we found gains in all age levels and different
subject areas. The highest gains were found in the students that generally achieve
at the lowest quartile.
I hope that you can see the
positive impact this program could have towards our transition to the new
standards and the overall atmosphere for the classroom and staff.
Thank You,
Andrea Colville
No comments:
Post a Comment