The facts behind the learning standards that were cleverly coined COMMON CORE.
The Spin Behind Common Core
It was developed to address the inadequacy of incoming college freshmen and to establish national education standards.
It is a glaring example of well-intended but misinformed ideas making their way into accepted education policy. Again.
Established around 2010, Common Core is a set of standards that pushes kids faster than previously in their elementary, middle school, and high school education. It flies in the face of individualized instruction, which promotes meeting a child where his developmental stage indicates he is ready.
​
Many folks outside the classroom don't understand what it is about Common Core they don't like; they just know something feels off about it. And they're not wrong.
Common Core dictates advanced acquisition of concepts as early as third grade, when students are expected to begin their foray into multiplication, division, and algebraic expressions, and write analyses of character development in books like Charlotte's Web.
It flips the natural order of learning, putting logic and theory before facts and memorization.
This might account for the disconnect and confusion many teachers see on the faces of students during instruction, and the fact that modeling of concepts must be applied over and over, with very little independence actually achieved.
​
One fall-out from common core is that many students are resisting the push toward faster learning.
Nothing is riding on their engagement in the program, so many opt out because it is easier than pushing themselves beyond their comfort level. Most don't care whether they do well on the state tests that were developed using the core standards.
Teachers, however, do obsess over these test results because they must. It has become an ongoing conundrum for teachers in the classroom: how to make students want to learn material that is either too advanced for them or uninteresting to them at all.
​
Telling a 4th grader that he must understand not only how to write equivalent fractions but why they are crucial for algebra is futile. Instead, what we should do is observe the natural development of children in grades K-5 and sort them into the groups (classes) that will benefit them the most.
Some will land in those advanced classes because they have GT potential. Others will not. That is the way things work in a free society. You cannot beat knowledge into people. Holding everyone accountable for a list of learning objectives that is not doable for some only frustrates everyone in the program.
​
If we watch closely for the signs of readiness, we can sort our young learners into the groups (classrooms) that will benefit them the most. This is what I advocate for our Model School. Advancement in learning should happen when the child is ready for it to happen. Currently, however, we are requiring all 4th graders to write explanations to justify their math thinking. Here is one such question on a state test:​​​
The student is expected to know that drawing five division lines between 0 and 1 actually creates six fractional parts. And he probably does, if he has paid attention to the teacher's math instruction and practiced the concept enough in class. If that is the case, he will likely type a correct response for the third bullet point.
But look at how the other two bullet points are worded. Common Core insists on what it calls justification, the ability to explain one's math reasoning and why it is correct. The requirement for justification can be seen on at least half of the questions posed on a state math test. The only reason a written justification is useful (at the age of 10!) is to sort our learners into the appropriate developmental classes. But we're requiring it of everyone in order to show proficiency. Is it any wonder we have such dismal reports of 4th grade achievement across the nation?
​
​​An additional flaw in the way math is taught and assessed in Common Core is that it blends math thinking with language arts acquisition. We are not simply determining a student's math prowess with the above question; we are requiring a certain level of reading and writing prowess. I can think of a better way to pose this question and still get to the heart of whether students understand fractional parts.
But the folks who designed Common Core insist that if we don't require early acquisition of logic and theory, and the ability to explain one's thinking, our students will not be ready for either college or their career once they graduate from high school. ​How realistic does that sound? Students fall all across the cognitive spectrum, and an early ability to grasp logic and explain it cannot be forced.
​
Neither can a certain intellectual path in life. Middle school programs should begin the process of counseling students to determine what they imagine that path to be and then tracking kids toward those goals. Insisting that all students learn and display early abstract reasoning encourages cynicism in our young people and chaos in our schools. If nothing else convinces you of the truth behind my words, a national math proficiency below 40% should.
​
See for yourself what we are requiring for K-12 grade level proficiency by examining Common Core's curricular online document.
Click below to see more math questions:
