Repair-It

I am going to avoid the common arguments against the common core relating to the politicizing of the common core.

As a parent, I have no problem teaching my kid counter points to what he is taught at school, that may show selective presentation of points of view or convenient omissions of evidence or outright factual errors. Many political arguments against the common core is about materials taught and how this may mean certain materials are taught over other materials... we parents will balance this out as a matter of our roles as our child's primary educators. Thus that politicizing part, I disregard in my dislike for the common core.

What I see is the overarching "problem" of common core, is how the idealistic objectives about getting kids career/college ready and "letting the teacher teach their own way" are POORLY and SHODDILY linked to metrics that may force teachers to teach ONE way -- and that way is to pass the common core standardized tests.

As a scientist, I am 100% for "teaching kids how to think." But when a standardized test forces all kids to "show your work" that, apparently, can only be shown one correct way, I am not convinced this metric is evidence-based in all the ways a student CAN think. Unless we are interested in only ONE way that students SHOULD think, which is the way that they MUST think in order to SHOW POINT-GETTING WORK on a common core standardized test. The way the common core is being tested and taught right now, in what I've observed, there is only ONE way to think, which is the way that scores you points.

As a parent with a kid in elementary school at pre-standardized testing grade, I already see the poor execution of teaching to the common core.

The next time you see a 6 year old kid, ask that kid what "reflect" on a story means. Because this is what my kid and his classmates have to do in First Grade: reflect. They have to reflect, because the word "reflect" is part of the common core standard competency grid, that is supposedly aiming to cultivate thinkers. Teachers of young children are "choosing" to use the word "reflect", because they want the kids to recognize this word and know the task when confronted with a test is "re-tell". In other words, teachers know they need to help their students pass a common core standardized test, and they become more test-prep instructors than "teachers".

Ok back to scientist mode. Reflecting on a story is not re-telling a story. At least, given my current capacity for age-appropriate higher-order thinking required of the concept of "reflection", I make a clear distinction between regurgitating a story, retelling a story, and reflecting on a story.

I can show my capacity to THINK, by knowing the difference between REgurgitating, REtelling, and REflecting, and if I wanted to design a standardized exam that demonstrates the capacity to think and discern, I would require an example of each type of "Re-".

But the typical 5-6 year old kid is NOT capable of "reflecting." I am not saying there aren't geniuses and prodigies who are 5-6 year old and who can write a thesis on a modern classic. I am talking about your AVERAGE 6 year olds that are in institutionalized educational setting where they have a level of working memory, emotional complexity, and cognitive organization that DOES NOT ALLOW reflection in the intended sense of the word "reflection" when it comes to literature.

Young children must first develop a certain proficiency of working memory to retain that information, then develop a level of comprehension to understand that information, then be able to link their (limited) life experience to make that information relevant (thus better retained), then have the ability to reorganize that information into their own words, then have the physical coordination to hold a pencil long enough to write these onto paper, and have the physical capacity to focus long enough sitting on a chair at a desk to complete the exercise.

From what I've seen, common core standards sounds great in theory, but are measured in such a way that the execution of the method of instructing forces a limited focus of how to teach (versus truly individualizing instruction to different learners), and it is all about passing tests that claims to measure some competency.

I am just not convinced. And I'm speaking as a person who lives in a middle/upper-middle class neighborhood in a good school district with good teachers who want to do the right thing and the parents are extremely involved and a large % is highly educated. Even in our area: CCS is not implemented well.

As a business person, I believe that a good strategy badly executed is worse than a bad strategy well executed. As a life science professional, I also believe in "if you cannot help, at least do no harm."

Common core standards is a good idea, HORRIBLY executed. It seems to be helpful, but so far, its manifestation in many educational environments has been harmful.