An October 12 article by Emma Brown
reported Ohio and Arkansas politicians and their State Education Agents
(SEA) decided to redefine
what “proficiency” means based on
the results on their Common Core tests.
This action inflates the performance of its students. One result of embracing
lower levels of proficiency is diminished expectations to achieve the mission
of learning for all.
Forty-four states and the District of Columbia continue to implement
the Common Core State Standards. Several states sought to avoid the
politically-toxic Common Core name by using alternate names. However, while the Missouri
Learning Standards or the North Carolina Standard
Course of Study avoid the Common Core name, their
tests of adequate yearly progress
are still designed to measure learning based on Common Core Standards.
Neither
the Mathematics or ELA minimal standards at grade level collectively identified
as the Common
Core State Standards (CCSS) or any related assessments
of student progress, such as the PARCC or Smarter Balanced,
reduce student aspirations or potential. Idiomatically, "A rising tide lifts all boats." The effect of
lowering the cut points that determine proficiency is false identification of progress.
Such a lie puts a hole into an
educational system’s expectations and forecloses that system's students. An effective educational system embraces high
standards for success, thereby guiding its students to "reach for the
stars.” By contrast, lowering levels of
proficiency reinforces a containment culture whereby too much credit is
provided for a student’s ability to hit the ceiling with a pencil.
A
thorough review of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) report card reveals the disparity of education by
state. NAEP math and reading tests are
given every other year to a representative sample of fourth and eighth graders.
Nationwide, 2015 score results were down
on three of the four tests, which critics of Common Core will use as evidence
that the standards do not work. However, as reported by Felton
(2015), NAEP
scores from the four states that never adopted the Common Core: Virginia,
Nebraska, Alaska, and Texas, also exhibited a downward trend compared to 2013 NAEP
results.
It is more important to examine NAEP results to identify states with the highest performing students. Finding many of the states with the lowest
performing students are the same states with politicians and SEA that will
lower cut points for proficiency should not be surprising. It should also be noted that many of the
states with the lowest performing students either opted out or are now seeking
to opt out of the CCSS. Rather than focusing
on the 2015 NAEP results as proof that the Common Core Standards are
ineffective, the state-by-state disparity of 2015 NAEP results actually add to the
rationale for the Common Core. The
state-by-state disparity that is clearly recorded in NAEP results since 1998
reinforce the need for common standards, rigorous assessment of learning, and great
expectations established through a high level of proficiency.
The
leaders of states with consistently low performing school systems seem to
embrace a philosophy of avoiding the truth rather than embracing a concerted
effort for educational reform. Explication of minimal grade level benchmarks
for learning at each grade level, which the CCSS provides, creates opportunities
and realistic expectations. Standards
such as the CCSS represent the minimal level of expected achievement
not the final destination for all students. It is prudent to suggest leaders willing to
lower expectations or discard a system of research-based minimal level of
achievement, want sheep rather than "an informed citizenry (Jefferson)
who will be capable of protecting government of the people, by the people, for
the people (Lincoln, 1863).
A
state’s commitment to Common Core math and ELA standards has been related to an
upward proficiency trend (Petersen & Ackerman, 2015). Effectively
teaching our children is the greatest societal responsibility because the
educational search for truth frees our minds, strengthens our spirits, and
secures our society. By contrast, any
state educational system exhibiting a lack of willingness to optimally educate
its students encourages ignorance and disempowerment. Such a system perpetuates fear and hopelessness,
which is the food for prisons of the mind and spirit.
The
goal of an effective educational system must be driven by an honorable mission.
Effective
Schools Research suggests the mission for
educational systems is "learning for all" (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011).
Educational systems dedicated to such a
mission willingly provide the necessary tools so the outcome is everyone knows
how to "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock,
and the door will be opened to you" (Matthew 7:7).
To cite:
Anderson,
C.J. (October 29, 2015) The interdependency of common core standards, proficiency
References:
Crawford,
J. (2012). Aligning your curriculum to the common core state standards.
Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483387727
Edmonds,
R. (1979). Effective Schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership,
37,
15-24.
Lezotte,
L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do:
Re-envisioning the
correlates. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press
Manley,
R. J., & Hawkins, R. J. (2013). Common core state standards: What are they?
In Making the common core
standards work: Using professional development to
build world-class schools. (pp. 19-31).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483387949.n2
No comments:
Post a Comment