Response to the Common Core

There is a lot of controversy in the education world right now, especially in Tennessee. Most of that controversy surrounds the new Common Core framework. Ever heard of it? Quick primer: Each state currently has its own set of standards that it uses to measure student understanding at each grade level, for each subject. This inevitably means the expectations are different for the same grade level in different states. For example, in North Carolina, seventh grade math students are introduced to interior and exterior angles in polygons for the first time. In Tennessee, those specific standards are taught in the sixth grade. The Common Core is a U.S. education initiative whose goal is to align all states to the same set of standards. States can choose whether or not to adopt the Common Core State Standards initiative - at this point, Alaska, Nebraska, Texas, Virginia, and Minnesota have either chosen not to adopt or to adopt only the English standards. But not everyone is happy about the new standards.

I think a lot of the discontent stems from a bit of a misunderstanding. Many people think that adopting Common Core means everyone has to teach exactly the same thing, exactly the same way. For example, Reading teachers must all teach a certain list of books in the sixth grade. In fact, the initiative is meant to just streamline what standards we teach the kids in which grade levels, and the rest is up to the teachers. Thus, reading teachers need to teach their students how to make inferences and summarize the main idea, but whether it's through Number the Stars or Holes or Wonder (my personal favorite) is up to the individual teacher.

That is a very, very basic overview, and I'm sure someone more in-the-know could make some arguments against the Common Core that I haven't thought of. But so far, what I've seen in the Common Core documents correlates very well to what I want my students to be able to do in math class.

One of my good friends from work recently switched jobs to work for the Department of Education as the Director of Communications, or some fancy job title like that. Regardless, her job requires her to keep her finger on the pulse of what people are saying about education in Tennessee, so I'm sure it has been an interesting month to say the least. She forwarded me this article about one person's concern about the new Common Core math standards, and asked me to respond. I think she was probably looking for a two-sentence summary of my thoughts, but in true Ms. H fashion, I wrote a novella. If you are interested in my response, keep reading. If not...see you next time!

Response to the Common Core

1) With any change inevitably comes skepticism, so I definitely understand where Mr. Garelick is coming from. In fact, many teachers are probably equally as skeptical, if not because of the content, then because the constant shifting of curriculum and standards often makes it feel like we are chasing a moving target.

2) I don’t think the Common Core is suggesting that we completely throw out the algorithms and procedural math that students need to be computationally successful. Those can be useful tools in solving many math problems, and work extremely well for many students. However, I think the intention is to shift the focus from a step-based mathematics to a thinking-based mathematics, with which I am in total agreement. If students don’t understand why the algorithm works, it merely becomes a series of steps that students must remember and follow correctly in order to be successful. Teaching the “how” of the algorithm without teaching the “why” will never require students to understand so much as it will to remember. Many of my students are immediately successful when given an algorithm or series of steps to follow to solve a particular type of problem. That “understanding” manifests itself as mechanization later, though, when they are asked to solve a problem out of context and can no longer remember the rules I’ve taught them. Student understanding is strongest when children draw on their previous knowledge, create their own connections to new material, and integrate new knowledge into their own networks of understanding. Developing this context with students, instead of just handing them a predetermined rule, creates flexible thinkers who know when and why to use a particular algorithm or rule.

3) As I read the two reactions cited in the article, I was reminded of the two-dimensional view that I once had of mathematics, that I think a lot of children, parents, and maybe even teachers still have. Many of our children “like” math because they are naturally gifted at computation, and therefore find it easy to be “successful”, as far as grades are concerned. Most children that I have taught that claimed to hate math were coincidentally those that were below grade level and had a history of struggling and frustration in the subject. Possibly one of the most important lessons that I have learned in my measly three years of teaching is that math is not just about numbers; it’s about patterns, relationships, and creativity. It’s about investigation, discovery, and extension. It’s about thinking, reasoning, and sense-making. As soon as I shifted the focus from numbers and calculation to reason, investigation and creative solutions, even my most struggling students have found ways to be successful, ways that makes sense to them and finally make math accessible and even engaging. Math is an exciting subject, and I think the emphasis that the Common Core places in its Mathematical Practices indirectly, if inadvertently, reminds us of the potential that lies within the curriculum.

4) I think one of the most important implications for our children is striking a balance between communicating and mastery. Let’s face it – children theoretically have access to calculators 24/7, thanks to modern technology. They could Google the formula for the surface area of a rectangular prism if they really needed it (which they probably won’t). Yes, I understand that they can’t do that on “the test”, but my concern for my children goes far beyond the world of standardized tests. I’m thinking ahead to the day they have a real job, a career even. Most of the math that they learn in school won’t even be relevant to the majority of their jobs. There will be spreadsheets and computer programs that do the heavy lifting for them. Their job will be to analyze, explain, question, defend, articulate – no matter what their trade or their job, they will have to be able to communicate. That being said, I absolutely agree that children should still be practicing math, and should still be able to compute. But computation without communication will do very little in our competitive world. The teachers’ feat will be to find that balance between teaching computational skills and teaching thinking skills. I don’t, however, believe Common Core is suggesting that computation skills are unnecessary or less important; I think the goal is to challenge teachers and students to go beyond pure calculations and procedures to develop a more holistic child.