The Common Core: I'm No Expert

I really like the idea of demanding rigorous standards for our State School Systems and those standards must closely align for general state to comparison with regard to what defines a High School Diploma. If the High School Diploma is a benchmark for minimum prerequisite for entry into higher education, the military, and some employment opportunities then all states should meet that standard and that standard should be clearly defined. I remember back in the day that nearly every student in the nation took the SAT-9 (Stanford Achievement Test - Series 9) a standardized test given at grade level to measure grade level benchmarks. The test ranked students by state and national percentile rankings, which meant all students that took the test in one state could be compared to every other state because they all took the same test (A or B same test but questions in different order). This seemed like a good way of comparing "apples to apples," but then came the ESEA re-authorization in 2001 known as NCLB (No Child Left Behind), which mandated states to create there own test or continue to use the SAT.  Since a new component of ESEA was AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) and that was going to be how school systems would continue to receive Federal Funding; systems had to decide whether to create their own test (content driven, criterion based) rather than standardized. Most States chose to create their tests, which led to state standards known as CSO's (Content Standards and Objectives). This was not necessarily a bad thing, but it no longer allowed for a good State to State comparison of students. Criterion referenced tests (if Valid) assess student achievement compared to the various CSO's for that subject and yield (if Reliable) consistent data year to year, but rarely do these tests align with what other State require in that subject.

We now have the Common Core Standards, which seeks to align every state to a certain benchmark level, at each grade, in Math and ELA (English/Language Arts). I found an article that may help to clarify or muddy the water even further,  Study of the SAT - 10   (Note: the address bar when you go to this site). The study is generated by a large textbook company and test developer, which may mean observational bias when analyzing and reporting data outcomes. There is familiar name dropping and the idea presented that this new series test will align with Common Core Standards... "Overall, 100 percent of the Stanford 10 English Language Arts items align to the Common Core State Standards." Statements like this lead the reader into a confident state of mind that they have found the assessment tool necessary to meet their needs. I agree the need to strengthen student vocabulary is critical especially for college bound students, but not all students need to go to college (nor should they be made to feel like that college is the only road to success). Increasing vocabulary to read informational text is vitally important, adding literacy standards to social studies is good, adding literacy standards to math and science make sense as well, but then would the shift of content skills also shift from being able to do math to also being able to read and understand how to do math.... Literacy is something that must happen across curriculum, but do you really need to write that into a standard in order to force teachers to do it. Every textbook (even math textbooks) I have ever opened have printed text in them, so does making a literacy standard somehow ensure that I read that text?  

The directions for this activity say to take a stand and I'm willing to do that, but my opinion is a work in progress and I reserve the right to modify and alter my opinion as I learn more. There are large parts of my teaching philosophy that Do Not align with standardized anything! I believe that students are individuals and there is no "single" way to measure student achievement. A student that cannot demonstrate mastery on a written assessment may be able to demonstrate mastery level understanding through a constructed representation or lengthy oral argument. I also fall on the different side of the fence when talking about content knowledge... I know content knowledge is important, but regurgitating rote facts about content is such a small part of overall learning. I would rather have students build on their understanding of those rote facts and make connections to other past or current events / problems. However, I can see a need to have some level of comparison among students at grade level, most particularly the minimum for high school diploma; only because of the expectations that perspective employers have when reviewing potential employees. I think a more balanced approached is where assessments should be going and shifting tests from multiple choice to constructed responses may be step in the right direction, but then how subjective are the responses going to be judged and is spelling going to be an issue. I'll leave you with a few example questions of what I mean (please answer this question in your comments)... Define the word Present, Lead, Wind, and Minute (you must use the most correct definition): Good luck