Constructivism Reformed Into the Common Core

I’ve written about constructivism here. If you want to go to a more official source, go here. Constructivism is a philosophy that drives curriculum and instruction toward proper conditions where children are supposed to be able to construct their own knowledge and meaning. These are some of the phrases most often used to describe curriculum and practices that contain constructivism: teachers are facilitators, higher-level thinking activities, project-based learning, group work, pair work, discovery learning, etc. In constructivism no student learns alone and students can only learn from other students, not the old “sage on the stage” called a teacher.

In math, constructivism has been evidenced in public schools in one form or another since at least the 1980s as fuzzy math, reform math, and new math. I was an elementary school teacher starting in the late 1990s in an urban, high poverty California public school. Later, I was in a suburban, middle income Texas school. My entire seven and a half years of teaching involved teacher training and teaching of only new math— constructivist math. I never taught the so-called traditional math that Common Core is supposedly fixing. My experience at the elementary level showed me students woefully lacking in the basic math skills needed for higher-level thinking. In my book,Public Ed Dread, I wrote of watching 5^th grade suburban, middle-class students “deep thinking” and “applying” their math prowess in multiple-step word problems. So far so good. All was fine until they all had to stop their problem solving and higher-level thinking to put their pencils down and count on their fingers! Deep thinking cannot get very deep when students are stuck on the easiest part. This is constructivist math. It has not changed.

Now, we have Common Core. Common Core is constructivism tied in a pretty bow and repackaged as math that has been reformed. A good article that ties constructivism in with the new Common Core reforms is Constructive Criticism for Common Core Constructivism Deniers:

The bottom line is that the Common Core State Standards are built on constructivist principles and are being implemented, by and large, by constructivist means. If supporters like constructivism, which I suspect most do, then they should just come out and say so. That is not such a difficult position to defend. But don’t attempt to tell me these standards won’t tell teachers how to teach.

Now, we have some examples of the Common Core Standards in action and it looks constructivist to me. I just checked out the 2nd grade math exemplar from a company working with the New York State Education Department on their version of Common Core. In just this example, there appears to be very little individual work and a lot of group oral, choral, pair share, small group share, and interactive finger and white board shares. These buzzwords are part of the language of constructivism. No one can learn alone and teachers just guide. Individual states and the federal government are spending how much to replace a broken philosophy with the same broken philosophy?

Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance....Say What?

The latest waste of taxpayer money from the federal Department of Education’s Office of Educational Technology is a little report called "Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success in the21st Century."
In this report, we learn that the mindset of students is important to their educational success…say what?!

The sad irony of this report is that it is based on common sense — something that the federal government has never been accused of possessing.  Common sense and the federal government just do not compute. Below are two of the reasons this report is D.O.A.

Example 1-

...persevering to accomplish goals that are extrinsically motivated, unimportant to the student, or in some way inappropriate for the student can potentially induce stress, anxiety, and distraction, and have detrimental impacts on a student's long-term retention, conceptual learning, or psychological well-being.

The federal government continually promotes extrinsic, meaningless rewards for desired behaviors. There is constant surprise when those rewards begin to mean nothing. Often, teachers must relearn how to give extrinsic rewards correctly.

Perfect attendance awards are a great example (rewarding students who were sick, didn’t stay home, and spread illness around schools so they would win an award), they work great in elementary school with students, but as time goes on, it becomes less and less appealing. Do perfect attendance awards help in middle and high school with truants? Really, one of the only reasons schools care is because that is the way they get their money per student.
Example 2-

Substantial research points to actionable "best practices" to promote grit, tenacity, and perseverance. Note that there is still limited evidence at scale, and the field still needs coherent methods for integrating these practices into school culture, teaching practices, curriculum, and technology -- especially under conditions that present significant barriers.

Since public schools have been preoccupied with the self-esteem of students since the 60s, students have little grasp of reality regarding their performance, or lack of performance. Won’t we need to bring reality back to public schools before we can even begin to work on grit, tenacity, and perseverance? I don’t think the federal government would allow that.
Example 3-

Educators and administrators interested in promoting grit, tenacity, and perseverance should draw on key research-based best practices, for example, (1) provide students with opportunities to take on higher-order or long-term goals that are “worthy” to the student—goals that are “optimally challenging” and aligned with the students’ own interests, and (2) provide a rigorous and supportive environment for accomplishing their goals.

Many are wondering if the federal government's Common Core will provide students with higher-order or "optimally challenging" materials here, here and here.

It's Not the Burqas, Baby

The recent story about some Texas public school students who were required to dress in burqas has been widely circulating on the internet this week. However, the real story here isn’t about students dressing in burqas. The real story is how exquisitely this story illustrates the moral relativism now taught in our public schools routinely. Burqa Shmurqa.

The real issue is how students are being taught to view some very black and white events: the Holocaust and 9-11-2001. Students are being taught that they do not need a moral compass because their moral compass may be in conflict with the moral compasses of others (like say, the terrorists who blew up buildings and killed 3000 Americans…or say, Hitler). 

In an article from SETX , the reaction by Lumberton Independent School District Superintendent, John Valastro, to the national criticism of the curriculum, is the real reason we need to be upset:

We can't teach everything as black and white, right and wrong. We have to let the students learn what is going on in the world.

Public school students in Lumberton, as well as elsewhere in our country, are being taught not to judge anything. When there is no judgment, there is no bad, good, or evil. Terrorists or freedom fighters? Was the Holocaust genocide or just some simple ethnic cleansing? What comes next? Will we learn not to judge rapists or child molesters? Maybe we need to revisit our harsh judgments of poor Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. 

Judgment invites conflict. Who wants conflict? There is no judgment or conflict when there is nothing to believe in. Do we really want our public schools to churn out young Americans who believe in nothing because they've been taught it isn't nice to ever judge?

What’s more important in educational reforms: intent or results?

Say you need open-heart surgery, do you care more about how much the doctor wants to help people with heart problems or do you care more about the success rate of the doctor’s surgeries? Of course, you don’t care about intentions, you care about results.

Why is the answer so different when it comes to public education? We are constantly judging reforms and reformers based on their intentions rather than looking at their track records. Why do Americans so easily fall under the spell of those who say their intentions are pure because they are doing it for the children? When we hear those words, we open our collective pocketbook and just throw our money away. After all, they mean well so their ideas must work, right? We let decades go by allowing the Benevolent Ones chance after chance. We see each new law or fad for the children land like a thud years later (Elementary and Secondary Education Act and No Child Left Behind Act are just two examples). Do we really think Race to the Top and Common Core will be different?  

In the eyes and hearts of Americans, there appear to be two different kinds of reformers: benevolent (good) or greedy (bad). Teachers, administrators, law makers, non-profits, education colleges, textbook companies, and teacher unions are involved in reforming public education for the children, so they are good. Charter schools, voucher proponents, tutoring companies, testing companies, and investment groups are involved in reforming public education for profit, so they are bad.

Since Bill Gates is involved in Common Core, and because private companies profit off of investments in public education, ideas springing from them are bad. Just google “corporate profits from _____” and fill in the blank.

But wait, don’t universities, teachers, administrators, textbook companies, and policy wonks also profit from public education? Don’t people get into many government jobs specifically for the money? Let’s look at the new math phenomenon of Everyday Math brought to us by the University of Chicago. Profits anyone? It is okay for them to profit because their hearts are in the right place; profit was a secondary goal only. Hasn’t every single educational fad we’ve experienced that didn’t work come from the mind (and heart, sigh) of those who are doing it all for the children?

Slapping a for the children label on an idea should not turn us all into approving idiots. Everyone can come up with bad ideas, good intentions or not. Results should be the barometer of trust for reformers and their reforms.

 

Answering Why Conservatives are Incoherent on Federal Education

I just read the Neal McCluskey article on Cato.org called “Why are Conservatives Incoherent on Federal Education?” I have a few answers for him because I’ve often asked this question myself. I’ve narrowed the answer down to four different possibilities:

1) Not all conservatives have a libertarian bent. Many conservatives think that public education can be fixed if they were allowed to implement their wonderful ideas…much like liberals. This is why public education is nothing but a swinging pendulum of contradictory and contrasting policies: whole language and no accountability inevitably leads to phonics and testing, for example.

2) Conservatives believe they are realistic. They think that even if they want the Department of Education gone, their goal will be impossible to achieve because the other strong majority, the liberals, will fight just as hard to keep it. Liberals will always want a stronger federal government, period. Conservatives know that every new party change in political races may put those in office who will stall their idea of progress.

4) Conservatives do not want negative PR. Just think of all the negative campaign ads that could be created showing Republicans ripping away the only chance at a better life for poor, crying children by eliminating their Title I funds.

3) There is money to be made. Money, prestige, and business opportunities are most abundant on a federal level for those involved in public education. If this is the way things will be—if conservatives cannot get rid of the federal involvement—why let the liberals get all the benefits?

What’s with Common Core?

What is Common Core?
Common Core is supposed to solve many problems by providing a framework and standards for all states involved in the common core to follow. Some of the reasons cited for the need for a Common Core:

·         Some states do not have rigorous educational standards. This can leave students in those states unprepared for college or for future employment.

·         Since each state has historically been responsible for developing its own state educational standards, state standards are not in line with each other. If students move to other states, they may end up unprepared for the rigor of the new state or they may end up wasting their time at a state that is behind.

However, the adoption of Common Core will not prevent these issues. The Common Core website states, “That’s why these standards will establish what students need to learn, but they will not dictate how teachers should teach. Instead, schools and teachers will decide how best to help students reach the standards.”

So, the same standards will be more or less covered within the same timeframes of everywhere else, but textbooks and methods of instruction will still be different. Many, including me, think that the methods of instruction are the biggest reason for inconsistency in educational results. Please read my past posts on new math and whole language for an idea of how the same content can be taught with wildly different results because different methods are used. Do I think that we need to implement a Common Practices? NO. The federal government needs to be interfering in less, not more.

What is wrong with Common Core?

Common Core started out as a joint, voluntary effort to align state standards by the National Governors Association (NGA) and The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). There is nothing wrong with states voluntarily deciding to align their standards. After all, states are responsible for public education. As of 2009, forty-eight states and the territory of Puerto Rico signed up to be involved. Achieve, Inc., ACT and the College Board are involved in the creation of these common standards. Achieve, Inc. is the public/private group which was founded in 1996 when talk of aligning state standards was first begun.

What changed?

Public education is historically a state and local responsibility. Over time, the federal government has provided more and more help or interference. The federal Department of Education was created in 1857 to collect information to help the states decide on their educational programs. The 1960s and 1970s brought the Title programs (under the umbrella of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA) to help the poor, disabled, and to protect civil rights. In 2001, ESEA was reauthorized to create No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Again, federal money for states and federal educational requirements for states.

Race to the Top (RttT) continued this trend because it tied more federal money to the requirement that states adopt Common Core, among other things. The $4.35 billion dollar RttT was funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009—yes, the Stimulus. Race to the Top is a big can of worms even without the Common Core requirement.

With the addition of the federal RttT program, Common Core no longer can be considered a voluntary, state-initiated program. When the Common Core needs to be tweaked and/or redone in 5-10 years, who will be on the committee that decides it? When the Common Core is found to not be as wonderful as everyone thought it was, will states be penalized for changing it or for making their standards more rigorous? Will the states be in any position to pay the funds back if they decide to exit RttT and its requirements?

As everyone knows, it is hard enough to make changes to bad state programs, laws, and educational practices. It will be nearly impossible to affect any change on a federal level.

What’s so wrong with the Common Core standards themselves?

See my next post

See: Race to the Top Fact Sheet