Comments

Karen,

We have our first Common Core Curriculum meeting this week, and as I look at the destination of the CC in three years, I am thinking that we need to re-visit and deepen our knowledge and understanding of literacy for all teachers and all content areas.

I joined this group because I am very concerned about how to support teachers (elementary and secondary) in writing. I think the teaching of writing requires such a deep understanding of students and literacy theory and writing and feedback.  I want to understand how the teachers in this course who love the teaching of writing and understand how to do it will approach this.  

I want to keep the life and joy in teaching and learning, and these standards can frighten or, as you said, get teachers to continue on as they have.

It's a tough time to inspire such an undertaking.

Deb

Hmm ...

In our district, the Crosswalks have actually been useful for a lot of folks, since it allows them to make some connections between the old and the new, and not feel so overwhelmed. I honestly don't think the impetus at the school level is necessarily the "opportuntity to do things differently," Karen, but more: What do you want us to do and how will learning be assessed on state tests?

Folks want to be told what to do.

And that is partially a result of how much time teachers are being given to mull over the changes and possibilities. We're using Professional Development time in our school district this year for Understanding by Design for curriculum mapping with the new curriculum in our sights, but those are scattered half-days. I guess the expectations is that we are all going home and in between assessing student work, doing lesson planning and living our lives, we're doing curriculum mapping at our online site.

Yeah -- that's not happening for most of us, I can tell you that.

Here, in this space, we are doing this on our own time and our own interest, right? My school's not paying me for this (yes, pay matters for work effort). And I stay up wicked late () to participate in the Webinar, etc, etc. I am here with all of you because I want to know what is coming and how I can make changes to not only meet the new curriculum but also, make my classroom a better learning environment. I am interested and engaged, and don't want to be told how to make the shifts. I want to discover my own path, just like all of you.

I am not sure how many of my colleagues feel the same way.

My point is that most people want the shortest route to implementation and that is done via Crosswalks.

Do you all agree?

Disagree?

Wanna yell at me now?

Peace,

Kevin

Deb, I appreciate your comments so much -- that you are committed to keeping "the life and joy in teaching and learning" and that you are willing to take your personal time to engage with others around these dicussions.

It is indeed a tough time though.

Thank you sincerely for being a part of this group.

Kevin, Yell? -- I want to hug you! :)

The reality you describe is the reality I see in every school right now.

My comments about "crosswalks" were not intended to relate to classroom teachers so much, but more to policymakers, state DOEs, curriculum leaders, school leaders, etc. I wish more of them had student learning at the forefronts of their minds. Instead, I think they have the easist path (and yes, the most acceptable scores on what we probably all can agree are inane tests) in mind.

Times in education are tough. As tough as I ever remember.

How would things be different if decisions were made on the basis of what would make every student learn more deeply and find joy in learning?

I would say that crosswalks wouldn't be the path. But then it's a long list of things that "wouldn't be."

Karen and Kevin, I had never heard the term "crosswalk" perhaps because my teaching is in independent schools, and we have few standards we must meet. We develop our own curriculum through discussion with our department (and cross-departments). We do keep an eye on the standards, though, to be sure we are meeting or surpassing.

It is the language of most standards that feels off-putting to me. I get what Kevin is saying--realistically will teachers wade into an entire set of state standards and cross reference with the CC, with all they have to do? If they must follow standards, the cross walk might be the way to get focused (even though I dislike the whole idea of prescriptive learning).

Virginia, my state, has developed this comparison, but it, too, is onerous. Virginia is so confident in its SOL's (which I dislike on so many levels) and they show quite a bit of arrogance it their comparison:

While both the CCSS and SOL address foundational reading principles, the SOL address reading foundations in a logical progression. Teachers can follow the SOL to easily develop lessons. For example, SOL 1.9 reading fictional texts offers a sequential process. The CCSS Reading Standards for Literature grade 1 impose an artificial structure, which although covering the essential foundations, does not follow a logical instructional progression.

One of the things I really like about the CC so far is the lack of script, the broad guidelines and cyclical writing process approach. I WANT to do things differently. I don't want a "logical progression" necessarily.

However, I am still in the early stages of learning about CCS, so I probably shouldn't say much more until I dig deeper! Enough rambling for a Saturday afternoon:)

That is a great resource, Deb. Thanks.

I was looking at a document about ELA Clarification, and found some great points, including this passage from Delaware:

Therefore the English Language Arts Framework assumes that:

•    language is at the heart of all human interaction.

•    schools must use students’ home and early social experiences as the foundation
for English language arts development.

•    students’ linguistic diversity must be recognized, respected, and built upon.

•    the language arts are important tools for acquiring concepts and knowledge in all
content areas.

•    students need to develop language and communication skills that will allow them
to function in a complex society and in a variety of workplaces.

I like Delaware's KUDs as well. I've worked on a large curriculum integration project over the last two years that has sought to assemble a wide variety of digital resources (many of which are open) to support the KUDs.

What I appreciated about this project is that teachers were encouraged to specify, select, and use a variety of customizable resources that fit the KUDs and their students' needs, instead of just taking a fixed, static textbook and plowing through it.

THanks for sharing this, Deb. I, too, like what Kevin pulled, especially this:

•    the language arts are important tools for acquiring concepts and knowledge in all
content areas.

And I do understand your concern with non-ELA teachers fearing the teaching of writing. But I go back to what I said the other night: they must, we must, figure out a way to help all teachers feel comfortable with this. If we do learn through our reflective writing, then it makes sense to reflect in all disciplines.

Thanks for getting me thinking about this again....

Susan and Karen and Kevin,

Massachusetts' old standards were very unfriendly, really generic and they weren't put together in a way that helped a teacher develop a lesson plan. Kevin, you're from MA, right? For example, one was something like "Students will read challenging literature" for all grades.  When I tried to describe which standard I was teaching, I listed 1-33 (all of them) because the students were reading and writing and speaking and listening. The new standards make so much more sense for ELA. 

When we were working on our report cards, we used the language of the standards which we made more parent friendly.  But to help teachers figure out exactly what they would be assessing, they used the DE standards. 

We also focused on the CC idea of complex texts and complex tasks to begin to see the difference between what they were doing and their goals. We found the Appendix that describes possible tasks and the other Appendix that gave examples of student writing plus the DE standards really helpful.  It's so easy to get lost in the process.  We spent time together and on Google Apps revising the language.

And after all of their good work, I still feel I don't see the destination clearly enough to support this process. I know that we need to read and write across the content areas, but need to understand what the critically important understandings are. 

For example, what I truly appreciate about this group is its deep understanding about making students (and me, and I appreciate this so much) feel safe and visible. I really got all choked up a few times at your kindness and openness.   I wonder if that's where I need to start. 

I think teaching literacy well is a way of being in the world.  First, you respect your students and their differences.  Maybe another layer is that your see those differences as having the potential for doing something unique and surprising and adding to the class.  It's far more than tolerance. And it's so very generative.

Deb

Ah, Deb. Your words have resonated with me. Thanks for your transparency. I struggle with the standards in general because they are standards. Why do we need to determine what happens when? In a perfect world, we could reach out to each child and help their curiosity lead them to learning.I do think teachers can get bogged down in the minutia, the language of curriculum. And that's sad.

I wonder if we are struggling with the destination because we haven't resolved to work on the journey--how to help teachers feel more comfortable in a role of guiding students in reflective learning?

Your words resonated with me, too.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts here.

Kevin

Kevin - 

I'm late to the conversation - but I'm grateful for the resource you've shared.  This week, I'll be posting an open resource doc for stuff like this - thanks.

In browing a bit, I saw some things that troubled me, and was reminded of a little of what worries me about what's up in Colorado.

In Colorado, we were in the middle of adopting new standards when CC came.  So they got folded in.  Almost literally.  New bullets, containing CCSS language, were added into the list of standards for folks.

More.  More.  More.

And I'm liking what Colorado was doing, but I'm thinking that the state problems with assessments (we've got no money for new ones) will result in us adopting whatever the consortia come up with.  And the consortia aren't interested in test items that demonstrate love or care or concern for the numanness of literature.

So I'm thinking it's going to continue to be up to the folks in spaces like this one who are staying up really late and sacrificing their own time to make sure that they're bringing the non or expensive to assess bits and pieces of reading and writing and thinking to our children.

I thank you all for the hard work you're doing in that regard.  As we move forward in the course, know that I deeply appreciate the challenges ahead.  And am grateful y'all're facing them.