Peggy L. Downs and Susan M. Goers
Introduction
The following Field Case Study was prepared by Susan Goers for EDDC 602, Concordia University to be employed as part of an overall CSIP assignment. Peggy L. Downs contributed to the defining content. Data collection through direct observation and interview, synthesis, and analysis were conducted by Susan Goers. In collaboration the two colleagues will present the findings to the Board of Directors for Good Foundations Academy.
Core Confusion
Good Foundations Academy (GFA) is a public charter school servicing over 400 students in grades K – 6. The school opened in 2010 in the suburban community of Riverdale, just outside Ogden, Utah. With a charter that focuses on academic excellence and charter education, GFA student have consistently performed in the top quartile on state tests, achieving 94% overall proficiency in English Language Arts for the last two years.
Challenge
Recent changes in the education landscape have caused a general confusion for the school community. The school uses the Core Knowledge Sequence as the foundation for its instructional program. The curriculum was developed more than 20 years ago and is used in over 5,000 schools across the United States and abroad (Hirsch, 2014). In Utah the state standards are called the “Utah Core Standards”. The dual use of the word “core” introduced a significant amount of confusion. In the same year that GFA was established, the state of Utah adopted the “Common Core Standards”, which were incorporated into the “Utah Core Standards”. There are now three consecutive phrases employing the word “core” and herein lies the problem. “Core Knowledge Curriculum”, “Common Core Standards”, and “Utah Core Standards” are three different entities. Beyond the confusion of the definition of core, there is an extra layer of confusion surrounding the terminology of “standards” and “curriculum”.
Context
Standards are not a Curriculum
Standards define what a student should know and be able to exemplify at the end of a course of study or grade level. Standards do not dictate how a student will achieve the knowledge and skills described by the grade level, nor do they dictate how the teacher will conduct the lesson to teach the material. For example, The Utah Core Standards for Mathematics, Grade 4 includes the following standard:
“Use place value understanding and properties of operations to perform multi-digit arithmetic” (Utah Core Standards, 2014).
The district, school, or individual teacher is left to decide which properties of operations and what type of multi-digit arithmetic the standard is referencing. Curriculum is the tool that answers these questions for the teacher. Curriculum is primarily composed of four basic parts: goals, methods, materials, and assessments. The goals provide the step-by-step process needed to achieve mastery of the larger standard. The methods are the instructional strategies the teacher uses to deliver information and teach skills. The materials are the books, online resources, and other tools the student interacts with during the lesson. Finally, the assessments measure progress toward goals and mastery of the standards. Standards are the skeleton, while curriculum is the meat on the bones.
Core Knowledge Curriculum
The Core Knowledge Sequence provides schools with the content and skills to be taught at each grade level (Hirsch, 2014). For example, Core Knowledge outlines the expectations for Grade 4 mathematics as follows:
“recognize place value up to hundred millions, multiply by two-digit and three-digit numbers, and multiply three factors in any given order” (Hirsch, 2006).
Using these goals, a teacher can create lessons and activities that help a student make progress toward the standards. In addition to specifically defining the goals, the Core Knowledge Foundation provides extensive training for teachers in effective, research-based instructional methods, materials, and assessments (Hirsch 2014). Core Knowledge is a complete curriculum that can be used to help students achieve mastery of the standards.
Confusion and Data Collected
Good Foundations Academy is innovating ways to clarify the message sent to the community. Publications from the various entities involved do not help the cause. The following quotations illustrate the problem:
Core Knowledge
“The Core Knowledge Sequence provides a clear outline of the content to be learned grade by grade so that knowledge, language, and skills build cumulatively from year to year” (Core Knowledge, 2014).
Common Core State Standards
“The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them”(Common Core, 2014).
Utah Core
“The standards outline essential knowledge, concepts, and skills to be mastered at each grade level or within a critical content area. The standards provide a foundation for ensuring learning with the classroom” (Utah Core, 2014).
It is clear to see that there is confusion with the terminology.
In order to determine the weight of the problem within the first level of professionals, several informal interviews took place as well as a written poll of information based on the three phrases (Core Knowledge, Common Core, and Utah Core) by a sampling of 10 current faculty members. Informal interviews with parents were also conducted.
Of the ten teachers polled, all of them were very clear and concise as to their definitions of Core Knowledge, understanding that it is a sequential curriculum that builds from year to year. Twenty percent of them were unsure about whether they could teach “other” material besides what was in the curriculum text. Most felt they had a fair amount of work to accomplish by simply teaching the material in the guides. On the other hand, when defining Common Core the understandings and interpretations of the teachers were varied. All stated that it was a national mandate to be adopted by the states. This very statement is an oxymoron. Forty percent answered that Common Core was a set of skills that every student across the country should have mastered at a given grade. Fifty percent of the teachers indicated that Common Core was Utah Core. Evidenced in this particular question is a vast array of confusion. Similarly, when asked to define Utah Core, teachers had varied answers in which fifty percent defined it as Common Core, and thirty percent as a mix between Common Core and State Standards. One teacher simply defined Utah Core as “??”. In discussion afterwards teachers expressed that they simply didn’t want to address all of the confusion and had virtually no opinion on what was going on outside of the school. This is a common desire, to hide from the issue, but when the school community is being affected it becomes a responsibility to be propelled into action. We cannot hide our heads in the sand.
Of the 10 parents interviewed informally, none of them were able to distinguish between the Common Core and Utah Core. Forty percent of them assumed that the Common Core was Core Knowledge, and only when asked specifically the differences between standards and curriculum were they able to partially answer.
Strategy/Possible Plan
The strategies that have been discussed and could be developed so far include the following:
1. Educate the faculty, staff, and Board of Directors on the terminology and how to explain it properly.
2. Provide scripted answers for office staff to answer questions over the phone.
3. Clarification on the website. Currently there are documents for parents to read, maybe we need to look to a diagram, Venn, or other that would help them internalize the differences.
4. Communication to parents and community by way of three fold brochure with bullet points. Make it available in the office and add to the current enrollment packet.
Outcome and Further Questions
The goal is to educate the community and to be able to provide answers that are politically neutral during this time of confusion. We are not looking to define where teachers should stand on the Common Core Standards. We simply desire our teachers, Board of Directors, and shareholders to be knowledgeable of the terminology being used in the profession, and how to interpret what will affect their students and our school. Furthermore we will want to determine how to sustain a culture rich in knowledge of educational practices throughout the country, the state, and our own district. Do we need trainings dedicated to the national and state scene each year? Do we need to set time aside for grappling with what we are hearing at our state levels? Do we want our teachers to be active in support of charter school legislation? What shape does that take in the big picture nationally? These are all questions that will require further pondering as we move forward.
The final outcome will be measured and pieces determined effective as we implement them into the current school model.
References
Common core state standards initiative. (2010). Retrieved February 1, 2014, from http://www.corestandards.org
Core knowledge foundation. (n.d.). Retrieved February 1, 2014, from Core Knowledge Foundation website: http://www.coreknowledge.org
Hirsch, E. D., Jr. (Ed.). (2006). What your fourth grader needs to know. New York, NY: Bantam Doubleday Dell.
Utah core standards. (2014, January). Retrieved February 1, 2014, from http://www.schools.utah.gov/ core/
No comments:
Post a Comment