{"id":256,"date":"2011-10-01T10:54:10","date_gmt":"2011-10-01T15:54:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.biologycorner.com\/?p=1978"},"modified":"2016-04-02T17:16:50","modified_gmt":"2016-04-02T22:16:50","slug":"why-the-common-core-standards-are-good-for-educators","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/facultycorner.com\/main\/2011\/10\/01\/why-the-common-core-standards-are-good-for-educators\/","title":{"rendered":"Why the Common Core Standards Are Good For Educators"},"content":{"rendered":"

1. \u00a0Eliminates the content specific standards that require students to take every science that has ever existed in the history of science.\"Illinois_State_Standards.jpg\"<\/a><\/h3>\n

For the state of Illinois, the science standards were so expansive a student would need to take biology, chemistry, earth science, physics, and health in order to cover each goal. \u00a0They would need to take these subjects all before the test their junior year. \u00a0 To compensate for lack of time, teachers would speed through content or artificially implant unrelated content into their curriculum in an attempt to hit each of the topics required by the standards. \u00a0The result was a curriculum a mile wide and an inch deep. \u00a0Students didn\u2019t retain much of what was tossed at them, test scores showed very little improvement. \u00a0 \u00a0District staff development would often focus on ways we could shove all this content into three years. \u00a0I know some schools even changed their class sequences to try to\u00a0accommodate\u00a0so many subjects.<\/p>\n

The new standards scale back this mad rush for content learning. \u00a0It appears that someone finally got the memo that discreet units of information are not that important in an age when people carry computers in their pockets and can access any information with a click. \u00a0 \u00a0This doesn\u2019t mean that you stop teaching your subjects core ideas, but it means you can spend more time going into depth with topics, allowing for students to explore and develop their own understandings of difficult ideas.<\/p>\n

2. \u00a0Allows for flexibility<\/h3>\n

I think what most teachers fear when rumblings of new standards are heard in the distance is that their curriculum, their worksheets, their favorite topics are going to be on the chopping block. \u00a0 The new literacy standards are actually very flexible, and are designed to work within any topic or subject area. \u00a0(I have yet to see the science specific standards). \u00a0 For instance, you can still keep teaching your favorite unit on the cell or on evolution, but the standards will require you to add goals related to reading for information and understanding. \u00a0 This actually fits well with most biology topics because you can find articles and news about almost all topics we cover. \u00a0 \u00a0 You will have more time because you won\u2019t need to cover everything in the history of science \u00a0as discussed in #1.<\/p>\n

3. \u00a0The same standards apply across all grade levels (scaffolded). \u00a0By the time you get the students in high school, they should be very good at the standards.<\/h3>\n

Every literacy standard is repeated at each grade level, with the intent to make things more difficult as students go up in grades. \u00a0 The final goal or outcome is for students to \u00a0be able to read and evaluate difficult \u00a0text. \u00a0 For instance, one goal states that students will be able to \u00a0\u201dcite specific textual evidence to support analysis of science and technical texts\u201d. \u00a0 These kids have the internet at their fingertips, with answers, articles, and video on any topic they can imagine. \u00a0Our job is to help them be able to read and critically evaluate this information. \u00a0 If you start at kindergarten and work on it every year, it is not difficult to imagine that students can achieve mastery by the time they graduate.<\/p>\n

4. \u00a0\u00a0Less emphasis on memorizing facts and minutia \u00a0(is this a sacred cow<\/a>?)<\/h3>\n

At my last department meeting, we discussed what words we were going to post for our \u201cWord of the Week\u201d. \u00a0This idea stems from the observation that students often see words in everyday texts, or on tests that they don\u2019t know what they mean. \u00a0We are picking words such as \u201comit, spectrum, diversity\u201d to post each week and make sure the students know. \u00a0These words are not necessarily specific to science, and there was some discussion over which words to include in the list. \u00a0The group was divided on whether to include the terms weight and mass.<\/p>\n

Regardless of how the discussion ended, the discussion itself illustrates how we all have our sacred cows \u2013 the topics and ideas we feel are absolutely important for students to know and leaving them out would be akin to a crime, these are non negotiable and you can always identify a sacred cow by the fervor with which a teacher defends the teaching of the topic. \u00a0 For instance, my sacred cow is evolution. I would feel any biology class would be incomplete and disjointed without its inclusion.<\/p>\n

Luckily, the new common core will not touch your sacred cow, you can leave your most important favorite topics where they are and not change a thing. \u00a0In fact, you may have more time to work on that special project, that lab or that discussion because the \u00a0new standards will place less emphasis on memorizing a broad range of facts and figures. \u00a0 It seems, at least in these preliminary days, that we are moving toward a more holistic view of education, where we will teach students skills that will transcend the subject matter.<\/p>\n

5. \u00a0The standards just make sense.<\/h3>\n

To reiterate, the science specific standards have not been published, but the science literacy standards seem very workable. \u00a0 When I started teaching there was not a computer in my classroom, but times have definitely changed, and the current standards seem woefully outdated and obsolete. \u00a0 These new standards appear to have longevity because they tackle the problem of rapid change while keeping core values intact. \u00a0 We cannot predict how science will change in the future and textbooks take years to print to account for new information. \u00a0 The amount of information available to students is staggering, and as a teacher, the idea of trying to teach *everything* is not only daunting, but perhaps misguided. \u00a0Students don\u2019t need to know everything, but they do need to have the tools to find and evaluate all the information that is so readily available to them. \u00a0 \u00a0I was particularly inspired by this video:<\/p>\n

Teaching in the 21st Century<\/a>
\n