I have a few articles that I have saved as potential topics for posting in my blog file, but I want to continue with my last post’s topic. I noticed that I didn’t link to Larry Cuban’s site in that post so here it is.
I would be interested in hearing from you about Core 24, the State Board’s recommendation that was approved in the last legislative session. The plan is to have it in place for the graduation class of 2017 with some early adopters in 2016. If funded it increases the state’s graduation requirement from 20 (includes new math requirement) to 24 credits. This is in line with national trends and recommendations from many sources.
The intended purpose shared in the second slide of this Core 24 presentation is to . . .
. . .declare that a student is ready for success in postsecondary education, gainful employment, and citizenship, and is equipped with the skills to be a lifelong learner…
One of the claims made by those supporting this change is that it increases rigor and better prepares students for future success. Rigor in this context means taking additional classes in language arts, math, science, art, world language, and a chosen career focus. All of this while maintaining flexibility as stated in Slide 5.
Core 24 is a flexible framework designed to equip all students with the skills and knowledge needed to pursue postsecondary education and employment.
I struggle with seeing the flexibility that these changes allow young people. The requirements are more prescriptive than what are currently in place with electives going from 5.5 to 2 credits though that is debatable when considering the 3 credits in the career field. Still, there is less flexibility with these new requirements.
I agree that changes are needed and I am not opposed to rigor or increasing graduation requirements, in fact we need to embed rigor in all classes at all grade levels. But, I don’t necessarily see taking more classes as providing the rigor that students need. Rigor means providing young people with the opportunity to think, to create, to share, and to engage with others in problem solving and reflection. This doesn’t happen simply by requiring additional credits. It happens through initiatives such as our Classroom 10.
Time will tell if the changes to graduation requirements do position students in our state for future success, or result in the outcomes shared in the Cuban post above, or for that matter if the legislature can find the revenue to implement the requirements. If funded, we will see changes to high schools across the state. Staffing levels will change as additional classes will be needed with the increased requirements in certain content areas and other classes students are currently taking may experience reduced enrollment. Seniors will no longer have the flexibility they currently have for reduced schedules in their final year and all will take a math class as a senior. These are significant changes to any high school’s culture.
While all of this plays out we will continue to focus on what our system believes is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for post high school learning and work found in our Outcomes and Indicators, thinking skills, and Habits of Mind. These, acquired through the study of essential content will position young people for success and will provide them with options following graduation from Tahoma High School.
What are your thoughts on Core 24 and Classroom 10
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
nice-wallpaper
papy q / uu 31
I spent an hour this morning being educated on systems thinking and a very wise statement came out of the meeting... "without good intel doing nothing is often the best choice" referring to the danger of unintended consequences. In the case of Core24, I'd reply by going all "Jerry McGuire" on the proponents: "SHOW ME THE MONEY!" (OK...data instead of money but the sentiment is the same). I worked for a district that implimented something very similar to Core24...raising graduation requirements (like THREE years of science instead of the state's required 2). This post would go on for pages if I filled you in completely so suffice to say, here's two perspectives, one from staff and one from a parent.
The action severly curtailed the arts. Bands and choirs saw tremendous reductions while science classes filled up with kids that otherwise, would've never taken a class like Chemistry (imagine being a motivated Chem student at a lab table with those kids for partners). As a parent, I was told "top colleges expect your kid to take 3 years of science." What a blatant lie. My child received multiple offers (scholarships) from Division 1 schools...with only 2 years. In fact they wanted to know why she didn't take more ART classes!? Obviously, I could go on but I'd like to see the DATA from this district...now that it's had its own version of Core24 in place for 5 years now. Brand me, Skeptic #1.
And, call me skeptic #2. You know those annoying commercials for Sleep Country where the audience is told that the only difference between last year's and this year's mattress models is the color of the fabric? The difference between graduation requirements for the classes of 2016 and 2017 should Core 24 be implemented feels about as consequential as a change in fabric color on a mattress.
I’m sure the Spring Air (or Beauty Rest or whatever) line of mattresses serves well many who purchase them. Given that feedback, Spring Air wouldn’t want to change much about their mattresses from one year to the next. But the Spring Air mattresses will never work for everyone. More of them, from the perspective of those for whom such mattresses are not comfortable, is just more.
Our education system in Washington State serves many students well. And many of those who are well served already take full advantage of the opportunities that Core 24 will make requirements. I too am all for rigor. I’m all for having high standards for what we expect students to know and be able to do to earn a high school diploma. We took our eye off the ball when we abandoned the concept of the certificate of mastery. Unfortunately, plans for its implementation were morphing into would not have been a good thing and maybe it was best that it died given what it was becoming. But the original concept was sound. Let’s keep our attention focused on the skills, habits, and attitudes we want students to have. Core 24 is about producing more of the same mattresses. Those who are not able to get a good night’s sleep on them now will continue to be unable to get a good night’s sleep. Perhaps, on the margins, a few people will get higher quality sleep than wouldn’t have otherwise, but those who will never be able to get a good night’s sleep on traditional mattresses will continue to wake up bleary-eyed.
At the State level we continue to hem and haw about whether it is reasonable to hold students and educators responsible to a performance standard. But there is, apparently, no hemming and hawing going on about whether increased seat time (and thus what happens during that seat time) is a good thing. We must continue to keep our own eyes on the prize. Sure, we will always have to comply with State requirements. But while we do so, let’s keep our focus on:
• Providing Classroom10 learning for every child, in every classroom, every day.
• Supporting teachers and leadership teams such that the above is possible.
• Monitoring our progress toward Classroom10.
• Measuring in our students what we truly value.
I guess then that I will be skeptic number three. Here is my concern, some students struggle with core content. They suffer through the classes and then thrive in the arts. My own son is a struggling learner. He works very hard and I spend countless hours working with him on his writing assignments. He loves his film class and his art classes. He looks forward to going to school because of these opportunities. I worry that for students like my son another English and Science and Math class will make dropping out seem like a better idea.
Post a Comment