At Inside Schools, a website for parents covering New York City schools, reporter Lydie Raschka visits a dozen elementary schools and comes away concerned. “[I] saw firsthand how hard teachers are working to meet the new Common Core standards for reading,” she writes. “I also saw precious time wasted, as teachers seemed to confuse harder standards with puzzling language.” A striking example:
At the teacher’s prompting, a kindergartner at PS 251 in Queens tries to define “text evidence” for the rest of the class. “Test ed-i-dence,” says the 5-year-old, tripping over the unfamiliar words, “is something when you say the word and show the picture.
“Text evidence?” What’s with this incomprehensible jargon in kindergarten?
Raschka is absolutely correct to criticize the use of such arcane language and the practice of asking five-year-olds to toss around phrases like “text evidence” in kindergarten. Where I think she’s mistaken is in attributing it to Common Core.
Elementary school English language arts classrooms have long been in the thrall of nonsensical jargon. Children “activate prior knowledge” and make “text-to-text” or “text-to-self” connections in book discussions in the argot of “accountable talk” (itself an inscrutable bit of edu-speak). I’ve relentlessly banged the drum for years on the importance of building background knowledge as a critical component of reading comprehension. But I see no point in making second-graders sing about “building schema” like the kids in this video:
Why do we do this? I suspect it’s because jargon makes classroom conversation feel more sophisticated than it actually is; it pleases teachers to hear their terms of art parroted back. As a new teacher, I was thrilled the first time a kid said, “I’d like to make a text-to-text connection…” You think, “They’re really paying attention. I’ve taught them something!” Then you learn to focus on the next thing out of their mouths. Too often, it’s thin, banal, or barely relevant.
Doug Lemov, managing director of Uncommon Schools and author of Teach Like a Champion 2.0 (coming to Fordham on January 26) sees no benefit to kids or teachers from using jargon. “Teachers—or any professionals—should generally try to describe to students in plain words what they are doing and why in a way that helps them to be more intentional about what they are doing,” he says. “The job of the teacher, in other words, is to translate—whether it’s the periodic table or the science standards.”
One of the arguments against Common Core is that the standards are too dense and difficult for kids to understand. Do we really expect first graders to “decompose a number leading to a ten?” No. We expect them to be able to get the answer to 12 – 3 by thinking, “Twelve minus two is ten; subtract one more and that makes nine.” No value is added by insisting six-year-olds describe this simple bit of arithmetic as “decomposing numbers.”
The bottom line: The standards aren’t written for kids to mimic. They’re written for teachers to use in planning curriculum and instruction. It makes me crazy to see standards written on the board in classroom, another foolish orthodoxy that’s virtually meaningless to kids.
But wait, don’t the standards demand “academic language?” Indeed, but it’s important to differentiate between academic language and jargon. Teachers often divide words into vocabulary tiers (oops, now I’m doing it). “Tier-one” words are those that kids generally learn early and orally—baby, dog, apple—before even coming to school. “Tier-three” words are specialized terms, unique to particular fields—isotope, integer. The sweet spot that Common Core tries to get at are “Tier-two” words like analysis, evaluate, and negligent that are common to sophisticated adult speech and writing, but which we perceive as ordinary, not specialized language. Tim Shananan said it best: “Knowing the 10,000 most frequent words in the language (words common in oral language) doesn’t count for much, but knowing the next 20,000–40,000 most frequent words is what distinguishes the educated from the uneducated.” And no, kids don’t need to know that these are “Tier-two” words.
So what’s going on in the classrooms Inside Schools visited? Call it the “John Wooden effect.” The legendary UCLA basketball coach famously remarked that “sports don’t build character, they reveal it.” The same thing is true about teaching. Common Core is revealing a lot, both good and bad, about what’s happening in our schools.
Using the language of standards—any standards—with five year olds isn’t rigorous, mandated by Common Core, or even a good idea. It’s just bad teaching.
Here are some “talking points” that members of Congress might use when the testing issue comes up at town hall meetings and the like.
Since the Obama Administration has quietly transitioned to a normative accountability system, where schools are compared to each other rather than to some pre-determined “proficiency” benchmark, it doesn’t matter if all students appear to perform worse this year.
Policymakers seeking to improve the quantity and quality of educational options for families through private school choice programs should consider the opinions of the school leaders poised to serve those customers.
Curriculum and content matter—and for no one more than poor kids who get too little of that knowledge and vocabulary at home.
What we learned by teaching “Saving Schools: History, Politics and Policy in U. S. Education,” our first Massive Open Online Course
Far from addressing the marriage problem, the federal government exacerbated it.
“As we celebrate the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s birth, we should ask why so many of the problems against which he struggled — segregation, poverty, persistent racial gaps in education and income — remain so much a part of American life,” writes Paul Peterson in an op-ed in the New York Daily News.
Posts by Authors
- Achieve, Inc.
- Alliance for Excellent Education
- Alliance for School Choice
- American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence
- American Institutes For Research
- American Legislative Exchange Council
- Annie E. Casey Foundation
- Aspen Institute
- Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
- Broad Foundation
- Brookings Institution
- Building Excellent Schools
- Center for American Progress
- Center for Education Reform
- Center for Educational Achievement
- Center on Reinventing Public Education
- Citizens Commission On Civil Rights
- Common Core
- Consortium for Policy Research in Education
- Core Knowledge Foundation
- Data Quality Campaign
- Democrats for Education Reform
- Education Sector
- Education Trust
- Foundation for Excellence in Education
- Friedman Foundation
- Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media
- National Alliance for Public Charter Schools
- National Association of Charter School Authorizers
- National Charter School Research Project
- National Council on Teacher Quality
- National Education Writers Association
- National Governors Association
- National Institute for Excellence in Teaching
- New Leaders for New Schools
- New Schools Venture Fund
- Program on Education Policy and Governance
- Progressive Policy Institute
- Public Impact
- Teach for America
- The New Teacher Project
- Thomas B. Fordham Institute
- United States Department of Education
About the Blog
The Ed Next blog aims to provide lively commentary on education news and research and to bring evidence to bear on current education policy debates.
Our bloggers include editors at Education Next magazine and others who have written for the magazine. Education Next is a quarterly journal of opinion and research about education policy published by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and additionally sponsored by the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University and the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
The opinions expressed by the Ed Next bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of Educationnext.org, Education Next magazine, or its sponsors. Educationnext.org is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by the bloggers.