"The Common Core's fundamental trouble" Reflection

Valerie Strauss presents this article as one that offers both positive and negative aspects of the Common Core. Her positive feedback (provided by the editors of Rethinking Schools) includes the standards providing a more specific set of guidelines, reflective learning, and equality among the nation. However, she distinctively points out that the Common Core's testing program is sure to set the nation up for failure. Strauss says the the No Child Left Behind act proved that regular testing and rigorous testing standards set schools up to fail. It neither raised the testing performance of students, nor provided better collegiate preparation. Another conflict she finds in the Common Core is its lack of teacher coordination in writing them. The program is called "state" standards, but in all actuality states were not even incorporated in the process. Her third problem with the program is the heavy expenses that are to be inflicted on school systems along with it.

Of all of the Common Core articles I have read, I can sympathize with this one the most. I appreciated the incorporation of the good that the Common Core provides. My mom, who is an elementary school teacher, shared with me that the Common Core has truly helped in its attempt to provide active learning. Teachers are encouraged to ask specific students to illustrate math problems or read passages, as opposed to teachers teaching at the students. I also appreciate someone finally providing evidence on the claim that the program is not destined for success. By relating the No Child Left Behind reform, I can now clearly see the relation between the two programs. America did not find success in the first testing program, so they generated a more rigorous one. I mean, surely that will improve test scores and collegiate success, right? I think it is clear at this point that the Achille's heel of the program is the testing process, which may very well have our students dropping out at rates that limit the amount of teaching positions America will need.

"The Biggest Fallacy of the Common Core Standards" Reflection

Diane Ravitch, a historian of American education, makes it evident through this article that she wholeheartedly rejects the concept of the Common Core Standards. She provides the explanation that 45 states have adopted this program because they had the incentive of federal funds. To be eligible to receive $4.35 billion worth of government money, the states had to adopt the Common Core. Her main point is that the boosters and creators of the Common Core provide no proof of the promises they make (they will improve our national security, prepare students for college, and help restore the economy), and they have prepared for no revisions in the standards. According the Ravitch, the standards are ineffective and rob schools of more money.

Ravitch provides a very one-sided opinion of the Common Core. Though I am not sure I, myself, hold such a black-and-white view of the general Common Core program, there is a certain aspect of this article of which I hold a strong opinion. The Common Core testing results from New York speak for themselves in saying that students are not ready to have the Common Core forced upon them so quickly. With only a 31% success rate, students will be dropping out of school in a rapid movement. Here, the point could be made that all students are not meant to go to college, so this process helps filter out the students that are not college material. I agree, all students are not meant for college. However, America cannot make such an abrupt change in the curriculum so as to have straight "A" students suddenly finding themselves failing. This does nothing but discourage students and urge them to seek self-accomplishment elsewhere. Inadvertently, the Common Core testing will cause students to suffer a lack of academic confidence, rather than boosting their education to the level of other students around the world. Though I feel the article held more opinion than fact, I felt the addition of the test score success rate proved Ravitch's point that the Common Core has significant faults.

"How Teachers Are Integrating Tech Common Core" Reflection

This article provides a very optimistic view of the recently constructed Common Core Standards and the technology with which it is associated. Fred Sitkins lists multiple standards and then follows with how teachers have effectively implemented these practices with the use of technology. Among these examples are teachers' integration of iBooks, Twitter, and blogging in the classroom. He insists that the privilege of having technology in the school system broadens students' horizons and enables them to learn on a deeper level. The article closes with the notion that the Common Core is inevitably going to be inflicted on teachers across America; nevertheless, it is up to educators to decide whether or not to take advantage of the technological revolution in order to better the quality of American education for the students.

My response to this article is that of utter indecisiveness. My initial reaction is to focus on the expansion of learning through the use of the most modern technology. Being a Special Education major, I am particularly fond of the idea that disabled students can gain a sense of independence from learning by utilizing an iPad or tablet. The use of technology in general is extremely useful to the progress of disabled students. The majority of me, however, refuses to relinquish the preservation I hold on turning actual pages and having students' attention directed to the board in the front of the classroom. If every student is issued a laptop (or some other form of technological device) what purpose could a teacher possibly serve? The internet offers knowledge that far surpasses anything that one human could memorize and then project to a classroom full of students. Even if educators still serve the purpose of guiding students and keeping them on the right track, we are teaching children beginning at five years old to be dependent on technology. That thought, coupled with the thought that kindergarteners will have access to social networking sites, horrifies me. Sitkins' specific examples of children no older than seven using Twitter, iTunes U, and painting tools causes me to disagree with his suggestions on how to utilize technology. Though I believe the use of technology in moderation is beneficial and supplements learning, I do not agree that children should be exposed to social networks such as Twitter, nor do I agree that learning should become innately dependent on such technologies. Overall, I seem to support the standards endorsed by the Common Core, I just do not agree with Sitkins' methods of how teachers should approach these standards.

Introduction

Hello bloggers! My name is Madison Ralph and I am from Spanish Fort, Alabama. I am in my second year at the University of Southern Mississippi where I am studying Special Education. After receiving my bachelor's degree in this field, I plan to venture on to the University of South Alabama to obtain a master's degree in Occupational Therapy. I am a 19 girl who enjoys working with Autistic children, reading, dancing, and baking, as well as showing off my Southern Miss pride at football games. I am a proud member of the sorority Chi Omega and the Honors College program at my university. Family and faith are the two aspects of life I hold closest to my heart, as will be evident from later blogs.