a new standard

Here’s what annoyed high school students most about the switch to Common Core

The Common Core standards were supposed to get students to understand math more deeply. For some California high school students, it didn’t work out that way.

“I like working in the old books, because they actually explain it to me,” one said. “Do you want me to learn it? Or do you want me to stare at the problem?”

That’s one response from a survey of students who experienced the shift to the new standards in their math and English classes. The study is quite limited, emerging from interviews from just 54 high-achieving seniors. But it gets at something often overlooked in the political controversy that would eventually surround the standards, which most states adopted in 2010: what it felt like for students to see their classrooms change.

Some of the student’s responses, published last month in a peer-reviewed academic journal, may be surprising. Many blamed the Common Core for encouraging more group work — something they almost universally disliked. In some schools, though, the students appreciated what they perceived as a move away from teacher-led instruction.

In others, students complained that this open-ended approach bred confusion that never transitioned into mastery. And in several schools, it wasn’t clear whether anything changed at all.

Together, the students’ responses offer one glimpse into the experience of those whom Common Core was designed to help — and highlight specific ways in which the goals of the standards proved difficult to realize quickly.

At the same time, author Suneal Kolluri of the University of Southern California writes, “If schools can improve their execution of the higher-order thinking and collaboration skills they are just now beginning to incorporate into their classrooms, the Common Core reform may be a small step in the right direction for improving college readiness.”

Students say they need more guidance

Many of the students, who were interviewed in the middle of the 2015-16 school year, agreed that teachers were pushing them toward “higher-order thinking” thanks to the Common Core, which the state had introduced the year before.

“Students mentioned projects, discussions, group work, deep analysis of complex texts, and other classroom activities that involved complex thinking,” Kolluri reports.

"I feel like math should just be math."

But, students said, teachers didn’t always seem comfortable with what they were asking students to do.

“My Algebra 2 class, we had workbooks called ‘Common Core’ and I’m sorry, I hated it so bad,” said one of the students. “I understand they’re trying to do life scenarios. I feel like math should just be math … Our teacher as well was much more confused [than] us.”

Many also took issue with a new emphasis on working in groups of other students, which they thought came from the Common Core.

“You’re put into a group and you guys are supposed to try to solve a problem that you’ve never been taught before,” said another. “How are you supposed to do that? None of your group members know what they’re doing, and you don’t either.”

Some students said that it was unfair to tie their grades to the performance of others, and others complained that it led to more off-task behavior.

“Most students do not have as big of a passion for math as I do. They tend to not understand math as well as I do,” said another student. “They would understand it better if the teacher would be able to use examples and instruct the student.”

In this case and throughout the survey, it’s not clear whether students were accurately perceiving whether certain changes were a result of the Common Core switch and not, say, a separate push for group instruction.

But it’s clear that the high-achieving students in this study appreciated a more direct teaching approach, something research has linked to higher levels of learning.

What’s Common Core again?

Then there were schools where it wasn’t clear to students if new standards were introduced at all.

At four of the nine schools the students attended, no interviewees noticed any significant changes. When asked about the standards, some students responded with, “What’s that?” or “I’ve never heard of it.”

"The work is taught in a way where we are able to understand it and complete it and not just being able to guess our way through answers."

In other schools, implementation was inconsistent. “One student noticed that his teacher who was also the department head was the only teacher who implemented the standards because, as department head, ‘If you don’t, it’s becoming a bit hypocritical,” Kolluri wrote. At another school, “One student told of a teacher who refused to alter his instructional practices. ‘He says that it’s dumb, he says it’s stupid.’”

There were bright spots, particularly in two schools where students appreciated efforts to make them explain their thinking.

“I know with math, they require you to write out the explanation for your answers and then, I believe in English we had to argue a point,” said one student. “I think it’s more about making sure that people integrate their previous knowledge and also putting it on paper and explaining it in detail.”

“The work is taught in a way where we are able to understand it and complete it and not just being able to guess our way through answers,” said another student.

Diverse texts versus the same old

Another gap between theory and implementation: students’ access to literature by a diverse set of writers.

“The Common Core State Standards Initiative certainly suggests plenty of texts by Latina/o authors, but the students’ comments suggest that few have been incorporated into the curriculum during the transition to the Common Core,” Kolluri wrote.

"Students need to have a classroom where the curriculum is more relatable."

But students largely reported reading high school staples like “The Great Gatsby,” Homer’s “Odyssey,” “To Kill a Mockingbird,” “1984,” and “The Catcher in the Rye.”

“While the classic literature got mixed reviews, most appreciated the opportunity to access the same material that students from wealthier schools were accessing,” the study says.

Some students could also point to an “enterprising teacher who created meaningful opportunities to engage with issues important to the low-income communities of color in which their schools were situated,” like teaching an ethnic studies class. A recent study found that high school students exposed to an ethnic studies course in San Francisco saw improvements in their attendance and grades as a result.

“If these teachers are teaching in a community that is low income … students need to have a classroom where the curriculum is more relatable to what the students are experiencing,” said one student. “If the teacher excludes that … they feel that their problems are being left out and they’re being left out.”

Are Children Learning

Second study shows Indianapolis charter students fare better on tests

PHOTO: Dylan Peers McCoy

The second study in a week shows strong test scores for students at Indianapolis charter schools, bolstering the claims of advocates in a city where school choice continues to expand.

Indianapolis elementary students who attend mayor-sponsored charter schools beginning in kindergarten — and remain in the same schools — make bigger improvements on state tests than their peers in traditional schools across the city, according to the latest study.

The study contributes to emerging research that suggest that charter schools that are well managed and have good instruction can be successful, said co-author Hardy Murphy, a clinical professor of educational leadership and policy studies at the IUPUI School of Education.

The results of the study indicate Indianapolis charter school students are doing better than they would’ve done if they hadn’t enrolled in charter schools, Murphy said.

“This does not appear to have happened by chance,” he said. “I believe that the school experiences and the instructional teachers of those schools they are enrolled in are actually a big part of the results that we are seeing,”

The educational landscape in Indianapolis is defined by school choice. About 18,000 students who live in Marion County attend charter schools, and thousands more transfer to nearby districts or attend private schools with vouchers, according to state data. In recent years, the state’s largest district, Indianapolis Public Schools, has also become a national model for partnerships with charter schools. That makes understanding school performance essential for parents — but unpacking whether schools actually help boost student achievement can be particularly thorny for researchers.

With this study, Murphy said he and co-author Sandi Cole, director of the Center on Education and Lifelong Learning at Indiana University Bloomington, hope to disentangle one factor that makes studying charter schools difficult: the dips in test scores that students often experience after transferring to new schools. Murphy’s research focuses on students who began in charter schools in kindergarten and compares them to similar students in traditional public schools in Indianapolis.

“It’s time to move beyond the debate about whether or not charter schools are effective and start talking about, when they are effective, why, and for whom?” Murphy said, adding that successful approaches can be used in other settings.

The study focuses solely on students who attend charter schools authorized by the mayor’s office. For the control group, the study included township districts as well as Indianapolis Public Schools. The researchers plan to present their results to the education committee of the Indianapolis City-County Council and the 2019 Conference on Academic Research in Education.

The findings add to a growing body of research on Indianapolis charter schools. Last week, the Stanford-based group CREDO released a report that found that students at charter schools had test score gains that mirrored the state average, while Indianapolis Public Schools students made smaller gains on math and reading tests than their peers across the state. Another recent study found that when students moved to charter schools their test scores held steady.

To Do

Tennessee’s new ed chief says troubleshooting testing is first priority

PHOTO: (Caiaimage/Robert Daly)

Penny Schwinn knows that ensuring a smooth testing experience for Tennessee students this spring will be her first order of business as the state’s new education chief.

Even before Gov.-elect Bill Lee announced her hiring on Thursday, she was poring over a recent report by the state’s chief investigator about what went wrong with TNReady testing last spring and figuring out her strategy for a different outcome.

“My first days will be spent talking with educators and superintendents in the field to really understand the scenario here in Tennessee,” said Schwinn, who’s been chief deputy commissioner of academics in Texas since 2016.

“I’ll approach this problem with a healthy mixture of listening and learning,” she added.

Schwinn’s experience with state assessment programs in Texas and in Delaware — where she was assistant secretary of education — is one of the strengths cited by Lee in selecting her for one of his most critical cabinet posts.

The Republican governor-elect has said that getting TNReady right is a must after three straight years of missteps in administration and scoring in Tennessee’s transition to online testing. Last year, technical disruptions interrupted so many testing days that state lawmakers passed emergency legislation ordering that poor scores couldn’t be used to penalize students, teachers, schools, or districts.

Schwinn, 36, recalls dealing with testing headaches during her first days on the job in Texas.

“We had testing disruptions. We had test booklets mailed to the wrong schools. We had answer documents in testing booklets. We had online administration failures,” she told Chalkbeat. “From that, we brought together teachers, superintendents, and experts to figure out solutions, and we had a near-perfect administration of our assessment the next year.”

What she learned in the process: the importance of tight vendor management, including setting clear expectations of what’s expected.

She plans to use the same approach in Tennessee, working closely with people in her new department and Questar Assessment, the state’s current vendor.

“Our job is to think about how to get online testing as close to perfect as possible for our students and educators, and that is going to be a major focus,” she said.

The test itself has gotten good reviews in Tennessee; it’s the online miscues that have many teachers and parents questioning the switch from paper-and-pencil exams. Schwinn sees no choice but to forge ahead online and is quick to list the benefits.

“If you think about how children learn and access information today, many are getting that information from hand-held devices and computers,” she said, “so reflecting that natural experience in our classrooms is incredibly important.”

Schwinn said computerized testing also holds promise for accommodating students with disabilities and provides for a more engaging experience for all students.

“When you look at the multiple-choice tests that we took in school and compare that to an online platform where students can watch videos, perform science experiments, do drag-and-drop and other features, students are just more engaged in the content,” she said.

“It’s a more authentic experience,” she added, “and therefore a better measure of learning.”

Schwinn plans to examine Tennessee’s overall state testing program to look for ways to reduce the number of minutes dedicated to assessment and also to elevate transparency.

She also will oversee the transition when one or more companies take over the state’s testing program beginning next school year. Former Commissioner Candice McQueen ordered a new request for proposals from vendors to provide paper testing for younger students and online testing for older ones. State officials have said they hope to award the contract by spring.

In Texas, a 2018 state audit criticized Schwinn’s handling of two major education contracts, including a no-bid special education contract that lost the state more than $2 million.

In Tennessee, an evaluation committee that includes programmatic, assessment, and technology experts will help to decide the new testing contract, and state lawmakers on the legislature’s Government Operations Committee plan to provide another layer of oversight.

Spring testing in Tennessee is scheduled to begin on April 15. You can learn more about TNReady on the state education department’s website.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated with new information about problems with the handling of two education contracts in Texas.