Flipping the Switch

Flipping the Switch:  Maybe Not

I was reading an article on line the other day from Education Week on the Common Core that really forced me to re-evaluate my thinking.  The author of the article, Joellen Killion, distinguishes between two types of change initiatives.  The first she describes as light-switch changes, which are "carefully orchestrated and designed, and occur with the flip of a switch."  She goes on to state that these types of changes usually apply when the problem is clearly definable, the solution is equally definite, advance preparation for the change happens and the change happens on a specific date.  For example, when a company decides to upgrade a software the company utilizes.  In this example the problem and solution are clearly defined and the IT department is able to do some advanced preparation work and the system gets updated on a particular date.  The second type of change she refers to is an adaptive change.  According to Killion, "adaptive change requires learning and adaptation, typically over a long period of time, because the problem solution and means to implementation are unclear and frequently evolve and mutate with progress toward the goal."  It is her contention that the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are an adaptive change.

As a curriculum supervisor, I realized my thinking had become locked on a focus of "full-implementation" by the 2013-2014 school year.  While that is when the state will start assessing solely based upon the new standards, and when the next generation assessments are slated to begin the necessary changes in pedagogy,  curriculum writing and student learning will take much longer.

My Standards

When I was in the classroom, I always started my unit and lesson planning with the same question, "what are the standards that I am responsible for teaching and for my students learning?"  On the surface, this seems like a good approach.  If I teach what I am supposed to, and so does everyone else, then the students will get what they need.  But what happens if I don't, or you don't, or they didn't get it the year before, or I have a learner that already knows it?  This is when knowing my standards is not enough.  At a bare minimum, I need to have a general understanding of the standards one grade above me and one grade below me.  If not, how can I effectively remediate and enrich?  The deeper my understanding becomes of the standards above and below me, the better I understand how my teaching fits into the larger progression of learning we expect of our students.

As discussed in my previous post, the CCSS for Math were constructed on two main themes of Focus and Coherence.  The standard developers wanted to ensure that there was a logical progression of skills and knowledge targeted at each grade level, and that they built upon each other in order to develop deeper understanding in students.  The CCSS for ELA share a similar philosophical underpinning, as evidenced by the Anchor Standards that define college and career readiness.  Each anchor standard is then "broken down" into a progression of skills and knowledge from Pre-K on up that build towards that anchor standard.  What appears to be a slight shift in standard design, has enormous implications on defining "curricular proficiency" for teachers moving forward.  This inherent expectation that teachers know and understand the curriculum in a way that extends beyond their classroom, and that they are able to move students along that continuum flexibly, requires in-depth study that can not happen with the flip of a switch.  

My Teaching

I have heard several times, mostly from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, that the standards do not dictate how we should teach.  While they are technically correct that the CCSS do not get into how we are to teach, the expectations for student performance will undoubtedly force us to examine long held beliefs about our teaching.  For example, can a student make sense of problems and persevere in solving them (Standard for Mathematical Practice # 1) if their schooling consists of carefully constructed questions and activities that that can be solved using a predictable solution pattern?  Can she construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others (Standard for Mathematical Practice # 3) in a classroom where the teacher does all the questioning?  Will he write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence (ELA Writing Anchor Standard # 1) if he is asked to write a letter to the principal persuading him to add another day of pizza to the lunch menu?  What we are going to see in the years ahead are changes in our teaching practice that best meet the higher cognitive demands set forth in the new standards.

These two videos show, from people much smarter than I, how we might approach this in math.  Both speak to the need to present students with "messy" problems that require investigation, perseverance and require students to struggle in productive ways.

Surely, if the types of changes articulated by these gentleman are to become pervasive in our schools we must take a long term view on the implementation.  Deep substantive changes like this, that challenge not only our own deep held beliefs about teaching and learning, but those that have been institutionalized for over 100 years, can not be expected overnight.  It will require years of practice, study, experimentation, failure and growth.  However, we must begin now.  We have to be willing to examine our beliefs, challenge long held assumptions, study research, learn from each other and open our classrooms and planning to others.

Our Light

In the spring of 2014, we will likely have a new assessment.  Full implementation of the new standards will be expected.  Will things be entirely as we want them to be?  Not likely.  Will we be on a path towards that point?  It is entirely up to us.  All I know for sure is that we will need to do this together.  Teachers will need to learn, share and solve problems together.  Leaders will need to support teachers with time, resources and professional development.  Gone are the days of teacher isolation and insulation.  

At some point, in the not too distant future, I believe we will all look around and the light will be on.  No one will be able to point to the time when we flipped the switch.  It will be unclear as to when all the wiring was completed or when the bulb was screwed in.  But there we will be, standing in a lit room and before us will sit the future.