This past February the Brookings Institution released The 2012 Brown Center Report on American Education. Authored by Senior

Fellow, Tom Loveless, the report is comprised of three parts

1. Predicting the Effect of Common Core State Standards (CCSS) on Student Achievement
2. Measuring Achievement Gaps on NAEP
3. Misinterpreting International Test Scores

For this post, I will only focus on Loveless’ first section which addresses and predicts the potential educational impact of the CCSS. Loveless paints a dreary picture of the CCSS, a project that has been embraced by 46 states and the District of Columbia. He states “Despite all the money and effort devoted to developing CCSS… the study foresees little or no impact on student learning. The conclusion is based on analyzing states’ past experiences with standards and examining several years of scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)”

Education Week responded with blazing guns with an article titled “Brookings Report Based On Flawed Research.” Loveless’  research and conclusion was also questioned by Kathleen Magee of the Fordham Institute. She asserted:

“contrary to the picture Loveless paints, there is some evidence that the right combination of clear and rigorous standards, thoughtful implementation, and accountability can drive achievement. In Massachusetts—a state that has had among the nation’s most rigorous standards in place for more than a decade and that has aligned its entire education system around implementation of those standards—great standards seem to jump started large gains in achievement for all students.”

Faulty research (if those claims are valid), however, is not where I took issue with the Brown Report. I noted that Loveless’ critique missed the mark on two important targets; his  misrepresentation of outcomes and silence around instruction expected by CCSS.

Loveless writes that the CCSS  “spells out what students should learn in mathematics and English-language arts from kindergarten to the end of high school.”  This is deceiving, suggesting lock step, mindless, non-differentiated, uniformity. This conceptualization is opposed to the central ethos of the CCSS; student centered learning, collaboration, rigor,innovation, and flexibility. Rather, the “spelling out” Loveless suggests is better understood as attainable, relevant, standards for schools  to target and facilitate students to attain and surpass. Skill mastery can be demonstrated in a variety of ways preparing students for college or a career, or both. The CCSS, implemented ineffectively, or under the unenthusiastic  rhetoric/limited presentation of the Brown Report, does create  a Munch-Floyd-Loveless educational dystopia (pictured on left…click to see more).  Implemented with vigor, systemically, and with clarity, schools will effectively  embrace a paradigm change in education that resonates with 21st century learning models.  Understanding CCSS outcomes in this light is different from the past, because society is different.  In essence, this is education’s (delayed) response to globalization. The response is a sincere effort to address ans understand global realities.

The other element not considered in the Brown report’s conclusions, despite its centrality to CCSS, is  instructional strategy. Loveless’  silence around  instructional strategies may stem from the qualitative nature of this research element.  Indeed, metrics can be especially misleading when used to represent learning, development, transfer, utility, and mastery. Qualitative evidence, and ambiguity around definitions of “success” in education, pose significant challenges for this type research. Nevertheless, for a reliable prediction presented under the banner of legitimate research, Loveless needed to consider the instructional expectations and changes of CCSS.    Primarily, the use of  technology is a game changer.  The accessibility, types, and use of technology wasn’t considered in the report. Instead Loveless relied heavily on NAEP scores from 2000-2007.

Specifically, the CCSS’s call for greater use of student developed arguments, knowledge, and synthesis around the  use of

non-fiction (without eliminating fiction from curriculum) is exciting. Education Week’s recent article,“Districts Gear Up for Shift to Informational Texts”,  explains,  “often our nod to nonfiction is the autobiography or true story version of something. But there’s a real gap in other kinds of nonfiction (which) rely on different kinds of strategies and a lot more explicit teaching.” Note the references to change in outcome and instruction. The article continues, arguing that the new emphasis on nonfiction  and informational sources “bolsters them (students) for work and higher education by building foundational knowledge, vocabulary, and literacy strategies.”

Among the texts mentioned in the article which fit the bill for “informational sources” are social commentaries harkening back to the era of muckraking  (Nicked and Dimed, Fast Food Nation), content journals, essays, speeches, and visual data models.  I would include documentaries blogs, news reports, and op-ed pieces to that list and believe that RSS aggregators are a great tool to use for informational sources (more on that in a future post).

When applied to social studies and history education, an emphasis on non-fiction, implies an emphasis on historical thinking skills. This is not limited to the use of primary sources.  I interpret the CCSS non-fiction move as a call

to use more secondary sources related to history. To do so reinforces the constructive nature of history as an “argument about the past.” Specifically I envision the change in social studies/history to include works about:

• historical theory and models
• philosophy of history
• Varied interpretations and perspectives about the past
• Essays, journals, and  listservs

A great stating point to for teachers to stay current in these sources is to sign up for one, some, many, all of the listservs offered byH-Net’s discussion networks , a social studies paradise formed by and for  “an international consortium of scholars and teachers. H-Net creates and coordinates Internet networks with the common objective of advancing teaching and research in the arts, humanities, and social sciences. H-Net is committed to pioneering the use of new communication technology to facilitate the free exchange of academic ideas and scholarly resources.” In the same venue is George Mason’s History News Network which includes daily articles, blogs, reviews, and an area for educators teaching grades 3-6 and 9-12 (why the gap in grades?).  Together, H-Net and HNN are indicative of how 21st century history and social studies educators should be dialed in to their fields. In turn, this information flow impacts the outcomes and instructional strategies expected by CCSS.

M.I.T. historian Bruce Mazlish describes “rupture” in an historical sense as “a major cut in the continuity of the past. Against the view of the human past as marked by continuity, ruptures mark abrupt change.  Ruptures, when identified as a break in historical continuity, become part of our mental model of the past.  In turn, globalization has “always” been around.  Human rights become a timeless concept that allows us to pass judgement on different societies and people. Applied to contemporary education, I have heard people openly and frequently comment,  “we have been doing what CCSS is requiring for years” or “we are already doing this in our schools.”  Well, maybe that is the case.  But repeated too often and this stance/belief limits and inhibits the potential, newness, uniqueness, and innovation that is central to CCSS  rhetoric. What’s more, an “already done” framework, when used too much, dismisses a something new under the sun moment relegating CCSS to the class of empty policy, jargon, and word-smithing around education. This ultimately interprets the CCSS as veiled continuity in educational practice and not a rupture with the past.  Where you, your school, district, and your organization stands ultimately impacts CCSS implementation, teaching, and learning. Embracing a rupture-esque mentality is challenging, difficult, rewarding, and brings back that loving feeling.