Thoughts on Changes in Educational Philosophy, Common Core and Standards-based Learning

Life for me has always been one big experiment. Perhaps it was my youthful, wage earning years as a scientist for big pharma; maybe I've just always liked tinkering to see what I could fix. But, I spent a good deal of time last summer pondering how I teach science. As a science educator for over 10 years, I've rarely had a textbook to use. Never in Chemistry. I have copies I've purchased as resources, but never a class set. So, I have a constantly evolving digital data base of "schtuff" that I write and use that changes based on the circumstances I am in and feedback from my students. And yes, those of you that teach know how long it takes to create your own "schtuff". For me, it's just part of what I do on a regular basis.

 At one point in my life as a scientist, I returned to school to obtain a Masters degree in Environmental Education. In the 80's, environmental meant all things associated with the natural world; things like ecology, resource protection, air and water pollution, alternate energy, etc. This word has evolved over 30 years into the word sustainable. If the environmental 80's represented an age of an awareness of the importance of the natural world, then the word sustainable that is used now,  represents more of a feeling that our resources are finite and that we are moving towards a "point of no return". And, that we should embrace a way of thinking that is not so short-sighted.

It would be really nice if we started using the word sustainable in regards to education. It seems changes take place in cycles. We jump (or are forced onto) the bandwagon because someone out there is willing to try something different, perhaps better, but we forget about long-term causality.

NCLB (No Child Left Behind) was a lovely idea, but without input from those working with our kids, was troubled from the start. If we look at the roots of Common Core, funding came from the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation and (again) there were few (if any) educators involved in the process. I'm not saying that CC is a bad idea; I like standards-based education. But if you don't involve the folks on the front lines, then workability becomes a significant obstacle. For the record, NGSS (NextGenScienceStandards (the not quite yet Common Core for Science)) was created by both professionals in science and educators at all levels. I'm not saying that any of these are "bad" or "good", just that most often it is the implementation of an idea that ends up being faulty. (Note: I should have included some citations for this information. It may not be stated as accurately as it should be but the above is fairly common knowledge. There is a good article in a recent Yes! Magazine)

To my mentors in graduate school, thank you. I learned from them to look deeper into the meanings of words. Their definition of "environmental" was much grander than mine at the time. Not only did it represent an interest in the natural world but to them, it was also about the interrelationships that existed and impacted the natural world. It meant things like global economy, politics, local resources, seasonal changes and more.

Experiential education was a big part of my graduate program. We spent a week on (perhaps more accurately; "descended upon") Nantucket investigating how an island was a microcosm for other places. We went to Costa Rica and explored the 7 different major ecosystems there. I was part of an exchange program and went to Estonia before the collapse of the Soviet Union. While my host visited me here, Estonia declared themselves an independent nation and we celebrated. So I was immersed in some really cool learning experiences.

I'm in a place now where I'm thinking something experiential would be really great to do with my high school chemistry classes but, the more I ponder this option, the more complex it gets. In graduate school, we were all eager to move beyond the traditional realm of "being educated". I'm dealing with a general population of high school students, many of whom are living for their next text message and have the attention span of a gnat. How do you get 20+ students to willingly go where few students "have gone before"? On a professional level, how do I combine "standards-based" with "experiential"?  It's the same dilemma I have dealt with before. How do I work within the constraints of a system to get my students to approach knowledge and to think outside of the box?

There were no standards in grad school on what needed to be accomplished; it was as much or as little as we wanted. It was, after all, "experiential" and more of an opportunity for personal growth. What our professors did was to create a challenge that was open ended; relying on us to assign roles to members of our group and our drive as adult students to learn and grow.

In my current high school, each of us has a set of standards that dictate what knowledge our students are supposed to walk away with. This sounds very "cookie-cutter -ish" but it is far from that. Coming to a common understanding of what each "standard" means is no small feat. There is also a level of proficiency students must meet for each standard. Determining what "proficiency" means is also no small feat. These fundamental questions will drive each educator in different ways. It will drive each school in different ways. And there is more.

With the discussion by teachers of what standards are and what proficiency is, other relevant issues come to light. There are a set of skills our kids need to develop. These skills include both professional skills (like work ethic and problem-solving) and social skills (right-place, right-time).

The most important take-home message from all of this newness is, for both education professionals and for those looking in from the outside, that this is a journey of learning for all of us. What makes standards-based education different is that, as an educator doing this for over two years now, I find myself constantly asking questions about what the "standard" means and what proficiency looks like in my students.

For me, each day represents a new opportunity to look in the mirror and grow in my profession. I am someplace now that I never would have imagined two years ago.  In ten years of teaching, this is the first time I've actually felt like a professional educator. And this comes from someone who spent the previous 20 years as a professional scientist. So, be reasonable, give it a chance and don't forget to enjoy the journey!