Essay

 

Teachers’ Confusion about Common Core and Possible Resources

“Before anything else, preparation is the key to success.” ~ Alexander Graham Bell

Above, Bell illustrates the importance of preparation when trying to achieve success.  Unfortunately, with the implementation of Common Core State Standards (CCSS), teachers are not prepared to teach the new curriculum which will lead to unsuccessful teachers and students.  This situation can be applied to Bell’s claim that success is the result of preparation such as teachers are not prepared to teach their students the new curriculum which will lead to the failure of students’ understanding of the concepts.  By not being prepared, teachers and students cannot achieve success with the new CCSS curriculum.  Common Core State Standards are quickly being implemented into schools across the country.  The CCSS curriculum brings a new way of thinking and teaching into our schools.  Teachers do not understand this curriculum, and this is negatively affecting students’ learning and test scores.  This paper answers the question: are teachers getting the support and resources necessary for them to fully understand the new curriculum and effectively teach their students?  In this essay, I explore the possible different methods that try to help teachers transition to fully incorporating CCSS into their classrooms.  I determine that teachers are adequately prepared in CCSS for English language arts.  I also conclude that teachers are not provided with enough training in CCSS for mathematics and that math specialists are the most effective way to resolve this issue and improve students’ test scores.

With the implementation of CCSS, many administrators, teachers, and parents are confused about the process of incorporating CCSS and principles in general.  According to Chestnutt and Swars (2016), University of Georgia education professors, as of 2015, 43 states had adopted CCSS and expected teachers to use a slow path to transition to CCSS within a few years.  In 2010, states adopted CCSS which was followed by communication about CCSS’s transition process and its curriculum and standards between administrators, teachers, and parents.  The following year, teachers began to prepare for the new curriculum.  CCSS started emerging in classrooms in 2012, and full implementation of CCSS was expected to occur in 2014.  However, within these four years, even though there was plenty of time for the transition, teachers were not given enough training and resources to be fully prepared to teach CCSS in a classroom (Chestnutt & Swars, 2016).

During the implementation process, many questions rose about CCSS and its importance.  Council of Great City Schools (2011), a council that bring together the US’s largest public school systems, explains that CCSS equalizes school standards among states and nations.  Before CCSS, states set their own personal standards for what students should know at each grade level, and no two states had the exact same standards.  There was no way to adequately compare students in different states, which made it difficult to decide which students were prepared for college and future careers.  Because teachers were unable to decipher which students were best prepared for the future, CCSS was created.  Council of Great City Schools emphasizes that CCSS creates “consistent, strong, clear benchmarks for English language, Arts and Math” (p.1) in their three-minute video explaining CCSS.  With new standards come new curriculum, the CCSS curriculum focuses on critical thinking in both English language arts and math (Council of Great City Schools, 2011).

The new curriculum and standards for English language arts have created a smooth transition for teachers and students while the new math curriculum has created many problems for both teachers and students.  The Mercury News (2016), a well-known news outlet, states that the transition for English language arts was easy, and many students enjoy the CCSS curriculum, but on the other hand, the transition for the CCSS mathematics (CCSS-Math) was and is difficult.  The CCSS-Math curriculum has created many problems for both teachers and students.  Pat Wingert (2014), an education reporter for The Atlantic, explains that the new CCSS-Math textbooks highlight critical thinking much more often than memorization.  Wingert also explains that the new curriculum includes word problems that highlight critical thinking and focus on learning the topics which helps lay a stronger foundation for future learning (Wingert, 2014).  In an interview between Luba Ostrashevsky (2016), a reporter from The Hechinger Report, and Juli Dixon, a math education professor at University of Central Florida, Dixon explains the new curriculum as “a change in thinking. We used to teach procedural math, but now students have to understand the ‘why’ as much as the ‘how’” (p.2).  CCSS-Math take a new approach on how to teach students and includes ways for students to solve math problems by encouraging students to find their own way to solve problems.  Most teachers can agree that CCSS-Math is very different from the previous state standards.  In fact, Chestnutt and Swars (2016) report that there is only 20-35% overlap between CCSS-Math and previous state standards.  Due to the major differences between previous state standards and CCSS-Math, teachers are confused.

It is assumed that teachers are fully prepared to teach after they receive a solid education in college and graduate school; however, teachers are unprepared for CCSS-Math.  According to Pat Wingert (2014), this is result of many undergraduate programs focusing on language arts and only requiring students to take a few math courses.  By having little math training to begin with, teachers are already uncomfortable with teaching math.  In fact, University of Central Florida requires future teacher students to take an additional class that explains how to teach CCSS-Math curriculum.  If taught well, this class could be incredibly useful for future teachers.  Unfortunately, it does not help current teachers who have already graduated from college.  When interviewing teachers, Luba Ostrashevsky (2016) learned that because many teachers were not taught CCSS-Math when they were in school, they feel as if they need “to “unlearn” math and relearn it again” (p. 5) in order to be able to successfully teach it.  In other words, teachers feel they need to ignore all of their previous learning and completely start their education over and begin with CCSS-Math.  This is another reason why teachers want more resources to help them understand and implement CCSS-Math.

There are many different ways of educating teachers on the best possible approaches to teach CCSS-Math.  Many people suggest professional development (PD) which can be in the form of a class or a workshop that focuses on a topic or an issue and offers solutions or tips.  One downfall with PD is that there is only a limited amount of time, and therefore, one can only cover a limited amount of information.  In order to create the most effective PD program possible, Bostic and Matney (2013), education professors at Bowling Green State University, implemented a research project which attempted to learn the specific areas that teachers wanted more PD. Bostic and Matney also wanted to guarantee that the areas in which teachers desired more PD would most positively impact the students.  They tested this alignment by comparing students’ failed test scores with the potential support areas teachers pointed out.  After their research, Bostic and Matney learned that teachers wanted more PD on a range of topics but specifically “reasoning and making sense of math including operations, algebraic thinking, numbers, operations – fractions, measurement and data” (p. 6).  The authors learned that these areas aligned with the concepts that students failed on their tests (Bostic & Matney, 2013).  For PD to be effective, it needs to cater itself towards the teachers and students.

Many schools have offered PD in order to help teachers transition to CCSS-Math.  Chestnutt and Swars (2016) states that teachers described PD as “collaborative planning time with colleagues, structured and formal setting (seminars, workshops, conferences), and Professional Learning Communities” (p. 4).  These methods all seem to be effective teaching and learning strategies.  However, in the same survey only 7% of teachers strongly agreed that their PD had prepared them to teach CCSS-Math.  This statistic shows that PD is not working the way administrators assume it is and needs to be changed to better prepare teachers.  The same survey also asked teachers what they believed would be the most effective way to design PD.  They said PD should involve “modeling of lessons, unpacking the standards, and understanding differences between same lesson taught using CCSS-Mathematics and not CCSS-Mathematics” (p. 5).  These methods not only give teachers ideas on how to teach these concepts, but it also allows them to understand the concepts and the differences between CCSS-Math and the previous state standards.  The survey goes on to find that to better prepare teachers, PD should emphasize: “building mathematical knowledge for teaching; developing abilities to interpret, analyze, and respond to children’s thinking; learning ways of facilitating productive classroom discourse in mathematics; and addressing the needs of a variety of learners via the CCSS-Mathematics” (p. 10).  This survey conducted by Chestnutt and Swars (2016) has produced large amounts of information that are influential when planning PD for teachers.

Researchers also needed to learn if PD could be effective if done correctly.  Polly et al. (2013), who are all education professors at different universities, implemented PD for a group of teachers, surveyed teachers, and tested students to see if their PD program was effective.  While the authors do not give any specific descriptions of their PD, their research found that all but one of the teachers in their research project either stayed at or switched to a student-centered teaching style which makes everything about and for the students.  Even more importantly, they also discovered that students’ test scores rose after teachers had completed the PD program.  This research suggests that if done correctly PD can be effective in not only helping teachers understand the new CCSS-Math but also in raising students’ test scores and understanding (Polly et al., 2013).

However, Pat Campbell, a University of Maryland math education researcher, argues that research has shown multiple times that PD is not an effective way to train teachers especially if administrators are trying to make major changes and improvements (Wingert, 2014).  Campbell emphasizes that a few short days with a specialist will not make the necessary, major, long-term impacts that are crucial for the understanding of these concepts for both teachers and students.  As an alternative option, Campbell suggests a math specialist instead of PD.  A principal from Springhurst, Julia Drake, agrees stating, “A couple of days of professional development is not the same as someone in-house who really understands it” (p. 2).  Having a math specialist on-campus year-round is gaining more support as the best way to train teachers in CCSS-Math (Wingert, 2014).

Having a math specialist always on a school’s campus is a newer approach to helping teachers and students with CCSS-Math.  According to Pat Wingert (2014), a math specialist can work closely with teachers over a long period of time in order to make them feel 100% confident in their understanding and teaching.  Math specialists typically help teachers create lesson plans and teach multiple ways of how to approach a problem.  Both teachers and math specialists find it helpful if the math specialist sits in on their classes, gives feedback, and teaches some lessons for teachers to observe.  In addition to this one-on one work, math specialists have the opportunity to provide long-term personalized courses for teachers in order to drill down concepts.  Math specialists have shown to be incredibly successful at helping teachers and students with CCSS-Math; National Science Foundation (NSF), which is a government agency that supports research and education, conducted a study to see if students’ test scores were affected by having math specialists at their school. The research study concluded the students from schools with math specialists scored much higher than students who went to schools that did not have a math specialist – this gap in test scores grows every year.  Math specialists are proving to be an effective way of guiding teachers in understanding and teaching CCSS-Math.  If studies continue to be positive for math specialists, as national math education expert, Phil Daro, once said, “using math specialists may be the only practical way” (p. 6) to seamlessly transition teachers to CCSS-Math (Wingert, 2014).

Although math specialists have positive evidence showing that it is an effective way to help teachers implement CCSS-Math, Pat Wingert (2014) continues to report that math specialists can be expensive, and many schools cannot afford a math specialist and need alternative ways to help teachers with CCSS-Math.  There are other possible solutions for low income schools to help the transition.  Chestnutt and Swars (2016) state that some teachers explain that all they need is some more time to review the CCSS-Math curriculum; others suggest more opportunities to collaborate with their peers and more communication with administrators.  Luba Ostrashevsky (2016) offers another solution explaining that one school requires their teachers to take a 2-week math intensive where they are taught multiple skills to help them transition.  All of these methods are good alternatives to a math specialist.  An additional PD program can also help teachers transition if it is conducted correctly and efficiently.  In the end, administrations need to be committed to helping their teachers transition to CCSS-Math and need to provide all of the support and resources necessary for a smooth transition.

Common Core State Standards were created and implemented to standardize education benchmarks nationally and internationally.  CCSS for English language arts transitioned seamlessly into schools, and children love the new curriculum.  On the other hand, CCSS for mathematics has been harder for teachers to incorporate into their lesson plans.  Teachers have argued that the resources schools have put into place to help teachers transition are not successfully helping teachers.  Teachers also stated that because CCSS-Math’s curriculum is very different from previous state standards many teachers do not understand the new curriculum.  Research shows the best way to transition to CCSS-Math is to hire a math specialist to help teachers.  However, this is an expensive solution so other possible solutions are more collaboration, more PD, and more time for the teachers to fully understand CCSS-Math.  Although, there are some kinks to work out in the system, Common Core State Standards have the possibility to make many positive impacts on our education system.