There is a misconception that a common curriculum now known as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) exists in the United States as a base that all states and public school districts are required to follow. This misconception is exacerbated by concerns that one curriculum for all equates to one of two extremes; either dumbing down the curriculum, or creating one so rigorous as to be inaccessible. In fact www.corestandards.org states, “no state in the country was asked to lower their expectations for their students in adopting the Common Core. The standards are evidence-based, aligned with college and work expectations, include rigorous content and skills, and are informed by other top performing countries. They were developed in consultation with teachers and parents from across the country so they are also realistic and practical for the classroom.”
It is important to note that the CCSS are standards and are not curriculum. Often the two terms are used to mean the same, but separately they are very distinct. Standards are measures that allow educators to build curriculum units and lesson plans to a common, measurable goal. While, the curriculum units and lesson plans are unique in the way each curriculum team determines the best instructional methods and resources used to teach students to meet those standards. Quality curriculum plans are designed around essential questions and objectives that outline what the students should know and be able to do at the end of each lesson and unit. In addition, the plans include learning progressions that outline what students entered that grade with, what they should currently be working on, and where they are going in the next grade. The learning progressions allow curriculum teams and educators to provide scaffolds or differentiation for those that need support. Extensions are provided to push learning for students that have already mastered the standards presented in that unit or lesson. These elements do not result in a one size fits all curriculum that dumbs down or limits accessibility.
The Common Core State Standards was developed by a talented pool of educators and leaders from across the country through a joint efforts created by the nation’s governors and education commissioners and their representative organizations: the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). Once released in 2010, each state had the opportunity to adopt and determine how best to roll-out the standards. As of June 30, 2013, 45 states have adopted the standards (www.corestandards.org). Some states have decided to develop a statewide curriculum while others have granted autonomy to the districts. In Rhode Island, the Commissioner of Education, granted each district the autonomy to develop and adopt their own curriculum aligned to the CCSS. Grant funding to support this work has been provided through Race to the Top (RTTT), and districts have opted to engage in this curriculum revision and transition process in two distinct ways.
I was fortunate to be a part of two districts with two different approaches, allowing me to speak from experience that “common doesn’t mean same” (Sarah Brown Wessling, Teaching Channel). In my first district, we opted to work with a consortium of districts to develop a common curriculum that would be used in all participants. The work was supported by RTTT funds and led by the University of Texas, Dana Center. Participants spent sessions learning the standards deeply and then working together to create units of study. Upon completion, these districts selected resources, created lessons, individualized the curriculum documents to meet their unique needs, and provided roll-out sessions for all teachers. In my current district, we opted to work in-house to complete the work outlined above. After providing initial training to educators on the standards, curriculum teams worked with content experts to further study the standards, develop units of study, select resources, create assessments, and develop exemplar lesson plans. This template was created by our team to meet our goals and objectives, and teachers had a voice in every decision along the way. Our new curriculum is just that, it is ours. It addresses our goals and our objectives aligned to the measurable standards of CCSS. The educators involved in both projects are talented individuals who understand their content and the needs of their students. They were thoughtful in their decision-making processes and creative in their approach. I am both proud and confident of the curriculum work of these educators, and can assure you that, as indicated by Sarah Brown Wessling in her Teaching Channel CCSS video overviews below “common doesn’t mean same.”
It is important to note that the CCSS are standards and are not curriculum. Often the two terms are used to mean the same, but separately they are very distinct. Standards are measures that allow educators to build curriculum units and lesson plans to a common, measurable goal. While, the curriculum units and lesson plans are unique in the way each curriculum team determines the best instructional methods and resources used to teach students to meet those standards. Quality curriculum plans are designed around essential questions and objectives that outline what the students should know and be able to do at the end of each lesson and unit. In addition, the plans include learning progressions that outline what students entered that grade with, what they should currently be working on, and where they are going in the next grade. The learning progressions allow curriculum teams and educators to provide scaffolds or differentiation for those that need support. Extensions are provided to push learning for students that have already mastered the standards presented in that unit or lesson. These elements do not result in a one size fits all curriculum that dumbs down or limits accessibility.
The Common Core State Standards was developed by a talented pool of educators and leaders from across the country through a joint efforts created by the nation’s governors and education commissioners and their representative organizations: the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). Once released in 2010, each state had the opportunity to adopt and determine how best to roll-out the standards. As of June 30, 2013, 45 states have adopted the standards (www.corestandards.org). Some states have decided to develop a statewide curriculum while others have granted autonomy to the districts. In Rhode Island, the Commissioner of Education, granted each district the autonomy to develop and adopt their own curriculum aligned to the CCSS. Grant funding to support this work has been provided through Race to the Top (RTTT), and districts have opted to engage in this curriculum revision and transition process in two distinct ways.
I was fortunate to be a part of two districts with two different approaches, allowing me to speak from experience that “common doesn’t mean same” (Sarah Brown Wessling, Teaching Channel). In my first district, we opted to work with a consortium of districts to develop a common curriculum that would be used in all participants. The work was supported by RTTT funds and led by the University of Texas, Dana Center. Participants spent sessions learning the standards deeply and then working together to create units of study. Upon completion, these districts selected resources, created lessons, individualized the curriculum documents to meet their unique needs, and provided roll-out sessions for all teachers. In my current district, we opted to work in-house to complete the work outlined above. After providing initial training to educators on the standards, curriculum teams worked with content experts to further study the standards, develop units of study, select resources, create assessments, and develop exemplar lesson plans. This template was created by our team to meet our goals and objectives, and teachers had a voice in every decision along the way. Our new curriculum is just that, it is ours. It addresses our goals and our objectives aligned to the measurable standards of CCSS. The educators involved in both projects are talented individuals who understand their content and the needs of their students. They were thoughtful in their decision-making processes and creative in their approach. I am both proud and confident of the curriculum work of these educators, and can assure you that, as indicated by Sarah Brown Wessling in her Teaching Channel CCSS video overviews below “common doesn’t mean same.”
RSS Feed
