Key policy makers have been hinting for weeks that we will be comprehensively reviewing Common Core in Tennessee to allow the public to provide input on the standards. This morning, Governor Haslam’s office released two documents that outlined his plan for this public review with the intention to create a set of recommendations on how to move forward on Tennessee Standards by the end of 2015.
Both documents can be accessed here (press release) and here (FAQ document). You can read them both yourself, but here’s the synopsis and the time table that will be followed, along with questions that I still have after reading through the proposal:
Timeline
Fall, 2014 – Within the next few months (possibly as early as next) the state will open up an online portal through tn.gov to allow the public to provide comments on specific standards.
From the press release, participants will be able to
“make comments on likes and dislikes of particular standards and offer recommendations for revisions, additions or deletions.”
This information collection will continue through spring of 2015 to allow the public adequate time to contribute.
Summer/Fall 2015 – the State Board of Education will be working with the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) to collect and provide the information to the State Board of Education. Once that information has been provided, the comments and feedback will be analyzed by several working groups – Four for Math content (Math Development, Math K-5, Math 6-8 and Math 9-12) and four for English content (English Development, English K-5, English 6-8 and English 9-12). The information will be provided to the working groups.
End of 2015 – recommendations from the working groups will be provided to the State Board of Education, who will then make the decision about whether to keep the standards in their entirety, modify the standards or rewrite them completely.
Given this timeline and this process, I want to offer some initial thoughts about each step along the way, what it means for the overall process, and questions that still need to be answered.
The Comment Process – Questions and Concerns
As presented, one of my initial concerns is that the plan doesn’t include any assurances that comments on the Tennessee Standards can be limited to Tennessee residents. In other words, what’s to stop people from outside the state from spamming negativity (or support) for the standards? Granted this is a fairly nuanced detail that doesn’t need to be laid out completely in a policy proposal, but it would have been comforting to hear the governor at least acknowledge this potential problem in the FAQ document.
What could this look like? We could include a requirement to provide residency information, such as zip code or address as well as email, but it would still be easy for out of state supporters or detractors to “spam” the standards board using fake information. We need to ensure that we have a system in place to this does not occur.
One possible template we could use is the Kentucky Academics Standards Challenge, whose website you can visit here. This site allows citizens to view and comment on the Kentucky state standards. They do not technically prevent out of state people from contributing (you must lie to do so), but they do include a requirement to mark your residency. Additionally, they only allow one comment per electronic device, which would cut down on spamming. For obvious reasons I did not take the challenge, but I would be interested in reading an experience if anyone did.
One other thing I’d also like to see through the site is not only the standards, but also examples of the standards in action (i.e. questions). For example, instead of just offering the Tennessee Standards for geometric congruency (which can be very nebulous), provide 5-10 example assessment questions to give commentators a look at how they would be implemented.
The Advisory Team – Who’s On It?
As important as the public commentary, I believe that much of the impact of this review will come from those sitting on the committees in question and the recommendations that they make. They are the middle men, the people who will interpret the data that is collected.
With that in mind, it’s important to break down who was selected and how they will likely impact the decision. I’ve made a spreadsheet of all the committee members for this quick analysis, which can be accessed here for you to do your own breakdown: Advisory Team List
First, what’s the break-down of committee members by occupation? By my count, 33 percent are current classroom teachers (k-12), 35 percent are coaches or specialists (elementary or secondary) and 15 percent are higher education faculty from universities.
It’s good to know that over a third of the faculty will be existing classroom teachers. However, given that the Tennessee Standards under review are the Common Core state standards, I would want to have more information about each county and the extent to which they’ve implemented common core.
I’m also glad to know that so many content specialists are included who (presumably) have experience coaching and implementing the standards, either in a school or at the district level. In essence, over two thirds of the committee members have a direct connection to the classroom, and (presumably) many have experience implementing the standards.
Second, do we have a diverse group of districts represented? By my count, 31 LEAs (county school districts and special districts) are represented. The only districts that have more than one representative are Clarksville-Montgomery (2), Hamblen (2), Hamilton (3), Johnson City (2), Nashville (2), Tipton (2) and Williamson (2). Given that only 48 members were selected (several are crossovers between committees) and the 7 higher-education committee members, it’s good to see so much geographic diversity represented on these committees. As a Memphian, I would personally like to see more educators from Shelby County represented, but we can’t have everything.
Post Recommendations – Questions that Remain
Post recommendations from the committee, I have one key question that remains unanswered in the Governor’s press release – how does this review play into the need for a new, more rigorous assessment in Tennessee? Our existing TCAP assessments are NOT aligned to the existing standards. It’s incredibly frustrating as a teacher to have to teach one set of standards while having our assessment aligned to another, as many of my colleagues will attest to.
Given the role that assessment data plays in teacher, school and district evaluations, this question needs to be answered sooner rather than later. Will we adopt a new assessment to be implemented next year or stick with TCAP? And if we go ahead with a new assessment, which should be announced in the next few weeks, is there the possibility of adopting yet another assessment once the committee reports come back in? So much uncertainty surrounds the assessment piece, and this needs to be resolved.
My final thought is this – teachers and parents supportive of Common Core need to all weigh in throughout this process, not only through the online website but also by lobbying the state legislature to adhere to this process. This move will likely quell some of the opposition this coming spring, but its imperative that we lobby our elected officials to ensure that they allow this process to play out around the Tennessee Standards. Our kids, our teachers, and our state can’t afford another setback like we experienced last April. The success or failure of this entire review depends only in part on the working groups and the state board of education. The rest of the work needs to be done by us to support this process and ensure we adopt the most rigorous academic standards possible for our kids.
Follow Bluff City Education on Twitter @bluffcityed and look for the hashtag #iteachiam and #TNedu to find more of our stories. Please also like our page on facebook. The views expressed in this piece are solely those of the author and do not represent those of any affiliated organizations.