Video on the Common Core State Standards
Question: What would critical pedagogy have to say about this video? What is the “social foundation” of the ideas present there and in the Common Core as a whole?
*Remember to post a response to this question in the comments section below using language from the readings thus far, and also respond to a classmate’s response by midnight July 16th.
david (isaac) backer 
1. What would critical pedagogy have to say about this video?
One of my points from the video will be “The Importance of Theory”. The Common Core spoke about trying to get every student regardless of schooling. Putting students on the same level to be able to compete against students from other countries or in your own city. The theory is to change the process that student may have in learning. Meaning making every type of teaching is available for a student to learn. On page 61, The Critical Pedagogy states; “Critical theorists begin with the premise that men and women are essentially unfree and inhabit a world rife with contradiction and asymmetries of power and privilege. The critical educator endorses theories that are, first and foremost, dialectical; that is, theories which recognize the problems of society as more than simply isolated events of individuals or deficiencies in the social structure.” Now in order for the Common Core standards to kick in, it must be able to have the leg work ready and done in order to implement the balanced approach they want. Because the social structures are way off when it comes to the urban city and inner city schools. Or even when you compete against America versus the World. We still tend be behind socially for even job readiness after high school. The knowledge and power relation would come to play with this common core video. Will the teacher have the knowledge and power to engage his or her students to what to empower themselves enough to want to compete and become successful enough after high school and even college for that matter?
2. What is the “social foundation” of this ideas present there and in the Common Core as a whole?
The social foundation is a very strong piece. In Critical Pedagogy: A look at the Major concepts it states that; “Over the decades, critical educational theorists have to fathom how schools are implicated in the process of social reproduction. In other words, they have attempted to explore how schools perpetuate or reproduce the social relationships attitudes needed to sustain the existing dominant economic and class relations of the larger society.” To me the common core is so spread out with the social relationship between administrators and teachers and then teachers and students as well as administrators and parents and students. It will be a constant struggle to get everyone on the same page. Information that is passed down by administrators to teacher become a message that has been translated into something totally different. The student receive that water down information and will not begin to really understand the true meaning of what the original message is. So in order to have the working-class students become working-class adults; they must understand or even have the system in place that meet the needs of the class they are representing.
I believe that critical pedagogy would say that Common Core as a whole is a good idea for all students. It allows those students to have an equal opportunity no matter their background. Students are having more opportunities to succeed is all states are on the same page and ideas about learning. Each student is treated as equal because they have the same standards and expectations as all other students. The “social foundation” of the ideas and in the Common Core are that students are to make sure that all students are learning what they need to know in order to graduate and then eventually get to college and their own job. By created one set of standards students are able to compete on the same level. They will have so many options to choose from once they are finished from school. These standards allow students to really focus on the task ahead of them. This provides clear goals and confident students who are ready to learn.
Common core state standards in my opinion is a great idea and well over due. The standards, however, should not just be connected with state to state curriculum, but also in each individual school system as the video suggest. I attended elementary and middle school in suburban school systems. My family then moved to the west side of Cleveland where I was enrolled in a Cleveland public high school. My freshman year of high school was also the first year the state of Ohio issued the 9th grade proficiency test, which all students were required to pass before graduation. After the first round of testing only 5 students in the entire high school passed all 5 sections of the test. The 5 students who passed were; my brother and I, a student who transferred from Medina public schools, another student who transferred from a private middle school and 1 student who was the sole product of the Cleveland public school system. The current graduation class was of course exempt from the new graduation requirement, that year many students graduated high school with honors even though in the state of Ohio eyes they weren’t even proficient at a 9th grade level of reading, writing, science, and mathematics. I myself finished high school having never written a research paper, completed a school project, or conducted a class presentation to my peers. It wasn’t that I skipped these assignments; they were never issued as part of the curriculum. Again, having state standards is a great idea, I just doubt for several reasons that they will ever be implemented. For one, the Dominant Culture would have to relinquish some of its control. Implementing state standards means all students will be provided the same education, school districts would then be held accountable to provide it. That might threaten the monopoly the Dominate Culture believes it has in the education system, the pool in which it replaces its members will broaden. An increase candidate pool means opportunity for those who were previously excluded, competition for those mainstays currently in the pool. Common standards means equality, and we all know how the threat of equality is perceived by Dominate Cultures. Equality is never blindly awarded in society, those who are slighted fight for it. The video also mentions that teachers, parents and students all need to work together to make these standards happen. For me that most important one in the group are the parents. In some school districts the parents have been conditioned that their child’s educational success is solely dependent on a high school diploma. We need to change this mindset. A high school diploma should be considered as just a step on the ladder rung and not the final destination. For those parents who only look for the diploma, how will they view the government seemingly attempting to make it harder for their child to graduate high school? Critical Pedagogy must explore this aspect.
Being that Critical Pedagogy combines a philosophy of education and social movement that combines education and critical theory, I believe that this video falls somewhat in line by the way that it has a large focus on the social aspect of education and the flow that the creator of this video is trying to go. It is certainly pushing for a learning pathway that will ensure all students end up in the same winning circle across the board. This of course is a nice thought but doesn’t come off as realistic. But it does push a social movement of incorporating all, in the quest of joining each other on the final staircase.
Hi Shalamar,
I do like the point you made about it seeming unrealistic to teach every student the same thing at the same pace. I agree. I think that curriculum can all move in the same direction but if learning is shaped to fit a student individually that should also include at their pace. I think this is a great way to work out the kinks of the common standard plan for students.
I’m glad I;m not the only one who finds this an unrealistic idea. Though it is a very nice thought and I would love to see it happen, it just does not seem like something that can ever be obtained. I have seen a lot of different pushes to get all educators and school districts to be on the same path, but every educator and school district thinks that their set up is the best and doesn’t want to change it. Until a particular set up is proven to be superior I doubt that there will even be a real movement to change the current way the education system is run.
From my knowledge of critical pedagogy I believe that they would not like this video. They believe that its not neutral or objective like this video wants it to be. These are on two completely different planes of thinking and they would never agree on things. One thinks everything should be equal and fair and the other thinks that that is impossible and should not be forced to be something it is not. I’m personally partial to agreeing with critical pedagogy. Though it is a nice thought that everything should be fair and equal it is not a realistic thought. Nothing is fair and equal so why should we try and force schools to be that way?
Another thing that I believe critical pedagogy would disagree with is the part of the video where they say how one student could be getting an A in his class, but it would only be considered a C in another states class. They believe in interest bound learning. Who’s to say that that student in that region just has more of an interest in that subject in the other. Maybe it isn’t even because of the teaching level but instead it is because of the interest level.
Hey Jackie, I definitely agree that trying to force schools to apply the same standard to every student, regardless of that student’s learning ability isn’t an improvement. I also think the common core system has a major flaw regarding the instructors themselves. Even if you make standards the same across every state and every school, the fact of the matter is that every teacher is going to teach that subject differently. So maybe I was getting an A in Seattle and a C in Chicago because the instructor at my previous school taught in a way that was better(for me at least). If we took it a step further and said “Ok here is the information that needs to be taught and this is the best way for you to teach it to get through to the maximum amount of kids” than that is about as far from critical pedagogy as we could get.
Jackie great points. They are on two different playing fields and will not really agree on anything. It would sound great if both sides are on the same page. Don’t really know what to do in order to improve the students chances of surviving out side of schooling. The teacher will always teach and from what is given to them by administration. It still may come out slightly altered.
Hi Jackie! I thought your interpretation of the video was interesting. While I respect your comment, and I can see where you’re coming from, I tend to disagree because I believe that every student should have the right to having a fair and equal education opportunity. We shouldn’t force education systems to give every student the chance for proper education, they should already be educators who want their students to thrive and have an equal chance of learning. A child should have the same access to knowledge as the kid down the street or across the country no matter who they are or where they came from, I believe everyone deserves the opportunity for a fair education.
I really agree that students are interested in different things at different times of their life. Some students have different levels of learning throughout their life, but are all taught the same thing when using this common core curriculum. It really allows students to be on the same page and get them further up the latter of success later in life.
The social foundation of the ideas present in common core video as a whole is common standard. Common core standard works with student’s personal needs to ensure all students are learning the same material at the same speed. Critical pedagogy would encourage the idea of schools being able to individually pick the curriculum as well as give students individual attention, however it may criticize what is chosen to be the common core. When common core is decided, it must include common sense structures, as opposed to vague ideas to serve as the common standard for all students everywhere.
Critical pedagogy would love the common core standard. It is the improvement in the right direction of education that our society needs. It is combining education and global social movements to help children of the world be educated equally. It puts aside students geographic location, race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, class, and other cultural differences in order to foster critical thinking in education, which translates to increase knowledge in their future endeavors.The social foundation of the ideas in the common core would be executed by the teachers, students, and parents teaching the proper skills that children need to be successful. With the consistent, clear and strong benchmarks actings as landings along the way, it should help ensure that all students are being taught proper curriculum and are at the proper learning standards for the grade level.
I think critical pedagogy would agree with this video and many of it’s points. Especially the details pertaining to equal learning, this allows for people from all walks of education to be on a equal playing field when it comes to work. The social foundation of the ideas is equality of classes, race, and genders.
I hope I responded on the correct area
I believe critical pedagogy would agree with the details of this video. I also feel that the social foundation of the ideas, are to present the common core standards as a way to promote equality between classes, genders, and races. So that no one has an advantage over the other no matter the background, all education should be equal to create a equal playing field for career opportunities.
I think someone who views things from a critical standpoint wouldn’t necessarily approve of common core curriculum because it attempts to shoehorn everyone into the same system. While I think clear benchmarks are important, students shouldn’t think that “this is all I need to know because that is the benchmark”. I also think that when you setup this common curriculum across an entire country, or even state, you kind of paint yourself into a corner when it comes to change. New information on virtually every subject comes to light daily, and I think it would be very difficult to adapt to changes in our knowledge base and rolling out changes across every school in America would be extremely costly and time intensive. Not to mention, if something I learned 4 years ago has now been updated and changed, which standard will I be held to, the old standard that I passed, or the newer, more “correct” standard. I think metaphor or moving up steps is slippery too, because with the No Child Left Behind Act, kids aren’t permitted to fail, and are advanced to a higher grade even though they may not fully understand the material in their current grade. This system would obviously have to change if the theory in the video is implemented. I also think that, though the premise behind the theory has good intentions, putting everyone on the same staircase doesn’t work in reality, because different people move at different speeds. Should a child have to sit and wait on a “landing” when they are ready to move up the next flight of steps now?
Ian,
Nice reply. I didn’t think of how common standards would possibly hamper change, really good point. I too believe in the good intentions behind it and also realize the difficulties in implementing such a program. Sometimes minor tweaks are better than a system wide overhaul.
Ian nice point. I would not really see from a hamper change of view. Didn’t really see the difficulties in implementing a program of this kind. I do believe that a major tweaks can help the transition for student success.
Great discussion everyone! It seems like one question that’s emerging here is a question about standardization and individuality:
On the one hand, we want to have a system where we can say confidently that some students, schools, teachers, and administrators (even districts, cities, states, and countries) are educating “well” and some of those entities are educating “poorly.” To do so, we need to have something like a “standard,” or a set of ideas, practices, and values that everyone agrees are worthy and appropriate. If we have that standard, then we can claim that we are educating well, because we can hold up different institutions to that standard. The “common core” is supposed to be that standard.
On the other hand, it may not be possible to measure everyone involved in education according to the same set of values, practices, and ideas. In fact it might be unjust to do so for a variety of reasons. Educational actions might be “incommensurable,” in the sense that it is impossible to meaningfully compare teachers and students in one situation to teachers and situations in another situation. It’s the “apples and oranges” problem. We might be disrespecting particularity of learners and teachers and institutions by trying.
Also, using language from our class, the movement to “standardize” might have a hidden curriculum, fueled by a hegemony whose ideology is not immediately apparent. What about class differences in the classroom? Does the common core confront class, like bell hooks says we must? Citing Goldfarb, standardization might make it easier for the dying elements of a society to put its trip on young people. It intensifies the authority-addict, anti-democratic, and conservative elements in education and in society as a whole. It makes it harder to change society from what it is to something else.
An interesting blog post which summarizes some of the social foundations of the common core, from a critical perspective, is here: https://creativesystemsthinking.wordpress.com/2015/03/06/challenging-the-cold-war-pedagogy-of-common-core/.
Though I believe that the common core is being established with good intention to aide in the overall development of a well rounded student, I am inclined to agree with Thomas Armstrong when he says that ” Too many students already feel alienated by the material they are asked to read in school. And the best teachers are those who can actually help the student make critical connections between what they are reading and their own lives. Now teachers around the country are going to be trained to stop doing this, and instead, are being told to force students’ noses into the text, so to speak, so that they can start inhaling deeply.” He goes on to tell his prediction, which I happen to agree with, ” Its going to create a whole new generation of reading-phobic children” Though I think this is true< I also believe that It goes a lot Deeper. Sure we want the children on the same playing field but seeing as all children do not start off on the same level , It will be definitely challenging to achieve. I have worked with children that are Birth to 5 for the last 18 years and one thing I know is that all children go at their own pace and learn differently. It is hard to get children on the same page because its not only about the children in the early years, It's also about the parents. We as teachers can set up a wonderful developmental plan and curriculum that is individualized to the specific needs and development to each child or we can even use a cookie cutter method for all but the reality is that if the parents or caregivers don't follow through with home work, study and preparation, the child is still going to struggle. And where Armstrong speaks of the possibilities of the developing phobias is spot on. We are creating test takers and not learners and Test anxiety is all too real. The average 2nd grader is tested once or twice a week. The information is being pushed in so quickly that they barely have time to digest it and as a mother of four, two of which have gone though 2nd grade (7 yrs apart) I can tell you that it not only is a stressful for the kids but for the parents as well. There is on a minimum 2 hours of homework daily. Yes daily. and attending an IBS (International Baccalaureate School) makes sure that they work with the common core standards and above. So I am witnessing the affects first had. Yes my 15 yr old is starting college early and can compete with the best of the best . But my now 8 year old has so many anxieties the she virtually hates going toe school for fear that she will be called on in class and have a wrong answer, only to be held back a grade or worse yet be ridiculed by her classmates. And yes they have the same parents , same genes and same teacher and school system. But as earlier stated by Armstrong, teachers are being told to change their approach to learning to get the scores. In my opinion, It is always better to teach a child by reaching them the way that they learn best.Only time will tell how this the new teaching approaches and standards will work out. I am hoping for the best for all.
Shalimar Lashley – Haynes