“I hate history class, it’s boring!” If I had a
nickel for every time I heard a student utter that sentiment I could retire by
now. Nevertheless, before we condemn our students for their historical
illiteracy and lethargy, we should acknowledge that there may be some truth to
their protestation. Since time immemorial, teachers have taught history by
giving lengthy lectures requiring students to memorize long lists of names,
dates and events. In many history classrooms the textbook is the only thing
students read, despite the preponderance of rich source material. Section after
section, chapter after chapter, students endured what has become known as the
“Bataan Death March” to finish the thousand plus page tome before the end of
the school year. I don’t blame teachers, they are simply doing what they needed
to do to cover the antiquated academic content standards required of them. To
assess those standards teachers tested what students learned by giving “fill in
the bubble” multiple guess tests. This “memorization and regurgitation”
approach requires little to no higher level thinking and most students forget
the material they crammed into their heads after they take the test. No wonder student’s
find history boring.
Thankfully in Nevada we have Common Core standards,
which provide a fresh and intellectually invigorating approach to how we teach and learn. Good
history instruction should be less about “drill & kill” and more about analysis,
interpretation and understanding the complexities, decisions and points of view
of historical actors. As the Common Core points out the best way to do this is
through an analysis of original documents. When students analyze and interpret document
they have the opportunity to interrogate the past by asking questions,
proposing claims and counter claims and deriving meaning directly from the source
material. What makes this approach particularly powerful is the fact that
teachers don’t tell students what to think, but how to think. Teaching history
in this way is by far much more intellectually stimulating and rewarding, and
requires students to think at a much deeper level than the traditional “one
damn thing after another” approach. Common Core standards bring my classroom
alive as my students debate the past and think critically about important
events in American history.
Our technological world necessitates that we change
the way we teach and the way our students learn. As the new Nevada economy
brings high tech jobs to the Silver State our students must graduate with the
skills and dispositions sought after by the 21st century economy. Students
need to be able to think critically about information and make judgments based
upon evidence. They need to be able to answer their own questions through
research, and they must be able to effectively communicate across a variety of
platforms and networks. This is what the Common Core requires and why I support
the standards.
Unfortunately, not everyone believes the Common Core
standards will raise student achievement in Nevada, and there has been movement
within the state to repeal them. Last week Citizens for Sound Academic
Standards presented a forum to debate the Common Core Standards. Speaking against
the standards was Sandra Stotsky, a professor emerita of English at the
University of Arkansas and James Milgram, a professor emeritus of math at
Stanford University. Supporting the standards was the Nevada Deputy
Superintendent of Education Steve Canavero. The “debate,” unfortunately, was little
more than the professors making spurious attacks against the standards,
oftentimes making statements that have been proven to be untrue such as the claim
that the Common Core was not a state led effort, but was the creation of the
federal government. The highlight of the evening came when Aaron Grossman, a
curriculum specialist with the Washoe County School District, gave his
articulate and passionate support for the standards. Despite Mr. Canavero’s, Citizens
for Sound Academic Standards forbade other teachers, from giving their opinions.
According to the Nevada Appeal "One point of order that caused controversy
in the meeting was the eventual decision not to allow teachers to talk about
their experience with Common Core. Stotsky and Milgram said that wasn't
appropriate for the forum, with Stotsky saying the Department of Education
could hold its own forum. But Nevada Deputy Superintendent Steve Canavero
disagreed.” and went on to say that "This is the only time I've had
teachers silenced," he said. "I find that appalling,
personally." It defies common sense that the “experts” would not want to engage
with, and hear teacher’s points of view, I found it to be insulting and
condescending. As a National Board Certified Teacher, teacher leader and
Nevada’s 2014 Teacher of the Year my experience and knowledge of the Common
Core and the positive impacts it has had on my teaching and my student’s
learning should have been part of the conversation. Dale Erquiaga, Nevada’s
Superintendent of Education, released the following statement “I consider our
educators to be the most credible and knowledgeable speakers about Nevada’s
standards.” At least our Superintendent has the sense to know that teacher’s
voices matter. I sincerely hope that in the future any conversation involving
Nevada’s academic standards involve the people who know them best our teachers.
