Rigorous Standards Stifle Children

"..Recent critiques of the Common Core Standards by Marion Brady and John T. Spencer have noted that the process for creating the new K-12 standards involved too little research, public dialogue, or input from educators...It appears that early childhood teachers and child development experts were excluded from the K-3 standards-writing process."  (From: A Tough Critique of the Common Core on Early Childhood Education)

Indeed, that is what I discovered also! In March of 2010, when the public could comment on the standards, I  asked some questions of Morgan Saxby, Research Associate at Achieve, Inc.

Here is our revealing back and forth. The links provided to 

me by Saxby are no longer valid.

Conny: How can I find out who the experts were who helped draft the core standards?

Morgan: This is a list of the people most directly involved with drafting the core standards: http://www.corestandards.org/Files/K-12DevelopmentTeam.pdf

Here is a list of statements of support for the K-12 standards, and the CCSSI more generally. Note that many of these organizations played specific roles in the drafting of the standards: http://corestandards.org/Statements.htm

There is also an FAQ available here: http://corestandards.org/Files/CoreFAQ.pdf

Please let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks for taking the time to leave feedback on the standards, and for your email.

Conny: Thank you so much for your swift response. It has been very useful as I wanted to find out if any early childhood development experts had participated but I can find none. Is it possible for you to find out why that is?

The people who helped draft the standards, distinguished in their fields as they may be, may know what children are capable of learning, but they lack the knowledge on how and when such things are learned best, hence many standards are age inappropriate. Subjecting children to too much too soon could prove unhealthy.

Below some interesting key concerns from a report  by the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child and the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. Of course there are several other expert organizations and individuals who could have been invited to participate. Dr. Bruce Perry immediately comes to mind, but also others like Dr. Harry Chugani who practices Neurology and Pediatric Neurology, and Eric Jensen who wrote "Teaching with the brain in mind".

Please also read Effects of Maltreatment on Brain Development and share if you can. It shows that any standard in school is useless unless children get a healthy start in life! Neglect early in life will make it impossible for children to become excellent learners later on as the brain will not have laid the groundwork for complex thinking.

Morgan: Thanks for your email.  I believe there were several early childhood teachers and cognitive development experts involved, and I’ll try to figure out who those were.  I should note that there were a number of individuals/groups who got involved at varying levels of formality, so they might not have been one of the “team” roster lists (or they might be; I will need to check). 

Second, there are certainly many important things, including the ones you mention, that are vital for learning and achievement, some or many of which can’t be captured in a document of academic standards.  I do see you are also making point about considering the academic load placed on the youngest students, and I hope you have had a chance to leave these comments in the survey so that they can be included with other responses about the early standards.

In ELA specifically: The AFT and NEA brought teachers together, including early education teachers.  Most states involved in the process had work teams that included early childhood experts.  Marilyn Adams and Louisa Moats worked on the Foundational Skills, specifically.  Some people from Core Knowledge (including, I think, a cognitive psychologist) weighed in on the K-5 standards.  NCTE also commented on the standards, and their group included early childhood educators.  Lastly, one of the lead writers, Sue Pimentel, has a degree in early childhood education.

I may have more for you later, but a number of early education experts and teachers were involved in the process.  Doug Clements and Karen Fuson are both experts in early childhood math education, and were involved in the Early Mathematics Panel.  Doug also wrote much of the early-grades material for the NCTM focal points.  The AFT also brought together teams of early childhood expert teachers and gave significant input in both the math and ELA standards.  I’m still waiting to hear from someone about any experts specifically involved with the development of the ELA standards.

Conny: Thank you for all your help to find out more. I looked up Karen Fuson and nothing shows she's an early childhood expert, but Doug Clements is. There's a lot of sensible info on his page that I can agree with, but I am afraid it will be overshadowed by the focus on reaching the standards. Yet, Doug himself states: "There is a substantial and critical difference between standards as a vision of excellence and standards as rigid requirements for mastery. Only the former is appropriate for early childhood mathematics education."

And yes, I have shared my concerns on the survey. How might I make additional comments?

Morgan: Briefly on Karen Fuson – students using her curriculum Math Expressions were found by IES to have significantly higher levels of achievement than two other curricula.  This was part of a study of early mathematics curricula.

As for additional comments, the survey is the best way for us to capture the many comments that are coming in.

Conny: You wrote,

Briefly on Karen Fuson – students using her curriculum Math Expressions were found by IES to have significantly higher levels of achievement than two other curricula.  This was part of a study of early mathematics curricula.

I am almost afraid to ask if that may have been the reason she was invited to help write the standards? It is of course wonderful if a certain curriculum delivers better comprehension than another, but the fact remains that she is not a child development expert.

You mentioned:

The AFT and NEA brought teachers together, including early education teachers.  Most states involved in the process had work teams that included early childhood experts.  Marilyn Adams and Louisa Moats worked on the Foundational Skills, specifically.  Some people from Core Knowledge (including, I think, a cognitive psychologist) weighed in on the K-5 standards.  NCTE also commented on the standards, and their group included early childhood educators.  Lastly, one of the lead writers, Sue Pimentel, has a degree in early childhood education.

Of Louisa Moats too it can be argued she has a vested interest in these standards as she is an employee of Sopris West, a for-profit publishing company that publishes her LETRS training program as well as DIBELS, the horrible time testing procedure to see how quickly kids can read.

Unfortunately Sue Pimentel as far as I could determine, is also not an early childhood expert, but an education analyst and standards consultant. I find it therefore safe to conclude that not enough weight was given to the needs of the young child. I wanted to substantiate this before sharing with others as I do have a concern about the under representation of true child development experts who more than anyone else consider the complete needs, and well-being of young children first and foremost. Thanks for your time.

Morgan: As you still have concerns about the standards as written, I encourage you to submit those with as much specificity as you can, so as to best inform the revision process. 

Also, I believe Karen was invited because she was respected as someone who has written and thought a great deal about math at the early grades.

Conny: I will do that, but am concerned that with so many large organizations in support of  the standards, my and other smaller voices will remain "unheard". It boggles my mind that those concerns, backed by many nationally renowned early childhood experts and specialists such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, are totally ignored.

Here for your own information, and please share if you think it has merit, read this by the Alliance for Childhood. I find it most disturbing and it breaks my heart that little children no longer even know how to play and be creative!

Call to Action Background and References   
Regards,
Conny Jensen

---------------------------
Also see: Toxic Stress Damages Developing Brain

 

 

Toxic Stress Damages Developing Brain

Below some interesting key points from The Science of Early Childhood Development ,  a report  by the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child and the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University.

• ..preschool policies and programs that place disproportionate emphasis on didactic approaches to academic skills are less likely to prepare young children to succeed in school than experiences that embed the promotion of literacy and numeracy in a rich environment of age-appropriate social interaction. The science of early childhood and early brain development clearly indicates that state and local officials should support the implementation of both child care standards and preschool curricula that promote a balanced and developmentally appropriate approach to the “whole child.”

• Toxic stress in early childhood is associated with persistent effects on the nervous system and stress hormone systems that can damage developing brain architecture and lead to lifelong problems in learning, behavior, and both physical and mental health...children who experience toxic stress in early childhood may develop a lifetime of greater susceptibility to stress-related physical illnesses (such as cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and diabetes) as well as mental health problems (such as depression, anxiety disorders, and substance abuse). They also are more likely to exhibit health-damaging behaviors and adult lifestyles that undermine well-being.

• Decades of research tell us that mutually rewarding interactions are essential prerequisites for the development of healthy brain circuits and increasingly complex skills.

• ..oral language acquisition depends not only on adequate hearing, the ability to differentiate sounds, and the capacity to link meaning to specific words, but also on the ability to concentrate, pay attention, and engage in meaningful social interaction. [current NCLB prescribed, scripted reading programs do not provide that and are actually damaging to a child's self-esteem! -- C.J]

• Policy initiatives that promote supportive relationships and rich learning opportunities for young children create a strong foundation for higher school achievement followed by greater productivity in the workplace and solid citizenship in the community throughout the adult years. Thus, current calls for greater emphasis on early literacy must not diminish the importance of attention to other essential capacities, such as initiative, self-confidence, and persistence in learning, as well as the ability to work cooperatively and resolve conflict with peers—all of which are core characteristics of students in a successful school, citizens in a healthy community, and the workforce of a prosperous nation.

The Science of Neglect: The Persistent Absence of Responsive Care Disrupts the Developing Brain