Tribute to Grant Wiggins

As many in the education field, I was shocked and saddened to hear of the passing of Grant Wiggins today.  The twitter post captured what he represented to so many people:

“Grant Wiggins, of brilliant mind and dearest heart, died yesterday. The world has lost a true champion of learning. Carry on the work.-Denise”

I, like many others, was a great fan of Grant's work.  I attended his sessions and conferences, I received his blog, and I followed him on Twitter.  His brilliance and inquisitive mind provided so many insights into the work of educating children.  He had a solid understanding of the research, and an excellent perspective on system needs.  As many have pointed out, not only was he a wise person, he was also generous in sharing his work with others--the ultimate teacher.  His networking helped us all learn and benefit from his wisdom. His blogs, comments, and responses made me (and many others) feel like we knew him personally.  Thus the loss cuts deeply, both on a professional and personal level.

Below are some of my favorite blog posts--it was hard to choose, and going back and reviewing these was a learning experience in itself.

There is so much political rhetoric around the standards, so I appreciated this post that reminds us that we as educators are the ones who bring the standards to life.  They are what we make them, and he inspired me to make them awesome!

The Standards and creativity – compatible by grantwiggins Why do people insist on viewing the Standards as inconsistent with teacher creativity and choice? I am baffled by such uncreative thinking. That's like saying the architect cannot be creative because every house has to meet building code (as I have often said before). Indeed, the whole point of mandating standards as opposed to curriculum is to free people up to create innovative curriculum that addresses the standards. You're an architect: your clients are students. Your job is to develop client-friendly learning that also meets code. How does this restrict freedom? Here is an obvious illustration of our failure to think imaginatively now. When I started teaching in 1972, the legacy of the '60s was still in full force in my school. There were all sorts of creative courses: Death and Dying, The Wilderness, Political Philosophy, Ethics, Why Do We Do What We Do? etc. More importantly, many of these cool courses met the English requirement. In other words, back in the day there was no English 9, 10, 11, 12. rather, there were electives - real freedom of choice for teachers and kids! So, you could meet your English 10 obligations by taking Satire or American Fiction or Shakespeare or Cinema, on a trimester system (so you were not stuck with a year-long course you might hate). There is NOTHING in the Common Core ELA Standards that prohibits you and your colleagues from inventing a similar system of choices. All you would have to do, like the architect, would be to ensure that no matter the choice it was addressing the relevant 9-10 and 11-12 standards. How hard would that be, people? When I hear everyone endless whining from educators about what harm the Standards are doing to creative teaching it has the opposite effect on me that you intend. I think: boy, how unimaginative those teachers are. Glad my kid doesn't have them. I liked this post because in true Grant Wiggins “tell it like it is” fashion, it was clear, concise, and relevant.  It gives some excellent starting points for discussion and change. 8 Reasons that today’s high school is poor preparation for today’s college by grantwiggins Meanwhile, this occurred to me on my walk just now, after pondering recent chats with my college-bound kids: 1.     The schedule. No college has any class meet every day; no college schedule requires a student to be in class every hour of the school day. Many classes meet for 2 or 3 hours at a time. 2.     Homework expectations. It is assumed in most colleges that for every hour in class a student is expected to work at least an hour outside of class on reading, writing, research - often more. 3.     Writing. In all but the least demanding colleges, students are expected to write serious academic papers of at least 3-4 pages every few weeks in courses other than Languages or Math. 4.     Online work. In most of today’s college courses, there is a significant online component to the course. 5.     Primary-source reading. The expectation in all courses in the sciences, history, philosophy, and social sciences is that students will have to do some significant primary-source reading (and writing on it). 6.     Close reading. The expectation in all courses is that students know how to read analytically and critically - and take effective notes. 7.     Self-regulation and self-advocacy. Professors will not seek you out if you are doing poorly. The expectation is that you will go for help, find study partners, seek assistance from tutors and special programs, etc. on your own. 8.     Choice. There are hundreds of courses and programs that a high schooler has never heard of, and elective begin in the Freshman year. Students need to be prepared to self-assess, experiment, get inside information, consider their interests and talents, etc. before they face the course catalog.

Wiggins’ work on curriculum design, both at the unit and classroom level was monumental in influencing how I think about my work.  Not only is this post foundational and timeless, the post below shows how he continually reflected on his practice and revised his thinking.  An invaluable lesson in professional growth.

How do you plan? On templates and instructional planning

by grantwiggins

·       What content standards and program- or mission-related goal(s) will this unit address? ·       What kinds of long-term, independent accomplishments are desired (transfer goals)? ·       What thought-provoking questions will foster inquiry, meaning-making, and transfer? ·       What specifically do you want students to understand? What important ideas do you want them to grasp? What inferences should they make? What misconceptions are predictable and will need overcoming? ·       What facts and basic concepts should students know and be able to recall? ·       What discrete skills and processes should be able to use? ·       What criteria will be used in each assessment to evaluate attainment of the desired results? ·       What assessments will provide valid evidence of transfer and understanding (and other Stage 1 goals)? ·       What other evidence will you collect to determine whether Stage 1 goals were achieved? ·       Are all three types of goals (acquisition, meaning, and transfer) addressed in the learning plan? ·       How will you pre-assess and formatively assess? How will you adjust, if needed (as suggested by feedback)? ·       Does the learning plan reflect principles of learning and best practices? ·       Have you considered how to fully engage everyone and hold their interest throughout? ·       Is there tight alignment across all three stages? A later post with some revised thinking….. Planning questions. Here are the current UbD template elements framed as questions, for idea-generation and double-checking one’s draft plan: ·       Bottom line, what should learners be able to do with the content? ·       What content standards and program- or mission-related goal(s) will this unit address? ·       What thought-provoking questions will foster inquiry, meaning-making, and transfer? ·       What specifically do you want students to understand? What inferences should they make? What misconceptions are predictable and will need overcoming? ·       What facts and basic concepts should students know and be able to recall and use long-term? ·       What discrete skills and processes should they be able to use, with good judgment and on their own? ·       What criteria will be used in each assessment to evaluate attainment of the desired results? ·       What assessments will provide valid evidence of the goals? ·       What other evidence will you collect to determine whether goals were achieved? ·       How will you pre-assess and formatively assess? How will you adjust, if needed (as suggested by feedback)? ·       Does the learning plan reflect principles of learning and best practices? ·       How will you fully engage everyone and hold their interest throughout the unit? ·       How must the plan be tweaked, in light of recent results (and based on ongoing student needs and interests)? ·       Is there tight alignment across goals, assessments, and learning? And finally, a prophetic post on good vs. great teaching.  Never satisfied with adequate, he was always challenging the status quo, his own thinking, and the thinking of others.  There is no question as to how we will remember him.

Good vs. great teachers: how do you wish to be remembered?

by grantwiggins

·       Great teachers are in the talent-finding and talent-development business.

·       Merely good teachers think they are mostly in the business of teaching stuff and helping students so that it gets learned.

·       Great teachers are aiming for the future: are these students better able to succeed on their own after me and without me?

·       Merely good teachers look mostly to the past: did they learn what I taught and did they do what I asked of them?

·       Great teachers decide what not to teach to ensure lasting emphasis and memories

·       Good teachers cover a lot of ground while making the content as interesting as possible.

·       Great teachers delight in smart-alecks and skeptics who clearly have raw but undirected talent.

·       Good teachers are often threatened or bothered by smart alecks and skeptics.

·       Great teachers know us better than we know ourselves, especially in terms of intellectual character.

·       Good teachers merely know us as students of the subject.

·       Great teachers get more from us than we thought possible to give

·       Good teachers have high expectations and passions, and think that the rest is up to us.

·       Great teachers sometimes bend the rules and fudge the grades on behalf of raw student talent.

·       Good teachers uphold standards and grade according to the scores students earned.

Godspeed, Mr. Wiggins.  Thank you for always pushing my thinking, and may you rest in peace.

Follow Up to Cultural Competency, and in Response to the Iowa (Common) Core

As we head into Spring Break, I am adding to my pile of "I can't wait to read this."  A few gems below....

First, on the heels of a very rich day of professional development, below is a list of multicultural titles linked to the standards.  These come from an article in the Reading Teacher, and illlustrate how expanding our understanding does not need to be an "add-on."  These are great titles that will align to learning outcomes and add to our understanding of others. 

Second, a direct response to politicians regarding the Common Core from Dr. Timothy Shanahan.  The standards aren't perfect, but the discussions around them need to be honest and grounded in the best interests of students rather than political agendas.  And the decisions need to be influenced by the hard-working educators who work with students each day.  I appreciate Dr. Shanahan making his voice heard.   

Multicultural Texts Aligned to Common Core Standards

Craft and Structure:

• RL.2.6 – Acknowledge differences in points of view of characters…

            My Man Blue by Nikki Grimes

• RL.3.6 – Distinguish their own point of view from that of the narrator or those of the characters:

            The Other Side or Coming on Home Soon by Jacqueline Woodson

• RL.4.6 – Compare and contrast the point of view from which different stories are narrated…

            Morning Girl by Michael Dorris

• RL.5.6 – Describe how a narrator’s or speaker’s point of view influences how events are described:

            Guests by Michael Dorris and Year of Impossible Goodbyes by Sook Nyul Choi

• RL.6.6 – Explain how an author develops the point of view of the narrator or speaker in a text:

            One Crazy Summer by Rita Williams-Garcia and The Friendship or Mississippi Bridge

by Mildred Taylor

• RL.7.6 – Analyze how an author develops and contrasts the points of view of different characters in a text:

            Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry by Mildred Taylor, Keesha’s House by Helen Frost, and

Seedfolks by Paul Fleischman

Integration of Knowledge and Ideas:

• RL.1.7 – Use illustrations and details in a story to describe its characters, setting, or events:

            Grandfather’s Journey by Allen Say

• RL.2.7 – Use information gained from the illustrations and words in a print or digital text to demonstrate understanding of its characters, setting, or plot:

            The Bat Boy and His Violin by Gavin Curtis

• RL.3.7 – Explain how specific aspects of a text’s illustrations contribute to what is conveyed by the words in a story:

            Little Night by Yuyi Morales and Hot Day in Abbott Avenue by Karen English

• RL.4.7 – Make connections between the text of a story or drama and a visual or oral presentation of the text, identifying where each version reflects specific descriptions and directions in the text:

            March On! The Day My Brother Martin Changed the World by Christine King Farris

• RL.6.7 – Compare and contrast the experience of reading a story, drama, or poem to listening to or viewing an audio, video, or live version of the text, including contrasting what they “see” and “hear” when reading the text to what they perceive when they listen or watch:

            The Watsons Go to Birmingham – 1963 by Christopher Paul Curtis

• RL.7.7 – Compare and contrast a written story, drama, or poem to its audio, filmed, staged, or multimedia version, analyzing the effects of techniques unique to each medium:

            Warriors Don’t Cry by Melba Patillo Beals, with Eyes on the Prize (documentary),

Crisis at Central High (docudrama), and Hazel Bryan and Elizabeth Eckford

(photograph); and I Have a Dream speech by Martin Luther King Jr.

“Culturally Diverse Literature: Enriching Variety in an Era of Common Core State Standards” by Fenice Boyd, Lauren Causey, and Lee Glada in The Reading Teacher, February 2015 (Vol. 68, # 5, p. 378-387)

10 Arguments Against Common Core that Presidential Hopefuls Should Avoid

      An Open Letter to the Candidates by Dr. Timothy Shanahan

                Ladies and Gentlemen. We're quickly sinking into the quicksands of yet another presidential campaign. I'm writing to help with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) issue. I don't want any of you tripped up by a feeble or foolish argument, and there are lots of ways of doing that. I'm sure you all know not to rely on your 13-year-old kids for policy advice, and not to sigh audibly and roll your eyes since it will look like you sent your 13-year-old to debate in your place. If you can't stare down a callow opponent successfully, how will you ever convince voters that you can handle Putin or ISIS?

               I won't be so bold as to suggest what your position should be on Common Core, but I do have advice as to which arguments to avoid.   

1.  Previous educational standards were better.

            Don't make this claim. It can only embarrass you (as bad as not being able to spell "potato"). Past standards were so low that they were the educational equivalent of everyone getting a T-ball trophy. Many U.S. students met those standards and still needed basic reading, writing, and math instruction in the workplace or university—expensive places to obtain an elementary or secondary education. Anyone who argues against the CCSS should be able to explain why they want lower educational standards or should embrace a viable alternative. (Note campaign managers: Parents who are paying for remedial college classes or employers who are struggling to hire high school graduates with basic skills may become particularly testy over this argument).  

 2. Teachers didn’t write them.

            Ho-hum. Yeah, and I’ve long been opposed to the Declaration of Independence because it was written by a slaveholder and the Gettysburg Address is kind of dicey given that its author was in the pocket of big business before assuming the presidency. This argument elevates the ad hominem over the ad verbum. All that should matter is whether the standards are sound; if they are, a House Committee could have written them and they’d be a good idea. And, if they are not sound, how many years of teaching experience would the authors require for you to campaign on them? Many teachers worked on these standards, but who cares? The standards could still be useful even if that weren’t the case.

3. They promote the theories of evolution and global warming.

            Yikes. This is an interesting argument because everyone hates being tricked into supporting what they morally oppose. Unfortunately, it doesn't hold any water since the Common Core only deals with reading, writing, and math—and not with science, history, or any other school content or social issue. You may get away with this one, but there is always the risk that someone in the audience has actually read the standards. 

4. The Common Core isn’t research based.

            That sounds like a good argument, too. Pin the standards on the science deniers. But what if someone wonders what a research-based goal would look like? I know I want my marriage to be happy, my kids to be productive, and my country to be secure. I don’t know why I’d need a study to tell me that I wanted those things. In medicine, they use research to figure out the best treatments—not whether we want everyone to be healthy. Standards aren't teaching methods; they aren’t approaches to instruction. When the critics say some states should have tried these out first to find out if they're any good, it would be like having some states aiming for 4% unemployment and others for 8%—so that we'd know whether we wanted people to find jobs. 

5. They require too much testing.

            Common Core requires no more (or less) testing than any other educational standards. Since the early 1990s, federal law has required states to adopt their own educational goals and evaluate student progress against them. However, there’s nothing special about Common Core in that regard. If CCSS disappeared, states would still have standards and they’d still have to monitor student progress. Just as they have for the past 25 years. If you do choose to make this argument despite the facts, be careful in Alaska, Indiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. None of them have Common Core, but they all have educational standards and they are all testing their students against those standards.

6. They are the reason for all of the test prep.

            This is a great argument, and yet, I doubt whether many of you have the thespian skills to pull it off. Test prep, though unsavory, has nothing to do with Common Core. Educators have long devoted unconscionable amounts of time and resources to test prep, with barely a peep from any of you. Now, getting all worked up about kids being engaged in test prep instead of education will require all the faux sincerity of Captain Renault (“Casablanca gambling? I’m shocked.”). What would happen to test prep if there was no Common Core? Look to Texas or Virginia for your answer, rather than to the airy pronouncements of your supposedly shocked and offended advisors.

7.     Publishers are making money from them.

            Publishers do make money from these standards. And, if history is a guide, when we move on to the next big thing in education, they’ll make money off that, too. Government policies do help companies make money. But if that's an issue, then we ought to shut down the Defense Department, Medicare, Social Security, the oil depletion allowance, and pretty much everything else that government does—since all those nasty programs encourage the buying of goods and services from American companies. (Note to Jeb Bush: Perhaps your opponents' arguments against Common Core are really just a ruse to get schools to change their curricula more quickly to make even more money for the publishers.)

8.  The U.S. Constitution bans national curriculum.

            This one is a particularly tempting argument, especially if you are a lawyer. The Constitution does relegate authority for education to the states after all. The problem is that the federal government has always incented states in the area of education. Even a conservative Supreme Court has recently indicated that it will not even hear cases aimed at determining whether states must comply with federal law when they accept federal funding; they see it as settled law. Going before this Supreme Court to argue that Hamilton, Madison, and Jay knew nothing about the Constitution would likely be a tough slog (Justices Roberts and Alito can be sticklers about that kind of thing). The federal government has the right to require funded states to have standard--whatever standards they may choose to adopt--and there is nothing in Common Core that curtails that right in any way. You'll end up in the weeds. Avoid this one.

9. Common Core violates states’ rights.

            This would be kind of a funny argument coming from people who are running, not for governor, but for president. "If elected, I’ll not allow states to adopt Common Core." That sounds like under your presidency educational goals would be under your authority. That won't be palatable even from such staunch conservatives as a President Cruz or a President Paul. The states, being sovereign entities, have the authority to coordinate with each other as much as they choose. This is true in transportation, criminal justice, economics, natural resources, etc. From the beginning, states have had the authority to enter into such cooperative agreements, like the one that led to the creation of Common Core. This argument snatches that authority from the states, and doing so in the name of states’ rights would be too tricky a game by half. Where is George Orwell when we need him?

10. These are President Obama’s standards.

            Let's face it. It's always a good idea to run against an incumbent whose popularity is on the decline. And, getting voters to believe that these are Obamacore should be easy. When they were being written, Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, promised funding to develop new tests for the new standards (a “shovel-ready project,” in the parlance of the times), and when running for President, Senator Obama campaigned on the idea that we needed higher standards and a lot more testing. Making voters believe that the Common Core belongs to the administration should be easy; voters might never figure out that these standards were written with no federal funding and no federal involvement if you can create enough of a haze of suspicion. Of course, this will be an easier argument for some than for others. (Note to Bobby Jindal: You seem sincere in making this argument, but you'll probably need to explain why President Obama was able to operate you like a hand puppet on this issue for three years without you ever being aware of where his hand was. I would avoid using the term “brainwashing”-- see George Romney, 1968. Perhaps you could get away with claiming that President Obama just gave yours a light rinse. 

             Ladies and Gentlemen, I wish you all luck, and hope this advice is useful to each of you.  

Dr. Shanahan's Blog