Kale and Cabbage Salad

Dressing:

1/4 C extra virgin olive oil

3 Tbsp lemon juice

1 tsp Dijon mustard

1 small garlic clove, finely minced

1/4 tsp sea salt

Freshly ground black pepper

Salad:

1 large bunch kale

1 small head cabbage

1/2 small onion

1/2 C shaved Parmesan

1/2 C pine nuts OR sunflower seeds, roasted

1. In a pint jar, combine all dressing ingredients and shake well.  Set aside to develop flavors.
2. Discard kale center stem.  Shred kale and cabbage finely.  Slice onion thinly.
3. Toss all salad ingredients.  Add dressing 10 minutes before serving and toss.

Cowboy Quinoa Salad

by: Cris Day and Marilee Bassett

1 pckg (16 oz) frozen corn, thawed

1 can (15 oz) black beans

1 can (15 oz) black-eyed peas

½ red onion, diced

2 avocados, diced

1 green pepper, diced

3 tomatoes, diced

½ bunch cilantro, shredded

Italian dressing to taste (roughly 1/3 bottle)

Pepper to taste

1 1/2 C dry quinoa, cooked (optional)

1. Combine ingredients.
2. Let sit for best results.
3. Serve with tortilla chips.

Spinach Beef Spaghetti Pie

No. Servings: 8 by: Carol Hicks

12 oz uncooked angel hair pasta

2 eggs, lightly beaten

1/3 C parmesan cheese

1 lb ground beef

½ C chopped onion

¼ C chopped green pepper

1 jar (14 oz) spaghetti sauce

½ tsp basil

1 tsp garlic powder

½ tsp dried oregano

1 pckg (16 oz) frozen spinach, thawed and squeezed dry 

1 pckg cream cheese, softened

½ C shredded mozzarella cheese

1. Cook and drain pasta.
2. Add eggs and parmesan.  Press onto the bottom and up the sides of a 9x13 pan.  Bake at 350° for 10 minutes.
3. Meanwhile, cook beef, onion, and pepper until meat is cooked through and veggies are tender.  
4. Drain grease.  Stir spaghetti sauce, seasonings and spinach into the meat.
5. Drop dollops of cream cheese into casserole dish, covering as completely as possible.  Top with spinach and meat sauce, then cheese.  
6. Bake at 350° for 20-30 minutes or until cheese is melted.

Common Core Introduction

I had a brief conversation with a friend the other day about common core. She mentioned that she hadn't heard anything good about it, and I realized that I needed to share my knowledge. I am a public school teacher in Utah: I have taught 4th, 5th, and 6th grades for 6 years.  I taught before Common Core for several years, and I have now taught with Common Core for several years.  The opponents of common core are many and vocal, but there are a lot of good things about it that aren't being mentioned. I'm going to try to highlight some of those over the next few days. I welcome dialogue, but I ask that you be kind. I hope that, maybe, I can convince some of you to look for a compromise to deal with some of the issues of common core without losing the benefits.

Addressing this fully takes me several, very long posts.  I know it's long, but addressing an issue in an informative way takes more than a few catch phrases.

Point #1: NOT Obamacore
Common core is NOT Obamacore and is not federal control. In response to some of the problems of our nation's education system, the National Governor's Association convened a group to develop the standards. The governors of this nation recognized that we needed to better prepare students for college and careers, and that working together would be for the benefit of students. Common core was not a federal mandate: 6 states have not adopted it. The 44 who have have done so because they recognized the benefits. Utah did not adopt common core because our arm was twisted: we were one of the leaders in the movement, developing the assessments that the whole nation would use.

President Obama and the Department of Education did offer additional federal funding through the Race to the Top program.  In order to enter that program, you had to have college and career ready standards.  Common Core counts, but Virginia and Texas chose to write their own college and career ready standards.  It does not affect current funding.   I understand why many people are concerned about the federal involvement, but you can see it's not a mandate. I also understand that many people feel that we will have to accept any future changes whether we like them or not. We will not: in fact, in response to some of the issues with common core, Utah has sort of unadopted it and readopted it under the title Utah Core Standards. That may seem like semantics, but what it means is that any change to the Common Core doesn't change the Utah Core until we say so.

My first compromise suggestion: Instead of trying to get rid of common core completely, I propose that we fight for what we want from the department of education. From what I have heard, most people agree that we need the federal money, so what terms do we find acceptable to get that money? Let's try to fight for the Department of Education to change their requirements instead of getting rid of something that is the best thing to happen to education in 20 years.

Point #2: Design
Common core is very nicely aligned vertically and horizontally. It is designed start to finish with the same goal in mind. In other words, kindergarteners are on a track to accomplish 12th grader skills. In first grade, it adds a little bit to the skill, in second grade a bit more, etc. This is good teaching practice and makes it easy to build on students' previous knowledge. It's also nicely aligned horizontally. So, I'm supposed to be teaching my students to support their reading claims with evidence, and then that ties right in to argumentative writing, where they need to back up their claims with evidence. In fact, after teaching argumentative writing for several months, I saw my students DRA reading scores jump because they knew how to back up their opinions. The first time I saw common core, I literally thought, "Our previous state core was written by monkeys." It's THAT much better. (If you are one of the writers of the previous Utah core, I apologize.)

Common Core Benefits

Point #7: Benefits of a Shared Core
There are some major benefits to having the same Core standards as 43 other states.

One of those benefits is that textbook manufacturers are now catering to us! Now, it is true that the textbooks aren't great right now, but they will improve. In the past, it was impossible for textbook manufacturers to cater textbooks to each state's core. So, they made two books: one for Texas's core and one for California's. That was it. The rest of us had to look at the textbooks, find one that kinda sorta fit our core, and then create all kinds of lessons and worksheets to supplement it. It was a pain.

Another benefit is that teachers in all of those states are creating resources for the Common Core. So, I can go online, put in the exact standard I'm looking to teach, and get resources from teachers all over the country. When you realize that 90% of teachers never upload a single lesson online, it's pretty hard to find lessons from Utah teachers for every single standard you teach. However, now, there are a wealth of incredible resources wherever you look. This has basically allowed me to collaborate with teachers all over the country, and it has improved my instruction dramatically.

Another benefit is that all the educational resource companies are now catering to us. I'm not sure if you've heard, but lack of funding tends to be a problem in education. Even entire states can't afford to commission some of the great resources they would like to have. However, when a company can make one product for the entire nation, the cost becomes reasonable because everyone pitches in. This has allowed us to have great resources like adaptive testing (a single test question can cost $100 to develop) and all kinds of apps.

Another benefit is a direct benefit to the students. For the first time, a child can move from one state to another and get the same instruction. In the past, one state would teach Order of Operations in 6th grade and another in 5th. The kid moved from the first state to the second between 5th and 6th grade and was never taught Order of Operations.

This is the end of my Common Core series.  However, I would love to answer any questions you have. Several people have approached me about sharing my posts: please feel free. I really don't have access to a wide base of readers, but I would love for more people to hear another side of the Common Core debate.

Common Core Problems and Myths

Point #6: Problems
Some of the problems that have been coming up either aren't because of Common Core or are only related indirectly.

For example, some parents have been frustrated by homework problems given since Common Core. Yes, Common Core does push students to think about things in new ways, so it is going to be different. However, the really frustrating things aren't because of Common Core. Some are due to teachers: we're mostly good, but we all make mistakes. I accidentally gave a homework assignment earlier this year that had NOTHING to do with what we had learned. I apologized to the kids, emailed the parents, and we moved on, but they were annoyed with me that day.

Some of the other problems are due to textbooks. Because everything went down so fast with Common Core, the textbook companies had to rush to get books out. Because of that, they're not as great as we'd like them to be. They are getting better, and some school districts have contracts that allow them to get the latest version each year (consumable books), but the books aren't really awesome yet.

When people complain about Common Core being rushed, that is one complaint that I actually think has some validity. It probably would have been best to slow things down a bit, but it's too late now. Trying to go back would be far worse than just forging ahead. Also, I think the reason they did push such a fast timetable was that they recognized the immediate value to the students, even if things weren't totally smooth for a few years. And it has been valuable to the students. Have things been perfect? No. I really didn't know what to expect on our end of year tests this year, and so I couldn't prepare my kids as well as I wanted to. They were frustrated with the tests. I don't love my textbook. It's taking me time to feel like I'm teaching the Core as well as I want to (though that's always true: I'm always trying to perfect things).

However, even with all that, my kids have been better off since Day 1 of Common Core implementation. They are better writers, they are better readers, and they are better mathematicians. I was able to calm them down about the tests, we worked through the textbook problems together, and they learned that everyone is wrong sometimes.

It might be helpful for parents to know that we have been told we have several years to fully implement Common Core. We aren't expected to have it all perfect immediately, and we aren't expecting the students to either. If you are frustrated with something, talk to your child's teacher. She might be able to explain things better to you, and she might be able to make some changes. And know that, at least in this teacher's opinion, even with the rocky road, your kids are better off now than ever before. If I had a child in school right now, I would want that child learning Common Core.

Finally, again, remember that just because this is a big buzzword right now, that doesn't mean every problem in education is caused by it. Before Common Core, there were teachers who gave too much homework, and there still are. Before Common Core, there were bad textbooks, and there still are. Before Common Core, kids had trouble adjusting to new teachers or grades, and they still do. But there are also good teachers, good textbooks, good growth opportunities for kids, and Common Core adds improved instruction to the good of public schools.

Point #7: Myths
There are a lot of myths out there. I haven't heard them all, but I would like to address a few.

Myth 1: Obamacore/ Federal Control. I addressed this in my first post. Short version: Common Core is a state-developed initiative. The federal department of education liked it and joined the party, but it is not a federal mandate.

Myth 2: Data Mining. I am going to try really hard to refrain from making negative comments about Glenn Beck...but suffice it to say that I think many of his statements are motivated by selling books/ air time. I can't speak for the details for other states, but in Utah, there is not one shred of truth to the rumor that the federal government is going to data mine our test scores. We are giving the federal government exactly the same amount of information on end of year test scores as we have for more than a decade. In fact, Utah recently passed a law clarifying this. So, it would require action by the legislature to give the federal government any more information than we give now. The feds get only one piece of information on individual students. If a child fails a test, the federal government is told that a 5th grade boy received a score of X. That's it. No names.

Another interesting point on this one: many parents have been opting their students out of end of year testing because they disapprove of the data mining. However, there is no option to just excuse a kid from a test. If you opt your child out, their score is reported...as failing. So, by opting your child out, you ensure that data about your child is sent to the federal government (just what I mentioned above). Now, it is still a parent's choice to do that, but you should be aware that if too many students opt out of testing, the school gets penalized.

Myth 3: The passages on the tests are riddled with climate change, gay marriage support, atheism, and promiscuity. The parents aren't allowed to see the tests, and neither are the teachers. Now, again, I can only speak for Utah on this. Originally, we were supposed to be part of the testing with everyone else. In fact, we were going to be the ones writing the tests for nearly the whole nation, ensuring that we had control over what was included. However, in the first wave of Common Core backlash, Utah pulled out of the testing group. So, we are no longer writing the tests, and we had to start over at the 11th hour to completely create our own tests. That's part of the reason we had testing issues this year.

However, teachers can see those tests, and I can pretty much promise you that we always will be able to. At least in Utah, the teachers proctor the tests, so we have to go around monitoring students' progress. The reason I can promise you that will never change is that changing it would cost money and give teachers extra prep time. Our legislators would die before allowing that to happen.

I watched the test passages very carefully this year. I can honestly say that I would have no problem using all but 2 of them in my classroom. (The 2 weren't inappropriate, they just would have produced waves of 6th-grader giggles. I can't give details because of testing ethics, but a comparable example would be a passage on Uranus.) You have to remember: as teachers, we take our job as guardians of the children seriously. This is our community too. Our children go to these schools. If we saw something inappropriate, we would do something about it.

Also, not to negate the importance of protecting your children, but I have serious doubts that a single passage on an end of year test could turn a child into a Communist. I probably tell students to capitalize the first word in a sentence 100 times in a year, and they still can't seem to internalize that.

Most parents are not allowed to see the tests for the purposes of test validity and security. However, in Utah, there is a panel of 30 parents who review every test item. If they have objections to a test item, they write what their objections are. All parents can see those objections, even though they can't see the items. I'm not sure where this information is, but if someone would like it, I know who to email.

Myth 4: Common Core is a curriculum. This is a difference that I didn't know about until recently. Standards just state what a student should learn. A curriculum is how they learn it. So, the standard would be, "Make predictions with evidence." The curriculum would be a unit on the Westing Game. Common Core is NOT a curriculum, and people really need to understand that. When I hear people talking about their fears with having local control pulled from education, they mostly fear having content dictated to them. They don't want their children being forced to read books that contradict their values or do math problems involving how many years it will be until global warming destroys the planet. I understand that: some of the things that are taught in Southern California are not okay with me, and I don't want them coming to Utah. However, Common Core doesn't change anything in this respect.

Curriculum is one of the few places where there is local control in education. Many decisions are made at a state level (where I feel like my pleas fall on deaf ears), but curriculum is chosen by individual school districts, and sometimes even schools or teachers. That means that parents can have a very direct and powerful say in the curriculum used with their children. So, if you hate your child's math book, instead of trying to take down Common Core, call your local school board and tell them you hate it. Go to the meetings. This is something you can actually change.

Common Core does list text exemplars for each level. Those are examples, NOT suggested reading, and most definitely NOT required reading. It is not an attempt to dictate which books are used. "Why are the books listed then?" you ask. The reason they list examples is because it is pretty much impossible to develop a purely objective system for leveling texts. The Lexile system measures the difficulty of vocabulary and sentence structure, but it doesn't measure the complexity of the actual ideas. Case in point: Diary of a Wimpy Kid is a 950 Lexile, or 6th grade level book. That does not mean that it's a high quality sixth grade text I should use in reading groups. There is no automated system to measure figurative language, character development, foreshadowing, etc. So, they have to have text exemplars to help us, as teachers, have an idea of what we're shooting for.

Myth 5: Common Core isn't based on research. I totally bought into this one for awhile, but it's not true. This claim is based on the fact that Common Core was rolled out really quickly without small scale implementation. However, the following quote from corestandards.org explains that it is based on many, many studies pulled from various sources:
"The standards have made careful use of a large and growing body of evidence. The evidence base includes scholarly research, surveys on what skills are required of students entering college and workforce training programs, assessment data identifying college‐ and career‐ready performance, and comparisons to standards from high‐performing states and nations.
In English language arts, the standards build on the firm foundation of the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) frameworks in reading and writing, which draw on extensive scholarly research and evidence.
In mathematics, the standards draw on conclusions from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and other studies of high‐performing countries that found the traditional U.S. mathematics curriculum needed to become substantially more coherent and focused in order to improve student achievement, addressing the problem of a curriculum that is 'a mile wide and an inch deep.'"

Myth 6: Common Core increases federal control of education. The only bit of truth to this is that some federal funding is tied to the acceptance of Common Core. However, the idea that "this is just the beginning!" of increased federal control is false. Again, from corestandards.org:
"The federal government will not govern the Common Core State Standards. The Common Core was and will remain a state-led effort. The NGA Center and CCSSO are committed to developing a long-term governance structure with leadership from governors, chief state school officers, and other state policymakers to ensure the quality of the Common Core and that teachers and principals have a strong voice in the future of the standards. States and local school districts will drive implementation of the Common Core."

Also, Common Core has played an part in rolling back federal control. Within the last few years, 33 states have opted out of No Child Left Behind. They have been allowed to do this after demonstrating that they have a plan for school accountability including "'college- and career-ready' standards and grading teachers, using, in part, students' standardized test scores." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/no-child-left-behind-waiver_n_1684504.html) Under this system, each state can decide what works for them instead of having a blanket mandate from the federal government. The federal government is still doing their job by ensuring that students receive a quality education, but states can say what works for them. Utah received one of these waivers, based in part on our acceptance of Common Core, and I cannot even begin to tell you how much better the new accountability system is than NCLB.

Myth 7: Common Core is "one-size-fits-all." This one is based on the misconception that Common Core is a curriculum. Again, it is just standards. All it says is what a child should know at the end of each grade. It doesn't say what strategies teachers should use to get there. It doesn't say anything about gifted students or struggling students because that's NOT WHAT IT IS. Believe me, our old state standards didn't say a word about gifted or struggling students either. That's not the point of standards. Deciding how to teach and how to individualize for students is a local decision, so Common Core is staying out of it.

Common Core Math

Point #5: Math teaching needs to change
One of the main goals with the development of Common Core was to solve the issue of curriculum that is "a mile wide and an inch deep." For years, teachers and researchers have known that teaching a different math skill every day was not working. Kids never had the time to fully understand concepts because they were moving so quickly from thing to thing. We were compensating for that by reteaching the same things in grade after grade, and it wasn't working. Common Core has tried to cut down on that. There is still a definite progression from grade to grade, and students are often introduced to a concept in one grade, then expected to master it in the next. However, the concepts have been grouped by grade. For example, we used to teach mean, median and mode in 5th grade and 6th grade (and maybe 4th grade as well). Now, they don't even touch it in 5th grade, but we spend a lot of time on it and measures of variability. However, we don't even touch perimeter anymore. We expect them to have that mastered by sixth grade.

Now, this is one of the few claims of Common Core that teachers will dispute with you. We were promised a narrower, more focused core, and when we looked at it for the first time, we thought, "There's still SO MUCH THERE! This isn't narrower!" I felt that way too all the way up until this evening. As I started thinking about it, I realized that it IS narrower. Instead of teaching 5 things, we only teach one: we just have to teach it from 5 angles. So, we need to teach distributive property. However, kids need to know how to do it backwards, forwards, from story problems backwards and forwards, in normal numbers and in algebraic equations. Well, that's actually a good thing: by the time you've hit distributive property from all those angles, the kids have it down cold. Unlike our previous core, Common Core actually outlines this. So, before, we should have been teaching distributive property in all those ways, but we couldn't because we had too much to teach. Now, we are being told to teach it in all those ways, which feels overwhelming and makes the standards seem just as big as before, but they're really not. The other issue we're having is that we're still trying to fill gaps made by the transition. As those gaps disappear, I think we will be more convinced of the narrowness.

Also, the scope and sequence of the math standards IS based on research of how kids learn. It is designed so kids have all the background knowledge they need before learning a new skill.

Common Core Approach to Teaching Math
Ok, now the answer you've been dying for (I'm sure): is Common Core focused on algorithms or story problems? It is balanced between both, just as is should be.

For example, in the fifth grade math core, it says, "Fluently multiply multi-digit whole numbers using the standard algorithm." In this case, fluently means reasonably quickly. To do that, the kids need to have their times tables memorized, and they need to know how to use the standard algorithm.

However, there is also a lot of emphasis on helping kids conceptually understand multiplication by making models, using different strategies, and connecting it to real life problems. For example, "Find whole-number quotients of whole numbers with up to four-digit dividends and two-digit divisors, using strategies based on place value, the properties of operations, and/or the relationship between multiplication and division" and "Solve word problems involving addition and subtraction of fractions referring to the same whole."

This is probably one of the most controversial parts of Common Core, but it's important. How many of you, as children, forgot the zero when multiplying a 2-digit number? Everyone forgets it occasionally, but some kids do it. Every. Single. Time. Why do they forget it? Because they don't understand why they're putting it there. It has no meaning. This memory of "Put a zero there" has no connections to other neurons, so the brain drops it. However, when a kid understands that they are putting the zero there because they are actually multiplying by a ten, then they are far more likely to remember it.

One of my teammates said it perfectly today. A number by itself is meaningless. It has no meaning until you put it into a real context. I've seen a picture floating around of a dad who was irate because his daughter wasn't allowed to just had to add 4 + 7: she had to model it. (I tried to find this again so I could double check my facts, but had no luck. If I didn't get it exactly right, my apologies.) His daughter already knew the fact: why should she have to show this other way. I can understand the dad's perspective, but really: what is the point of being able to add 4 + 7 unless 4 and 7 are real things?

Understanding multiplication from multiple perspectives prepares kids to actually be able to apply multiplication in real life. I don't know about you, but when I face real life math problems, the fabric, bottles of oil, or dollar bills don't whisper to me, "First you need to times this then divide that." If you understand that multiplication is groups, arrays, and sometimes cutting wholes into smaller parts, you will know when you need to multiply in real life.

Is it sometimes hard to do math in this way? Yes! Why are we shying away from that? It's good for kids to learn that they can do hard things. It helps them develop self confidence and resilience for the future. Is it sometimes hard for the parents too? Yes! Again, our generation didn't understand math very well, so it's going to be hard for us too. Does that mean we should teach our children the same crummy way we were taught, so that we feel comfortable? That doesn't sound like a very good plan to me.

Research supports this balanced approach, and the vast majority of teachers will back that perspective up if you ask them. Yes, kids have to know their times tables and algorithms. If they don't, they can't do the complex problems expected of them in upper grades in any sort of reasonable time frame (and watching them count on their fingers in sixth grade makes my eyes twitch). However, if they don't understand why they're doing the steps of algorithm, they make dozens of insane, incomprehensible mistakes. Balanced math is the way to go.

Common Core Language Arts

Point #3: The Importance of Writing
Writing is an essential skill for any career. Colleges have recognized this for a while and have pushed writing. When I was at BYU (pre Common Core), they were pushing writing in every class. Common Core recognizes the same importance. The writing section of the core is MUCH more developed than the section in Utah's old core, and it emphasizes expository and persuasive writing.

I have to admit, one of the weaknesses we have had as elementary teachers is doing too much narrative writing and not enough expository. The narrative is just so much fun! However, that puts kids in a really bad spot when they're suddenly expected to write 5 paragraph essays. The common core has students starting with drawing and dictating opinions, information, and narratives in kindergarten, and then it slowly builds on it. And it works! I am staggered by the quality of my sixth graders' writing. They can write a cohesive, 5 paragraph essay with an introduction, conclusion, 3 on topic reasons, cited evidence, explanations of that evidence, and relatively smooth transitions. As they made progress, they started saying to me, "I like writing now." In fact, they begged to write an argumentative essay on a proposed development in their community. Some were in favor of the development and others were opposed, but they could explain their thinking better than many of the adults in the community.

Point #4: Informational reading 
One of the milder reasons common core is controversial is because it pushes for teachers to teach/use 50% nonfiction (informational). High school English teachers have been a bit devastated by this because it has meant they've had to give up some of their favorite novels. One person I was talking to said in anguish, "But those novels are heart and soul!" I understand this perspective, I really do, but I support the common core approach for the following reasons.

Democrats and Republicans, Baptists and atheists, urbanites and farmers agree on almost nothing. The one thing they do agree on is that reading is an absolutely essential skill. I submit that, to be more specific, reading informational text is an essential skill. I could actually float through life pretty successfully without ever reading a novel. I would miss out on a lot of rich, important experiences, sure, but I could get a job and put food on the table. On the other hand, if I can't comprehend informational text, I can't even read the job application. Really, think about it: when was the last time you NEEDED to read a novel. Now, think about when was the last time you NEEDED to read something informational (be it a user's manual or the weather report). Reading fiction is good, reading nonfiction is vital.

Reading novels is about as different from reading informational text as speaking English is from speaking Portuguese. Punctuation is the same in both, pronouncing the words is the same, and they're both written on paper. That's it. Comprehending informational text (and comprehension is, after all, the point of reading) requires completely different skills. The context clues, authors' purposes, ways authors show their purpose and bias, ways paragraphs are broken up, ways sections are broken up, basic underlying text structures, sentence structures, presentation of the text, and readers' purposes are all different.

Let me illustrate my point. Last year, I pulled out a informational book with columns shortened by pictures in it for my fifth graders: they couldn't figure out how to read the columns. I had to explicitly teach them that.

And yet for many years, teachers, parents and authors of elementary age students basically pretended the nonfiction/informational category didn't exist. Then, students got to junior high where their English teachers continued ignoring nonfiction and their content teachers assumed they knew how to read it. Not surprisingly, that didn't work very well.

If students are to read informational text successfully, they have to be taught how. If that means pushing aside some great novels, that's a sacrifice I am willing to make. We get roughly 2300 days to take a child from ABCs to college and career readiness: we have to use that precious time wisely, and that means 50% informational text.

Now, fiction is still important and has its place. Wonder is teaching my kids vital life lessons right now, and The Westing Game really honed my kids' attention to detail. The Common Core welcomes this kind of reading 50% of the time and that's great.

Also, the standards for reading, both fiction and informational, are excellent and really teach kids deep thinking skills.

Why?

Those of you who know me know I already have a blog I don't update regularly.  However, I have found that sometimes I want to post things to the web and not have them password protected.  So, family stuff will continue to be posted on our other blog.  This blog will be for my thoughts I want to share and as a spring board for things I want on Pinterest.