Ready to ride with new standards

I have been listening to my peers as they assail the new Alaska teacher evaluation tool’s inclusion of student achievement growth, and I think of horses. The equine world contributes more than you would think to the literary tongue: “Wild horses couldn’t drag me away,” “putting the cart before the horse” and “he’s got blinders on.”

I can’t help but wonder if our trepidation regarding the evaluation tool isn’t working as our own twitch and distracting us from the other horse in the stable. Not just a horse of a different color either, but a different horse altogether: the new Alaska State Standards.

Common Core State Standards were released in June 2010. These standards, universal now across most of the country, provide a clear framework to prepare students to be college and/or career ready.

Almost to the day and two years later, the Alaska Board of Education adopted the new Alaska State Standards. The Alaska State Standards match and/or surpass the rigor found in the Common Core. They begin to be implemented next year, field-tested the following year and fully put into practice and tested no later than spring 2016.

A nod may be as good as a blink to a blind horse, but these standards deserve more than a cursory glance. Three distinct shifts from current practice occur within the new standards for English language arts. (The math standards also have three distinct shifts in of thought and practice, but those will be left for another column and from someone better versed in the world of math.)

In the area of English/language arts, teachers are expected to teach grade-level appropriate, content-rich nonfiction texts in addition to literature. This means that all teachers are expected to read beyond the reaches of a textbook and in all classes.

It also means students need to read selections that are grade-level appropriate more so than ability leveled. In addition, reading and writing questions are evidenced by what was read and not by personal experience or opinion.

For example, instead of asking, “In ‘The Gettysburg Address,’ Abraham Lincoln says the nation is dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Why is equality an important value to promote?” the new standards question would rely on the text, rephrasing the question to state, “‘The Gettysburg Address’ mentions the year 1776. According to Lincoln’s speech, why is this year significant to the events described in the speech?” With the second question, the student must have read and understood the words within the four corners of the page, whereas with the first, students are asked to provide responses based predominantly on personal opinion.

With the new standards, the shift in the complexity of text and its academic vocabulary cannot to be limited to the language arts classroom. In fact, the new standards for social studies, science and technology include the same teaching and basic instruction of reading and writing as for language arts.

With the adaptation of the new standards, fourth-graders will begin writing argument essays; all grade levels will require small research projects throughout the year; and listening and speaking presentations are mandatory. Students must write, write, write — and think. Not to beat a dead horse, but yes, there will be lots of writing.

Of course, there are well-heeded arguments in reaction to the new standards. It is easy to think the standards are just more of the same and rigor is short for rigor mortis. However, when you read the new public academic policy carefully, that isn’t the case at all.

The standards do not restrict the creativity or richness of language from the classroom. Indeed, these standards insist more on deeper conversations and analysis than before. As a teacher preparing my classroom to include these new standards, I can almost feel the heady conversations emerging from a classroom; I can almost touch the energy and possibilities for kids’ thinking.

The transition from the GLES and curriculum will not be without mistakes or without a lot of effort. Change is like that. For now, however, it’s a mistake to put the cart before the horse and worry about student growth on an evaluation tool before we first embrace by what we will be measuring achievement.

I have taught a long time in the public classroom. Let it suffice to imagine that I began teaching before Xerox machines. However, when I read the new standards and consider the possibilities, I want to get back in the saddle and teach for another quarter century. After all, part of being a successful professional — regardless if that is in public education, medicine, politics or what-have-you — is embracing change with an open attitude that allows for innovation, improvement and, ultimately, a safer, smarter world.

Emily Forstner teaches Language Arts at Wasilla Middle School.