Reading, 'Riting...Recess?

Tuesday, 16 March 2010 18:52 by Eli Savit
The past week has featured a number of dramatic stories from the education world.  The Common Core working group released its proposed national academic standards.  President Obama proposed a major overhaul of the No Child Left Behind law.  And in Detroit, emergency financial manager Robert Bobb laid out a controversial plan to dramatically improve--and shrink--the Detroit Public Schools

Nestled between these blockbuster stories, though, was a very interesting article in yesterday's New York Times about, of all things, recess.  The article details how a number of schools across the country are imposing more structure on recess by hiring "recess coaches," or by replacing recess altogether with "midday fitness programs."  Instead of being free to goof off, play impromptu games, or chat with friends, students in these "new recess" schools are required to play structured games, usually involving a heavy dose of physical exercise.  

Schools that have moved to impose some structure on recess certainly have laudable goals, like requiring physical activity, promoting sportsmanship, and reducing the inevitable injuries that arise from unstructured play.  And in an era of record childhood obesity, it's hard to fault schools for doing anything to get kids moving.  But some are questioning these recess modifications, particularly in light of a recent study in the Journal of Pediatrics that tied recess (of the traditional variety) to better academic performance, concentration, and classroom behavior.

It could be, of course, that students who get ample recess time recess are simply more likely to engage in physical activity--and that physical activity itself increases concentration and academic performance.  (Studies of adults have regularly found a link between aerobic exercise and concentration). But some academics argue that children benefit from the unstructured nature of recess.  Without a break from rules and structure, argues Dr. Romina M. Barros, "you don't have time for your brain to relax."  And, according to Dr. Andrea Faber Taylor, people can only engage in "directed attention"--reading books, doing math problems, etc--for a finite period of time.  Simply put, if the brain isn't given time to recharge, it will wear itself out.

If scientists are right about the finite nature of "directed attention"1, an unstructured recess period seems particularly important for children who attend schools with rigidly structured classroom settings.  If students, for example, are constantly learning test prep strategies and taking practice exams, it stands to reason that their minds could benefit from a break.  And students almost assuredly won't get that break if they're thinking about how to play a game correctly or worrying about breaking the rules.

But if a mental break is really so important to academic performance, it seems to me that we're putting too much of a burden on recess.  Young students should also have time to let their mind wander in the classroom--whether it's through art, through unstructured play, or by having the opportunity to really lose oneself in a good book.  If schools are wearing down students' brains with seven consecutive hours of directed attention, maybe the answer lies not with recess, but with changing the way in which schools are delivering classroom instruction. 


1. And they probably are--at least if the number of times I have checked ESPN while writing this post is any indication.  (Hey, it's March Madness!)
Digg It!DZone It!StumbleUponTechnoratiRedditDel.icio.usNewsVineFurlBlinkList

Currently rated 5.0 by 2 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Tags:   , ,
Categories:   News
Actions:   E-mail | del.icio.us | Share on Facebook | Permalink | Comments (1) | Comment RSSRSS comment feed

Where's The Content?

Wednesday, 10 March 2010 10:31 by Eli Savit
Today, the Common Core working group--a panel of educators from 48 states--released a set of proposed common academic standards for public school students from grades K-12.  If adopted, the proposed standards would replace the current hodge-podge of state standards, which have been roundly criticized for setting the academic bar too low.  

Essentially, under the current system, students within a state have to reach a certain passing rate on a standardized test if that state is to receive federal funding.  But states themselves get to write their own tests--and states also  get to determine what score a student needs to receive to pass that test.  So, for example, a student in Mississippi might be presented with a test comprised of Celebrity Jeopardy-esque questions, while a student in Massachusetts could be faced with a much a harder exam.  And while the student from Mississippi might only need to get 30% of the questions correct to "pass," the student from Massachusetts might need to receive a 70%.   The overall result has been a race to the bottom, with states continually lowering their academic standards to compete for federal funding.

The Common Core standards released today are an attempt to end this academic race to the bottom.  The Common Core working group envisions states across the country collectively adopting its proposed standards.  In theory, with standards set at the same level nationwide, an individual state will have little incentive to lower the bar for its students. And, according to the Common Core task force, its standards are ambitious--aiming to ensure that all students are "college ready" by the end of their senior year of high school.

For uniformity's sake alone, the Common Core standards are a definite upgrade over the current standards.  But a quick look over the standards shows that they are incomplete, at best.  Although the standards nominally cover math, English, and "literacy in science and social studies," the standards for science and social studies say nothing about the  actual content students should be learning.   For example: under the Common Core standards, 11th and 12th grade students should be able to "analyze in detail how a complex primary source is structured," and "interpret the meaning of words and phrases in a text."  And indeed they should.  But the standards say nothing about what kinds of primary sources students should be studying.  The Constitution?  A translated copy of Egyptian hieroglyphics?  An authentic 1990s Ren & Stimpy cartoon?  The Common Core standards provide a robust set of skill-based standards, but they almost completely ignore what content students are supposed to be learning in science and social studies classes.

The theory behind the skills-based approach is that schools should give students the capacity to engage with any text, rather than to pound home "rote" facts like "what does the Supreme Court do?" or "what is a covalent bond?"  But a solid basis in content is an integral part of learning to read a wide variety of texts.  If you don't understand what the Supreme Court does, or if you don't understand the First Amendment, you're not going to be able to understand articles like this one criticizing the Court's recent decision striking down campaign finance laws.  Similarly, if you don't understand the concept of global warming, you're sure not going to understand this article about the "beleaguered global warming panel."   And these are basic articles that one would hope any  "college ready" high school senior would be able to make sense of.

Were the Common Core standards supplemented with adequate content-based instruction, they could indeed leave American students "college ready."  But recent history suggests that states and schools are loathe to insist upon robust content standards on their own accord.  When standards are skill-based, schools focus on skills--leaving students in the dark about the most basic facts.  A recent study showed, for example, that fewer than half of 17-year-olds can place the Civil War in the proper half-century, nearly a quarter cannot identify Adolf Hitler, and a third do not know that the Bill of Rights guarantees the freedom of speech and religion.  

Ending the race to the bottom is a good thing, and the Common Core standards may well do just that.  But if we're really concerned about ensuring that state standards are adequately preparing students for college, any national standards must insist upon at least a baseline of basic content knowledge.

UPDATE: A blog post at CommonCore.org (which is, confusingly enough, not affiliated with the Common Core State Standards group that released the standards) argues that the new standards do an admirable job of importing content into a skills-based curriculum.  The author's essential point is that the new standards allow space for--and in fact, encourage--a content-rich curriculum.  It's a more optimistic take than what I've written here.  Let's hope schools follow through and use this as a vehicle for delivering core content.  

Digg It!DZone It!StumbleUponTechnoratiRedditDel.icio.usNewsVineFurlBlinkList

Currently rated 5.0 by 3 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Tags:   , , , , , , ,
Categories:   News
Actions:   E-mail | del.icio.us | Share on Facebook | Permalink | Comments (1) | Comment RSSRSS comment feed