Blog #6 The Voice of Standards and Racial Justice Assessment

I am writing my blog today from the very back of a sparsely populated library. It is getting late, the sun is sinking, and I can hear the rain dancing on the library roof. I'm include a small description of my whereabouts because I often pick up on the energy within a space, and sometimes it effects how I respond to readings or carry out my work in general. I like this particular library because it's warm lighting, long wooden tables, and, of course, stacks of books make me feel calm and stable.  So, I approached this weeks readings with a serene mind; however, serene and standards don't typically go together, do they?
Well, surprise surprise they just might!
.
.
.
Actually, they might not, but I was trying my best to align the two.

Admittedly, I felt slightly addled reading over the Common Core Standards (CCS); this was hardly a surprise. I have read them before, and every time I get a mental imagine of my slightly older self, amidst a stack of student writing, glancing from writing to standards, standards to writing and making a series of mental checks."Did they get it? Are they doing it?" I am almost certain this is not how aligning standards with your curriculum goes down but my imagination runs non the less. CC Standards always feel daunting, but, if were being fair, all standards weigh heavy because 1) I am not in a real classroom just yet and 2) they might actually be a little much even when you get in that teacher seat.

If I had to choose a favorite set of standards, not that that is particularly reasonable, I would choose the NCTE standards. Why? Mainly because I felt that they did less to derail my library vibes, and such vibes are rather important to me. I think this had something to do with the "Guiding Vision" provided. In particular these points within the "Guiding Vision":

• These standards assume that literacy growth begins before children enter school as they experience and experiment with literacy activities—reading and writing, and associating spoken words with their graphic representations.
• They encourage the development of curriculum and instruction that make productive use of the emerging literacy abilities that children bring to school. 
• These standards provide ample room for the innovation and creativity essential to teaching and learning.

I chose these particular parts because they did not assume that students were entering the classroom with a lack or a space that needed filling. In addition to this, these quick points made me feel as if the job of teaching is truly one that lies with the teacher and that the standards that followed were like the bumpers on a bowling lane– they are there to help keep you in your lane but you still get to throw the ball the way you want. With this vision in mind, I moved on to read the standards, all of which I enjoyed and saw much relevance in. 

I poked around the Common Core site for a bit looking for something that was similar to the "Guiding Vision" from the NCTE website. I found something similar in the introduction to writing standards. This paragraph embodied a different essence. There was an emphasis on "adequate mastery", "increasing sophistication", and "expected growth." The language here was much different from that of the NCTE website. I didn't feel as if there was much room for love and creativity here, but rather the language felt mechanical and impersonal. 

I am not saying I disagree with or did not like the CCS, I am simply saying that they did not jive with my library vibes and they did not feel very student centered. 

I think this is the perfect moment to transition into the three types of assessment Wayne Au presents in "Racial Justice is not a Choice." He identifies the difference between retributive, restorative, and reclaiming; with each type of assessment he provides three sort of guiding questions that rule each mindset. Retributive questions lack sensitivity, while both restorative and reclaiming questions demand consideration and care. 

Perhaps I was not successful, but in this blog I have been attempting to attribute a sort of voice to the two sets of standards– to find a motive, a drive backing the language of each. I felt more honesty and concern radiating from the words of NCTE, whereas the CCS felt a bit more stiff, robotic, and goal oriented. If these standards were taking up a human shape I would think that the CCS would be asking retributive questions and the NCTE would be wandering into the restorative/ reclaiming space. 

I found much inspiration in Au as he wrote, "activism as a central aspect of public education." Yes, yes, yes! I completely agree and I feel as if we touched on this last class with our discussion around the blurred lines between target, ally, bystander, and perpetrator. Of course we have teachers like Christensen who are creating meaningful assessments but perhaps this is not the national standard? I would think probably not, and thats a problem. 

I have thought a lot about creating a fair and meaningful classroom environment, and structuring my lessons in a way that promotes learning and a greater understanding of this society/ world we live in–  including issues of racial justice; however, I have not thought about shifting this mindset into the assessment realm. Maybe this is because I don't eagerly look forward to assessment in the way I loo to fostering an open and honest environment. I think Au is looking at what it would mean to have meaningful and robust assessments and not just assignments.

Have you considered assessment in this manner?