As we make the transition to Common Core, I am encouraged by many of the conversations I have been having with teachers - both at my site, and beyond.  Whereas prior to CCSS many said they didn't "have time to integrate technology," I am now beginning to hear much more encouraging statements, things like - "Hey.  You know that Google Docs thing? Show me."  The #EdTechGeek in me is turning cartwheels and leaping over tall building to be able to share the power of GAFE, of giving students choice, of allowing them to create instead of consume.  That's some pretty awesome trickle-down tech usage, and for the most part I am encouraged by the willingness of other professionals to try new things. 

But there is one conversational tack that is driving me nuts: "Hey. Common Core testing means that we should bring back keyboarding classes. Let's get right on that!"

This is how I feel when someone makes this suggestion:

Let's be clear: Keyboarding classes are NOT a silver bullet that will magically transfer students into digitally literate learners who are prepared to face the Common Core test. 

The conversation really needs to be about how our instruction needs to change, across grade levels, in all departments.  To me, Common Core is not about examining what we can add on the existing system in order to make it compliant.  Common Core is about thinking outside of the box, and getting our students to think outside of the box.  It's about reviving what's best in terms of our pedagogical options and saying goodbye to the worst.  Shouldn't we be making instructional decisions based on what's best for kids?  Shouldn't the conversation center around how to meet CCSS by redesigning the way we offer students learning opportunities in class?  Shouldn't we consider the SAMR model and decide what it will take to reach a level of redefinition?  Shouldn't we be bringing back Project-Based Learning, planning for inquiry, and taking a constructivist approach to learning?

Instead, I often find that the CCSS transition often gets boiled down to keyboarding.  Predictably, at the secondary level the blame then gets shifted to elementary teachers for not providing vital keyboarding skills, and before you know it - professional inertia is reached. 

When the best suggestion we've got is to reinstate keyboarding classes, that is a suggestion motivated out of fear.  Yes, it's scary to take the practice tests on Smarter Balanced and realize that kids have instructional needs that aren't being met.  Yes, Common Core will require systemic change across content areas - which for some folks will be more painful than for others. 

But how can we be indignant when students lack typing skills if we never integrate technology into the core curriculum?  That is like being surprised when you try the same thing over and over and keep getting the same results.  Albert Einstein once said, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used to create them." 

The visionary passion around which I have designed my classroom - everything from the physical arrangement, to the climate, to the learning activities, to the tech - is to help prepare my students for their future. I want to enable them to create their own goals and dreams, then equip them with the skill set that will enable fruition.  In Room 208, we use iPads and Chromebooks daily and we allow BYOD for students who would like to use their own device with school wifi.  My students close read in eBackpack and Google Docs, then create movies, record podcasts, screencast their thinking, design digital posters, use evidence to support their conclusions, and write like investigative reporters.  None of that was accomplished with a keyboarding class.

If a school site has limited technology resources, then it becomes even more important to use those resources in core classes, as opposed to reserving them in a lab setting for the express purpose of teaching keyboarding.  For a school like mine, which services 1,500 students and is approaching a 2:1 student/device ratio, there are definitely better options than reserving technology to teach a keyboarding class.

By Jessica Pack
@Packwoman208

We are a little over a month into the school year here in PSUSD, and I realized today while teaching my morning block of 6th graders that as a class we have finally hit our stride.  This is my second year as a BYOD teacher, last year's pilot having been a resounding success.  (Thank goodness!) This is also my first year teaching fully Common Core lessons, which has been an easier transition than expected.

Since I've been approached quite bit recently, both at my school site and via Twitter, regarding the Common Core  lesson planning process, I thought I'd take a moment to blog about it to give others a starting point.  

The first thing I do when planning a CCSS lesson is unpack the standard to decide what skills are expected to reach mastery.  There are a lot of fantastic resources on the web that can help you with this step so that you don't have to reinvent the wheel.  A few of my favorites are these unpacked "I Can..." statements in student-friendly language and the unpacked ELA Common Core Templates from the Tulare County Office of Education.  Use these to help establish your learning targets.

Following the unpacking process, consider what the endgame is for students.  What will they produce?  What will they do to show their learning along the way and once the sequence of lessons is complete? Will they be writing arguments? Engaging in a debate? Recording podcasts? Producing a movie or telling some other kind of digital story?  The importance of these questions can not be overstated.

There are 7 key shifts in Common Core ELA instruction, which are important to remember.  I've outlined these shifts on the following Haiku Deck:

Click HERE to read detailed notes for each slide.

When lesson planning, I generally follow the cognitively guided instruction model, which is a gradual release of control until students are able to work independently.  Why do I follow this particular model?  Because it was adopted universally by my district and that is the expectation.  However, something that I have discovered is that, while some feel this instructional model lends itself best to direct instruction, it can also be adapted for inquiry and project-based learning. The concept is, essentially: "I do. We do. You do together. You do independently."  The phases of instruction can be rearranged to suit the style of lesson. So, for an inquiry-based lesson, you may choose to lead with the "You Do Together" portion as groups problem solve by brainstorming possible solutions; the "I Do" portion may be limited to simply issuing instructions to express the parameters of the investigation.

Because my classroom is comprised of so many English Language Learners, providing opportunities for students to work together to communicate their ideas with an authentic audience is important.  A few days ago, in the midst of an ELA unit based around the topic of Japanese internment during WWII, my students analyzed primary source photos in groups.  I pulled the images from the Library of Congress Japanese internment collection, and had kids rotate through five different centers in groups.  Each center had a different image they had to analyze. Students used the Primary Source Analysis Tool (also from the Library of Congress), on which they recorded observations, made reflections, and asked questions about each image.  (The suggestions on this document were helpful in terms of getting group conversations started.) Group conversations were dynamic and students were highly engaged because they had previously read and annotated the full text of Executive Order 9066 and Instructions to Japanese-Americans on Bainbridge Island.  Following the rotations, students used sentences frames to help them write a podcast about their favorite image from the day and how it connected to their reading. Here is an example podcast one of my students created using the AudioBoo app:

When I first started teaching, I used to lose my voice by the end of the day because I did so much talking throughout each class period.  Nine years later, this is no longer an issue because my students work harder than I do while they are in class. I want to make sure that their learning is genuine, that they are completely engaged in the process, that they have real choices about how to express mastery, and that their brain cells get a workout without realizing that it's "work."  

Ultimately, the CCSS transition will be easier for some than others.  Districts and school sites will establish different mandates, I am sure. Teachers will likely receive conflicting messages, as is generally true in any kind of new implementation.  The best advice I have for anyone who is making the transition is to hold fast to your PLN, ask questions, collaborate, and keep what's good for students at the forefront of your decision-making process.

What's your best CCSS lesson planning recommendation? What tools are essential to your CCSS plans? Please comment and share, or continue the conversation on Twitter. 

By Jessica Pack
@Packwoman208