Common Core standards don't prevent creativity

Earlier this week, I posted a piece about my English class that showed “how great classes that focus on students as people can also serve the demands of the Common Core.”  Grant Wiggins made the same argument, far more eloquently, the next day:

Why do people insist on viewing the Standards as inconsistent with teacher creativity and choice? I am baffled by such uncreative thinking. That’s like saying the architect cannot be creative because every house has to meet building code. Indeed, the whole point of mandating standards as opposed to curriculum is to free people up to create innovative curriculum that addresses the standards. 


2 thoughts on “Common Core standards don't prevent creativity

  1. Free which people to create curriculum???

    The point of the Common Core is to make a few people huge piles of money. The point is not to “free people up” to do anything at all.

    The creativity, or lack, is an afterthought. Maybe.

    And not having a curriculum (to use, to modify, to develop lessons within) is bizarre….

    Oh, yeah, before I forget. Once the tests arrive, how many administrators are going to lean on teachers to prep directly for those tests?… whether it makes any sense or not? Because the Common Core is all about tests (and $$$ for tests), and freedom and creativity are really irrelevant.


  2. I’m not arguing about intentions, but I do think those who claim you can’t do good stuff given the Common Core are wrong. I’m sure bad and mediocre admins will lean on teachers to do lame (and ineffective) test prep as they do now; all the more reason teachers need to take the opportunity we have now before the tests to define what “Common Core” can and should mean before they do it for us.


Comments are closed.