Common Core Standards and the Multiple Intelligences:
Implications of a Rigorous Curriculum
for Teachers, Arts-Technical Educators and Schools
Branton Shearer 7-5-13
Abstract
This report examines relationships among Common Core State Standards and the
Multiple Intelligences and Core Art Standards. Numerous areas of agreement are
found among Linguistic, Logical-mathematical and Intrapersonal intelligences
and Common Core academic standards. Likewise, a number of intersections are
observed among Arts Standards and CCSS English Language Arts and Math
Practices. Three types of curricular approaches are described that employ
personalized, whole brain instruction that will develop students’ Logical thinking
and Linguistic skills to meet Common Core Standards.
Brief Executive Summary
There is a great stirring in the land as schools delve into the meaning and
implications of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The purpose of CCSS is to
establish one “yardstick” by which all schools may be held accountable for providing a
rigorous, high quality education.
What constitutes a “rigorous” curriculum that will result in students being
“college and career ready” is of great debate. Two models of human cognition competing
with CCSS– Core Arts Standards and Mutiple Intelligences (MI) theory – have long
postulated that competency in academic subjects is too thin of a yardstick by which to
measure both educational quality and student success.
Under the No Child Left Behind law for the past 11 years both Arts education and
MI inspired curriculum have been viewed as distractions or antithetical to a curriculum
designed to maximize student test scores. The authors of Common Core suggest that this
will no longer be the case.
The purpose of this report is to test that assertion by examining CCSS in
relationship to Core Arts Standards and the eight Multiple intelligences. Curricular
implications are described for all teachers and types of schools including Technical, Arts
and typical schools.
Common Core State Standards Compared to Arts Standards
A 2013 report by the College Board for the National Coalition for Core Arts
Standards (NCCAS) found that there are 75 direct mentions of arts activities in English
Language Arts (ELA) standards.
When ELA standards are compared to cognitive skills associated with arts-based
practices, (Imagine, Investigate, Construct, Reflect) many overlaps are observed. Of the
1
48 different components of CCSS standards the following numbers of connections are
reported: Imagine= 27; Investigate = 36; Construct = 28 and Reflect = 43.
Common Core State Standards Compared to Multiple intelligences
An overview of skills associated with ELA and MI reveal an excellent fit with
academic aspects of Linguistic intelligence and a number of instances where the Logical
(analysis) and the Interpersonal (others’ point of view) and some Spatial (visual data,
media, displays) are included. There are a few mentions of metacognitive skills
associated with Intrapersonal (reflect, self-directed learning) intelligence.
The pragmatic, everyday use of oral language for speaking and listening are
included in CSS and there is a hint of some of the more creative aspects of language use
for story-telling and poetry, but the standards are predominantly focused on academic,
analytical (logical) language functions.
The Mathematics Skills standards are directly related to half of Logicalmathematical intelligence. The Mathematics Practices are strongly correlated with the
other Logical problem-solving aspects.
Conclusions
The CCSS strive to ensure that students have the ability to think analytically in
the use of language and mathematics. This means that lesson plans need to incorporate
regular doses of the Linguistic intelligence and Logical aspect of the Logicalmathematical intelligence across the curriculum. Additionally, including the
Intrapersonal, Interpersonal and, to a lesser extent, the Spatial intelligence in lessons will
be advantageous to develop students “thinking skills.” The remaining three intelligences
(Musical, Kinesthetic and Naturalist) are only tangentially related to the Common Core
standards.
Authors of the Core ELA standards advise curriculum writers to create “rich
tasks” that include the specific content standards and this guidance is well aligned with
both an Arts education and Multiple Intelligences inspired curriculum. Three general
strategies are identified to engage students in “rich tasks” that require increasingly
“rigorous” thinking strategies. The first is a choice of Arts / Technical curriculum; the
second, is a curriculum that is focused around a “rich project or performance;” and the
third, is using each students’ MI strength in a cooperative learning group activity.
When high standards for a “thinking curriculum” are embedded in a personalized,
“rich curriculum” then we will create the kind of schooling that is engaging, inclusive
and rigorous.
2
Introduction
There is a great stirring in the land as schools everywhere delve into the meaning
and implications of the emerging Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The purpose of
CCSS as developed by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and
the Council of Chief State School Officers is to establish one “yardstick’ by which all
schools may be measured nationwide rather than many different tests used by states. In
this way, it is hoped that schools and teachers will be held accountable in the goal of
providing a high quality education for all students.
What is driving this massive move for a new and improved yardstick different
from the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) state tests that have ruled the land since 2002?
There are a number of likely causes, but from my analyses they can be distilled down to
three reasons. First, despite more than a decade of classroom implementation no real,
meaningful and sustainable improvements are evident in students’ academic skills(1).
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2013; Guisbond, 2012; Ravitich, 2011). The
drive to improve students’ academic test scores works for the first few years after the
onset of testing but, then further gains are minimal or disappear altogether (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2013). Second, as a result of this intense (and failed)
focus on test preparation there was a widespread “narrowing of the curriculum” so that
courses deemed to be irrelevant to test success were discouraged and cut from students’
schedules and school offerings (Strauss, 2012).
The third reason is perhaps the most influential. Again, despite the drive to
increase test scores in basic skills and knowledge, major corporations and business
interests across the nation continue to complain loudly that too many high school
graduates (who may have passed the tests) are ill-prepared to be good workers. These
three reasons have led the education advisors to our nation’s governors to the astonishing
conclusion, “Hey, the rote memorization inherent in the test-prep realm of NCLB isn’t
working! What we need are new and better tests.”
Forty-six out of 50 states (and the District of Columbia) have pledged to adopt
CCSS with massive funding mainly from the federal government for test development.
Only a handful of states are refusing to sign on to what they say is a compulsory
“national test” of educational success. These states believe that it is each state’s right to
conduct its own educational policy and testing and they resent any perceived federal
interference. A few other states are having second thoughts about the quick
implementation of CCSS due to a lack of funding to prepare both teachers and students
for the new tests.
What have you heard about CCSS? Have you gotten familiar with the new
standards for English Language Arts and Math yet? What will be the implications for
your teaching, curriculum design and course offerings? These are the kinds of questions
nagging at educators around America as they prepare for yet another change in the
expectations placed upon them by society. It seems that the testing yardstick has changed
about every few years since NCLB was first enacted, so it is understandable if educators
are cynical and weary of constantly shifting goalposts.
3
The Educational Standards Movement
The education standards movement in the United States kicked into high gear in
1994 with the passage of Goals 2000: Educate America Act. The main goal of this federal
law was to improve education through the establishment of standards and the
identification of best practices in teaching and learning. It is widely recognized that this
law was enacted as a direct result of the highly influential 1983 report A Nation at Risk:
The Imperative for Educational Reform. This report cited a steady decline in students’
academic test scores (as compared with other nations) as evidence that classroom
teachers ware failing America’s students due to a lack of “rigor.” However, subsequent
statistical reanalysis of the data used in the Nation at Risk study found strong evidence
that contradicted the report’s conclusions (Miller, 1991). It is possible that the report’s
conclusions were more the author’s initial premises that were then supported by the
faulty use of aggregate student achievement statistics (1).
Whatever the case, the report provided ammunition for the launch of the national
testing movement. It was reasoned that instruction would become more rigorous and
curriculum more cohesive if students were administered tests on a regular basis. Initially,
testing by the states was voluntary but, with the passage of No Child Left Behind law in
2001 the age of “accountability” and “high stakes” testing began with severe
consequences for both students and schools. Unfortunately, 10+ years of concerted effort
have failed to achieve the goal of improving students’ academic outcomes, so it was back
to the drawing board for the nation’s governors who have responded to the hue and cry of
influential business leaders.
The problem, the governors’ advisers argue, is that, the plethora of tests
developed by 50 different states are flawed, so they set about to redesign the tests so that
schools produce competent workers. The old and faulty tests only measure basic
knowledge and skills and this is inadequate to produce high school graduates who are
“college and career ready.” The new and improved standards are designed to be more
“rigorous” as they test for “thinking skills.” In a knowledge–based economy, business
requires workers who can “think” and not just memorize rote skills and knowledge. Of
course, these “thinking skills” tests will be limited to the “core academic” subjects and
focus most intensely on reading and math skills.
Why should tests made to measure student outcomes in reading and math skills be
expected to produce a better workforce for the 21st century? There are a number of
alternative views of what a successful high school graduate should be able to do that
pertain to everyday cognitive behaviors. This includes the Arts Standards that have
widespread recognition as well are the more recently developed Framework for 21st
Century Learning and Common Career Technical Core (See Appendix 1). These three
documents describe cognitive skills as well as specific content and behavioral
competencies as student learning goals.
The reason that more “rigorous testing” is the answer to the complex problem of
mediocre test scores is based on the implicit assumption that human intelligence is fully
4
described by an IQ score. The old adage states that the purpose of schooling is to develop
the “three Rs- ‘reading, ‘riting and ‘rithematic.” An IQ score is, at root, an average of
your ability to read and think logically, as evidenced in math calculations. What the
designers of CCSS standards assume is that students will become better suited to
workplace needs if they perform better on tests of academic intelligence. Achieving this
result is contingent upon teachers structuring their lessons and curriculum in such a way
that students will demonstrate greater self-discipline and persistence to obtain higherlevel abstract thinking skills required by more “rigorous tests.” The authors of CCSS
appear to believe that this will happen despite it not occurring over the course of several
decades of nationwide testing with painful consequences.
A Whole Brain Perspective
In the 20+ years since the standards movement began, there have been great
strides toward understanding how the brain processes information and learns. The
question remains, however, if traditional schooling alone can drive up student test scores.
Two factors are missing from this equation. First, unaccounted for is the fundamentally
important role that the family and home-life activities play in students’ academic success.
Also missing is any discussion of internal factors pertinent to each student. What if the
key to higher thinking skills is not simply “hammering at the weaknesses,” but instead is
using each student’s unique thinking strengths to leverage success? What if the second
key to promoting student success is guiding parents on how to support this strengthsbased approach with personalized home education plans?
Research has demonstrated that academic success is correlated with self-discpline,
self-efficacy and motivation at levels equal with or greater than innate ability (Bandura,
1993; Duckworth and Seligman, 2005). These positive behaviors are increased when
students use their strengths to learn and will become more actively engaged students
when their peer status is blostered via public recognition of their unique MI abilities
(Cohen, 1998; Hall-Haley, 2004).
These arguments are inherent in a whole-brain view of human intelligence as
embodied in the theory of Multiple Intelligences (Gardner, 1983). Gardner and a number
of subsequent researchers provide a body of cross-cultural, bio-psychological evidence to
support the contention that the human brain possesses at least eight distinct forms of
intelligence. This perspective acknowledges the importance of the two academic
intelligences – Linguistic and Logical-mathematical – that comprise IQ. However, MI
theory postulates that IQ is a constricted view of the brain’s potential rooted in 19th
century technology and flawed assumptions of how the brain works. Can merely making
tweaks to testing technology based on erroneous assumptions of how the mind-brain
operates be successful?
A Multiple Intelligences understanding of the brain’s potential describes eight
distinct intelligences that have value to both the individual as well as the culture. In fact,
the value of the eight intelligences is thoroughly documented by a vast array of evidence
from numerous disciplines ranging from brain science and educational psychology to
5
evolutionary biology to cross-cultural anthropological research (Shearer, 2009). When
the eight intelligences are recognized for their value to individuals and culture, then
several broad doors open up for enacting school improvement. First, we can redefine the
desired outcome variables that describe a “successful education.” Second, we can
creatively leverage success by the use of a variety thinking strengths rather than
“hammering at weaknesses” (Chen, J., Krechevsky, M., & Viens, J., 1998). Third, an
integrated, intersciplinary curriculum can be created that will engage students in a rich
and deeply engaging set of activities (Hoerr, 1994).
The development of new CCSS compatible tests reminds me of the carpenter
with only a hammer in his toolbox. To him, every problem looks like a nail. When he
gets frustrated then he reaches for a larger hammer. However, when we value the full set
of human abilities in the brain’s tool box, then we can use a saw when necessary, select a
wrench when the pipe is stuck or drill the right sized hole as the circumstances require.
Yes, sometimes a bigger hammer will do a better job but not when a skill saw is called
for.
What complicates our framing of the problem of mediocre education is that it is a
messy relationship between our “description” of the situation (what’s wrong) and the
“prescription” (what to do) to resolve it. This relationship lies at the heart of the art of
teaching and it is a mistake to reduce it to a simplistic formula or jingoistic slogan, such
as “back to basics” or “higher standards.” The depth of this messiness will become clear
as we examine the relationship among three powerful descriptions of human learning:
Common Core State Standards; Core Arts Standards, and the Multiple Intelligences.
These analyses will be followed by an examination of instructional and curricular
implications for all types of educators: arts, technical and teachers in typical schools.
When we describe the circumstances of a “problem” we do so through the lens of
our own value system. This means that some variables in a problematic situation will be
neglected, ignored or simply unseen because they are outside the view framed by our
own particular perspective. When the theory of Multiple Intelligences was introduced in
1983 it achieved worldwide acclaim. It was enthusiastically received by teachers
everywhere because it matched with their direct classroom experience. MI helps teachers
to understand students failing to achieve academic success but who, in their perspective,
were not “stupid.” MI theory provides teachers with a powerful language to describe how
such students “learn differently” and extends the common (although fuzzy) notions of
“learning styles” that teachers have used since the 1960s to describe students’ thinking
differences.
However, MI theory confronts conventional views of intelligence that have served
as the bedrock of educational systems for more than one hundred years so traditionalist
educators and psychologists dismiss it out of hand. For them, MI theory is truly “beyond
the pale” in their efforts to rebuild the educational establishment from within their
conventional frameworks. MI offers not bigger hammers, but a toolkit that looks quite
different from the three Rs.
6
The traditionalist’s problem with MI theory begins with the definition of
intelligence itself that Gardner uses to identify the eight intelligences: “…intelligence is
the ability or set of abilities to solve a problem, or fashion a product that is valued in at
least one culture…” (1983, preface) This definition goes beyond standard, convergent
thinking and problem-solving (the 3 R’s) as is embedded in an academic curriculum.
Traditionalists who all excelled at the academic skills take issue with defining creative
thinking and the “making of products” as intelligent acts. On the other hand, arts
educators have been the most devoted advocates of MI theory because of this very
definition that values their “product” and mode of thinking. This is true as well for the
second challenge that MI theory presents to conventionally minded educationalists.
MI theory raises the “value” of several of the intelligences so that they are
considered on par with those of the sacrosanct Linguistic and Logical-mathematical
academics. In the mind of traditionalists, Musical, Kinesthetic, Spatial and Naturalist are
all relegated to the lesser valued realms of “mere talents or just aptitudes.” Traditionalists
also mistakenly confuse the Interpersonal and Intrapersonal intelligences with
“personality characteristics.”
These definitional errors are not inconsequential. They have profound impact on
the very act of teaching and lesson planning when schools are under the gun to raise test
scores – as quickly as possible – or suffer financial consequences. Anything outside the
content on the “high stakes test” is considered to be superfluous and even dangerous.
Thus, despite years of acclaim by teachers across the country and worldwide, MI theory
was quickly cast aside when NCLB became the law of the land. As a result, all staff
development and curriculum reform efforts that involved anything outside of “test prep”
and content alignment were curtailed (this included many arts courses and Multiple
Intelligences inspired curriculum planning).
But, as is often the case with educational innovations, what goes around comes
around once again by a different name. Despite a decade of NCLB mandated testing, MI
theory did not disappear but instead went underground. Aspects of the theory bloomed in
the shadows with different names such as emotional intelligence, social intelligence,
Habits of Mind and 21st Century Skills. It has taken educators a while to recover from
the constricting pressure of NCLB to embrace alternative approaches to designing
curriculum, but it has happened. Now, the question is, will CCSS be merely NCLB on
steroids and once again scare educators back into their constricted comfort zones and
devour their time; discourage creativity, common sense and student-centered instruction?
The goal of the analysis detailed below is to address two questions: Can teachers
use Multiple Intelligences inspired lessons to help students to do well on rigorous tests of
“thinking skills” as embodied by CCSS? Can arts courses (visual, musical, drama, etc.)
be compatible with a school’s educational goal of achieving high scores on CCSS tests?
The question of how CCSS will impact Career Technical Education (CTE) will be
peripheral to this analysis for several reasons. First, Technical Education has not been
sidelined during the implementation of educational testing because it is not viewed as
conflicting with academic testing objectives. Second, in my 20 years experience,
technical educators are largely unaware of or disinterested in the multiple intelligences.
7
The Multiple Intelligences (MI)
The original seven intelligences described in 1983 by Gardner were Linguistic
and Logical-mathematical (comprising the skills correlated with academic intelligence),
Visual-spatial, Kinesthetic, Musical, Interpersonal and Intrapersonal. In 1996 based on
further research, the Naturalist intelligence was added. See Appendix 2 for detailed
description.
MI is the cognitive toolkit possessed by all humans with each individual having a
unique configuration of skills and abilities. As a cognitive scientist, Gardner set as his
primary task to describe the full potential inherent in the brain’s ability to process
information, solve problems and create things of value. This theoretical framework does
not have attached to it an “educational prescription.” However, since its introduction
many educators (as well as Gardner) have used it as a basis for designing suggestions for
various kinds of schools and curricula.
Arts educators have been among those professionals who have most
enthusiastically embraced the idea that there is more to being smart than what shows up
on an IQ test. And with good reason. Actually, for two good reasons. First, most
obviously, some of the most popular forms of art are named directly: Music = music;
Spatial = visual art, Kinesthetic = dance, etc. Second, more importantly, the MI definition
values divergent thinking and creation on par with convergent problem solving. Some MI
critics mistakenly believe that MI is “anti-IQ.” In fact, MI embraces IQ skills as the
convergent, academic aspects of the Linguistic and Logical-mathematical intelligences.
Educators in Technical schools have been less receptive to MI theory. They are
more focused on the development of students’ practical skills / behaviors and less
concerned with students’ creative and abstract-academic abilities. MI theory has not been
appreciated by Technical educators for its possible contribution toward enhancing
students’ self-understanding, logical thinking and other practical skills. This is
unfortunate because research has demonstrated that non-academic and at risk students
benefit significantly when they come to value their non-IQ intelligences as being of
importance and useful (Shearer, 2009).
What is true about MI (much to its traditionalist critics’ consternation) is that it
does not privilege one intelligence over another. In other words, Logical-mathematical is
no more important than is Visual-spatial and Kinesthetic is of equal value to Linguistic.
Etc., etc. They are all important tools that do different tasks. A hammer is no more
important than a saw when there is a big job to do requiring a carpenter who is skilled in
using a full set of tools. In fact, if you only have a hammer when your board is too long,
then you will do more damage than good if you attempt to hammer it down to the correct
size. This is an apt metaphor for what a strict IQ-based educational curriculum does to the
motivation of students who have strengths in non-academic intelligences.
What Common Core State Standards, MI and Art Standards share in common is
the aspiration that all students will graduate with the ability to perform well in college or
8
in a career of his or her choosing. Likewise, a Technical education shares these very
practical goals but with a different emphasis. Defining exactly what skills should be
possessed by all high school graduates is the central argument among these different
perspectives.
Common Core Standards
Core standards for English Language Arts and Math have been signed onto by
46 states so it is logical to compare on these standards to the Linguistic and Logicalmathematical intelligences. Reading and Writing standards for Science and
History/Social Studies and Technical subjects are also available.
Like Multiple Intelligences theory, the Core standards are “frameworks of
cognition” rather than models for curriculum and instruction. There are no required
standards for creating lesson plans just like MI does not prescribe instruction. Of course,
due to the characteristics of each model there are suggestions and unwritten implications
for teaching that are open to interpretation.
English Language Arts (ELA)
Each of the standards begins with a general introductory statement followed by
defining Anchor standards. The Introduction to ELA includes seven principles. There are
four “strands” for ELA: Reading, Writing, Speaking/Listening and Language. Each
strands contains descriptions of content and thinking skills to be achieved by various
grade levels.
Mathematics
Math standards begin with an Introduction and then are broken into two main
categories. First, are eight Math Practices that describe thinking skills and behaviors
associated with effective math performance. These are followed by grade level
expectations for achievement in defined domains such as number, operations,
measurement, etc.
The Other Core Standards
While you have most probably heard a near constant admonishing, muttering and
grumbling about the Common Core State Standards, you may only be peripherally aware
that there exists an equally compelling, but much less influential set of National Core
Arts Standards. These arts standards articulate a set of expectations to promote high
quality education in five arts disciplines. While the CCSS addresses “core academic”
content such as English Language Arts, Math, Science and Social Studies; the Arts
Standards describe expectations for performance in “core” art disciplines: Dance,
Theatre, Music, Media and Visual Arts.
The first set of National Arts Standards were first developed in 1994 with the goal
of improving arts education by helping educators “…throughout the nation work with
common “ends in mind” – a unified set of worthy goals for students as they move from
grade to grade, instructor to instructor, school to school, or community to community.”
(p.12)
9
My entry into the world of CCSS has been through the lens of the Core Arts
Standards (2013). Arts educators have been proactive in analyzing how CCSS might
impact arts programs in schools. They want to avoid the marginalization of the arts as
“irrelevant” to student success when CCSS is fully deployed. This happened as a result of
NCLB and they believe it is preventable if it can be demonstrated that the Core standards
are not incompatible with arts classes.
Defining features of the National Core Arts Standards conceptual framework
includes Philosophical Foundations and Lifelong Goals (see Appendix 3) such as
Communication, Personal Realization and Wellbeing. Also included are four
fundamental creative practices: Imagine, Investigate, Construction and Reflection (see
Appendix 4). These practices are in addition to “developing functional competence in
manipulating the basic elements, principles, and vocabulary” of their respective artistic
discipline (p.15).
Common Core State Standards Compared to Arts Standards
After a very careful and detailed analysis of CCSS compared to the Core Arts
standards, the College Board authors make a strong argument that an arts education will
increase students’ academic competency and develop of the kind of thinking skills
embedded in the Core standards. They advise arts educators to be proactive in explaining
and demonstrating to their academic colleagues how students’ art training will promote
student success—not distract from it. This stands in stark contrast to the dominant
opinion in schools during the reign of NCLB that resulted in the narrowing of curriculum
and elimination of arts classes from the curriculum in favor of “test prep.”
Of course, the authors of the report do not minimize the importance of each art
form on its own terms, but instead they show very clearly how the knowledge, habits and
thinking skills that are needed by artists have direct and specific connections to the Core
standards. Yes, there are differences, but the type and number of connections is
significant. In fact, the authors go on to advocate that arts educators use the CCSS as
template to evaluate some of the content and processes embodied in their own curriculum
to “up their game” – cognitively speaking. Too often arts classes are viewed as being
“fluff” or lacking in cognitive content. It is recommended that both teachers and students
learn to use the vocabulary of CCSS to highlight the value of the cognitive skills inherent
in their work—while maintaining the integrity of their discipline as a creative, artistic
expression. Arts teachers may be unaware of; minimize, or unable to describe the
cognitive process involved in all aspects of art creation. Becoming familiar with the
CCSS language can assist with this awareness to the benefit of both teachers and
students.
The next section will briefly describe the relationship of Core Arts standards to
their to Common Core counterparts. CCSS will then be compared in detail to the
Multiple Intelligences.
10
English Language Arts Connections to Core Arts Standards
Arts educators have been among some of the strongest proponents of a Multiple
Intelligences-inspired curriculum and schools since 1983. Arts teachers appreciate that
MI values divergent thinking and the “creation of products” as intelligent behavior that
are missing from a convergent thinking, IQ-based academic view of intelligence. For
example, the creation of a poem or folk tale is on par with a literary critique or scientific
report. If the Core standards can include both traditional academic instruction as well as
teaching in the various arts then their alignment with a Multiple Intelligences curriculum
will be affirmed. The following analyses were obtained from the College Board’s 2013
report for the National Coalition for Core Arts Standards (NCCAS).
A content analysis of the ELA standards for Reading finds 50 of some 220
standards that make direct references to arts-based learning. This includes instances such
as “read a story, drama, or poem.”
A content analysis of the ELA standards for Writing finds 8 of some 110
standards that make direct references to arts-based learning. This includes instances such
as “drawing, writing and dictating…”
A content analysis of the ELA standards for Speaking and Listening finds 16 of
some 66 standards that make direct references to arts-based learning. This includes
instances such as “use of digital media, drawing or visual displays.”
A content analysis of the ELA standards for Language finds only one reference
to arts work because this standard is focused mainly on proper grammar and English
usage.
When the ELA standards are compared to a set of cognitive skills associated with
arts-based practices, that are also essential aspects of the Multiple Intelligences thinking,
(Imagine, Investigate, Construct and Reflect) a great many overlaps are observed. Of the
48 different components of the CCSS standards, the following numbers of connections
for each of the skills are reported: Imagine= 27; Investigate = 36; Construct = 28 and
Reflect = 43.
From these data we can easily see how CCSS are focusing on “thinking skills”
that also happen to be integral in artistic production. However, the authors describe a
crucial point of divergence between CCSS and arts standards: “…the Common Core
materials simply didn’t address such themes as personal well-being, creative personal
realization, and community engagement as directly as the Arts Standards framework did
(emphasis added).” p. 15.
Only the Art as Communication standard was noted to be aligned with Math
Practice standards in terms of Lifelong Goals, but “…all four Creative Practices were
strongly represented throughout the Standards for Mathematical Practice. Evidence of
reflection was found in all eight standards; references to investigation were found in
seven standards; and links to imagining and to construction were identified in six of the
eight standards (p.14).”
11
Common Core State Standards Comparisons with Multiple Intelligences
A fundamental difference between CCSS standards and NCLB is the added
emphasis on “rigorous thinking skills” versus simply content and basic skill
memorization. If the “rigor” of the Core standards mirrors the essential definition that
underpins each of the eight intelligences, e.g., “ability to solve problems or create
products that are of value in a culture” then the standards will be Good News for Multiple
Intelligences inspired teachers and schools. The Bad News remains to be discovered.
The English Language Arts standards are compared below with several of the
Multiple Intelligences. This analysis will be followed by a comparison among Math
standards and MI. These examinations of the theoretical comparisons will be followed by
a discussion of implications for instruction and curriculum planning.
English Language Arts Standards Connections with Multiple Intelligences
An overview of skills associated with ELA and MI reveal an excellent fit with
many aspects of the Linguistic intelligence and a number of instances where the Logical
(analyis) and the Interpersonal (others’ point of view) and some Spatial (visual data,
media, displays) are included. A few comparisons with metacognitive skills associated
with Intrapersonal (reflect, self-directed learning) are also observed.
Detailed comparative analysis between ELA Introduction and the four ELA
anchors (Reading, Writing, Speaking/Listening and Language) and MI follow. The
following five tables provide a breakdown of MIs matched to anchor standards content.
The full text of the standards that are color coded are displayed in Appendix 5 - 10. The
instances of connection other than for Linguistic are color coded: red= Logical;
green=Interpersonal and Blue = Intrapersonal.
Reading Standards Introduction
This analysis begins with a review of the Reading Introduction that describes
seven general principles underpinning the Anchors. Table 1 summarizes the logical
connections between Reading and several MI domains.
This content review confirms that the seven principles are consistently matched to
the Reading, Writing and Speaking functional aspects of Linguistic intelligence. A lesser
number of connections are observed for Logical followed by Interpersonal and
Intrapersonal.
12
Table 1. Reading Introductory Principles and MI
Reading
Multiple Intelligences
Introduction
Principles
Ling Reading Writing Speaking Logical Inter Intra
X
X
X
X
2
1
3
1.
X
X
X
X
1
2.
X
X
X
X
X
1
3.
X
X
X
X
3
1
4.
X
X
X
X
2
1
1
5.
X
X
X
X
2
1
6.
X
X
X
X
4
1
7.
Principles for ELA
1. Students can, without significant scaffolding, comprehend and evaluate complex texts.
2. Students establish a base of knowledge across a wide range of subject matter.
3. Students adapt communication in relation to audience, task, purpose, and discipline.
4. Students are engaged and open-minded—but discerning—readers and listeners.
5. Students cite specific evidence when offering an oral or written interpretation of a text.
6. Students employ technology thoughtfully to enhance their reading, writing, speaking.
7. Students come to understand other perspectives and cultures.
The Reading anchors are well matched to the Reading domain of the Linguistic
intelligence with a great many connections to the Logical-math intelligence. Significantly
fewer matches are observed with Writing, Speaking and Interpersonal (Table 2).
Table 2. Reading Standard Anchors and MI
Reading
Multiple Intelligences
Anchor Ling
Reading Writing Speaking Logical Inter Intra other
X
X
X
X
2
1.
X
X
X
2
2.
X
X
1
1
3.
X
X
2
4.
X
X
2
5.
X
X
1
1
6.
X
X
X
7.
X
X
2
X
8.
X
X
1
1
9.
X
X
1
1
10.
Reading Anchors
1. Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly
2. Determine central ideas or themes of a text.
3. Analyze how elements of text develop and interact over the course of a text.
4. Interpret words and phrases as they are used in a text.
5. Analyze the structure of texts.
6. Assess how point of view or purpose shapes the content and style of a text.
7. Integrate and evaluate content presented in diverse media.
13
8. Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text.
9. Analyze how two or more texts address similar themes or topics.
10. Read and comprehend complex literary and informational texts.
Six of the ten Writing anchors are matched with the Writing domain of Linguistic
intelligence but, interestingly, there are a greater number of matches with Logicalmathematical thinking. Only two matches are found with Inter and Intrapersonal (Table
3).
Table 3. Writing Standards and MI
Ling
Reading Writing
Standard
Speaking
Logical Inter Intra
1.
2.
3.
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
1
1
1
4.
X
X
1
1
5.
X
X
1
6.
X
X
7
X
1
8.
X
1
9.
X
1
10.
X
1
X
Writing Anchor Standards
1. Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics.
2. Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas and
information.
3. Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events.
4. Produce clear and coherent writing.
5. Develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, etc.
6. Use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing.
7. Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects.
8. Gather relevant information from multiple print and digital sources.
9. Draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and
research.
10. Write routinely over extended time frames.
14
Six of seven Speaking and Listening standards are matched with the oral language
aspect of Linguistic intelligence. Again, a great number of matches are with Logical-math
thinking followed by several Interpersonal matches. Four references to other intelligences
are observed (Table 4).
Table 4. Speaking and Listening Standards with MI
Standard Ling
Reading Writing Speaking Logical Inter Intra Other
1.
2.
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
2
2
1
4
X
X
1
1
5
X
6
X
X
7.
X
X
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
Speaking and Listening Anchor Standards
1. Prepare for and participate effectively in a range of conversations.
2. Integrate and evaluate information presented in diverse media.
3. Evaluate a speaker’s point of view, reasoning, etc.
4. Present information, findings, and supporting evidence such that listeners can follow.
5. Make strategic use of digital media and visual displays of data.
6. Adapt speech to a variety of contexts and communicative tasks.
The Language standards are focused on the correct use of English language
conventions such as grammar. These seven standards are all matched with Lingustic
intelligence. Additional matches are fairly evenly scattered among the Reading, Writing
and Speaking functions of Linguistic intelligence.
Table 5. Language Standards and MI
Standard Ling
Reading Writing
1
2
3
X
X
X
X
X
4
X
5
X
6
X
X
7
X
X
Speaking
Logical Inter Intra
X
X
1
1
X
X
15
Anchor Standards for Language
1. Demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English
2. Demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English capitalization,
punctuation, and spelling.
3. Apply knowledge of language to understand how language functions in different
contexts.
4. Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning words and
phrases
5. Demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships, and nuances.
6. Acquire and use accurately a range of general academic and domain-specific words
and phrases.
Summary
The ELA standards are well-matched with general Linguistic intelligence and its
functional aspects. The pragmatic, everyday use of oral language for speaking and
listening are included in CCSS in addition to the academic skills of reading and writing.
There is a hint of some of the more creative aspects of language use for story-telling,
poetry, but the standards are predominantly focused on the academic, analytical language
functions. This is evident in the frequently observed matches with Logical-math
intelligence.
Mathematics Standards and MI
The CCSS Math standards have two broad sections, Skills and Practices. These
two parts nearly mirror the dual aspects of the Logical-mathematical intelligence. The
skills standards focus on computations and calculations and are nearly perfectly matched
to Mathematical aspect of Logical-mathematical intelligence. The Practices standards are
most associated with the Logical aspects of Logical-mathematical intelligence.
The eight Math Practice standards are compared below to various Multiple
Intelligences. As expected, these standards are most closely associated with the Logical
and Problem-solving aspects of the L-M intelligence. This is followed by a meaningful
number of connections with Intrapersonal thinking. A few connections with Linguistic,
Interpersonal, Spatial and Naturalist are observed. Also evident are personality
characteristics and habits of thinking that promote math success.
16
Table 6. Math Practice Standards and MI
Math
Practice
Standard
Multiple Intelligences
1.
2.
3.
LogicMath
X
X
X
4.
X
5.
X
6.
X
7
X
8.
X
Calc
Logic
ProbSolve
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ling Inter Intra other
1
?
X 3
X
X
2
X
X
1
X
X
3
X
X
1
1
X
X
2
X
Mathematical Practice Standards:
1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.
2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively.
3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.
4. Model with mathematics.
5. Use appropriate tools strategically.
6. Attend to precision.
7. Look for and make use of structure.
8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning
Discussion
As models of cognitive abilities, MI and CCSS share a number of important
connections; in particular, the academic/analytical aspects of the Linguistic and Logicalmathematical intelligences. Detailed descriptions –anchors – for these two core academic
subjects also show connections with two other closely related intelligences, e.g.,
Intrapersonal and Interpersonal. It is interesting to note that research has demonstrated
(Shearer, 2007) that these four intelligences are those that are most directly correlated
with overall academic achievement.
The Core standards for Language Arts abilities share with Linguistic intelligence
the goal of promoting “understanding” of written and spoken language. Where CCSS
ELA standards and MI differ is that Linguistic intelligence includes both creative as well
as analytic performances. Creative output is minimal in the ELA standards which are
dominated by logical analysis. While the ELA standards mention the pragmatic use of
17
spoken language, they are predominantly concerned with academic reading and writing.
The creative story-teller, strong oral negotiator and lyric poet may not fare well on ELA
tests because of their emphasis on reading and written analysis.
The Core standards for Math Skills and Practices are closely aligned with abilities
described by the Logical-Mathematical intelligence. The assessment of Math Skills by
CCSS tests should be fairly straight forward, but there is some question regarding how
Math Practices will be assessed. These more general, abstract abilities are open to various
interpretations and the mode of presentation could make a meaningful difference in
student performance. For example, written problems may favor students strong in the
Linguistic intelligence while visual problems will draw on the Visual-spatial intelligence.
It is doubtful if more “real life” problems involving the Interpersonal, Kinesthetic and
Naturalist Math Practices will be employed during web-based testing. The gardener,
handyman, mechanic or carpenter with strong Math Practices may be disadvantaged on
web-based tests.
Another notable difference between the Core standards and MI is in the
Intrapersonal intelligence. The metacognitive aspects of Intra find their way into some of
the Math and ELA descriptions in the form of “reflection” but the richness of selfunderstanding embodied in the Intra definition is missing from CCSS. This coincides
with the observation that CCSS does not include “personal well-being or creative
personal realization and community engagement” as described by Core Arts standards.
Implications for Common Core State Standards on Instruction
Basically, the Core standards are detailed descriptions of what students are
expected to learn for language arts and math at each grade level. They are frameworks of
knowledge and thinking skills that are intended to guarantee that students will be “college
and career ready” by the time of graduation from high school. This goal is primarily
operationalized as the ability to think analytically in the use of language and
mathematics. This means that lesson plans need to incorporate regular doses of the
Linguistic intelligence and Logical aspect of the Logical-mathematical intelligence across
the curriculum. Additionally, including the Intrapersonal, Interpersonal and, to a lesser
extent, the Spatial intelligence in lessons will be advantageous to develop students
“thinking skills.” The remaining three intelligences (Musical, Kinesthetic and Naturalist)
are only tangentially related to the Common Core standards.
Perhaps like me and you’ve heard that CCSS is both Good News and Bad News
for educators. The Good News is that CCSS is a definite improvement over NCLB
because they focus less on the mere memorization of “content” and more on “thinking
skills” and “doing.” To me they move the expectations up a level or two on Bloom’s
taxonomy to expect less information and more Understanding, Application and Analysis.
This is the good news. The Bad News might be revealed when the proposed web-based
tests are implemented. Will they be time hogs? Will schools once again structure a
standardized curriculum around the standards? Will so much time and energy be devoted
to learning the core standards so that minimal time is invested in helping teachers to
18
design appropriate curriculum? Will we once again hear, “Oh, we can’t deal with MI
because we’re too consumed preparing our students to take the Common Core
assessments”? I hope not.
After digging into the standards I am happy to say that, in my view, a Multiple
Intelligences-inspired curriculum would be a wonderful way to ensure that all students do
well in attaining these lofty and “rigorous” goals. In fact, it seems to me that the CCSS
writers might have had a project-based curriculum in mind when they devised them.
Perhaps not….but, it is possible.
The other Bad News might be that the proposed “rigorous” expectations may be
drastically different from what happens in many current classrooms that have been
tailored to meet the heavy “content” expectations of NCLB testing. The Core standards
describe both content as well as thinking skills that students are expected to master. It
will be interesting to see how these two realms are played out in the web-based tests
designed to measure them.
What Kind of Curriculum?
Even though the Core standards claim not to be or advocate for any specific
curriculum, there remains much consternation regarding the kind of curricular changes
necessary to meet these standards. If the move is away from drilling students on specific
content to be memorized then how will the curriculum need to be modified to advance
students’ “abstract thinking skills”?
McTighe and Wiggins are well-known for their influential book, Understanding
by Design (1998). In a related article offering advice on CCSS implementation (2012),
they warn educators not to slavishly design their curriculum around specific components
of each standard. But, instead, it is necessary to “translate the Common Core standards
into engaging and outcome-focused curriculum…to insure clarity about the end results
and an understanding of how the pieces fit together.”(p.4) More specifically, “Thus, the
first quesstion for curriculum writers is not: What will we teach and when should we
teach it? Rather the initial question…must be goal focused: Having learned key content,
what will students be able to do with it?” (p. 7, bold emphasis added)
The authors of the Core ELA standards emphasized that the new standards were
different from the old content standards in this way, “While the Standards delineate
specific expectations in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language, each
standard need not be a separate focus for instruction and assessment. Often, several
standards can be addressed by a single rich task.” (p. 5, bold emphasis added).
Rich Tasks
Advising curriculum writers to create “rich tasks” that include the specific content
standards is well aligned with both an Arts education and Multiple Intelligences inspired
curriculum. Both approaches typically make heavy use of multi-layered projects and
19
performances. An example of this distinction is clearly described by Lyn Cannaday in her
piece published in Education Week titled, A Happy Tale from a Common-Core
Classroom. In this article she contrasts her old curriculum for typical students that
“focused mostly on simple grammar and memorizing literary terms” with CCSS activities
that “developed a deeper understanding of a complex issue” and “how words engender
power.” See Appendix 11.
Cannaday makes an interesting observation of an ELA curriculum that will meet
CCSS standards, “The job of teachers is to guide students to be shrewd consumers of all
types of language.” It is obvious that her students will only become “shrewd consumers”
of language if she has done her job of creating a “shrewd” set of language tasks. In other
words, if you want thoughtful students who can reason abstractly then you need a
thoughtful curriculum that progressively builds towards greater degrees of abstract
thinking. A cut-and-paste curriculum from a catalogue of skills will not build the kind of
reasoning abilities described in Common Core standards.
The Challenge of a Rigorous Thinking Curriculum: Three Approaches
How will these “high standards” be achieved when students populate our
classrooms with a wide range of abilities in the target skills: Linguistic and Logicalmathematical? If we have achieved minimal success increasing test scores with a testfocused curriculum, then aren’t we setting up our students and teachers for failure and
frustration by setting the academic bar at an even higher level?
This is where the usefulness of an Arts curriculum and the Multiple Intelligences
can be employed to leverage achievement. Each of the eight intelligences are “tools” that
can provide students with a strength-based entry into a “rich task.” A danger of a
“rigorous” curriculum that demands abstract thinking is that it will be too rigid and thus
demoralizing to all. It is worth noting that the root of the word “rigorous” is “rigor” with
an original meaning of stiff with implications of harsh, strict and severe. A severe
curriculum is antithetical to our goal of engaging students in meaningful tasks that will
engender persistence, self-discipline and precision.
We have found too often that teachers cannot demand thoughtfulness or high
performance from students. We must be more “shrewd” in our curricular designs if
students are to become engaged learners who aspire to high standards and dare to be be
creative. Based on the preceding analyses, three general strategies have been identified to
engage students in “rich tasks” that require the use of ever increasingly “rigorous”
thinking strategies. The first is a choice of Arts / Technical curriculum; the second, is a
curriculum that is focused around a “rich project or performance;” and the third, is using
each students’ MI strength in a cooperative learning group activity.
Arts-Technical Based Curriculum
David Coleman, one of the CCSS authors, has written persuasively about how
seven principles can guide the successful implementation of an arts-technical program so
20
that students’ develop the Math and ELA skills described in the Core standards. See
Appendix 12. These principles go a long way towards bridging the oft perceived gap
between an arts or technical education. Indeed, they describe a seven step ladder that
would raise the bar so that arts students develop technical proficiency and technical
students would bring creative thinking into their efforts.
Coleman’s principles for the arts are not directed at technical education per se but
they do provide a framework that can guide the merger of two national initiatives: STEM
and STEAM. The drive to enhance America’s economic and industrial position in the
world has given rise to a political effort to increase funding and emphasis in education on
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). In response, arts educators
(and others) argue that future innovations will only be possible if students receive healthy
doses of the arts and rigorous opportunities to develop their own creativity. Advocates of
expanding from STEM to STEAM to include arts in the curriculum cite Steve Jobs as the
guiding light because he changed the world with design-inspired technology. “Jobs
described himself and his colleagues at Apple as artists” (Pomeroy, 2012). Of course
Leonardo Da Vinci and many other noted artists and scientists bridged both realms.
There are several notable elements in Coleman’s seven principles for arts
education. First, there is a practical focus on career development (“The choices artists
make shape their specific works as well as their careers.” Principle #6). Second, they
connect high level cognitive skills and thinking habits required for success in any subject
to arts training (“The arts reward sustained inquiry and provide a perfect opportunity for
students to practice the discipline of close observation whether looking at a painting or
lithograph, watching a drama or a dance, or attending to a piece of music.” Principle #1)
Principle #4 highlights how arts study can inform students about a culture, teamwork and
expand their understanding of cultural diversity (“This requires students to develop a new
set of skills including the ability to work with diverse teams that can be international in
nature to address creative solutions that can be facilitated by the deep study of the arts.”
The overall message is that an arts-technical program must expect students to
think both abstractly, carefully and creatively as they create solutions, design products
and solve meaningful problems. This message blurs the normally rigid line between the
arts and the technical sciences. The challenge for teachers is that it requires much careful
pre-planning and thinking outside the conventional framework that may value convergent
problem solving over divergent thinking, or vice versa. To accomplish this may require
interdisciplinary collaboration and cross-discipline communication among subject area
teachers in a way that is at odds with the school’s bureaucracy and departmental
organization.
The chief advantage of an arts-technical program is that students’ may be
intrinsically motivated to perform at a more self-disciplined and rigorous level for three
reasons. First, they are in the program by choice and this in and of itself increases inner
motivation. Second, their chosen art form should be matched to their MI strengths and
thus provide numerous opportunities to receive positive reinforcement as skills are
rapidly developed. Third, because the art-tech program has an obvious career path it
21
offers students a clear view of a viable adult role that has both intrinsic and extrinsic
value to one’s self and the community.
Rich Projects / Performances
As noted previously, a learning task, project or performance that is sufficiently
complex and multi-layered will both engage and challenge students. From my experience
and research into project-based curriculum, when a task requires four or five different
intelligences to successfully accomplish, it will be both inviting and rigorous. Such
complex projects or performances provide most students with the opportunity to use his
or her strength to accomplish the task.
An example will serve to illustrate how this works. A typical poetry assignment
requires each student to find a poem that she or he likes, and then write or deliver an oral
report on why this is a good poem. An MI-inspired project would require a small group
of students to work together to find a poem that they all think is good. Their task would
be to teach the whole class about this poem and how it successfully uses various poetic
devices. They would be required to use at least four or five different intelligences when
they teach it to the whole class. The teacher can specify certain required intelligences
(leaving some optional) as well as provide a self-scoring rubric that students would use to
rate how well they covered the essential poetic core concepts.
MI-Inspired Cooperative Learning
There are several benefits observed when students are able to use one or more of
their MI strengths to engage with a difficult skill or topic. First, intrinsic motivation will
be enhanced. Second, students can be directed to see how to apply their cognitive
strengths to think and perform at a more sophisticated and complex level. This is the
essence of the “strengths vs. deficits” approach. Students’ self-worth, esteem and
confidence will be enhanced when a weakness is approached strategically via a strength.
This may require some creative thinking that will build students’ ability to transfer the
new learning to diverse situations and circumstances. This process is fundamental to
rigorous thinking required by the Core standards for both Language Arts and Math.
This strengths-based approach is the basis of a cooperative learning curriculum
that allows students to work with other students who share their particular MI strength to
engage the curriculum. Two research-based projects have examined the effectiveness of
MI groups to build academic skills. The MI Reading Comprehension (Shearer, Reith and
Riolo, 2012) project demonstrated that students’ reading skills and enthusiasm for
reading improves when they work together on strength-based reading tasks several times
per week. The RADAR Project was created to direct students to use their strengths to
understand and solve complex Math Story Problems (Shearer, 2013).
22
Conclusion
The characteristics that define a high quality education have long been a matter of
great debate. This report reviewed three powerful models of human thinking; their
relationship to each other and their instructional implications. Many intersections and
areas of agreement among these three models have been documented. Differences and
divergences have also been noted. What is striking is that they are not incompatible with
each other. In fact, taken together they are also neatly aligned with the 21st Century Skills
Framework. Three different curricular approaches have been described that demonstrate
how to integrate Core standards with an MI-inspired arts (or technical) curriculum.
The Core standards describe two aspects of intelligence (Linguistic, Logicalmathematical) that are important to success that are readily subjected to quantitative
assessment. Testing only these two aspects of academic skill make it easier for 50 diverse
states to sign on to the standards as a common yardstick. However, it would be a very sad
school, indeed, that limited its definition of success to these two intelligences.
Contemporary schooling has come a great distance since the days when the three Rs ruled
the curriculum. These are essential skills, yes, but insufficient. Every school and
classroom now must choose from a smorgasbord of curricular activities and objectives.
The writing of a mission statement and a strategic plan take on even greater importance
in the face of the abstractions embedded in the Core Standards.
Abstract concepts such as “beauty,” “quality,” “career readiness,” “intelligence”
and “rigor” are nebulous and require detailed explanations and descriptions in order to
anchor their meaning. Their meanings are dependent upon cultural context for full
understanding by individuals. How educators are going to work to achieve specific
objectives tied to these terms needs guidance and very detailed planning among
colleagues. McTighe and Wiggins wisely advise educators to spend a considerable
amount of time talking together about the meaning of the Core standards for their schools
and classrooms. They also offer sage counsel that educators begin to interpret the
standards by “keeping the ends in mind” and asking themselves: What will students be
able to do with this skill or knowledge?
This question is more easily answered when instruction is embedded in “real life”
projects, performances and artistic activities. The common cognitive links among these
activities are the Multiple Intelligences. The eight intelligences provide a shared,
common-sense language that brings to life the kinds of thinking that everyone agrees will
make students “college and career ready.” A unique but not unusual addition to the
equation is Intrapersonal intelligence. When this ability is made an explicit component of
an educational curriculum, then students will be able to apply their new learnings directly
to their “real lives” and find career paths that will make the best use of their intellectual
strengths. There may be no sure-fire educational program for all students but when “high
standards” for a “thinking curriculum” are embedded in a personalized, “rich curriculum”
then we are making great strides toward being both inclusive and rigorous.
23
Recommendations
The new, more “rigorous” expectations in student performance on tests of
language and mathematics pose several dangers, challenges and opportunities for
teachers and school administrators. The immediate danger is that schools will double
down on previously failed efforts to narrow the curriculum, bloster test prep and rely on
“drill and kill” instruction to drive students toward higher expecations that they think
more abstractly, deeply and carefully.
The challenge to schools and teachers is to envision a thorough and long-term
staff development process that will bring along all teachers (students and parents, too) to
work together step-by-step building the habits and skills that will engage students in rich
tasks. A second challenge is to plan for the long-term and not get rushed into “quick fix”
solutions. We should have learned by now that there are no short-cuts to high quality
teaching and curriculum. The school tree cannot bear fruit when we focus all of our
attention on the “core” without regard to the leaves, roots and blossoms.
The opportunity to enlist the rigorous, creative thinking of arts classes in guiding
students toward more self-disciplined, abstract thinking is now within sight. This vision
will promote true inter-disciplinary communication and collaboration that is a hallmark
of high quality schools. The opportunity to engage students who are not the academic
stars via their unique strengths in rich and engaging projects is available. The opportunity
to integrate the “whole brain” (the academic intelligences as well as creative, practical
thinking) in every classroom is a real possibility.
Lastly, we now have good reasons to infuse the Intrapersonal intelligence
systematically into students’ daily lives. Compelling evidence demonstrates that the
explicit use of metacognitive tools and emotional self-management promotes high level
performance. If we fail to embrace these opportunities, then it will surely be a rough and
rocky road ahead as the dangers and challenges overwhelm our drive for a positive
change.
Note.
1. It is informative to compare academic test scores on the NAEP between two
time periods as reported in the 2013 Trends in Academic Progress: pre-nation-wide
testing (1971 – 1982) and post-NCLB (2004 – 2012). Students’ test scores in both
Reading and Math did not decrease between 1971 and 1982 but, instead, actually
improved slightly in Reading for all three age groups (9, 13 and 17 years). Math scores
did fall by 5 points for 17 year olds but increased by 3 points for 13 year olds and
remained the same for 9 year olds.
There is an average increase of 3 points in Reading scores pre-testing and an
increase of 5 points post-testing. Interestingly, most of this increase occurs in the first few
years after the onset of testing (+3) and then minimal progress (+1.7) is observed in the
next four year period.
Performance on Math tests over the same two periods is more postive for 9 and 13
year olds (pre-testing gain +1.5; post-testing gain +5) but these gains disappear for 17
year olds where there is only a +1 increase between 2004 and 2012. The other good news
24
is that the slide in Math scores for 17 years old between 1973 and 1982 (-6 points) is
stopped between 1982 and 1999. However, no further progress is observed after this date.
We need to conduct a “cost vs benefits” analysis to determine our massive
investments in a nation-wide testing program are truly effective and beneficial to the
overall health of our schools.
References
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived Self-Efficacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28, (2) 117 – 148.
Cohen, E. (Sept.,1998) Making Cooperative Learning Equitable. Educational Leadership,
56, (1) 8-21.
Coleman, D. Guiding principles for the arts- Grades K – 12. Downloaded
http://usny.nysed.gov/rttt/docs/guidingprinciples-arts.pdf
Duckworth, A., Seligman, M. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic
performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16, (12) 939 – 944.
Framework for 21st Century Learning, Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Washington,
DC. Retrieved www.P21.org
Gardner, H. 1983/1999. Frames of mind. NY:NY, Basic Books.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Retrieved 6-10-13
http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/index.html
Guisbond, L. with Monty Neill and Bob Schaeffer. (January 2012). No Child Left Behind
10th Anniversary Report. NCLB’s Lost Decade for Educational Progress:
What Can We Learn from this Policy Failure? Fair Test. The National Center for
Fair & Open Testing. Jamaica Plain, MA. Retrieved 6-12-13.
http://www.fairtest.org/NCLB-lost-decade-report-home
Hall-Haley, M. (2004). Learner-Centered Instruction and the Theory of Multiple
Intelligences With Second Language Learners. Teachers College Record.
(Special issue). Teachers College Record, 106(1), pp. 163 -180.
Hoerr, T. R. (1994). How the New City School applies the multiple intelligences.
Educational Leadership, 52(3), 29-33.
McTighe and Wiggins, G. 2012. From Common Core Standards to Curriculum:
Five Big Ideas. Retrieved 5-22-13
http://grantwiggins.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/mctighe_wiggins_final_common
_core_standards.pdf
25
Miller, J. (Oct. 9, 1991). Report Questioning 'Crisis' in Education Triggers an Uproar,
Education Week.
National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium
(NASDCTEc). Common Career Technical Core. Retrieved 6-12-13.
www.careertech.org/career-technical-education/cctc/
National Center for Education Statistics. 2013. The Nation s Report Card: Trends in
Academic Progress 2012 (NCES 2013 456). Institute of Education Sciences,
U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.
National Coalition for Core Arts Standards (NCCAS), 2013. The Arts and the Common
Core: A Review of Connections Between the Common Core State Standards and
the National Core Arts Standards Conceptual Framework. The College Board.
Retrieved 5-22-13. http://nccas.wikispaces.com/Common+Core+Alignment
National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for
Education Reform (Washington, DC – U.S. government Printing Office, 1983).
Retrieved 5-22-13.
http://datacenter.spps.org/uploads/sotw_a_nation_at_risk_1983.pdf
National Core Arts Standards: A Conceptual Framework for Arts Learning,
Retrieved 5-22-13
http://www.arteducators.org/research/national-coalition-for-core-arts-standards
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in
History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. Washington D.C. Downloaded.
9-18-13.
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/introduction/key-design-consideration
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
Pomeroy, S. 2012. From STEM to STEAM: Science and Art Go Hand-in-Hand.
Scientific American. Blog, Aug. 2012. Retrieved 5-22-13
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/08/22/from-stem-to-steam-scienceand-the-arts-go-hand-in-hand/
Ravitich, D. (September 29, 2011) School ‘Reform’: A Failing Grade.
New York Review of Books. Retrieved 6-12-13.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/sep/29/school-reform-failing-grade/
Shearer, C.B. (2009). Exploring the relationship between intrapersonal intelligence
and university students’ career confusion: Implications for counseling, academic
26
success, and school-to-career transition. Journal of Employment Counseling. 46,
52 – 61.
Shearer, C. B. (2012). Cross cultural factor analytic studies of a multiple intelligences
self-assessment. International Journal of Educational and Psychological
Assessment. (12) 1. https://sites.google.com/site/tijepa2012/vol-11-2/vol-12-1
Shearer, C. B. (2007). The MIDAS: Professional manual. Kent, Ohio: MI Research and
Consulting, Inc.
Shearer, B. (2009). MI at 25: Assessing the impact and future of multiple intelligences for
teaching and learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
Shearer, C. B. 2013. The RADAR program to build elementary students’ math story
problem solving skills. Retrieved 5-22-13
http://midas-math.wikispaces.com/
Shearer, Reith, S. & Riolo, A. (2012). Reading intervention supporting science content:
MIDAS-Driven intervention for at-risk reading using multiple intelligences
strengths to differentiate a 4th grade science curriculum. The Ohio School
Psychologists Journal. 58 (1).
Strauss, V. (Posted at 12:00 PM ET, 01/07/2012) A decade of No Child Left Behind:
Lessons from a policy failure. The Washington Post. Retrieved. 6-12-13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/a-decade-of-no-childleft-behind-lessons-from-a-policy-failure/2012/01/05/gIQAeb19gP_blog.html
27
28