Common Core

[Arkady]

like you, if i was given a multiple choice quiz on "common core" educational elements, i'd probably be unable to tell what ones were included.

that said, without having encountered common core, my "lean" is favorable. as a secular person i'm in favor of teaching science based evolution, not creationism.

as literature major in college, i'd like to see more actual literature taught at the high school level, not short stories written by the staff of textbook publishers designed to check all the blocks for environmentalism, diversity, etc.

history is likely to be controversial. was japan justified in attacking pearl harbor because it feared that america might someday threaten its transpacific oil sources? are russia's current actions towards the ukraine justified because it used to be part of the soviet union? how about if you consider that it "ukraine" was considered part of poland before 1939?

not sure what languages should be part of "common core". i'd hate to see only spanish make the list. my daughter selected french at her school, but was put into spanish class because they have LOTS of spanish teachers, but very few french or latin. this is called "supply driven" education, rather than demand driven (customer demand or market demand).

if you find a good website that tells what will be in our out of common core, please post it in PJ.

Here are the standards:

http://www.corestandards.org/

I haven't been through them in any detail, but it looks like it's very high-level guidance, rather than detailed lists of what is to be instructed. For example, here's the general guidance for what kind of material should be used for reading instruction:

To become college and career ready, students must grapple with works of exceptional craft and thought whose range extends across genres, cultures, and centuries. Such works offer profound insights into the human condition and serve as models for students’ own thinking and writing. Along with high-quality contemporary works, these texts should be chosen from among seminal U.S. documents, the classics of American literature, and the timeless dramas of Shakespeare. Through wide and deep reading of literature and literary nonfiction of steadily increasing sophistication, students gain a reservoir of literary and cultural knowledge, references, and images; the ability to evaluate intricate arguments; and the capacity to surmount the challenges posed by complex texts​

And here's what they say 6th graders should be able to do, in the context of reading literature:

• Cite textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.
• Determine a theme or central idea of a text and how it is conveyed through particular details; provide a summary of the text distinct from personal opinions or judgments.
  
• Describe how a particular story’s or drama’s plot unfolds in a series of episodes as well as how the characters respond or change as the plot moves toward a resolution.
  
• Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative and connotative meanings; analyze the impact of a specific word choice on meaning and tone.
  
• Analyze how a particular sentence, chapter, scene, or stanza fits into the overall structure of a text and contributes to the development of the theme, setting, or plot.
  
• Explain how an author develops the point of view of the narrator or speaker in a text
• Compare and contrast the experience of reading a story, drama, or poem to listening to or viewing an audio, video, or live version of the text, including contrasting what they “see” and “hear” when reading the text to what they perceive when they listen or watch.
• Compare and contrast texts in different forms or genres (e.g., stories and poems; historical novels and fantasy stories) in terms of their approaches to similar themes and topics.
• By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature, including stories, dramas, and poems, in the grades 6–8 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range.

 

[connieb]

it's wierd... take 72 + 42. rather than the classic columnar adding and carrying over and so forth.. it's this hodge podge of arcs and groupings..and...yeaaaargh....

I was giving my son (1st grade) various addition and subtraction problems while we were waiting for my DD to be done with dance. It was a few levels ahead of where he is in his work. They are still only adding and subtracting 10's in class and we were doing hundreds and thousands. And, this mom said to me.. that's really now how they learn it now, and I said, well, this is how I teach it. If it comes down to it... we may have to do the same route as my sister in law. Because, as much as our public schools are currently very good. I am really concerned about the dumbing down I am seeing and getting more and more concerned as we continue through school.

 

[PhilFish]

I was giving my son (1st grade) various addition and subtraction problems while we were waiting for my DD to be done with dance. It was a few levels ahead of where he is in his work. They are still only adding and subtracting 10's in class and we were doing hundreds and thousands. And, this mom said to me.. that's really now how they learn it now, and I said, well, this is how I teach it. If it comes down to it... we may have to do the same route as my sister in law. Because, as much as our public schools are currently very good. I am really concerned about the dumbing down I am seeing and getting more and more concerned as we continue through school.

yeah.. it's funny.. we sort of teach in parallel. he gets the school's way... then the 'right' way..at home. we've contemplated changing to a private. alas....$$$..

 

[Arkady]

my exposure to common core thus far is via guiding my son through his assignments (2nd grade..).. I find the approaches to mathematic ciphering idiotic and confusing. the reading requirement...limiting.

The criticisms I've seen of the mathematic approach is that it starts with a focus on high-level understanding before teaching rote computation, whereas most people from earlier generations learned it the other way around. For example, I know that I could mechanically do long division before I really had an instinctive feel for what division was really about. I have no strong stance on that, either way. I can see a certain logic to giving people the overall understanding first (through work such as teaching them to estimate answers), before teaching them mechanical methods to get a precise answer. But I can also see value in doing it the other way around.

I'd say the same for history. You could teach it either way -- start with themes and overall developments, before getting into much detail; or start with having people memorize a lot of dates and people, before showing them how they fit together in a big picture. I was taught the latter way. I knew, for example, that the Norman conquest was in 1066 before I really had an overall picture of what the middle ages in Europe were about. Or, for another example, I could have told you that the Spanish Armada was sunk in 1588, before I had any idea about the counter-reformation, which really drove that attempted invasion.

 

[Arkady]

it's for brainwashing kids into liberalism............

Is this related to Common Core? As I understand it, some people claimed that was required reading for fourth graders in Illinois. However, I've also seen it said it was merely a school library book:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/22/o...rth-graders-that-white-americans-are-racists/

Either way, I'm not aware of Common Core mandating ANY particular book. Do you have some indication otherwise?

 

[PhilFish]

The criticisms I've seen of the mathematic approach is that it starts with a focus on high-level understanding before teaching rote computation, whereas most people from earlier generations learned it the other way around. For example, I know that I could mechanically do long division before I really had an instinctive feel for what division was really about. I have no strong stance on that, either way. I can see a certain logic to giving people the overall understanding first (through work such as teaching them to estimate answers), before teaching them mechanical methods to get a precise answer. But I can also see value in doing it the other way around.

I'd say the same for history. You could teach it either way -- start with themes and overall developments, before getting into much detail; or start with having people memorize a lot of dates and people, before showing them how they fit together in a big picture. I was taught the latter way. I knew, for example, that the Norman conquest was in 1066 before I really had an overall picture of what the middle ages in Europe were about. Or, for another example, I could have told you that the Spanish Armada was sunk in 1588, before I had any idea about the counter-reformation, which really drove that attempted invasion.

i follow. but you see... absent the 'instinctive feel' derived from rote repitition.. what results is a slew of second graders unable to decipher 'the basics' of addition, subtraction, etc.. without having to resort to arcs, bumps, and varied circles on a piece of paper.. it's ..frankly...odd.

 

[resident_evil]

I like issues that break up the usual tribal left/right divide, so I'm curious what people here think about Common Core. At least traditionally, lots of conservatives supported the idea of having firm educational standards and standardized testing. Until Obama came out in favor of Common Core, the concepts behind it were widely supported on the right. Now that it is seen as "Obamacore," though, there's widespread conservative opposition, who treat the voluntary standards as federal over-reach on state perogatives. Meanwhile, liberals were traditionally very suspicious about attempt to quantify and standardize learning, and especially about standardized testing and anything that tied the hands of classroom teachers. But now that it's identified with Obama, many more are supportive.

How about those here? I'm not very familiar with the exact details of the guidelines, so I can't comment on those, in terms of what they're calling to be taught and what methods they recommend. However, I do agree with the idea that there should be consistent national guidance on what is to be taught in each grade, and best practices for methods, all building towards an expectation of readiness for college or the workforce, and with the use of standardized testing for quality control. That was my view before Obama signed on and remains my view now. How about you?

Some months ago I looked into what common core was. I found nothing about the alleged standards on the internet. Maybe worth another go.

State standardization (in testing alone) is different than federal standardization.

 

[Arkady]

good point - maybe common core should come with some sort attached studies showing which instructional methods have the greatest success. i'm old school - phonics based reading, rather than sight reading.

I learned with phonics, too. But, like you, I'm mostly interested in what actual studies show to be most effective. I'm wary of being some fuddy-duddy who thinks that any methods that are different from the ones that were around when I was a kid must be worse. I remember that, myself, from when I was a kid. Adults were constantly rolling their eyes about "the new math," which we were being taught, which differed from the way they'd learned math (which had a much greater emphasis on rote arithmetic rather than more abstract understanding). I'd leave this stuff to the leading professional educators, with the only political instruction being that they rely on effectiveness studies rather than naked theories, in deciding what works best.

 

[connieb]

yeah.. it's funny.. we sort of teach in parallel. he gets the school's way... then the 'right' way..at home. we've contemplated changing to a private. alas....$$$..

Indeed. Certainly cost prohibitive. There is a "classical" charter school that is getting very popular. The whole "classical" part is sort of going back to a classical education program all the way around. From studying the great philosophers, to early introduction to a second language, etc. We are considering it. Transportation is an issue though but they hope to start a bus route, which may make it a possibility.

 

[Arkady]

Kids did fine and the country was at the top in learning until they stopped phonics and began new math. After finding "new math" was somewhat of a failure, instead of reverting back to the basics, they began throwing money at the problem....continuing to this day. My advice: Go back to basics and teach.

One thing to keep in mind is that the US didn't decline in education, but rather that the other countries moved ahead faster than us. In pretty much any like-to-like comparison of average educational accomplishment in the 1950s to today, students of today come out ahead. Our educational system got better.... it's just that the rest of the world's educational system got better faster. So returning to what we used to do could, conceivably, make the situation even worse.

Prior to 1971, there weren't any rigorous and consistent tests of educational accomplishment, so it's tough to compare one period to another. But if you use IQ tests, you'll see that IQs were rising pretty steadily in the US throughout that era. It's called the Flynn effect. You'll also see falling illiteracy rates.

From 1971 onward, we have the NAEP tests, and they show that today's kids outscore the 1971 kids at every age level, for both Math and Reading.

That's all the more noteworthy when you remember that the racial mix changed greatly over that time (as, for example, black dropout rates fell dramatically, so that the percentage of 17 year old in school who were black rose, and as there was a wave of immigration from Latin America). Thus, people who wouldn't even have been measured before were getting measured. If you control for race, you'll find a huge trend towards educational improvement in this country over the last 40-some years:

https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/main2012/pdf/2013456.pdf

Reading scores are up 4 points for whites, 30 for blacks, and 21 for Hispanics. Math scores are up 4, 18, and 27, respectively.

So, I'd be very wary about the idea that by rolling back our educational methods to something used in prior eras we'll see an improvement. Instead, I'd recommend looking abroad to countries that surged ahead of us in recent decades, and figure out what THEY'RE doing differently. Finland, South Korea, Japan, and Canada would be good places to start that review.

Here's an analogy to point out the problem with the "back to basics" approach. Say the coach of the Chicago Cubs looks at the fact that his team used to be a powerhouse, back in the early history of major league baseball (16 pennants before 1946), and now they're perennial losers (not a single pennant since then). So, he revives the nutrition and exercise regimes the team used in 1907 and 1908, when it won back-to-back championships. Would you expect good results?

 

[Charcat]

One thing to keep in mind is that the US didn't decline in education, but rather that the other countries moved ahead faster than us. In pretty much any like-to-like comparison of average educational accomplishment in the 1950s to today, students of today come out ahead. Our educational system got better.... it's just that the rest of the world's educational system got better faster. So returning to what we used to do could, conceivably, make the situation even worse.

Prior to 1971, there weren't any rigorous and consistent tests of educational accomplishment, so it's tough to compare one period to another. But if you use IQ tests, you'll see that IQs were rising pretty steadily in the US throughout that era. It's called the Flynn effect. You'll also see falling illiteracy rates.

From 1971 onward, we have the NAEP tests, and they show that today's kids outscore the 1971 kids at every age level, for both Math and Reading.

That's all the more noteworthy when you remember that the racial mix changed greatly over that time (as, for example, black dropout rates fell dramatically, so that the percentage of 17 year old in school who were black rose, and as there was a wave of immigration from Latin America). Thus, people who wouldn't even have been measured before were getting measured. If you control for race, you'll find a huge trend towards educational improvement in this country over the last 40-some years:

https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/main2012/pdf/2013456.pdf

Reading scores are up 4 points for whites, 30 for blacks, and 21 for Hispanics. Math scores are up 4, 18, and 27, respectively.

So, I'd be very wary about the idea that by rolling back our educational methods to something used in prior eras we'll see an improvement. Instead, I'd recommend looking abroad to countries that surged ahead of us in recent decades, and figure out what THEY'RE doing differently. Finland, South Korea, Japan, and Canada would be good places to start that review.

Here's an analogy to point out the problem with the "back to basics" approach. Say the coach of the Chicago Cubs looks at the fact that his team used to be a powerhouse, back in the early history of major league baseball (16 pennants before 1946), and now they're perennial losers (not a single pennant since then). So, he revives the nutrition and exercise regimes the team used in 1907 and 1908, when it won back-to-back championships. Would you expect good results?

Where in the HELL did you get that information? My straight-A, graduated with highest honors while taking advanced courses in high school, and now a college student, grandson still comes to me with questions about grammar. He never learned phonics in school and very little grammar, although he is exceptional in writing skills and has written a couple of unpublished books.

Of COURSE other schools moved ahead after we dumbed down our educational systems. What would you expect?

 

[Arkady]

i follow. but you see... absent the 'instinctive feel' derived from rote repitition.. what results is a slew of second graders unable to decipher 'the basics' of addition, subtraction, etc.. without having to resort to arcs, bumps, and varied circles on a piece of paper.. it's ..frankly...odd.

Understood. Like I said, I don't really have a view on it. I would, however, caution against jumping from "it's odd" to "it's worse." It's entirely possible that a method that strikes people as odd and annoyingly indirect, if it isn't the way they learned, produces better fundamental understanding and long-term results. I'd rely on quantitative studies of effectiveness. I'm not sure what those say about it. I'm open to the idea that this is a misguided fad, which should be trashed as soon as possible, but I'm also open to the idea that it's a real improvement. I'm hoping to find some studies to sway me one way or the other.

 

[Arkady]

Some months ago I looked into what common core was. I found nothing about the alleged standards on the internet. Maybe worth another go.

State standardization (in testing alone) is different than federal standardization.

I favor federal standardization. I grew up a military brat, and it was frustrating and inefficient to move from one state to another when they were each using their own standards, uncoordinated with any others. For example, I might get the same exact material in one subject twice, once in fifth grade in State A then again in sixth grade in State B, wasting my time, and meanwhile I'd find myself drowning trying to pick up some subject in State B which was being taught with the assumption I'd already had some precursor materials the prior year, like my classmates, when in fact my prior state didn't cover that. It's just not an efficient way to teach a population when so many people move from state to state.

 

[PhilFish]

Understood. Like I said, I don't really have a view on it. I would, however, caution against jumping from "it's odd" to "it's worse." It's entirely possible that a method that strikes people as odd and annoyingly indirect, if it isn't the way they learned, produces better fundamental understanding and long-term results. I'd rely on quantitative studies of effectiveness. I'm not sure what those say about it. I'm open to the idea that this is a misguided fad, which should be trashed as soon as possible, but I'm also open to the idea that it's a real improvement. I'm hoping to find some studies to sway me one way or the other.

yes, i agree. but then what if quantitave measures coem 5 years from now... and theyre shit.

:-/

I have to assess and adjust now. not years from now when someone or other decides..whoopsie. meanwhile..hoping for the best doesnt cut it.

 

[resident_evil]

I favor federal standardization. I grew up a military brat, and it was frustrating and inefficient to move from one state to another when they were each using their own standards, uncoordinated with any others. For example, I might get the same exact material in one subject twice, once in fifth grade in State A then again in sixth grade in State B, wasting my time, and meanwhile I'd find myself drowning trying to pick up some subject in State B which was being taught with the assumption I'd already had some precursor materials the prior year, like my classmates, when in fact my prior state didn't cover that. It's just not an efficient way to teach a population when so many people move from state to state.

I got to move around some. Math and reading comprehension were core everywhere I went. The only thing I got screwed out of was a good education in grammar in that moving.

I guess it isn't to late for that. ;0)

 

[Arkady]

Where in the HELL did you get that information? My straight-A, graduated with highest honors while taking advanced courses in high school, and now a college student, grandson still comes to me with questions about grammar. He never learned phonics in school and very little grammar, although he is exceptional in writing skills and has written a couple of unpublished books.

Of COURSE other schools moved ahead after we dumbed down our educational systems. What would you expect?

I provided the NAEP link, showing the way student test performance improved since 1971, across all age groups and subjects, as well as each ethnic group. Here's a link on the Flynn Effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Here's the data on rising percentages with four years of high school:

I don't see any sign that we've dumbed down education here. Instead, I see a sign that we're educating an ever larger portion of our population, with better test results to show for it.

 

[Arkady]

yes, i agree. but then what if quantitave measures coem 5 years from now... and theyre shit.

:-/

I have to assess and adjust now. not years from now when someone or other decides..whoopsie. meanwhile..hoping for the best doesnt cut it.

My hope is they already have data from places that tried this before it was rolled out broadly.

 

[resident_evil]

My hope is they already have data from places that tried this before it was rolled out broadly.

What they did in Massachussets in the 90's apparently worked a wonderful turn around. What they are doing today in common core is antithetical to that is my understanding.

 

[Dawg]

Is this related to Common Core? As I understand it, some people claimed that was required reading for fourth graders in Illinois. However, I've also seen it said it was merely a school library book:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/22/o...rth-graders-that-white-americans-are-racists/

Either way, I'm not aware of Common Core mandating ANY particular book. Do you have some indication otherwise?

Yep:

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/04/08/common-core-lesson-teaches-that-america-is-a-racist-nation/

just on News at 5..NC Senate fixing to kick Common Core to the curb.......

 

[Arkady]

I got to move around some. Math and reading comprehension were core everywhere I went. The only thing I got screwed out of was a good education in grammar in that moving.

I guess it isn't to late for that. ;0)

I went to seven schools in five states, between kindergarten and high school graduation, so I got jerked around quite a bit by the lack of a coordinated national curriculum. I spent half my time bored out of my skull, getting redundant information, and the other half feeling like I must be a total idiot because I'm the only one in the class who is struggling with material.

That kind of state-by-state, or even county-by-county curriculum-setting made perfect sense when nearly all students spent their whole educational careers and maybe even their whole lives within a tiny geographic area. But in modern America, when so many travel so frequently and widely, it's just not a good way to do things. Plus, it results in high school diplomas that are largely meaningless to anyone who isn't local, since there's no way for an out-of-state university or employer to have a decent idea what kinds of things had to be learned to get that diploma.