Let's take a double dip on Common Core this morning!
Teacher Michael Larson thinks it will take five years for textbook and testing companies to start marketing a replacement for Common Core. If we're lucky, that replacement will include a push for more music education, which, unlike the constant churn of education standards, is shown by research to improve educational achievement:
The results of an independent research study on the benefits of music education in Nashville clearly show that Metro students engaged in music programs outperform their peers on every indicator – grade point average, graduation rate, ACT scores, attendance and discipline.
...In addition to the above findings, students who participated in music programs reported more positive attitudes and behaviors in their personal lives and in school. They had a strong sense of identity, developed positive academic habits, applied musical skills to other academic courses, saw themselves as more motivated in school and reported positive effects on their mood – essentially feeling “happier” because of music [Metro Nashville Public Schools, "Researchers Find Link Between Music and Academic Performance," Children First, 2013.11.22].
Common Core focuses on math and English, crowding out music and other courses that enrich students' lives. Whistle while you work, kids!
Cory, I absolutely agree that music (and all fine arts), sharpen students' minds.
What I do not see is how you make the jump to your last conclusion that Common Core standards in Math and English crowd out Music in the schools' curriculum. Can you explain that leap?
Has the issue of state requirements and/or funding crossed over into the things to blame Common Core for? Did the "old" standards for Math and English promote Music at a higher level than Common Core does?
Happy to explain, Steve: What I've seen is that professional development time revolves so much around Common Core math and English that we crowd out time that other disciplines might use to improve their specific lessons. A lot of the conversation is about showing how our alternative disciplines support the math and English objectives. I'm all about interdisciplinarianism, but the conversation never goes the other way, asking the math and English departments to spend time showing how their activities support the music curriculum. Resources get focused on one area, and we lose opportunities for others.
That resource drain is perhaps no worse now than in past reform cycles. But it remains a drag on letting teachers in each discipline stand and thrive and work their wonders.
I again agree that the focus on schools' professional development (for those willing to even make commitments to development) is on the core subjects of Math and English. Math and English are the "tested" subjects both at state (Dakota STEP) and national (ACT) so become the focus of school "accountability." I also agree that this is a short-sited focus that loses the big picture of the value of education. I cannot take the leap to blame this on Common Core. It is too easy now to say all ills of education are the fault of the Common Core Curriculum; that is unfair, and a bit intellectually lazy. Worse yet, by placing blame on the wrong actor, the real problem is allowed to continue unabated.
Music and Fine Arts ought to play a bigger role in education. Let us advocate for that honestly and not use Common Core standards as a scape goat for that mature discussion. Ending Common Core now in SD schools will not increase the importance of Music.
A frustration I have is how little Common Core opponents objections really have to do with the reality of what Common Core changes. Any and all educational and social boogiemen have been dug out of the closet of horror, trotted out, and attached to Common Core. It distracts from real discussion.
Yeah... but I've heard that music tends to lead to vegetarianism, so how is that good for SD???
The pressure to decrease fine arts in schools far pre-dates Common Core, and comes from a different source. It's the money, or the year-upon-year of inadequate funding of education, that forces reductions in fine arts, and in other good programs, like debate. The pressure of the know-nothings, who have been on a financial jihad against public education for decades, has taken a huge toll in many areas.
The connection between music and basic math skills has been demonstrated in research literature for decades, but scholarship is not something that the know-nothings care about, or they elevate junk science and ignore real science. For example, Gov. Janklow was a big fan of giving new parents Mozart CDs to play to their babies, then stripping school funding down to the point where schools felt the need to reduce music programs. Talk about stupidity.
CAH, we had better find the money and ways to teach our kids fast. The latest in is that we are not doing so good compared with others around the world. http://gallery.mailchimp.com/de3259be81e52e95191ab7806/files/PISA_2012_results_US.pdf
It is clear that the Chinese kids and Korean Kids are clearly doing much better in math. It probably started with their parents and that is why their parents were able to do the arithmetic in the EB-5 program to see they were getting fleeced before the final exam.
Donald, I would also be willing to bet all the money in my pocket that the organized groups against Common Core are not putting effort toward increasing school funding. So many of these groups want to "save schools" by doing anything EXCEPT providing the resources schools need to flourish.
I've seen testimonials that the Common Core elementary math workbooks are so confusing that parents with Math degrees can't understand them.
Jesus, Bree, you're naive. Understand that the "common core workbooks" are NOT Common Core standards. They are simply products marketed by for-profit companies, which may or may not correctly or efficiently interpret the Common Core Standards.
There are tons and tons of shoddy curriculum products out there, whether it's labelled Common Core or not. A lot of it is generated by people who donate to conservative candidates. They'll have the same content (but maybe a different cover) in books that they market to Christian schools who want nothing to do with the Common Core standards.
Here is a review of the Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Kindergarten Common Core Math Workbook by Gary Rubenstein, a two-time recipient of the Math For America master teacher fellowship (see his About Me).
http://garyrubinstein.teachforus.org/2013/11/26/my-daughters-kindergarten-common-core-math-workbook/
He describes the math problems as "useless" and "not accomplishing much."
-----------------------------------------
Here is a critique of Common Core math standards for K-3 by a professor of early child education and a teacher.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/01/29/a-tough-critique-of-common-core-on-early-childhood-education/
from the article:
"We reviewed the makeup of the committees that wrote and reviewed the Common Core Standards. In all, there were 135 people on those panels. Not a single one of them was a K-3 classroom teacher or early childhood professional.
It appears that early childhood teachers and child development experts were excluded from the K-3 standards-writing process."
-----------------------------------------
Here is another post bringing up developmental appropriateness of Common Core math standards by New York's 2013 High School Principal of the Year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/11/09/why-young-kids-are-struggling-with-common-core-math/
from the article:
"Many of the other tasks involve less abstraction, but are highly difficult. They are interesting questions that make adults stop and think. But as Piaget told us, children are not 'mini-adults.' If a child is not developmentally ready, these problems will likely lead to frustration, discouragement and negative emotional reactions—which is exactly what parents are reporting."
-------------------------------------
Here is a 3rd grade Common Core Math "number sense" problem, posted by Long Island Meteorologist with Math Minor. It doesn't make sense to him.
https://twitter.com/hoffmanrich/status/384806802262470656/photo/1
-------------------------------------------
Another Common Core Math Problem posted by frustrated parent:
https://twitter.com/mom2lexcole/status/392811958883602432/photo/1
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xQbjvy1iSH0
Cheers, Mr. Pay.
http://www.longislandpress.com/2013/11/29/li-parents-teachers-revolt-against-common-core/
from above article from Long Island Press:
...................................................
Principals statewide are also taking a stand. An open letter to parents from nine principals authored on Nov. 16 and signed by more than 3,100 principals of New York schools reads: “We know that many children cried during or after testing, and others vomited or lost control of their bowels or bladders. Under current conditions, we fear that the hasty implementation of unpiloted assessments will continue to cause more harm than good. Please work with us to preserve a healthy learning environment for our children and to protect all of the unique varieties of intelligence that are not reducible to scores on standardized tests.”
Calamia, the social worker, says that the influx of children who have come to her seeking therapy for stress and anxiety has increased exponentially with the implementation of Common Core. It was the same thing, repeatedly: self-mutilation, such as the 8-year-old child who picks the skin off of his face.
Calamia declares Common Core standards developmentally inappropriate.
“There’s a part of the brain called the prefrontal cortex, where all abstract thought comes from,” she explains. “And that is developing until age 24. It isn’t fully developed even in adolescence. The curriculum right now is like asking a fish to fly. And try as it might to grow wings, that fish is going to be ashamed of its gills. I heard of a young lady who carved the word ‘stupid’ into her wrist after she got her math assessments back.”
Every kid needs a well-rounded education including music, physical activities, maths, science, history, reading, writing. The whole deal. Give them anything less and you cheat them for life.
Puuuuph...Bree, you are very, very confused. Please do a little research before just cutting and pasting stuff. "Common Core Standards," marketing of curriculum that purports to be "common core" and high stakes standardized testing are three completely different subjects. You have rolled everything up into one little ball. It's, unfortunately, what the right tends to do, because they don't have the knowledge or desire to understand anything at depth.
Yes, the use of standardized testing is a conservative idea that is simply not appropriate in the way it has been implemented. But that has been true since the 1980s when conservatives decided to force more and more standardized testing onto public education. There is a place for standardized testing, but its best used in a way different from how the conservatives and some supporters of Common Core want to use it.
Donald, are you suggesting that the entire state of New York is using "shoddy curriculum products," and that it was conservatives in New York that created the standardized testing that principals, teachers, parents, and students are upset about? I don't think I'm the one that's confused and naive and needs to do some research. If you read the article you would see this comment:
..................................................
“The real agenda,” alleges Rella, “is to so shake confidence in public education and destroy it. Withhold funding, pile on unfunded mandate after unfunded mandate, make it impossible for public schools to get the job done. Once that happens, well, then the solution is, ‘Close them down. We need private schools. Privatize for profit.’ It’s not a big jump.”
.................................................
Does that sound like an angry conservative to you? Union teachers, principals, and superintendents are upset about Common Core.
Yes, Bree. I am suggesting that private companies and consultants foist shoddy products (curriculum and standardized testing), not just on New York, but on everyone. And, yes, over the last thirty years all of these failed "education reform" efforts have been led, principally by conservatives, joined by the DLC (ie., corporate) Democrats.
Common Core was different. Although it had corporate backing, it also had education professionals in the lead. That is why I have said on Madville Times that I agree with the Common Core Standards, which had good input from educators, but that implementing any curriculum has to be done carefully and over time at the local level, using local education professionals.
I absolutely agree with this statement your post: “The real agenda,” alleges Rella, “is to so shake confidence in public education and destroy it. Withhold funding, pile on unfunded mandate after unfunded mandate, make it impossible for public schools to get the job done. Once that happens, well, then the solution is, ‘Close them down. We need private schools. Privatize for profit.’ It’s not a big jump.”
That is exactly the path that has been followed for thirty years by conservative politicians.
The Washington Post blog you cited actually indicates that New York rushed the process of implementation of curriculum from the top down. You can't do this sort of reform in a quick, top-down way.
Some of the more abstract math concepts would, for instance, better by introduced at a young age through play activities, group activities and/or modeling. Kids are capable of a lot more than we realize, and the idea that abstract thought is not possible in children is just not correct.
I just read some info about all the testing today, must have been in the Strib. The article said that the testing emphasis developed based on Microsoft's employee evaluation process.
It's here:
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/234155131.html
This is Microsoft's method: "The Microsoft model, called “stacked ranking,” forced every work unit to declare a certain percentage of employees as top performers, then good performers, then average, then below average, then poor."
Microsoft is abandoning stacked ranking because it decimated Microsoft employees.
The problems of Common Core are the fault of conservatives. The problems of Obamacare are the fault of conservatives. Every failed Democrat program is somehow the fault of conservatives.
Newsflash: New York is not a conservative state.
Donald Pay:
"I agree with the Common Core Standards, which had good input from educators,.."
Professor of early childhood development:
"We reviewed the makeup of the committees that wrote and reviewed the Common Core Standards. In all, there were 135 people on those panels. Not a single one of them was a K-3 classroom teacher or early childhood professional."
That makes sense Deb considering the involvement of the Gates in pushing for Common Core Standards.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/11/24/more-states-delay-common-core-testing-as-concerns-grow/
Bree, very sleigh - slipping in the implication that Common Core is a Democratic program. This is my issue with the new right, it is their complete reliance on the big lie. Keep repeating an un-truth over and over. Ignore the counter facts that fly in the face of your assertion, and keep telling the lie.
You have an issue withDemocrats - fine. You even had a couple of founded concerns about Common Core - fine (although I agree with Donald that you are confusing standards and the application of those standards - curriculum). But you do not get to lump them together in the same pool - that's not fine; it is deceitful and has to stop. It cheapens thoughtful debate and discussion of the issues. If facts do not guide discussion then what will? And what value is any decision made when fact is absent?
Ok, auto-correct conspired to made a awesome seasonal, Freudian slip I noticed after I posted: I meant "sly" not "sleigh."
Jerry mentioned the new PISA scores. Here is a good piece that puts those scores, Common Core, social influences on education, and school reform into some perspective:
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/12/pisa_results_american_kids_did_not_do_well.html
Common Core was endorsed by Obama and has been more strongly supported by Democrats than Republicans. It may be somewhat oversimplified to call it a "Democratic" program but it is not dishonest anymore than calling "No Child Left Behind" a Republican program since it was pushed by Bush. That doesn't mean "No Child Left Behind" wasn't supported by Democrats, but I wouldn't have a problem with anyone calling it a "Republican" program.
It wasn't sly of me. I think both the Democrat's Common Core and the Republican's No Child Left Behind are awful federal programs that in no way improve education.
It is ridiculous for you to take affront to the recognition that Common Core is a progressive big government federally mandated program (is that more accurate for you?) not supported by conservatives, that has never been supported by conservatives. We'd just as soon get rid of the entire U.S. Department of Education. The fact that Common Core is a progressive program does not demonstrate that I "have an issue with Democrats."
You have now called me sly, said I am reliant on a "big lie," said I am repeating un-truths, telling lies, have issues with Democrats, am deceitful, cheapening thoughtful discussion, and apparently ignoring "facts" since you bring that word up three times -- all in two paragraphs and all because I called Common Core a Democratic program -- and meanwhile you haven't addressed any of the FACTS I have posted regarding the concerns of parents, educators, and early education and childhood development experts regarding Common Core standards (not application).
Rather than continuously attack my integrity due to your affront at my calling Common Core a Democrat program, why don't you explain how application of standards can be the problem rather than the STANDARDS themselves when:
"It appears that early childhood teachers and child development experts were excluded from the K-3 standards-writing process." - Nancy Carlsson-Paige, professor emerita of early childhood education at Lesley University.
"This is my issue with the new right, it is their complete reliance on the big lie."
This statement doesn't even make any sense. What New Right? Buckley and Goldwater? They're dead, and their harp-playing doesn't rely on whatever Big Lie you're talking about. Surely you don't mean "Common Core is a Democratic Program" is a Big Lie?? Please.
Great article Steve O'Brien. I think that this is the money shot for sure, "Maybe the takeaway from PISA shouldn’t be that Common Core is the answer, but rather that we need a comprehensive approach to educating and caring for our poorest children in order to close the achievement gap between rich and poor in this country, and between American students and their developed-nation peers."
Of course, new republicans hate this kind of thinking because with that, they will have to take precious pennies from their rich benefactors in the form of tax increases, boo hoo. I would say that with Obamacare coming in to save billions and wars winding down, maybe we can find some money to pay teachers a living and change the way we do education and go from the bottom up instead of the top down. Oh, and one of the most important, deny new republicans the vote to keep America suppressed starting with NOem, she has got to go. Her sitting with the kids complaining about the chow was just a little much for someone who chooses to deny them the very food and education she blathers about. NO More NOem!
Well, you can't argue facts with the righties. They don't recognize facts as facts. So, Bree, fine, believe your nonsense, but don't try to b.s. others.
This righty attack on the Common Core Standards is very similar to the way the right has operated on environmental issues, where they have an entire public relations industry geared up to produce "junk" science and puff pieces that selectively cut and paste from articles. Rather than start with facts, they start with a theory and then construct the "facts" around the theory.
Hey, I've lived through thirty years of conservative attacks on public education. I've also lived through about the same amount of time of conservative attempts to privatize public education. What conservative don't like are not a top-down imposition of standards or curriculum. That's exactly what they want. They just don't want teachers or people other than ideological conservatives to be in charge. It's about power, not about education for the conservatives. It always has been.
Bree, "Surely you don't mean "Common Core is a Democratic Program" is a Big Lie?? Please."
Yes Bree, that is exactly the Big Lie I refer to. Just like smearing the ACA as "Obamacare" there has been a clear procession to demonize the President and use his very name to poison the well of actions. The No Child Left Behind Act was a Republican President's federal program because it was signed into law - federal law - by a Republican President. Common core, although national, is not federal because it was never signed into federal law (by a Democrat or Republican). It is not a law or an act. 45 states and countless locals have adopted those standards.
Bree, will you acknowledge here and now that Common Core is not federally mandated, states and locals may choose to follow or not follow these standards, that the standards do not expressly dictate curriculum of teachers - only the goals their students much achieve, and President Obama neither wrote these standards not did he mandate them personally?
Okay, nothing but the Victim Card. It gets old. Alright let's just say all the problems with Common Core (and Obamacare apparently) are caused somehow by Republicans and conservative attacks and move on. Yes, "federally mandated" is the wrong word to use, how about "strongly suggested" Lol. It is still a progressive Big Government program.
It looks like Alaska, Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia are holdouts. Good for them.
Clearly it is pointless to ask the majority of liberals to accept any responsibility for liberal programs, the response will be the pointing of fingers at conservatives and claims of attacks and sabotage somehow being the cause of the poor results of liberal programs. So, rather than get into such a blame game, tell me what you think of the quotes I have posted above that demonstrate serious problems with the STANDARDS of Common Core, which demonstrates that the program itself is flawed due to the lack of input from educators and childhood development experts.
I have the opportunity to home school my children, and choose my own non-Common Core programs. I can teach Right Start Math, Singapore, Saxon. I can teach Charlotte Mason, Montessori... whatever I want. Poor children attending the majority of public schools don't have that option. We already lose enough children in the early years due to the lack of connection to the way math and reading are taught in public schools already - kids who develop no confidence in their abilities and intelligence and grow up thinking they're stupid when they're not. Now Common Core makes it worse with "developmentally inappropriate" curricula that are so depressing to children that they end up at the therapist's office and some have committed self-mutilation. Read the articles above and stop defending a bad program. When teachers call Common Core "child abuse" you have a problem. And even if you got rid of the standardized testing completely (and it seems that several states are putting that off due to problems) the curriculum is still inferior. Why spend taxpayer's money replacing already less than flexible teaching methods and curriculum with even worse teaching methods and curriculum? Why are we spending tax dollars to buy new textbooks and workbooks that education experts (who weren't consulted when writing the standards) say are developmentally inappropriate, and are not based on research or developmental science?
"When the standards were first revealed in March 2010, many early childhood educators and researchers were shocked. 'The people who wrote these standards do not appear to have any background in child development or early childhood education,' wrote Stephanie Feeney of the University of Hawaii, chair of the Advocacy Committee of the National Association of Early Childhood Teacher Educators.
The promoters of the standards claim they are based in research. They are not. There is no convincing research, for example, showing that certain skills or bits of knowledge (such as counting to 100 or being able to read a certain number of words) if mastered in kindergarten will lead to later success in school. Two recent studies show that direct instruction can actually limit young children’s learning. At best, the standards reflect guesswork, not cognitive or developmental science."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/01/29/a-tough-critique-of-common-core-on-early-childhood-education/
Bree, I am not putting the "blame" of Common Core on anyone.
You are unwilling to let up the lie. You give a crack of hope for truth, "Yes, 'federally mandated'" is the wrong word to use" then immediately recant, "It is still a progressive Big Government program." There is no "big government" behind the adoption - unless you consider local school boards, "big government" or the state has suddenly become "big government" upon replacing current state standards with Common Core.
As far as wasting money on new books and curriculum, certainly there are districts guilty of that. That is caused by trying to take a shortcut - not allowing teachers time and resources to develop the lessons that they, as professionals, know will work. Instead the lesson in the box is the answer for time and on the cheap. That is a time we agree that top down dictates tend to fall short of achieving desired results.
Now let's look at your argument about your choice to not do Common Core (and set aside how you are allowed "choice" under the "Big Government mandate"). I honestly find your experience teaching compelling in this debate. What did you choose not to do? What standard of Common Core did you see that did not fit with what you hope to achieve with your children. What can you point to that the teachers who have adopted these new standards will try to achieve that you have personally rejected as bad for your children/students?
The Slate article I linked to previously talked about how some schools were achieving the standards did cause stress for kids. It also explained that through play (their term), anxiety could have been eliminated and the standard still met. Bad application doesn't make the standards bad.
I truthfully would love to see a real debate on the standards - you can provide that very thing by saying Math standard X is bad and I have chosen to do Y instead. Show us.
1) It is absolutely a Big Government progressive program.
2) You can't teach to Common Core standards without new Common Core-aligned textbooks and workbooks. Or are you recommending teachers "develop lessons" out of thin air - and would they keep their jobs doing so.
3) Explain the logic of completely ignoring several times in a row the several quotes from childhood development experts critiquing Common Core standards and responding with "what is my teaching experience." What to you think of this statement:
'The people who wrote these standards do not appear to have any background in child development or early childhood education,' wrote Stephanie Feeney of the University of Hawaii, chair of the Advocacy Committee of the National Association of Early Childhood Teacher Educators.
Tru dat.
"We reviewed the makeup of the committees that wrote and reviewed the Common Core Standards. In all, there were 135 people on those panels. Not a single one of them was a K-3 classroom teacher or early childhood professional.
It appears that early childhood teachers and child development experts were excluded from the K-3 standards-writing process."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/01/29/a-tough-critique-of-common-core-on-early-childhood-education/
1) good.
2) chromebooks. thank bill janklow for being a technocrat.
3) blue states are already doing it and leading scores:
http://www.npr.org/2013/03/17/174197245/reminder-our-memories-are-less-reliable-than-we-think
oops. funny though.
http://www.npr.org/2013/12/03/248320179/pisa-tests-results-in-u-s-are-sobering
Now, why should current public school curriculum and teaching standards that have been working, if not perfectly, be replaced with Common Core standards and curriculum that were developed by people without early education or childhood development experience - and why should we spend taxpayer money to replace working standards with Common Core standards that have no basis in research and developmental science?
This longread just passed my twitter feed: reading it now.
http://prospect.org/article/homeschool-apostates
Cute, Larry. A desire to teach your kids that the world was created 6,000 yrs ago is not the only reason to home school. Some of us just want the freedom and flexibility to let our children explore reality without mind-shackles and rigid standards.
As a founding listener and devotee of Bill Janklow’s idea of public radio for 37+ years, my affirmation was cemented by this story:
In ’97, I performed my first of six seasons as Mother Ginger in the Black Hills Dance Theater’s production of the Nutcracker; Vanessa Shortbull danced the Sugar Plum Fairy. On opening night, her dad brought her likely centenarian grandmother backstage before the show to watch her warm up. The vision of three Sicangu generations attending a Tchiachovski ballet was all it took for me to understand how public media funds bridges.
Give generously this solstice.
Bree,
1. Repeat the big lie and ignore the uncontested facts - well done.
2. I am teaching the Common Core (11th Grade English) using non-common core text books. In fact we elected to keep the same texts we were using before the Common Core adoption. You again purposefully confuse standards and curriculum. By the way, I also sat in on DOE's roll out of the standards and helped to write example lessons to teach several of the standards. I do not even use my own examples (they did inspire me to do different things to meet the standards). I am therefore apparently both "big government" and rebelling against it (by using my choices as a teacher). As of this afternoon, I have not been fired for doing this; in fact my district funded curriculum time for us to develop the lessons we will use to meet the goals (they may even be on-line).
3) The Washington Post article you linked to says: "The statement’s four main arguments, below, are grounded in what we know about child development—facts that all education policymakers need to be aware of:
1. The K-3 standards will lead to long hours of direct instruction in literacy and math. This kind of “drill and grill” teaching has already pushed active, play-based learning out of many kindergartens.
2. The standards will intensify the push for more standardized testing, which is highly unreliable for children under age eight.
3. Didactic instruction and testing will crowd out other crucial areas of young children’s learning: active, hands-on exploration, and developing social, emotional, problem-solving, and self-regulation skills—all of which are difficult to standardize or measure but are the essential building blocks for academic and social accomplishment and responsible citizenship.
4. There is little evidence that standards for young children lead to later success. The research is inconclusive; many countries with top-performing high-school students provide rich play-based, nonacademic experiences—not standardized instruction—until age six or seven.
Allow me to answer. Objections 1,3, and 4 all center around the delivery of instruction - the methods for teaching. They do NOT focus on the standards. Bad teaching practice is bad teaching practice no matter the standards. Common Core does not mandate these practices. I believe there are teachers embracing poor practice, that is now, was then, and will be true no matter the standards. That is also a different discussion unrelated to Common Core. You again use Common Core as the scape goat for all school ills and that is deceptive.
As to objection 2: here you are on the wrong end of the chicken and egg causality. Common Core does not require more testing as much as the requirement for more testing (see the PISA discussion above) result in creating standards to be successful on those tests. Even the method of delivery of the test or type of test is not mandated by the Common Core Standards. As a teacher, I completely agree that standardized testing is only a part of assessing a student's ability. Assessment of ability requires a more full look at student performance. That is also a message SDEA/NEA has held strong in the face of REAL big government mandated high-stakes testing (like what happened from NCLB).
Now, how about your avoidance of my direct question: as a teacher, what specific Math or English Common Core standard did you find objectionable, and what did you choose to teach in its place?
1) We will have to agree to disagree on this.
So you are able to teach Common Core standards for 11th grade English without changing textbooks. Well that's good in the fact you saved some money. It doesn't address the problem of the standards themselves. For example, why is it better to teach the Gettysburg Address without historical context?
----------------------------------------
"As we looked through the exemplar, examined a lesson previously created by some of our colleagues, and then began working on our own Core-related lessons, I was struck by how out of sync the Common Core is with what I consider to be good teaching."
"Each teacher read individually through the exemplar lesson on Lincoln’s speech. When we began discussing it, we all expressed the same conclusion: Most of it was too scripted. It spelled out what types of questions to ask, what types of questions not to ask, and essentially narrowed any discussion to obvious facts and ideas from the speech."
"Another problem we found relates to the pedagogical method used in the Gettysburg Address exemplar that the Common Core calls 'cold reading.'
This gives students a text they have never seen and asks them to read it with no preliminary introduction. This mimics the conditions of a standardized test on which students are asked to read material they have never seen and answer multiple choice questions about the passage.
Such pedagogy makes school wildly boring. Students are not asked to connect what they read yesterday to what they are reading today, or what they read in English to what they read in science."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/teacher-one-maddening-day-working-with-the-common-core/2012/03/15/gIQA8J4WUS_blog.html
---------------------------------------
This blog post written by a high school English teacher describes the Common Core method of teaching known as cold reading, where a person would read the Gettysburg Address without any historical context.
Cold reading is part of the Common Core standards and teaching methods. I really don't see how you can claim that a high school English teacher has the flexibility under Common Core to teach to Common Core standards without employing the teaching method of cold reading. It's almost like you're saying the standards aren't really standards, they're just mild suggestions or something, and that high school English teachers are perfectly free not to teach English using cold reading. Hog wash.
This next article refers to this method as "close reading" rather than "cold reading." There is some discussion online that "cold reading" is a pejorative of "close reading."
------------------------------------------
"Imagine learning about the Gettysburg Address without a mention of the Civil War, the Battle of Gettysburg, or why President Abraham Lincoln had traveled to Pennsylvania to make the speech. That’s the way a Common Core State Standards 'exemplar for instruction' — from a company founded by three main Core authors — says it should be taught to ninth and 10th graders."
"The [Gettysburg Address] unit reflects the overall approach to the Common Core standards, which emphasize the “close reading” of text in order for students to be able to analyze and gain meaning for the written word. This mission is clearly stated in the 'Revised Publishers’ Criteria for the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts and Literacy, Grades 3 – 12'.."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/11/19/common-cores-odd-approach-to-teaching-gettysburg-address/
---------------------------------------------
Your question that you say I am avoiding "as a teacher, what specific Math or English Common Core standard did you find objectionable, and what did you choose to teach in its place" has one purpose - to make the claim that the issues I bring up in regards to Common Core are not valid because you know perfectly well that I am not a teacher. I should accept your opinion on the matter because you are a teacher. You are ignoring the opinions of early education and child development experts. You are not addressing the fact that the standards you are defending were not developed with the input of child development experts or early education teachers. You are also changing the subject to discuss 11th grade English Common Core standards rather than discussing the real problem - that the elementary school standards for K-3 are not developmentally appropriate, are not based on research or developmental science, and were written without the input of experts.
Now tell me, as an English teacher, why you think it is better to teach reading without any background or historical context? Why is that better than the current methods used? (And seriously, why does reading still have to be taught into high school.) Also - what does your 11th grade English class have to do with the Common Core standards effects on K-3 education?
I can tell you that where as previously I would have allowed my children to attend school if they wanted to in Middle School or High School, after they had a solid foundation in the basics, I certainly would discourage them from attending with these Common Core changes. They will simply be bored mindless to the point of suicide - it isn't worth any benefit of social interaction or activity.
Republicans led distrust of authorities and expertise beginning in the 80's, more or less. The results are a generalized distrust of Washington, of expertise, of science, of facts, etc. Another result, John T, is that you need to do more convincing, rather than relying on your knowledge and experience.
Preaching the myth of liberal media, scurrilous Washington Insiders, etc., has gotten us here. Don't trust educators with decades of experience. Don't trust scientists with similar credentials. Yeah, it's all bearing the fruit of climate change deniers, struggling schools, John T distrusted, Obama as Kenyan Muslim, and on and on.
We can judge them by the fruits of their labors.
The topic of this post is about music improving students educations.
Over the years there have been endless systems created to make public education better. I listed Microsoft's Stacked Ranking plan that decimated that business. It is based on employees competing with one another. Gates recommends that schools drop it too.
Some programs have been helpful, some were simply schemes concocted by scammers. In the mid 1950s phonics was out as a reading teaching method. My big brother is still a poor reader.
Thankfully phonics was quickly reinstated.
There is also the commonly accepted account that blames teachers. That really came to the fore in the 80s or 90s. Others can put a more accurate date on that.
Japan has high scores and long school days and years and uses lots of tech and testing. Maybe we should do that. Finland has high scores and shorter days and years with very little tech or testing. Oh. Maybe we should do that?
I make no claims to expertise though I was once a teacher. One commonality I see among nations with good education results, is an ongoing atmosphere of respect, appreciation and value of their teachers.
Seems like a no-brainer. Although better pay would be so nice for our teachers, being treated with respect and appreciation would go a long way. And that is cheap!!!
Ms. Geelsdottir, I think we can all agree that respecting, appreciating and valuing teachers is a good thing. A deserved thing.
I, for one, appreciate hundreds of teachers that I have learned from worked with or known in my miserable life. And, at the risk of enraging Mr. H, the best teachers should be paid the most.
I may slap bloggings at "whining teachers" but what I really mean is that it's the whining teacher-union-leaders and the fat-cat-administrators with the cushy parking spots that are whining.
I'm all in favor of teachers. Even, and especially, music teachers. 'tho the music teachers mostly failed me.
If teachers didn't have unions they'd probably get far more money sent their way in the budgets and stuff.
Bree,
1) No we do not agree to disagree. You simply refuse to acknowledge fact. You refuse to shift off the fortune cookie slogan even in the face of the foundations for that being based on un-truths.
My referring to you as a teacher was honestly not a dig or trick. I was working from a previous post where you said you homeschooled your children. If you prefer I refer to you as your children's education provider, I can do that; i't's just wordier. My question was real, what did you see in Common Core that you do not think is appropriate for your children; what did you change to meet their needs not met by the CC standards? You retreat back to the creation of the standards objection, but I want to look at the product that has been developed - even if you are critical of the developers. I also think I have replied to that with the Slate article that talked about problems with the early grades meeting the standards were not the problems of the standards by the methods used in meeting those standards. Using incorrect methods to achieve standards doers not invalidate the standards. Again, that is why I was looking to your first-hand input with your children and their learning.
To answer your question for my arena, teaching any literature with no context is a terrible idea. I spent some time after school looking for the standard that requires text to be taught out of context, but I could not find that standard. Could you point me in the right direction? Otherwise I think you are again giving the testimonial of a teacher using poor educational practice and blaming Common Core for the way they teach. The ACTIVITY - not standard - of closed reading is a way to evaluate student's ability to form those contexts. This is more often used as an evaluation tool than an instruction tool in the way you describe. I would guess that the Gettysburg Address was chosen for that activity because the person who wrote that evaluation/lesson believed that the students would already have knowledge of the context of the Civil War - an event covered in most Social Studies programs by early high school. I think you again try deliberately to confuse Common Core STANDARDS with curriculum - and the worst examples of curriculum at that.
I did find these this standards from the Common Core 11-12 Grade Reading Standards for Informational Texts: "9: Analyze seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth-century foundational U.S. documents of historical and literary significance (including The Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address [the Gettysburg Address is suggested in 9-10 grade]) for their themes, purpose, and rhetorical features." This standard does not say I must teach these out of context. In fact, if I am to help students analyze the themes and especially purpose, I think I MUST put them in a context.
And to answer your off-hand quip on the need for reading in the high schools: reading has to be taught into the high school (and into college, and grad school) because the complexity of reading material is almost endless. Each step in complexity requires new sets of skills for the reader. I want to help my students gain and apply those skills to be lifelong learners. Also, as long as we are talking developmental processes of children, it is not until late middle school to early high school that many do develop the cognitive ability to go from concrete thinkers to abstract thinkers. It is at that point, their brains' wiring can really grasp metaphor and symbol. Distinguishing between literal and figurative language is an important skill. Determining tone is essential to understanding. We cannot have a generation of children think Jonathan Swift really wanted to eat babies in his Modest Proposal; that would be a tragedy.
grudznick "If teachers didn't have unions they'd probably get far more money sent their way in the budgets and stuff."
Well that is just silly. Union workers make more than their non-union counterparts across the nation. How does having unity of purpose and strong advocates hurt any worker? Non-union service and fast food workers' wages certainly fly in the face of your claim.
"At the core of Common Core is the idea that students must be engaged in close reading of texts. According to the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts Reading standard number 1, students should "Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text." Reading standard number 2 calls on students to "Determine central ideas or themes of a text and analyze their development; summarize the key supporting details and ideas." Reading standard number 3 calls on students to "Analyze how and why individuals, events, or ideas develop and interact over the course of a text." In each case meaning is exclusively embedded in the text, reading passage, or primary source document."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-singer/a-serious-flaw-in-common-_b_4212340.html
My decision to home school was not related to Common Core, as my daughter is two, and although I do a little "early learning" I am relaxed about it. She won't be doing any "formal" schooling until she's four or so. I am mostly concerned about language acquisition, music, and I guess what a teacher would call hand/body coordination (things like drawing, skipping, climbing things). I am going to home school in the future - and it's based on my personal experiences with education at home and the public school system. In my opinion, I learned a lot more from my mother in a few minutes day when I was 4-8ish in regards to the three R's then I ever did from the public school system. Since I can teach my daughter much more efficiently than the public school system can, that is what I'm going to do. I will also be able to give her more time "extracurricular" activities like music, art, dance etc as well as self-directed learning. She will not spend half her life bored, memorizing and rememorizing facts rather than learning how to think.
http://socialistworker.org/blog/critical-reading/2013/12/01/improve-education-end-poverty
Steve - you are still not addressing the problems of the developmental appropriateness of the Common Core Standards for K-3 raised by childhood development experts.
Grudz, I understand your respect. One of the most important people in my life was Mrs. Marshall, who died earlier this year. She was my 3&4 grade teacher.
One of the points I wanted to make, and probably should have been more direct about, is that long term destruction of morale is highly detrimental to performance.
The decades of being blamed and sabotaged has greatly diminished the status of teachers. Shame and disparagement depress outcomes for the teachers and the students.
The goals of those who've instigated and led the criticism was to break unions and destroy public education so that it would be a huge money maker for private conglomerates. It would also make high quality education attainable only by those wealthy enough.
Teachers are the Boots on the Ground. I believe if we give them what they need - respect, courtesy, space, adequate funding - this educational decline can be reversed.
The plan focused on demeaning teachers hasn't worked. Time to try a new plan.
Mr. O'Brian, if the teacher unions are so good then why is everybody always whining about teacher pay? Perhaps it is only the South Dakota Teacher Unions that aren't so good, or the other 49 states are just better unions because all I seem to hear are complaints about how our teachers are paid worse than anybody else.
And I, for one, think our teachers are pretty darn good. I'd put them right up there with anybody's. But their union heads whine so much they end up taking a whacking in the legislatures.
Interesting, Steve, but I think we have to be careful with generalizations about what students can and cannot understand.
I had a child who was gifted in language and reading. She was reading college level material and novels in middle school, and had little difficulty with abstract thought at an early age. The problem with a lot of Bree's cut and paste criticism of Common Core (though I doubt she understands it) is that it is aimed at trying to dumb down the standards. My criticism of them is that they might be too dumbed down already, at least for some gifted learners.
Still, they are a vast improvement over what we've got now, and teachers will be able to find out where the weak points are very quickly. Those weak points will be strengthened, but even if they aren't, teachers will teach around the weak points.
Seriously, Donald. You think that reading things in a historical context is trying to dumb down the standards? Or maybe you mean the math standards? Instead of making children fill in pages of bubble circles and try to figure out poorly worded questions (which one of these rolls: the circle, the cylinder, or the square?) they could work on making math more engaging with manipulatives or Life of Fred Math, etc. Learning shouldn't have to be hell on earth for kids, gifted or not.
It is specifically because Common Core is not in anyway an improvement over current standards that I would discourage my children from attending secondary school at this point. Don't be surprised when the gifted kids start failing and dropping out of school because they can't mentally handle the idiocy.
Yes, Bree, all your cut and paste comments, when they actually address standards and not curriculum or teaching methods, point toward a dumbing down of standards.
Donald, I agree. I even teach my kids that generalizations are ALWAYS wrong (and watch the gears start spinning while they sort that out). When I speak in generalizations, I realize they are just that and not absolutes. The reality of an industrial model for education is that policy and decisions are made with generalizations in mind (that's where standards usually come in), then in individual practice and classrooms, the hope is that differentiation addresses those student outliers who are not the "norm" - either above or below.
There is no magic wand for "fixing" education. Education is a system so complex it makes predicting the weather look easy. There is no curriculum, set of standards, schedule, or technique that guarantees ALL students will improve; yet I have seen schools latch on to some of these reforms like they will produce that miracle. Change is incremental and imperfect, but we can never let perfection be the enemy of the good.
A good night's sleep, proper nutrition, health needs being met, and strong social bonds would help students as much, if not more, than any reforms we focus on in the classrooms.
Bree: "I would discourage my children from attending secondary school at this point" - that is chilling.
Donald was correct: “The real agenda,” alleges Rella, “is to so shake confidence in public education and destroy it. Withhold funding, pile on unfunded mandate after unfunded mandate, make it impossible for public schools to get the job done. Once that happens, well, then the solution is, ‘Close them down. We need private schools. Privatize for profit.’ It’s not a big jump.”
"Bree: 'I would discourage my children from attending secondary school at this point' - that is chilling."
Attending Secondary School would slow down their academic progress. The reason to attend would be for extracurricular activities like sports, band, choir, plays, school dances - that sort of thing. The only academic reason to attend would be for AP courses for college credit - which saves time and money. You can accomplish the same thing with CLEP exams however. In fact if I'd known better I would have dropped out of my waste of time high school, gotten my GED, and taken a bunch of CLEP exams and saved myself a few years of prison (school) time. That would have freed up time to explore career paths and then I could have found something interesting to do and study instead of listening to the give-a-crap-less school counselor.
Your prejudiced assumptions about the value of home schooling are illogical and not based on reality. You'd be surprised how many parents home school for academic reasons. If you spent some time looking into home school curriculum and academic outcomes you would realize that your assumption that public school is academically superior to home schooling is beyond ridiculous.
http://dianeravitch.net/2013/10/24/as-poverty-grows-the-promise-of-school-reform-fades/
Steve reflects a realistic view of education reform: it's really a bottom-up approach. You make progress with a lot of different methods that can reach as many students as possible. Education is a bottom up activity, and a lot of education "reform" has been top-down. As much as I think Common Core standards are an improvement over what we've got, they aren't going to be the complete answer.
I have some empathy with Bree's concerns about whether middle school and high school are working well. The transition between middle school and high school needs to be re-thought. I'm not sure whether things have improved, but in the early 2000s, RC Central had as much as a fourth of the freshman class failing, and many of those kids were skipping school. Those kids were at-risk for dropping out. I know the district re-arranged class schedules, cored math and English and partially closed campus to address the issue. I hope it improved the situation. RC Central was a big, somewhat impersonal school at that time, too, and things are probably different at smaller schools.
Much as RC Central's problems concerned me, I was very happy with the education my child received there. She got into AP courses and was challenged academically. Debate was a Godsend, of course, and so were the excellent music programs. The diversity of the student body was a big plus.
http://kios.org/post/fine-arts-standards-proposed-nebraska-schools#.UqIEERfH1GE.twitter