In an opinion article today, a D.C. based writer commends the Common Core, E.D. Hirsch’s Core Knowledge curriculum, and New York’s “EngageNY” modules.
Natalie Wexler maintains that the standardized tests did not cause curriculum-narrowing. She says that schools have long given preference to skills over knowledge. She believes that Common Core will reverse that unwise preference.
I have always preferred a balanced approach that includes both skills and knowledge. I was a member of the board of the Core Knowledge Foundation for many years. I don’t think that the Common Core standards will unleash a fervor for knowledge because it is really just more of the skill-based approach that Wexler decries. Presumably she wants states and districts to adopt the Hirsch Core Knowledge curriculum, as the “EngageNY” modules do. I think she would be wise to read those modules. Teachers and parents have complained about the overload of information in them.
Here is a selection from the first-grade module. Consider that some first-graders are just learning to read. Few, if any, have a context into which these facts can be assimilated:
Locate the area known as Mesopotamia on
a world map or globe and identify it as part
of Asia;
Explain the
importance of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and the use of
canals to support farming and the development
of the city of Babylon;
Describe the city of
Babylon and the Hanging Gardens;
Identify cuneiform as the system of writing used in
Mesopotamia;
Explain why a written
language is important to the development of a
civilization;
Explain the significance of the
Code of Hammurabi;
Explain why rules and laws
are important to the development of a
civilization;
Explain the ways in which a
leader is important to the development of a
civilization;
Explain the significance
of gods/goddesses, ziggurats, temples, and
priests in Mesopotamia;
Describe key
components of a civilization;
Identify Mesopotamia as
the “Cradle of Civilization”;
Describe how a civilization evolves
and changes over time;
Locate Egypt on a world
map or globe and identify it as a part of
Africa;
Explain the importance of the
Nile River and how its floods were important
for farming;
Identify hieroglyphics as the
system of writing used in ancient Egypt;
Explain the significance of gods/goddesses in ancient
Egypt; Identify pyramids and explain their
significance in ancient Egypt;
Describe how
the pyramids were built; Explain that much of
Egypt is in the Sahara Desert;
Identify the Sphinx and explain its
significance in ancient Egypt;
Identify Hatshepsut as a pharaoh of ancient Egypt and
explain her significance as pharaoh;
Identify Tutankhamun as a pharaoh of ancient Egypt
and explain his significance;
Explain that much of what we know about ancient
Egypt is because of the work of
archaeologists
Wexler predicts that the high failure rates on the Common Core tests will lead to a demand by parents for Core Knowledge. Since we know that those failure rates were engineered artificially by setting a ridiculous passing mark aligned with NAEP proficient, it seems safer to predict that continued failure will encourage the growth of the opt out movement.
What do you think?
That looks like some of the essential questions I ask my 9th graders to answer. If this is for a 1st grader it is completely developmentally inappropriate. My 9th graders struggle with that.
Thanks for saying this. NYSUT needs to know this is happening!
Exactly! Much of this list is the same one for 9th grade Geography in my state. Some of the list is so high-level that it would be more appropriate for AP Human Geography, actually.
I was shocked when I read what first graders are supposed to learn. There is no way this is possible.
Let’s hope that more parents learn about this child abuse in the name of ‘education reform’ and opt-out of ridiculous testing. No wonder children are crying and can’t sleep. (I’m a retired K-5 music teacher.)
“Core Knowledge” is not a particularly insightful answer, and I’ve always wondered how Hirsch a) got the theory of cultural capital so stunningly wrong (acquisition of cultural capital is not historically about acquiring economic privilege, the cultural capital of those already economically privileged is used as a barrier against others getting access) and b) wrote about core knowledge as if he were the first to discover intertextual reading is something sophisticated readers do (hint — literacy theorists have been writing on this for decades).
In the end, I think Wexler is engaging in massive confirmation bias. The kind of close, textual reading embedded in the CCSS ELA section is probably something she cannot imagine doing without core knowledge, but the standards themselves are written in such an utterly strangled way that there is almost no explicit place for reading anywhere outside of the confines of the text in front of the reader and most teachers would find it difficult to construct that opportunity in the face of standards that explicitly eschew personal and contextual knowledge as valid lenses for reading and response.
Even setting aside ridiculously age inappropriate modules created for the atrocious EngageNY system, the point of CCSS ELA reading is to work from Kindergarten forward to learn to write a competent College English I essay from the New Critical perspective. It is not that this is a task without value for college bound students — it is that there is almost literally nothing else in the standards, and without space value interconnected Core Knowledge it is fluffy fantasy to assume the standards will lead to that.
http://danielskatz.net/2014/09/19/dear-common-core-english-standards-can-we-talk/
http://danielskatz.net/2014/10/17/common-core-reading-what-you-see-is-what-youll-likely-get/
http://danielskatz.net/2014/12/22/on-my-twelfth-year-of-common-core-david-coleman-gave-to-me/
Diane, I think my kids picked up most of those standards/goals by watching the Little Einsteins cartoon on TV before they even attended school! Obviously, we aren’t expecting the kids to write an essay on these. But as I recall, we always studied old civilizations at all levels in school. We identified India, Egypt, Mesopotamia and China as the first four due to the rivers and floods which facilitated farming (covered in those standards). Then, we studied a specific iconic contribution from each. Pyramids/sphinx/hieroglyphics from Egypt, hanging gardens and Hammurai code from Babylon, etc. (all in those standards listed) The kids won’t remember all of these next year but will be familiar with the concepts as they take a deeper dive in 2-3 years.
I guess I’m confused about your expectations for our youngsters. Would you prefer the following standards for 1st graders:
1) Color the large picture of Mesopotamia with your crayon
2) Draw your own Egyptian pyramid
3) Learn to spell the word “NILE” as in Nile River
Are those more on the level you think our 1st graders are capable of?
Virginia, I repeat what I said to another comment. I favor knowledge and content linked to skills. But what is taught must be age-appropriate. I could teach my 2-year-old grandson about Mesopotamia if he would sit still long enough, but he would remember nothing I taught him. My almost 9-year-old grandson would probably think it was fascinating, though his interests run more towards science, dinosaurs, any animal that ever lived. Of course, I want him to learn about things he is not interested in; he might become interested. But interest, as Dewey wrote long ago, is a powerful motivator. And, I would add, children need the background knowledge to make sense of new information.
Are you kidding me, V?! There are so many things in a six year old’s world that are far more interesting and important to them than where the Tigris is. They are invested in a much smaller world of where the fire station or the police department is. Those little ones are fascinated by an open house run for them at a local station. They are exploring the local park, not Mesopotamia. There is a time and a place for focusing on the world beyond their families and communities. First grade is laying the foundation for a time when they are ready to more seriously explore that world. I agree with you that themes and topics should be revisited again as the children mature. They were when I went to school in the 50s and 60s. They were when my children attended from studying butterflies in kindergarten to biology in high school.
So let’s say your child takes a trip to visit in-laws in Asia. Or Europe. Should we not expect that kid learn about the rest of the world and other countries? To look at a globe? I was quite proud that I convinced by 6-yr-old to ask Santa for an electronic globe for Xmas. She actually played with it quite a bit to find distances to other countries, etc.
I hear everyone here saying that “but for…” trips to museums or foreign countries, the kids in poverty would be academically successful. Many of our kids do take trips. Or they can via the television and internet. I get that trips to the fire station and police and national parks are great too. But the world is a fascinating place. I would definitely recommend you watch some of the children’s cartoons. They really are exploring the world around them. Not every kid will be interested but it’s amazing what those educational channels can accomplish.
A little story. I wanted the kids to learn Mandarin so we had 3 Chinese Au Pairs over 5+ years. Learning a language outside of a foreign country works better in theory than in practice, but they learned some language. In any case, there is a playground at a local shopping center that resembles the local airport (Dulles). The kids like to take turns planning trips to faraway places like China or Thailand or Australia or Italy. This was at ages 3-7 primarily. Where did they get those ideas? Is that developmentally inappropriate? Should I have told my kids that they only need to focus on traveling to the local library, fire station or mall?
I’m only saying that folks are looking at these standards through their own prism. When I look at the standards, I ask why do they want the kids to learn about Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, etc.. It’s obviously because they were the cradle of civilization. That’s what “world history” is all about. If you were to determine the 2-3 themes from each of those, would they not be the role of floods/farming in supporting civilization, the role of writing/rules (law), and the artifacts left behind for mankind over the millennia? To me, that’s all those standards are. To others who are looking to undermine Common Core, they represent a sophisticated understanding of the social and cultural contributions of complex societies. We each see our own purposes in the Rorschach test.
Virginia, personal anecdotes are not the way to make policy for all the children in the state or nation. My own children were reading fluently at age 4, but I would not chastise others who aren’t or consider my own experience to be a model for the nation.
After telling stories of your grandkids forever, you are now lecturing me about anecdotes? Seriously?
It was not me that ranted about the need to take kids in poverty to museums and trips abroad as the answer to all education’s ills. Those were your teacher readers.
Not a single person on here has provided hard evidence that those 1st grade CC standards can’t be taught in an entertaining and enlightening manner. The only refrain you see repeatedly on here is they are “developmentally inapprorpriate”. Based on what? Their personal intuition? Just because they can’t creativity devise lessons to cover those standards doesn’t mean many other talented teachers cannot. If we used VAMs, we could certainly distinguish between the two!
The earlier we introduce children to concepts, the more they retain and the more in-depth we can cover the material on the next go-around. A child doesn’t need to understand Egypt’s engineering marvels in first grade, but exposure at age 6 makes it easier to cover the math/science discoveries of Egypt in grade 6. I guess you want me to dig out the research that shows children need 2-8 presentations, based on their ability level, before they truly internalize a lesson, eh? I guess I better get searching….. Only ed reform commenters are ever expected to substantiate their suppositions.
Virginia, I think you missed the point. I said that my anecdotes should not be the basis of national policy; neither should yours.
I trust people who have actually taught kindergarten and first grade when it comes to knowing what is developmentally appropriate more than I trust a submarine veteran. Exactly what are your qualifications for lecturing experienced teachers?
I think you have more than enough disagreement among your (admittedly experienced) K and 1st grade teachers about whether these standards can be successfully taught in those grades. You certainly don’t need my opinions to point out teachers are all over the map on this issue.
Speaking of reliability, weren’t some folks on here claiming that VAMs were “unreliable” from year to year and that subjective opinions from “experts” were the way to go on evaluations? Well, look at that!!! Turns out the opinions on the applicability of 1st grade world history standards are about as consistent as observation-based teacher evaluations!
Virginia, I don’t know of any K-1 teachers who think that these standards are developmentally appropriate.
There are many ways to evaluate teacher effectiveness: by peers, by peers plus supervisors. The worst way is by test scores.
No that’s not what people said. Witness the reaction to edTPA and its subjective evaluations. The key here is having trained professionals who know a teacher and have a context into which they can place any one observation and who conduct those observations routinely. The same individual evaluated me the entire year and sometimes multiple years. A stranger did not pop into my room to observe and then complete an evaluation. Depending on the school, we met multiple times before and after an observation for more in depth discussions. We frequently worked together through the year in other settings. I would like to steal a word back from the reformsters and say the evaluation process was more personalized (although I can’t say it couldn’t be used as a weapon). There is a reason why peer mentor programs are so popular. Matt Di Carlo certainly did not present VAM as the way to go, and he did underestimate the amount of data required to even make a stab at fairness. (Two years of data do not establish a trend in test data even with adequate and data points.) It is a mistake to think that VAM is more objective because it relies on numerical data.
No one ever said that kids should not be exposed to different times and cultures. The issue is what and when based on sound research. Nothing is written in stone, but something tells me that contrary to the Common Core what and how children think matters and can be used to slowly expand their world. No one is stopping you from hiring a nanny to teach your kids Chinese. My granddaughter is beginning to write words (awkwardly and backwards) like fairy because she is interested in fairies. She wraps herself in a towel and is a princess who exuberantly sings a made-up princess song. She has conversations with cicadas. She loves to color but only wants to color Barbie right now. (Her mother accidentally picked up the wrong coloring book and nothing but Barbie is worth of coloring now.) We have precious photos of her proudly holding her newborn cousin. She is three and her world is plenty big for her.
Virginia – I was with you until your last paragraph. I too think that kids are capable of understanding or at least imagining a wide range of information and concepts outside their own direct experience provided they have some sort of related experience, such as the playground and the cartoons you mention. But this is where we part company because that’s not what the standards do. They’re just a list of disconnected “skills” completely separated from content – content is just the vehicle for producing such “skills”. Peter Greene has explained this much better than I can, most recently, here: http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2015/08/no-nyt-common-core-is-not-about.html The standards aren’t about learning through experience because experience is irrelevant to the skills the standards demand. It doesn’t matter what you may have experienced or learned before, the standards are all about just the text in front of you, decontextualized from anything else.
I actually think we are pretty much on the same page. I think we should focus on teaching a broad spectrum of knowledge across many disciplines. While there are many opportunities to link subjects (use physics/science in math class, teach writing in history or vice versa – Gettysburg Address, teach history), each subject also has its own knowledge base that needs to be taught. As that information is taught, skills can be added in. I think this is similar to Hersch. That being said, I think the concepts in math are often one in the same with its “facts” or knowledge.
However, when it comes to testing, I am more inclined to go the CC route. Beyond the core knowledge, teachers will have a lot of discretion about what other facts to use in their lessons. But eventually, we need to ensure the skills are interspersed in the lessons and are actually learned. I believe we can test skills whereas testing facts results in pretty much rote memorization. Test for skills. Teach those skills via the exploration of knowledge/facts.
However, I must object to this PBL nonsense. Teachers have been using hands-on projects forever. They do instill certain skills, teamwork, and may increase engagement. But they are simply not efficient means to teach the amount of skills and knowledge that novice learners (K-12 students) must cover. Thus, projects should be capstone efforts after the students learn the material as opposed to the method by which those skills/facts are taught. My district is literally destroying our schools by discouraging teachers from engaging in direct instruction or from giving tests. Instead, they want all students to learn through “PBL” and to “create content for the outside world”. Some scam called One to the World. Kids can learn calculus, biology, or chemistry in 1-2 years. Kids will never re-derive Newton’s (insert other scientist here) discoveries via a “project”. Maybe the students can apply lessons from calculus/chemistry/biology in a course-ending project but not all year long.
Are we far off on our views? I don’t think so.
Great reply!
virginiasgp, if you walk into a typical 6th grade foreign language class you will find that the students who have never before heard a word of the language take about a week or two until they know as much as (or often surpass) the students like your children, whose nannies taught them some words, or who went to a private school where students got a similar introduction to that foreign language. It’s nice. It won’t make them perform better on common core exams. You don’t need to mandate the introduction of Mandarin to 5 year olds to make them curious about the world.
Getting a curiosity about the world comes from being engaged with learning and loving to read. I was never introduced to Mesopotamia or Rome. I can’t imagine I would have become a better student if I knew some facts about those civilizations at age 6 because my first grade teacher was told those are the facts every 6 year old should know. Sometimes the reformers seem to lack common sense. They write — as Wexler — seemingly not even bothering to examine closely what IS in the engage NY modules and common core exams that students take.
NYC public school parent – sorry just couldn’t let that casual slap at early-language-learning pass. Of course we don’t need to mandate Mandarin for 5-yr-olds to make them curious about the world. But don’t kid yourself that starting WL in 6th gr is equivalent to starting in K or before. Sure, if we want to continue the tradition of graduating US kids with little conversational ability and an atrocious accent, starting in 6th will do it. Other good school systems around the world start a 2nd language inK or 1st– altho the Engl (who like US think competency in a 2nd lang is ‘nice’) didn’t start until the ’90’s & now like us have backed way off. There are as many good reasons for introducing WL early as there are for music, art, & PE, & it can be accomplished among the youngest with as little as 40mins/wk.
NYC Parent: I am not going to defend the CCSS or EngageNY, but I do want to defend the principle that kids should learn things. The problem with most public and charter education these days is that kids don’t learn things –they practice skills… in the erroneous belief that this will somehow make them mental powerhouses. This is a very widely-held belief among teachers thanks to misguided ed school professors and savvy frauds like literacy guru Lucy Calkins. We are starving our kids’ minds of knowledge about the world and we are told this is good and right because “knowledge is not important”. On the contrary, knowledge is the essential foundation for all good thinking, writing and reading comprehension. Can a doctor think intelligently about a particular set of symptoms if he doesn’t run it through a vast array of knowledge stored in his brain? All smart people depend on a vast library of knowledge, gleaned over decades, that enables them to grasp and interpret what the world throws at them. Unfortunately, most smart people are dumb in this respect: they do not realize how much they know and how much their intelligence depends on stored knowledge. I don’t care if first graders learn about Mesopotamia. I just want them to learn SOMETHING –preferably something that will help them understand and think about the world we live in.
Agreed ponderosa. Math and science is more constrained because of sequential topics but if we teach something new each year in history/geography/lit, eventually we should hit all the targets. We must teach lots of knowledge and then have students learn how to apply that knowledge with skill.
Well stated. Thank you, 2old.
Spanish&French freelancer, I don’t really mean to denigrate learning world languages early. I agree American students should be taught languages earlier. Although we live in a country of immigrants where many US students these days DO come in to school already knowing another language. But even in private schools that teach language in the early grades, new middle schoolers come in and catch up shortly. And I also know many adults who didn’t study a language until high school and became both fluent and scholars. Immersion programs aside, I haven’t witnessed any elementary school language programs where students really gained an advantage to studying it a few years later. But of course, learning another language is valuable and important.
ponderosa, I truly don’t understand how you can think our children are being “starved of knowledge”. I have mixed feelings about Lucy Calkins, but in school my child read books about every topic under the sun. When I compare that to the endless hours I spent listening to the rest of the class take turns reading from our Dick and Jane reader in 1st grade, I think how lucky kids today are. I hated going to school because I knew the boredom would be intolerable — my kid loves it. I don’t think memorizing facts helps kids know anything. Teachers are constantly talking about the world around them and that is how children learn. Once they understand how to read the world is at their fingers.
I am mystified as to how your imagined “ideal school” would look like, ponderosa. And if my child’s public school is perhaps a lot closer to your vision than you realize.
NYC: If your kids’ teachers are “constantly talking about the world around them”, then they are lucky kids, because that’s considered bad teaching in the current ed school orthodoxy. What’s been happening in MOST schools, from what I have gleaned, is that content has been relegated to third-class status and that skills drills have been elevated to the main event –partly because of ed school anti-fact bias embedded in teachers’ minds, and partly because the NCLB regime has privileged English and math above all else. Long, dull “literacy blocks” (wherein kids operate upon random texts in the vain hope of building up mythological reading muscles in their brains) displace learning about the world. If they learn anything about the world through these third-rate writings, it’s a mere accidental byproduct. Current theory finds little worth in lowly knowledge. Many schools don’t even teach social studies or science anymore (as Wexler’s article suggests). My ideal school is one where content takes center stage. The hoary caricature of memorizing lists of decontextualized facts is not what I mean. I envision juicy, engaging units of study (e.g. on ancient Rome or human anatomy) wherein kids learn judiciously selected interesting facts about the topic –which, if well-taught, will in fact stick in the long-term memory banks and thereby contribute to the kids’ mental model of the world. You and I have such a model –we got it by listening to adults tell us what they know (orally, and via the books they’ve written). This model enables us to understand a disparate array of articles in the New York Times. Many of our fellow citizens cannot understand the New York Times. It’s not for lack of “reading skills”; it’s for lack of background knowledge. Shocking as it many seem to a lay person, current education dogma calls that project of knowledge transmission illegitimate. Current education dogma is wrong; a revolution in thinking about education is needed, and the Wexler article helps get that inevitable revolution underway.
The schools likely to concentrate most of their energy on Core tested subjects are in socioeconomically struggling communities. Even so, I doubt there are many that totally ignore anything but ELA and math. While Common Core and testing have dramatically changed the landscape, they have not destroyed the thirst for knowledge, and teachers have not totally given up good teaching although depending on the administration it can be harder to resist. That it is getting harder to resist and remain a teacher is pretty obvious with the growing teacher shortage.
I was recently told that “all” I was teaching (in a world history class and a geography class) was “facts.”. And that what I needed to teach my students was reading skills and higher-order thinking skills. Oh, and grit!
If you teach where I think you do, I can see someone has been to the latest admin training on what teachers should be doing where they eagerly listen to the latest gurus and then mandate that teachers conform. If they are “on the ball”, you have already sat through some PD with some outside consultant. If as I remember you have only one set of classroom texts so that no textbooks go home. Go talk to the reading teachers for some ideas. If you are where I think you are, the reading level is pretty low, so reading together where you can model how to read both texts and original source materials and have some good discussions as well is possible. The reading teachers can probably give you some pretty good ideas. As for critical thinking, another popular buzz word, it’s a matter of posing questions that ask for opinions rather than just regurgitating facts, but there is certainly a lot of material out there on asking questions
You seem to know who I am/where I work. I’m actually pretty good at asking higher order questions, but getting an actual response from my kids is almost impossible.You’re right about classroom sets of books, and we do lots of reading aloud, but my sped kids have extremely low reading abilities so some refuse to read, some honestly can’t, and some try to do all the reading. I use ideas from reading teachers, but the kids are so lacking in background knowledge and abstract/conceptual thinking ability, social sciences are hard for them.
So do I know you?
Yes, I think you do, but I am not positive. I taught reading as a special ed teacher at your high school. I still miss the kids but not the heavy handed administration. I was an easy target since I was not tenured. It has taken me a long time to find some kind of peace (although I can still generate a healthy head of steam since it ended my teaching career). Two years of strong evaluation topped off by an unfair and last minute (got to fire ’em before the deadline!) review with manufactured issues of which I had never been made aware. The administrator who engineered it has moved on to bigger and better things as was his plan. He has suckered in a new school district. At least some of my criticism seemed to result in resourcing the classrooms according to the model the next year. Perhaps they even started to put kids who met the criteria for the program in the classes. I wouldn’t have given away any of my students; I was a special ed teacher and was trained to teach them all even when they didn’t meet minimum requirements. It never occurred to me that I shouldn’t be teaching them. In fact, some of them were placed with me because I could teach them. I would have liked my computers up and running before the end of October, and I could have used class blocks and rosters that were corrected before November and in the case of my last year, January. Not surprisingly, although the kids made progress, few of them made the progress promised by the program. I would have liked some indication in the two and a half years I taught the program that I was supposed to be teaching a scripted program. It was never presented to me as such. The veteran reading teacher I was sent to observe for several months did not teach it scripted. The aforementioned administrator tried to take her to task, and she told him that after teaching it for several years (7?) she knew how to teach it much better than he did (a former biology teacher?). He backed off; she was tenured.
My comments to you before were in no way meant to be criticisms or condescending, but rather collegial. If you are teaching where I think you are, I am very aware of what you are facing. I helped a few gen ed teachers during my time there, but if you are who I think you are, you have a broad background. Even if you are not who I think you are, I am glad to see you here.
Yes, it’s Debbie, and I will continue to wish you were still here. I know I was responsible for the deed. I argued that it was not right, but was told it was happening whether I did it or not. I tried to suggest a possible remedy to you and was heartsick you didn’t take it. Believe me, you were out just in time; the last 5 years have been hell.
I don’t blame you and only wish you the best. You had no choice; others were making the decisions. You were as caught as I was. I totally missed the remedy part, though. There did not seem to be any wiggle room in being fired even though they used the polite euphemism, “not recommended for rehire.” The whole process was rigged and not by you. You were not the administrator to which I was referring. I don’t understand why they spent so much time trying to destroy me. Since I was a probationary teacher, they didn’t have to have a reason. I was a good teacher. Perhaps they thought they could avoid unemployment insurance. I wouldn’t put it past them. One of my freshman students asked to have me on his senior committee, which did a lot for my self esteem. I am not sure what the program was, but someone made sure the offer was never made officially. I would have loved to do it. The fact that he had asked meant a lot to me, but I never even had the chance to thank him. The hardest part was being separated from all those kids. The relationships that we build with kids, particularly in special ed, are so critical to their success.
I hope the strike last year led to some improvements in more than just salary. Keep posting. I’m glad to know that the word is reaching your neck of the woods.
What they have done to you, sixteen years after they did it to me and tens of thousands of dedicated teachers makes me so sad. You just do not realize how what happened to you is the pLAN… Do go to Perdaily.com… this is just one that describes how teachers are targetedhttp://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/FINALLY-TARGETED-TEACHERS-in-Best_Web_OpEds-Agenda_America_Corporate_Corruption-150708-830.html#comment553842
It does’t make it less painful to know you are not alone, but it should make you mad enough to support movements that want to end teacher abuse like this one
http://endteacherabuse.org/
put your story there.
Susan, I appreciate your support, but what has happened to me over the years is not unique. I have said enough if not too much on this blog. After awhile nobody wants to hear it and talking about it too much it is not good for me. I can probably be more useful in listening to others who have had similar experiences. Just knowing that someone has heard you can be very healing.
Indeed…and no one pays for the pain or the destruction.
” I’m actually pretty good at asking higher order questions, but getting an actual response from my kids is almost impossible.You’re right about classroom sets of books, and we do lots of reading aloud, but my sped kids have extremely low reading abilities so some refuse to read, some honestly can’t, and some try to do all the reading.”
Don’t I know how low their reading level can be! That’s why the read alouds may be more you than them and certainly not your weak readers. When I was teaching English, it was not unusual to have to stop and paraphrase what I had read or just make sure with an indirect question that they understood what was being read to them. I learned pretty fast how weak vocabulary could be when one of my students said he wanted to talk like me some day. As to questioning, I used to get dead silence until I said to them that it was an opinion question. Once we were comfortable with each other, they were more than willing to give an opinion and someone else usually had more to add. If necessary, it was fairly easy to build on an opinion: “What makes you think that?” or even just picking something from the text that supported their idea. I have no idea how it would work but drawing parallels between today and everyday existence during the Middle Ages could be fascinating. Work, play, food, art, music, religion, social customs,… Imagine a spreadsheet comparing today with each era you study. Maybe someone could turn a medieval song into a modern day rap? I used to love listening to the rap sessions that occurred outside my room one year. One of the students used to visit me for help with word choice. I know there are some good artists there. Maybe one of the art teachers would help with designing a medieval art project. My art teacher connection got axed a year before I did unfortunately, but we supported each other because we shared students.
You can tell I still miss teaching. Sorry for the lecture. You are truly in the trenches.
Your suggestions are terrific, and I use several of them already – especially trying to liken historical information to things kids do and see today. This year I’m teaching government/geography – talk about conceptual abstraction that kids struggle with. We miss you, too, incidentally!
Sounds like rich material for some role playing in government. You would probably get in trouble for trying to develop model immigration legislation given the population you are teaching and the hidden tensions within. I just finished reading a National Geographic article about a lake that Ethiopia is in the process of destroying with irrigation upstream. Water usage is a big deal. Many of the kids are probably aware of that with family ties in rather arid regions in Mexico. I wonder if any of them have family affected by our overuse of the Colorado? I’m sorry, Debbie, I can’t keep my mouth shut.
I miss you guys, too.
you are so smart! Good advice. I taught one class of old kids who were 8 years old, held over because they could not read. Administration gave me a room. I read to them and with them, went shopping with them, making shopping lists, made applesauce and bread, writing (and reading recipes together…. showed them that reading and writing was easy and fun and USEFUL… IN JUNE, ALL OF THEM were reading, and some, actually were on grade level… of course the principal made my next assignment very difficult, so I left and went to middle school on the east side of Manhattan.
To this day, I feel that I betrayed the kids who needed me most, but by then I needed to be in a place that let me do what I do best… teach… which they did for 8 years, until the Common Core and the tests began to fill the storerooms, and teachers like me had to be made to resign.
FYI: Trips to Europe and hiring AuPairs to teach foreign languages are signs of the privileged. Our concern needs to focus on the less fortunate or “the least of these” who never travel outside their own neighborhoods let alone get the enrichment that parents of means can afford (in time and money).
The danger is when charter schools are used like free private schools where patents send their children to avoid the “riff raff”.
By keeping out the neediest of children we are developing a two tiered system of haves and have nots. In Buffalo we have too many schools which are 99 to 100% minority (both public and charter). The majority of these schools are on the receivership list.
While you might feel this is not your problem since you’ve obviously provided well for your own children, many of us (including a lot of teachers) are basically swimming upstream in the fight to provide an excellent education for all, not a privileged few.
flos56, let me give you a little economic lesson here. An Au Pair costs about $17K/yr. When you have 2+ kids, it is more economical to have an Au Pair than to put your kids in daycare. Don’t worry, it’s a “math thing”.
Also, tix to SE Asia have been about $900 in the recent past. When you stay with relatives and figure out the cost of food, etc., it’s cheaper to travel overseas for the month than to go anywhere in the US. Again, a “math thing”.
However, the best thing I ever provided to my kids were these little wooden things called “The Magic Treehouse” series. You see, they grind up wood and roll it out really thin. Then, they take ink and put it on the thin wooden sheets and bind into something called a “book”. This set of books took my kids aged 3-6 all over the world. In fact, they taught about things like hieroglyphics, pyramids, mummies, the Hammurai code, the hanging gardens, Alexander the great, the Medieval knights, and even dinosaurs. I think it was Diane herself who said those were definitely not age appropriate! Who knew a kid could visit all those places from within their very own room.
But wait till you find out how much that magical invention cost!!!!! It was very, very expensive. Well, actually it was free at this invention they call the “library”. We called it the BookMobile when I was a kid because a big van drove into our neighborhood with books. But maybe you can write off everything else too.
You see, parents do make a difference. But I’m not worried about the kids who have engaged parents nor am I interested in having a “parenting contest”. I’m interested in the kids with single parents who have not been to college. And in providing those kids with highly effective teachers who will help them be successful in life.
Absolutely true!
Actually 2old, MANY socioeconomically schools in my area have completely abandoned EVERYTHING but reading and math, at the insistence of the districts. I teach at a low SES middle school. Most of my students have never had social studies before 8th grade. They don’t know the difference between a country and a continent. It’s appalling.
“MANY socioeconomically schools in my area have completely abandoned EVERYTHING but reading and math,…”
Many socioeconomically struggling (?) schools…That’s why I hedged my bets a little I suppose hoping that not too many have gone to the dark side. I know the emphasis in ELA and math has gotten ridiculous in some schools, but I just don’t want to believe that anyone is stupid enough to believe that they are giving children a solid educational grounding with just ELA and math. Reading and math are both subjects that benefit from a rich grounding in content/background information. Of course, it really isn’t about a rich education, is it? It’s about test scores. Isn’t it interesting that the schools that provide the richest experiences also get the best test scores? Yes, they are in high socioeconomic communities, but it is the background they are able to provide their children, not the amount of money. I’m sorry it has gotten so bad for you, TOW.
ponderosa, somehow I feel your characterization of Lucy Calkins is way off. As I said, I have mixed feelings about that program, but it is the opposite of “skills drills” and “literacy blocks”.
The type of unappealing school you are describing is not typical of NYC public schools (it may be what charter schools embrace). Although it would not surprise me if the new “Common Core” testing has forced some high-poverty schools to teach that way.
It’s odd that you read what Natalie Wexler wrote and think she means less kill and drill. I read what she wrote and see her embrace of the common core exams, which are all about decontextualizing knowledge. The 3rd grade questions the NY Times published were typical of how Wexler thinks that children should learn — “what word in paragraph 3 best helps the reader understand the meaning of this other word” instead of a straightforward question. All the learning about ideas and facts don’t help a child answer those kinds of questions. Massive test prep does.
Why do you only see two styles of expressing the standards? A daughter of of one family and the son another family who were family friend of our family could have met these standards. Both were highly educated families in which one parent was highly intelligent academic achievers from an early age. Both children read at age three. Both would sit quietly on their parents’ laps and share articles from magazines such as National Geographic.
My own ( adopted son) from a similar parentage refused to sit still for anything, did not read until he was six although he was encouraged and read to, and had little interest in academics, expressing interest in little that was not dramatically exciting. He developed an interest in Jack Kervorkian in Middle School.
Given his high vocabulary and lack of academic achievement, his teachers could never decide whether he was gifted or learning disabled.
Developing standards for first graders who are so different in personality and holding them equally accountable is a farce. I have taught kids whose early promise has flattened out by secondary school and others who have caught up and surpassed them.. It is one reason many knowledgeable families start schooling later. They wait until their kids can meet the standards.
sgp, I hate to break it to you but VAMs are so limited that it’s horrifying. I’m perfectly willing to be held accountable for my job but not through quantitative metrics only. I know that you’ll cite things like Chetty and the 538 article (which accepted Chetty without much question) but quantitative metrics-only approaches are highly limited.
Again, I pose the questions regarding qualitative elements of being a teacher. Things like developing strong interactions with students, providing enrichment opportunities (usually after school and during a teacher’s free time) and interactions with colleagues are hugely important.
I coached baseball for 15 years. The most significant team turnaround I ever experienced was AFTER removing my best statistical player from the team. He was impossible to get along with, didn’t work hard and only communicated with his teammates negatively. After numerous team rule infractions, the other players on the team were frustrated. We talked to his parents and explained our rationale for his removal. We were 2-6 with him. 14-3 after his removal.
Now according to your metrics only philosophy, we were crazy for removing our best player. But we improved as a team for all kinds of non-quantitative reasons.
Bear in mind, VAMs can be used to engineer specific dismissals. Say an administrator knows layoffs will happen soon. (As in my current district.) Lowest VAMs are out. A good teacher is not among the favored few of this administrator. Want to kill their VAM? Easy. Switch their teaching assignment for the following year. I’ve seen this happen already.
You simply want a computer-generated method that removes any human decision making. That way no full evaluation is necessary. Just feed in numbers and let the computer tell me who’s good.
And that system has so much wrong with it. Chiefly, it discourages collaboration. The best teachers have no interest in sharing lesson plans that could improve the numbers of their competitors.
You just want to be able to say, well that’s what the numbers say. Not me. The numbers. Sorry, not my call.
Frankly I have a hard time seeing ANY six year old being able to explain the difference between the three Middle Eastern religions. Those are EXTREMELY complicated concepts and require a lot of abstraction. Perhaps first graders could parrot answers, but true understanding of world religious beliefs at six or seven? Not happening. Not even with my incredibly bright nephew who has always been way ahead academically. Their brains just aren’t wired for abstract thought until much later.
I have never heard any single nation that teaches 1st graders about Mesopotamia at public school. They don’t even know how to spell it in English, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, German, French, etc. You must be talking about private elite elementary school in Japan or South Korea where the children of diplomats and government ministry bureaucrats go.
As with most of Common Core’s primary objectives, these are blatantly developmentally inappropriate.
I, too, agree with a balanced approach where content is presented so that kids develop skills. Last school year, my organization, iNK Think Tank (now a nonprofit), of award-winning children’s nonfiction authors published a FREE blog of daily postings for kids written by our authors. With no funding to promote it, we had 300,000 page views and 90,000 unique visitors. Moreover, during the summer, when we didn’t change the content, we had a steady stream of tens of thousands of visitors to the site. This week, School Library Journal made a note of the resumption of publication on September 8. http://www.slj.com/2015/08/industry-news/the-nonfiction-minute-resumes-september-8/. Check it out. The audio files of each author reading his/her Minute makes the content accessible to less fluent readers. High-interest created by gifted writers turbo-charges student engagement.
Diane, do you really want to know what readers think ? This reader thinks there is some funny shit here !!! Have Jay Leno do a JayWalking Segments. Jay can head over to DisneyWorld and ask adults these 1st Grade Questions. Better yet, have Jay hit State Capitol Buildings, Capitol Hill in DC, Seattle Washington (Gates Foundation), Upper Saddle River NJ (Pearson). Have always tried to NOT underestimate Students, whether KinnyGardeners, Middle School Math Students, or GED Adults. Have been amazed many times by the thinking of Folks, young and old.
Walt, how much do you remember from first grade? How much content do you think 6 year olds can absorb and retain? I am all in favor of content and knowledge, but there must be sufficient background knowledge to absorb and retain it.
When my older daughter was 4 her preschool did a month-long project on butterflies which included a try to a butterfly garden and raising their own butterflies. She came home every day using words like “proboscis” and “chrysalis” and telling me how butterflies use their feet to taste and other information about butterflies. She remembers all of it to this day and she’s almost 9 now. Little human beings are sponges very eager to soak up knowledge. Until formal sit in rows and listen to lectures to regurgitate it on the tests type of schooling squashes that out of them.
Sorry, “…included a *trip*…”
Walt does have a point. Answer to him should not be in the form of another question.
There is show on TV that is called “Are you smarter than a fifth grader” and most of them are not, because it was such a long time ago.
And let us not forget, not every child receives the same opportunity to travel to a public library, let alone the world.
Once again, discussing butterflies, even with complicated vocabulary, is one thing. Comparing beliefs of religions is completely different. The whole point of religions is that there are a lot of beliefs that can’t be observed. Little ones can observe butterflies. They can’t observe religious beliefs. Even many of my 14 year old students have trouble discussing religious beliefs. That’s pretty esoteric stuff.
Clearly, Natalie Wexler has never spent a half hour in a first grade classroom. The module for first grade posted here is so developmentally inappropriate as to be laughable. I would love to see a video of her trying to explain this information to a full class of six year olds!
I think this is elitists formulating curricula based on their notion of what everyone needs to approximate what makes them so wonderful. Remember the famous New Yorker cartoon that telescoped the country into the metropolitan NY area and LA w/all the middle of the country shrunk? That’s the perspective of the Common Corers: That knowledge must be brought to the lost hamlets and backwater eddies of America. And all the little people everywhere can be enlightened a bit, at least.
When you look at those knowledge bites, ask yourself common to whom when? and why?? What possible life makes those essential for every child? Obviously, the creators have no understanding of the developmental level of 6 year olds, but in truth, this whole project is the Brahmins deigning to direct and define the lives of the unwashed. It’s profoundly disrespectful of a huge majority of lives, past & present, in our nation. And for me, the opt-out movement, despite the varied motives of those engaging, is a healthy reminder of the populist strain of life, resistant to inoculation by EL Hirsch, Allan Bloom and endless others that both disdain and propose to elevate the lives of people they don’t know or care about. Let the war rage.
It might be interesting to ask parents of the children attending the charter In which I assist what they believe the CC should be. I am not so sure Mesopotamia would top the list for first grade. I think
U. S. History, African civilizations, and consequences of slavery might. I rather prefer working backwards from the present to where the present comes from. Maybe we start with ISIS and work our way to Mesopotamia.
I wouldn’t discuss consequences of slavery OR ISIS with first graders. Too graphic and too heavy. There really are better ages to discuss things like slavery and ISIS and the like. I would be FURIOUS if my child came home at the age of six talking about ISIS.
For crying out loud, can’t our children be children before they have to learn in depth about the horror of the world?
First graders are perfectly capable of understanding all of the above information, but just not if it’s treated like a one-week, one-subject fly-by in which the information is poured into their heads and then we move on to the next topic because we have to cover all of world history in a year. But if it’s done as a month-long (or longer), in-depth, immersive, multidisciplinary project, not only would the kids learn all that information, but they would truly understand it. Have them actually build a pyramid (model). Have them dress like ancient Egyptians. Have them learn about, prepare and sample what food from that culture would have been like. Let them learn the mythological stories and make plays to act them out. And so on. Kids are fascinated by ancient cultures if the material is presented in the right way. But no topic, no matter how otherwise interesting, can be adequately presented on EngageNY worksheets that are sent home for a week or so.
Agree. The EngageNY teacher materials always smack of teacher-proofing and micro-management. The worksheets are their own horrid beast, but to be clear, the list of points above from the EngageNY module are not supposed to represent the way a teacher would discuss this topic with first-graders. Teachers aren’t being told to say to first-graders: “Ok, Daniel, now please explain the importance of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and the use of canals to support farming and the development of the city of Babylon.” I’m not a first grade teacher, but I do think there are age-appropriate ways to teach this content and to make it fun and interesting. Hopefully teachers are able to do that.
I think there is a vast difference between “teaching” the content to 6 year old students and expecting that any exam can ascertain their knowledge. You can learn “about” cultures without memorizing “facts” like where exactly the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers begin. When students are engaged, some of those facts will be absorbed forever, and others won’t. When their learning is “tested” on how well they recall those facts, they are more likely to memorize them for the test and promptly forget them as we all have. If their education is geared toward performing well on a test to check if they are learning necessary facts, they will have less time to simply absorb the knowledge as they learn about it. (Obviously by high school testing is different, but no one is arguing that no high schools should give tests.) We are talking about very young elementary school children and acting as if some test could ever measure what they have absorbed in their education.
“I think there is a vast difference between “teaching” the content to 6 year old students and expecting that any exam can ascertain their knowledge.”
Bingo. I’d just add that the same is true of 16 year olds. And 26 year olds. No test can ever measure teaching or learning.
I recall looking at these books, “What Every * Grader Should Know” series when my children were little. I remember looking at the 1st grade level and seeing the material on Mesopotamia, finding it inappropriate, and wondered how he decided this information was important to a 1st grader. I would rather see them understand how their local community works with trips to the post office and local fire station.
I think Wexler defeats her own argument. CCSS is almost entirely skills-based. She latches onto one phrase in the CCSS intro and turns it into a major component. She obviously has not looked at the standards themselves. As a high school history teacher, all of the standards that I’ve seen are skill-based.
But this is what happens when people promote an agenda. I have no problem with teaching skills but I do have a problem with teaching them to the near exclusion of content and information. When I read CCSS standards, as a history teacher, it is apparent that they want me to use history as the backdrop for skill development. Students may learn some history accidentally along the way.
Our district is really pushing the Reader Apprenticeship program this year. Why? Because it approaches reading in a way that is perfect for standardized test prep. There’s some good stuff in there but it’s basically a system of decoding written pieces. No prior knowledge required. No knowledge about the topic necessary for retention. Just do the skill.
Describe how a civilization evolves and changes over time???
This is ridiculous! If we continue this curriculum, be it Core Knowledge or Espeditionary Learning, our children will only explore what is defined. Children must learn by doing. Six year olds learning about this? Crazy! But I have heard some teachers are selecting carefully which of the 12 ELA modules they are using.if you think this curriculum is crazy, which I totally agree, how about 2nd grade, take a look at every grade level!
Yesterday at the New York State Fair for #cuomobefair event supported by teachers, parents, grandparents and students, I had the wonderful opportunity to talk with teachers around the state who have decided either with their districts or on their own, not to use the modules. Teachers from Pre-K through 12th grade were represented. Some are picking and choosing standards as well. Parents are tired of trying to help their children with homework even they can’t understand. I spoke with parents who were the initial starters of the refuse the test movement, are saying they are doing so again this coming test year and know of even more parents who have their refusal letters ready to go the first day, even though Commissioner Elia is saying it will not be tolerated doing so.
I have also heard many third grade classrooms have switched to Core Knowledge instead of Expeditionary Learning. I was told Core Knowledge had not been accepted for third grade level, as NY approved Expeditionary Learning some time ago. Perhaps it has been now? Even the Expeditionary Learning modules in fifth grade contain middle to college material. Have you ever tried to read the UDHR with ten year olds? What happened to the Constitution of the United States? Give me back the great American History I taught before Common Core! Give me back the wonderful creative writing, fiction literature and awesome Science programs I had time to teach! Not only does the fifth grade curriculum contain understanding the UDHR, but the content in all of four modules used contains so much sadness with hard times, death, violence and disasters, that If I didn’t still use Harvey Daniels’ Literature Circles with terrific literature from great authors such as Jack Gantos, Coleen Paratore, Trinka Hakes Noble, Lois Lowry, Ellen Potter, Rick Riordan, Gordon Korman, James Patterson, Bruce Coville…to name only a few, my ten year old students would never gain a thirst for reading! Tell me, what ideas do you have when you have a wonderful required sixth or seventh grade literature piece such as Esperanza Rising that you are teaching many protocols and must use standards to and you are taking it apart for five to six months in a 676 page module document, when the child has a second or third grade reading level, and is in fifth grade? I use audio material, too. This is required reading and must be used. Ugh! Wonderful book, but really too much comprehension for a fifth grade student.
So my last question is this: When will all of this CC nightmare be over so we can get back to the great things that were happening with the 26 NY Learning Standards and tests students were able to meet expectations with? Please don’t tell me school districts can’t because they have spent too much money on Common Core! Think of the great veteran teachers pressured into retirement due to this nightmare that has devalued so many of us! Now they can get new teachers for one veteran teacher! More bang for their buck, right? Disgusting!
I think that the first grade selection proves, yet again, that the NAEYC statement that the CC$$ is developmentally inappropriate for grades 1 – 3 is correct and unassailable.
When Common Core teaches children to hate learning, no matter what the curriculum may be our primary educational objectives are lost. A counterproductive entity.
The bottom line on all the recent pro CC$$ articles that have been placed in major papers is that there is real fear of the Opt Out movement, and that the only recourse that pro CC$$ people have is propaganda. As with all things reform, they have painted themselves into a corner with this, they have even less room to maneuver, and as before, the more parents and taxpayers that find out how big of a lie this is, the more of them will join the pushback against the entire rancid mess of “reform”.
Wexler has absolutely no background, experience or education in early elementary education from what I can gather when reading her bio, yet she has a national platform for writing about this topic? I am an elementary educator from New York and have 20 years of experience. I have read and reviewed the NYengage common core units and am thankful that my district does NOT require me to use them in my classroom. I am not against having standards or broad concepts in social studies and science for elementary students, (we had them in NY prior to the common core) , but these poorly written, teacher-directed and often developmentally appropriate units are, at best, BORING! Thankfully, young students come to elementary school curious about the world and excited to learn. Here’s an idea. Instead of using these canned lessons that only serve as a way for people to make money, why don’t we use what we know about best practices in early childhood education, and let the professional educators create engaging units that include student choice and help create a lifelong love of learning?
I read the piece in the Times, and thought back on my 40 years of teaching, during which time I was seldom given any guidance as to what to use to teach anything.
Yes, in NYS we had a curriculum guide of OBJECTIVES FOR LEARNING.
Simply put, this explained age-appropriate TASKS for each grade; for example: what a 7 year old in second grade should be able to DO — the SKILLS NEEDED to think critically, and it suggested tasks to accomplish this.
The professional in the room, often chose the materials that obtained the results, according to what she/he KNEW WELL AND LIKED, although textbooks were often there…and often outdated and boring.
I chose, for example, books by Beverly Cleary in grade 2, and In grade 7 when the LEARNER — at age 13, was supposed ‘to learn to appreciate and recognize irony’, I chose O’Henry’s “Gift of the Magi”, and Guy De Maupassant’s,”The Necklace,” and Bradbury’s “The Fog Horn,” because (from MY education in literature) I KNEW THEM And LOVED THEM… AND I knew they were ENGAGING stories that these smart kids WHO SAT IN FRONT OF ME, would be able to access and enjoy.
I WAS THE EXPERT IN THAT ROOM, AFTER ALL. If I had been in another school, with different kids, I WOULD HAVE CHOSEN APPROPRIATE MATERIALS to do the same thing!!!
Moreover, these particular stories used language, sentence structures and punctuation, in ways that these youngsters could hear and SEE ( as I read to them! Yes, I always read out loud, as they followed in their Xeroxed/copied texts. Nancy Attwell decried the lack of the adult voice reading stories, as kids got older ).
Thus , the stories ENGAGED the kids, showed language at its most interesting and correct usage, and allowed me to create lessons that accomplished the CURRICULA OBJECTIVE GOALS.
MOTIVATION USED, WAS ACTUALLY REQUIRED ON OUR LESSON PLANS.
You see, grade 7 educators in NYS were TASKED with ensuring that seventh graders grasped sentence structure and punctuation, BUTI hated the Warrener’s grammar book which MY sons were forced to endure in the seventh grade in East Ramapo. So,I copied a few chapters to back-up class instruction. ME! I CHOSE!
Well, I had no choice but to ferret out materials. They gave me a room with desks and chairs… something that was actually missing at one of the school assignments I had in NYC!! But, there were no blackboards, computers— let alone books. No curriculum of any sort… just lots of feel good meetings from our director on creating a great school.
This director of that new magnet school, never gave me a paper that said what the seventh grade outcomes should be. Incompetent and scatter-brained as she was in this brand new magnet school, she was busy promoting it and herself… and hired a professional staff that knew what to do. …and we did… putting the school at the top of NYC in 2 years. MY work attracted Harvard and the standards research, five years later.
What is germane, however, is the CONSTANT MANDATES FROM people at the top who tell the classroom practitioner what to use, and evaluate them by subjective rubrics like kids scores on tests, or anything that pops into their heads. Documenting teacher incompetence IS their task, and they are very creative at it, as there is NOT A SHRED OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE EXTINCTION OF accepted TRUTH.
(If you have not read this essay on that subject, you should — as it is the backdrop for our current politics as well as the war on public education: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/science/the-widening-world-of-hand-picked-truths.html
Yes, physicians are expected to use certain practices and medicines and to know what works and what is a magic elixir, but they are also tasked with KNOWING WHAT WORKS, and that is why the BEST doctors are successful.
My essay on Magic Elixirs, which is based on GILLINGHAM’S work
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Magic-Elixir-No-Evidence-by-Susan-Lee-Schwartz-130312-433.html
So, should the classroom professional PRACTITIONERS be the ones to choose appropriate and interesting materials that are familiar to them, or be given a choice to match the materials to the needs of those kids who sit before them. THEY are the patients who will benefit from the practice, and it will be the TEACHER WHO IS BLAMED FOR THIER FAILURE!
Knowing the emergent learners who sit before them, knowing the developmental learning tasks, and knowing what materials can work best, is why the PRINCIPAL HIRED this practitioner in the first place. Choosing the classroom curriculum for that group is what I always did, and what I did so well that my kids were always at the top of citywide tests, back then in the nineties… before the tests were manipulated so that schools would appear to be failing.
Treating teachers like trained monkeys, demanding they use the crap that the local school board has purchased at great cost, and following mandates by legislators and school boards with not a whiff of knowledge of educational practice — is at the CORE of the Curricula crap foisted on teachers.
I do believe that the problem lies, also in the college preparation of teachers. Ed courses are often terrible. I know. My own were a devastation, at it was only through practice and study on my own, that I came to know what worked.
Thus, novice teachers need guidance and a choice of materials to meet the learning tasks for each age. Critical thinking skills are not hard FOR PROFESSIONALS to teach.
Engaging our current American youngsters to DO WORK…is quite another thing… but then what do I know… I was only the cohort in NYC for the REAL, GENUINE AUTHENTIC, National Standards Research on THE PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING, out of Harvard, funded by Pew, studying tens of thousands of teachers… to learn WHAT THE HECK WORKED.
http://www.opednews.com/author/author40790.html
Oh, you never heard of it?
Hmmmm…..
As always, excellent points from a brilliant teacher and thinker.
On a second note, I spoke with a second grade ESL Teacher yesterday who told me about using Questar Testing this past year, not online, but using paper and pencil. The child had to listen to a selection about Cesar Chevez, and explain, using two paragraphs, how Chevez convinced people to form a union. In my opinion, Questar doesn’t sound any better than Pearson!
EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS MONEY–SO BOYCOTT THE NY TIMES AND STOP THEIR PROFITS.
AND/OR IF YOU LIVE IN NY, START PROTESTING/PICKETING IN FRONT OF THEIR BUILDING.
AND STOP SUBSCRIBING ONLINE TO THE TIMES AS WELL.
YOU CAN READ THE TIMES THRU YOUR LOCAL LIBRARY SERVICES.
EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS MONEY AND SO BOYCOTT THEIR ADVERTISERS TOO.
THEN LET’S SEE WHAT HAPPENS TO THE VOICE OF THE TIMES.
I agree with your comments in The Boston Globe in 2009. “…we have ignored what matters most. We have neglected to teach them that one cannot think critically without quite a lot of knowledge to think about. Thinking critically involves comparing and contrasting and synthesizing what one has learned. And a great deal of knowledge is necessary before one can begin to reflect on its meaning and look for alternative explanations.”
They’re going to continue to pay the price for disallowing public debate on the Common Core for a long time.
It was a dumb and arrogant decision. They chose a slick, fear-based marketing campaign over a messy public debate and this is the natural and inevitable outcome of that conscious decision.
Hey, they won, so I’m not sure what all the scolding is about. They jammed it thru. If they didn’t care what the public thought at the outset why bother about it now?
My two 7-year-olds just finished first grade at a highly diverse urban public school that uses the Core Knowledge curriculum, studying precisely the material Diane cites. What I can report is that the Core Knowledge portions of the school day were by far the most engaging subjects for them. Mesopotamia, Egypt, The Mayas…., this is what they came home excited to talk about. My daughter, who reads nonstop at home, complained bitterly about “reading period” at school — which, indeed, focuses relentlessly on finding the main idea and other skills. And how not? Her teachers are acutely aware that the tests are coming in 3rd grade. Perhaps the language used to outline the curriculum which Diane cites above is a bit ridiculous viz a viz 6 year olds, but my kids and their classmates were very engaged with the ideas. And I was thrilled they had something at school which challenged and creatively engaged them.
For me the bigger critique is the dominantly Western, Euro-centric great-man conception of history conveyed by Core Knowledge. The curriculum seems very dated in this way. My kids learned that native people befriended Daniel Boone and taught him how to live in the wilderness so that he could open up the Cumberland Gap!! They learned that the Maya all disappeared –particularly ironic since a fair number of their classmates come from Indigenous groups in Southern Mexico. Columbus has mercifully been recast as more of a bad guy than a good guy — at least at my kids school — and a bit of a buffoon: He was lost!
More than half the kids at our school are from families recently arrived in the US, and 70% qualify for free and reduced lunch. The school chose Core Knowledge explicitly with the idea that this population needs this knowledge even more than children born here, or children from more privileged backgrounds — that they need it to succeed in the society in which they live. I have great respect for the teachers and Principal of our school — perhaps they are right about this. But this curriculum is also teaching my (white) children and all their (white and nonwhite) classmates that European traditions are the dominant ones, the ones worth studying in school, and everything else is more of less a precursor — Mesopotamia and Egypt lead to European Civilization, or a footnote — the Maya had a great civilization but no trace remains.
How does this kind of curriculum play out in a multi-cultural setting? Ironies and contradictions abound. At the first grade show my kids’ Somali classmates dressed up as Pioneers and sang about “going west.” How disconnected from their history, their lives it seemed to me. And what did their parents make of it? There was a moment when the kids on stage talked about all the struggles they had to go through to get out west, to make their homes in a new land, how sad it was that they would never see the families they left behind again. There was a kind of palpable resonance in the room. Later a Somali Thomas Jefferson outwitted a Somali Napolean to make the Louisiana Purchase to great comic effect. And my daughter could not have been more thrilled to play Daniel Boone. She was, as she proudly reported to me, the first girl ever chosen for the role.
On the one hand, I bemoan some of what feels like indoctrination that my kids are getting at school, on the other hand maybe the foundational myths of this country are going to be turned on their heads one way or another by this next generation. I love my kids’ teachers and I think they are doing their damnedest within all the limitations imposed on them. I just wish they had a better script.
I have critically examined the Core Knowledge curriculum and how it has been re-branded to become part of the Common Core Initiative. I am also aware of these facts from the owner of this blog:
“I have always preferred a balanced approach that includes both skills and knowledge. I was a member of the board of the Core Knowledge Foundation for many years. I don’t think that the Common Core standards will unleash a fervor for knowledge because it is really just more of the skill-based approach that Wexler decries.”
I don’t think that Wexler has really looked at the CCSS. It is worth noting that the source of the “facts” in the Wexler piece come from a tribute to E. D. Hirsch, and the studies cited in this NY Times article were selected to defend Hirsch’s ideas and to criticize “typical” selections of reading materials for being “information poor,” especially in the elementary grades. I agree that the CCSS are skills without much content because the CCSS could not be marketed as curriculum, even though they are content-specific if you look at parts a-e.
These detailed examples of FIRST GRADE “facts to know and ideas to explain” are a small part of the whole Core Knowledge® Curriculum which includes science, math, English language arts, music, and the visual arts. Moreover, the program begins in pre-school.
Here is a sample of the topical organization of history and geography beginning in Kindergarten free of the details. At all grade levels, details are comparable to the examples in this post.
KINDERGARTEN: History and Geography
World
I. Geography: Spatial Sense
II. Overview of the Seven Continents
American
I. Geography
II. Native American Peoples, Past and Present
III. Early Exploration and Settlement
IV. Presidents, Past and Present
V. Symbols and Figures
FIRST GRADE History and Geography
World
I. Geography
II. Early World Civilizations
III. Modern Civilization and Culture: Mexico
American
I. Early People and Civilizations
II. Early Exploration and Settlement
III. From Colonies to Independence: The American Revolution
IV. Early Exploration of American West
V. Symbols and Figures
SECOND GRADE History and Geography
World
I. Geography
II. Early Asian Civilizations
III. Modern Japanese Civilization
IV. The Ancient Greek Civilization
American
I. American Government: The Constitution
II. The War of 1812
III. Westward Expansion
IV. The Civil War
V. Immigration and Citizenship
VI. Fighting for a Cause
VII. Geography of the Americas
VIII. Symbols and Figures
THIRD GRADE: History and Geography
World
I. World Geography
II. The Ancient Roman Civilization
III. The Vikings
American
I. The Earliest Americans
II. Early Exploration of North America
III. The Thirteen Colonies: Life and Times Before the Revolution
Hirsch pushes forward a chronological account of the rise of culture (Western European and the United States). In addition to teaching skills in map reading and a basic vocabulary for geography, the Core Knowledge® Curriculum includes various regions of the world with a “then and now” comparison or highly compressed history. Example: GRADE FOUR Early and Medieval African Kingdoms; China, Dynasties and Conquerors. Beginning in GRADE THREE all studies in the visual arts are coordinated with history/geography in the manner of a college survey class (e.g., Janson mid-century last), distributed from grades 3-8).
In effect, the first graders are supposed to assimilates and consolidated the facts and concepts from Kindergarten, same for each grade, and in principle acquire a coherent grade-to-grade narrative of a march through one version of history…and visual art history.
Hirsch is probably best known for his 1987 book Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know. He soon developed those ideas into a curriculum for K-8, with spin off products marketed by Walmart–grade-level facts on flashcards.
His philosophy of education, like that of the Common Core State Standards, is grounded in a critique of John Dewey’s progressive thought, and especially the “21st Century Skills” Initiative, known as the P21 (Hirsch, 1987, 2009; Ravitch, 2010). P21 is/was all about skills. From the get-go it was part of a publicity campaign lead by Ken Kay, a lobbyist for the tech industry. Few ideas in his “rainbow” of 21st century skills are/were unique to the 21st century, many were recycled ideas from business gurus and they were to be added/overlaid to existing content in various subjects.
Hirsch endorsed the CCSS not long after they were published. In the midst of proliferating curriculum work from Gates, Pearson, and the migration of some his curriculum writers to other projects he changed the rhetoric of Core Knowledge® to accommodate the CCSS mantra of college and career readiness (Core Knowledge®, 2011, “Common Core”). In addition to this re-branding, he also made his K-8 curriculum framework available on the Internet at no charge. http://www.coreknowledge.org/mimik/mimik_uploads/documents/23/SequenceataGlance.pdf
This curriculum is fact-filled. I do no object to the introduction of facts and ideas that are remote from the understanding of children. However the assumption that students get enough meaning from all of the the facts and concepts in this program to fund those understandings into every other year (with little need for review from grade to grade)– ignores how lthe MEANING of what you learn changes with age and life experience beyond these detailed expectations.
Laura, I’m a fan of Core Knowledge, but I have not implemented it (though I adhere to Hirsch’s principle of “knowledge is the heart of education” as I teach history to my 7th graders). I look at the sequence and wonder, as you do, whether kids can really piece together a coherent picture given the braided and discontinuous streams of information. I suspect that nimble young brains are better at storing and then sorting knowledge than our older brains. And I suspect that the library of knowledge they get through Core Knowledge will serve them well when they are older and trying to build a world view. Certainly they’re better off than kids consigned to a skills-only curriculum, don’t you think?
ponderosa, agree on the high level perspective. I think I would have giant timelines in my room if I were a history or science teacher. For example, the Natural History museum had a great timeline of life on Earth going back 5B years. It showed the single cell organisms originated quickly but remained for billions of years. Only recently did multiple cell organisms come into existence and that led to the Cambrian explosion. The extinction events, then the age of mammals, then of humanoids, then of humans and just recently in the last 10K years were those first 4+ civilizations begun. The same applies for recorded history as well. Btw, this helps out in math since you can see that society has existed for 10^4 years, humans for 10^5, mammals for about 10^8 but life for 4 * 10^9 years.
Spanish&French, I think you might have been close to supporting me. Or maybe just funding for early language instruction. However, unless there are readily available native speakers for a language, I think the data is pretty clear kids won’t retain it. And while other countries need to learn English because of culture and economics, we don’t really “need” to learn any other language. The only other language that can realistically say this is Mandarin since they have 1.5B speakers worldwide and will soon have the largest combined economies around the world. Other than a little exposure, language instruction is hard to justify outside of an immersion program, but obviously I support opportunities that don’t waste tax $$.
Threatened Out West, did I mention religion anywhere? Or was your comment in response to somebody else. I think religions are definitely for much older kids.
2old2teach, ok, I’m going to let you in on a little secret about VAMs and evaluations. I’ll get back to your comments in just a minute but this is how you all should be critiquing the current VAM-based evaluation models.
The current models claim that VAMs comprise only 50% (or less) of the evaluations. But that’s not really true. In comp sci (and other fields), we have to devise scoring systems. Suppose you want to set up a scale such that a top score gets a 4, a middle score gets a 2 and a bottom score gets 0. Another person creates a scale such that the top gets 3, middle gets 2 and the bottom gets a 1. Are these scoring systems “different”?
The answer is NO. They are just scaled and offset. In other words, they are both linear. We could “normalize” the first scale by dividing the points by 2 (scaling) and then offsetting by adding 1. The 4/2/0 scale becomes 3/2/1. They are the same.
The problem arises when you combine two “equivalent” scoring systems without normalizing them first. In most VAM-related evaluation systems, the VAM range is from 0% to 100%. So in NY, it goes from 1 to 20. However, the observation system is likely only going from 60% to 100%. Does anyone actually receive a score less than 60% on an observation? Even if they do, nobody gets a 0%. So the observation score is really a scaled, offset score.
Suppose we expanded the observation score to a full 100%. A 60% score is now a 0% and a 100% remains a 100%. It can now be fairly combined with the VAM scale. In NY, a teacher could get 1 to 20 pts on VAM and 1 to 20 pts on observations. And yes, there would be some teachers who get a 1 on VAM and some teachers who get a 1 on observation.
Now, instantly folks are already saying it’s not fair because the scores are “too low”. Folks, the “cut scores” are a completely separate issue. You need to get out of this notion that 70%+ is passing. Any 70% mark only depends on how hard that scoring system is (scaling and offset). Currently, with VAMs going from 1-20 but observations going from 12-20 (for example), VAMs count 71% (10 / (10 + 4)) instead of the supposed 50%. The way to fix this is to expand the effective scale for observations. Then, add realistic outstanding/effective/marginal/ineffective ranges (e.g. on a 40 pt scale: 35+, 21-34, 4-20, 1-3). In that example, only 7.5% would be rated as ineffective and there is no need to “fire” them. If they remain in that range, well…..
2old2teach, now back to your comment. The MET research I have referenced showed several points (note this research including having trained observers watch the same video of a teacher so they could objectively compare the evaluations):
1. Same-school observers ALWAYS give higher scores than 3rd party observers. We must have independent observers.
2. Multiple observations increased reliability.
3. Multiple observers increased reliability. In fact, multiple observers (even with a single instance each) increased reliability more than multiple observations by the same observer.
4. Using VAMs, observations, and surveys together also increased the reliability of the overall scores.
So the lesson here is to use multiple methods of evaluation AND to combine them appropriately. You can’t combine a 1-20 scale with a 12-20 scale and get an equal weighting. That is a realistic criticism of the current evaluation systems in these states.
Yes, although CK does go to the extreme.
My stance on this insanity = SAVE the first graders from this kind of SIC curriculum. As a classroom teacher who has taught ALL grades K-12 (inclusive) in Hawai’i, Michigan, Ohio, Colorado, and California, it is obvious that Wexler is just “mouthing” nonsense. Wonder who influenced her to write this ridiculous article?
Hallelujah! Wexler’s high-profile piece gives me hope that American teachers might finally see the light and realize that the the education gurus have misled them. The comments on the NYT article are heartening to me –it’s clear that many college professors, teachers and parents across the country recognize the cogency of E.D. Hirsch’s profound insight: the way to teach reading is to teach content, not these made-up, unproven “reading skills” that we’ve been told to teach. The skills approach is not only ineffective, it’s horribly dreary. Teachers, we’ve got to abandon the false doctrines we’ve been brainwashed with. Both you and your students will have a lot more fun –and profit more –if you abandon the dismal literacy block and start teaching about the Amazon, volcanoes and kabuki theater.
Exactly, Ponderosa.
Much of the “skills instruction” undertaken in the past few decades addresses at a metacognitive level matters that are much better left to the automatic functions of an engaged mind.
Consider, for example, order of precedence of adjectives. You have an innate mechanism for intuiting such syntactic structures. Exposed to language containing serial adjectives, your mind goes to work and figures out the rules governing the syntax of precedence of adjectives without your ever being aware that this is happening. You end up knowing that “the great, green dragon” is correct and that there is something funny about “the green, great dragon” because you have intuited the rules governing the order of precedence of adjectives, though you have NEVER been explicitly taught those rules. In fact, explicit teaching of adjective placement skills would IMPEDE the process, as surely as it would impede the process of learning to walk to insist that kids first master anatomy and neurology and calculus so that they can explain what is going to happen when they walk.
Given a pattern to recognize, your primary visual cortex will do a far, far better job of that than you would do if you tried to apply some pattern recognition skills that have been verbalized to you in some educator’s “pattern recognition skills” lesson. And the same goes for almost all of the great long list of skills that educators have been imagining that they were teaching for decades now–“inferencing skills,” for example (as if those educators actually knew much about how people form inferences or could even tell you what the various kinds of inference are or explain even the most basic rules governing those various kinds of inference).
Give kids meaty content and things worth doing with that content, and the skills will be acquired and developed and expanded upon in the way in which kids are built to acquire skills–INCIDENTALLY, and LARGELY UNCONSCIOUSLY, in the course of learning content–knowledge of things (of what) and of processes (of how)–world knowledge and knowledge of processes.
Content is learned. Skills are acquired. Acquisition is completely different from conscious learning. Educators really need to learn this most basic principle.
“Give kids meaty content and things worth doing with that content, and the skills will be acquired and developed and expanded upon in the way in which kids are built to acquire skills–INCIDENTALLY, and LARGELY UNCONSCIOUSLY, in the course of learning content–knowledge of things (of what) and of processes (of how)–world knowledge and knowledge of processes.”
Well said! My students just produced ingenious plays about ancient Mesoamerica. No one taught them a thing about playwriting. All I taught them, as lucidly and interestingly as I could, was about Mesoamerica. Many of them have seen movies and some have seen plays. Unconsciously and incidentally, they picked up principles of playwriting from watching these entertainments. Then, without anyone teaching them “how to synthesize”, their brains automatically synthesized the Mesoamerica knowledge I’d given them with the scriptwriting ability they’d gleaned from videos and plays. We teachers foolishly set out to “teach thinking skills” when that’s the last thing we need to teach –our brains are natural thinking machines. We can no more teach a brain to think than we can teach a cell to metabolize. Meanwhile we neglect to teach what absolutely NEEDS to be taught: knowledge. Brains come equipped with a lot of power, but they do not come equipped with any knowledge. Our job as teachers is to supply that knowledge.
I am uncomfortable with the either/or tone that I don’t think you intend, Ponderosa. As a former special ed teacher, I know there were times when my students needed direct instruction in skill acquisition. Sometimes the instruction might be through modeling and sometimes a gradual release process, but the process was always tied to rich content. I agree that formulaic instruction is robotic and lifeless. There is no reason to write poetry simply to master someone’s formula, but playing with poetic devices can be fun when there is content worth engaging.
Hope you are doing well, Ponderosa, and keep up the good fight! : )
I teach social studies in a “high performing” district in NY…in our district these topics and questions are taught in grade 6. I have never used a lesson or anything else from EngageNY and hopefully will never be forced to. I think teachers who have the proper background to teach social studies are more than able to create their own lessons and decide what to include to cover the “cultural literacy” aspect of teaching social studies.
In my opinion, there are too many people teaching social studies topics who aren’t qualified to do so (TFA, some elementary teachers). These folks might benefit from some of these canned units and lessons, assuming they can tailor them to the grade level and curriculum that they teach.
You raise an interesting point, Anthony. I suspect that a lot of really weird, inaccurate stuff gets taught by people “doing Mesopotamia” who themselves know very little if anything about Mesopotamia. The kids probably end up thinking that ancient Babylon was sort of like, uh, Cleveland, but with a big blue and gold wall around it.
Though I really don’t think there’s anything so very difficult about the stuff in the list above, and I suspect that I would have a lot of fun doing that stuff with six year olds. Writing on clay tablets. Building a Temple of Marduk. (LOL)
I could not understand why my school district always pushed literacy as a double English period. Is that the only class where students are expected to think, read, write, and speak?
And speaking of worksheets? I was appalled when my son came home with a work sheet containing drawings to teach the measurement of liquid measures. I rounded up all the containers of specific measures in the house to teach him. I also cooked with him to learn about measuring dry and liquid measures.
Whenever I read an “informational text” book with my 1st grader (and these are simple books/magazines that are on her reading level and have great pictures) she usually stops me and asks if we can read a ‘real’ book. Her idea of a real book is a picture book with a fun story line.
Unless it involves snakes or tornadoes she is not interested in nonfiction and even those topics are not ones she wants to read with me.
So I take the easy route and pick up Mr. Tiger Goes Wild – it makes for a nice evening. I hope she doesn’t blame me for her lack of college readiness.
Grin. One of my kids was exactly the opposite. To him, nonfiction reading was real reading. Fiction was a weaker sibling.
Caution, do not read, hazardous to mental health to absorb all of these contradictions to support Common Core, a weapon of mass destruction in which the NYT excels, sadly some points are true, that is what is so insidious.
I love the Core Knowledge example you gave – except, of course, that it’s totally inappropriate for 1st graders to know that amount of information or that in that depth. However, I much prefer having some guidance about what information (facts) you should know to be considered an educated person. Common Core is entirely skill-based and gives no guidance about what students should know. For instance, what difference does it make to know the author’s perspective when you are learning about what the Constitution is in elementary school? That could be a question for a senior in high school taking a civics class after having learned about the Enlightenment in world history and the context in which it was written in American history. Children are able to understand things in different ways at different ages, but not without basics facts and prior knowledge for reference.
So Common Core alone is unlikely to improve student learning, and neither will the Core Knowledge by expecting young children to have an adult’s depth of knowledge about various topics. We need standards that talk about the skills needed to understand specific information, and the depth of knowledge appropriate for different ages (developmentally appropriate).
After I posted my comment here, I realized how important it is for the public to grasp what curricula means to a teacher. I was a teacher for over 40 years and a successful one in 3 school systems. All this talk about the Core Curricula leaves ME confused, so I decided to post Diane’s blog discussion of the most recent NY Times piece promoting this latest magic elixir. My own piece based on Willingham’s Educator piece on Magic Elixirs, those curricula adapted without evidence that kids learn. You can read it here at the OEN News site.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Magic-Elixir-No-Evidence-by-Susan-Lee-Schwartz-130312-433.html.
So, I wrote and article about the reality of a using ‘curriulla — what it does for the classroom teacher-practitioner. I began with Diane’s comments on the latest incarnation of the Common Core, blog and expanded on the comment I made here . Diane and I see exactly the same thing… how a teaching curricula must be age-appropriate and geared to the particular kids in THAT room.
All the noise out there about learning is obscuring the ONLY conversation that matters, and that one is all ABOUT LEARNING!
I hope you will read my article although I am not an academic despite holding several degrees. I am the grunt on the line, the one who has TO FOLLOW a curricula, so that the kids learn…
… because you see, it is ALL about Learning,; I did not need to attend 2 years of seminars from the LRDC during the real National Standards PEW research on THE PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING, to know what it means to follow one where kids acquire skills, or to create the activities that ENABLE the human brain TO LEARN!
I hope you teachers out there, will read my attempt to describe curricula, as I speak as the teacher I have always been.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/LEARN-WHAT-IS-A-CURRICULUM-by-Susan-Lee-Schwartz-Core-Curricula_FAILURE_LIES_Language-150828-728.html#comment560663
Without skills there would be no test questions, all ELA testing is created based on nonsense skills in literacy. These skills are meaningless in literacy development, all literacy is rooted in social interaction, what has meaning. No adult would read a book that had no meaning to them, in some way. Even the student with the lowest reading skills, who loves cars, can read a book about cars with no problem. Paolo Friere of Brazil taught literacy, based on the interests and needs of his reading adults. Kids spend so much time reading nonsense from publishers for test questions. Ok, no need to read the Times article now. Common Core puts the nonsense on steroids, what happens to a child’s mind who is forced to read nonsense to “achieve”, the crushing of the soul. Good night Gracie.
This is first grade?????
EXACTLY!!!
Wow, First graders don’t already have an appreciation of the Code of Hammurabi?. That is indeed an achievement gap.
LOL
Shouldn’t 5 and 6 year olds learn about their own community (you know – the policeman, fireman, mailman, etc) before they learn how to decipher hieroglyphics?
And I think it’s more important to locate their own city/state/country/continent on a world map before identifying Egypt as a country in Africa.
But then, what do I know, I’m just a certified elementary school teacher turned school librarian.
Seriously? You don’t know why this is happening.
You are correct. Forever, age-appropriate activities have been the way the classroom professional facilitated the acquision of skills, in a way that th human brain of an emergent learner could handle it.
But along came a spider (named Gates) with a bundle of silk($$$$) and decided to write a curricula basic rubric; to help him he purchased 28 non-educators to imagine what kids should know. NO need for real science. In education any cockamamie theory is fine, as Daniel Willingham describes in The Educator and the subject of my essay “Magic Elixir,” no
Flos56: you know a great deal!
But perhaps, you don’t grasp WHY or how this became the ‘way things are NOW’ — so I wrote an answer to you!
However, because I hate the way my important response would be creeping along the margins of this blog,, I am putting it up DIRECTLY as a comment to Diane’s post, not merely to your interesting comment: “Shouldn’t 5 and 6 year olds learn about their own community (you know – the policeman, fireman, mailman, etc) before they learn how to decipher hieroglyphics?And I think it’s more important to locate their own city/state/country/continent on a world map before identifying Egypt as a country in Africa. But then, what do I know, I’m just a certified elementary school teacher turned school librarian.”
You are correct by the way. — age-appropriate activities have been the way the classroom professional facilitated the acquisition of skills, in a way that the human brain of an emergent learner could handle it…. they learned about their world first, their own community, and picked up familiar vocabulary, before they learned “how to decipher hieroglyphics?” LOL!
See the rest of my comment in the larger blog …
Threatened,
You said it – “Can’t our children be children…?”. I know child development research says children are ready to learn at young ages, but is it what they need at these ages? I don’t think so. I worry about what we are doing to our children long-term.
Our school has adopted the CKLA reading curriculum that is available on engageny. Our first grade teachers are responsible for teaching the Listening and Learning portion of that curriculum. This is the portion of the curriculum that includes the unit that is being discussed. Approximately one hour each day is spent reading a story, asking questions, and teaching the concepts that are part of this unit. The first grade teachers do a fantastic job teaching this complex material. However, they realize that, at best, they are just exposing children to this knowledge and don’t expect them to remember every detail. As a second grade teacher, I continue with this curriculum. I’ve taught units on ancient Greek civilization, ancient Chinese civilization, and ancient Indian civilization in a similar manner. My students don’t understand the finer points of comparative religion but they do understand that different religions worship in different ways. They know that some religions worship one God and some religions worship many gods. They are also aware that various cultures around the world have contributed knowledge and inventions to our society. My problem with this particular curriculum is the amount of time that is spent teaching this material to the exclusion of teaching other topics that are more relevant to the lives and interests of my students. Acquiring background knowledge is very important, and since time in the classroom is such a precious commodity, choosing what the students learn should be done carefully. I have had to sacrifice teaching a variety of social studies and science topics so that I could fit this curriculum into the school day.
BUT that’s not what the Engage NY curriculum says you’re supposed to do. The kids are supposed to be able to describe, locate, and compare all of that material. Simple “exposure” is not what this curriculum is demanding. I don’t mind exposing the kids to this stuff, but just “knowing that different religions worship in different ways” is not what the modules are asking your kids to do.
Yes, I agree. The point that I was trying to make was that despite the efforts of experienced teachers and the amount of time spent on this curriculum, the students only come away with minimal exposure to a complex body of knowledge. The time would be better spent exploring more developmentally appropriate topics.
As a fifth grade teacher, I had students measuring the dimensions of their desks, chairs and classroom, then we moved to the local neighborhood before going to the Code of Hammurabi. Didn’t everyone do that?
We are teaching children to learn NOTHING, because we are throwing developmentally inappropriate material at them. Teachers cannot even explain to what extent children need to go to cover these very open ended and WAY above grade level concepts. Children need to know facts, understand concepts,and apply basic knowledge in meaningful ways before they can engage in higher ordered taxonomies of learning. This is all malarky.
Because the concepts are so ridiculously wide open there is no guideline for how in depth a child is expected to be with his or her understanding. I don’t think the teacher’s can figure it out. I know as a parent I was baffled and retaught every Social Studies Unit at home so that my child had enough information and background to explain very open ended concepts and questions. The teachers were never clear ‘how far” into the topic was considered developmentally appropriate and as a parent I felt compelled to devote a lot of time at home going to multiple websites (and Colombia University professor’s lectures!) to get enough cohesive information to explain information in terms that a nine year old understood. Why should a parent have to home school in order for a public school child to fully understand/grasp a topic? The CCSS claim to require a depth of knowledge and higher ordered thinking skills. However, the way they have been delivered and assessed has led to a more limited understanding than in the past. ( in my opinion, worse than even the “dreaded” and much maligned “rote learning” of bygone eras; a return to which I’m NOT advocating…) Knowledge of facts and ideas has to be cemented before other learning can take place and WE ARE SKIPPING THESE STEPS. Kids aren’t taught enough basic facts in any organized manner to comprehend/apply or to anchor their learning. When students don’t learn the basic important facts they don’t engage in “critical thinking” and are left with a very shaky and facile understanding of the topics covered. Also the simplistic and regurgitated answers that pass for “deeper/critical thinking are laughable. They are mostly regurgitated answers that students know to write “because the teacher told us this was the answer….” The teachers are not given enough time and training to teach the units the way they are presented in the modules. The standards are not appropriate.
You are so right!
I believe there is a core of those nasty “facts” everyone needs to know before they can delve into deeper levels of critical thinking. For instance, I teach in an urban high school that is 70% Hispanic and 20% AA. When I teach world history to 9th graders, it is shocking how many of them don’t have any geographical knowledge of the world. I am repeatedly surprised when we get to medieval Europe and the students really don’t know/understand who/what popes are. Or what about the students who have never heard of Confucius or the Golden Rule? Or the Mona Lisa? Or when Columbus crossed the ocean blue?
I am told these facts are unimportant for today’s students – Google provides the facts, so don’t waste time on them. I am saddened that knowing this kind of basic information – or math facts (calculators for that), or spelling and grammar rules (Spellcheck and Grammar check), or science labs (do them virtually) – is considered passé or unimportant in the fast-paced 21st century.
The problem is that there is a difference between teaching kids about history — telling them stories about people and places — and “facts”. Knowing that there were “popes” in medieval Europe and what their role was is very different than being able to recite their names and years they ruled. Knowing there was a philosopher named Confucius who lived in ancient China is different than knowing the years he lived and what the dynasties were. Most of us know that Columbus crossed the ocean blue in 1492 because that was one “fact” taught in grade school, but we understand very little about why. And most non-Americans would not know that year. Just like most of us can’t recite the order of the monarchs of England for the last 800 years. But we have a sense of their history and know how to look it up when we need a particular “fact”. The problem is that people want to give a list of facts that happen to be easy for them to remember and announce that all Americans need to know them.
I am not really disagreeing with you nor arguing against real learning, but it’s important to see the larger picture. There was an op ed in the NY Times by a Harvard grad student educated in China and the facts she learned and memorized. She compared it to the way Americans were taught to think and inquire.
I become up with a fun way to
Memorize those historical dates – use them as PIN numbers. Recite then to your kids – 1492 Columbus, 1803 Louisuana Purchase, 1848 The Gadsden Purchase (that one might need explaining), 1941 Pearl Harbor, etc.
Now it’s not just a random number, but a learning game.
I have enough trouble remembering one pin number. Please don’t mess it up by making it a game for dates! 🙂
teachers, not “teacher’s” sorry…
Common Core and Core Knowledge is one of the most peculiar marriages of all times. E. D. Hirsch, Jr. spent decades giving speeches and writing articles and books in which he attacked skills-based approaches to education that treat content as arbitrary. But that’s just what the Common Core State Standards encourage. Those “standards” are an almost completely content free list of vaguely and often amateurishly formulated skills.
The problem isn’t the curriculum we are delivering: it’s the mechanism we are using to deliver it. As long as we group and assess students in age-based grade levels we are implicitly accepting the factory model and we are keeping time as a constant and learning as a variable. http://waynegersen.com/2012/10/31/learning-is-constant-time-is-the-variable/
This year I am teaching Ancient World History to 7th graders. I look at the content listed and note it essentially overlaps the requirements in the District of Columbia standards for 7th graders, which themselves represent a fair amount of information overload – for kids who in general will be 12-13 years old. Moving that content down to 6-7 year olds is simply developmentally inappropriate. It is at this point that I remind people that Finland does not begin formal school until age 7, or the equivalent of what would be our 2nd graders.
Too much of what we are doing by cramming more and more in at lower and lower levels is we are merely succeeding at lowering the age at which kids get turned off – to reading, to school, to the kinds of “learning” we are imposing upon them.
Teacherken, your conclusion is soooo correct. Again, it comes down to the question: we CAN do this, but SHOULD we do it? Is it best for kids?
ENGAGENY is fraught with errors and is by no means a shining example for any educator. My colleague refers to it as “ENRAGENY” because it is an insult. IF there was a magic pill to cure the ills of American Public Education, this sure ain’t it!
Ralph Peterson, Retired Teacher
Standardized Testing is a Knowledge-Blocker
Ms. Wexler is wrong. Standardized testing has severely narrowed the curriculum. America has two respected teaching traditions. Traditional educatio*n transmits ready-made information to students for them to learn. Constructivist education engages students in learning activities that enable them to become knowledgeable about the subjects they study. The process that drives traditional education is memorization. Constructivist learning activities engage students in processes that include problem solving, inquiry, innovation, and critical thinking. Standardized tests are ineffective when knowledge is the goal. When teachers and schools are put under stress what you evaluate is what you get.
Information is not knowledge. You can package information, put information in binders, store information on computer files, buy information, and memorize information but not knowledge. It is possible to send information around the world in the blink of an eye but not knowledge. Machines can exchange information but not knowledge. Publishers can package information in textbooks, workbooks, and software but not knowledge. You can look up information on an iPhone but not knowledge. Information is essential to knowledge. Knowledge creation is made possible when individuals and groups take action that includes using information to solve problems, explore ideas, and extend understanding.
Knowledge ranks with oxygen in being vital to life. It does not exist in packages and it cannot be transmitted to others to learn. Here are five reasons knowledge cannot be evaluated with a standardized test. Knowledge is largely tacit, it is personal, it encompasses beliefs, it is unstable, and it is tied to action. Deciding if an individual is knowledgeable about something requires attending thoughtfully to what it is she or he can do.
When politicians, policy experts, and others responsible for the Common Core selected standardized testing as the primary evaluation instrument they planted the seeds for an uprising. The Industrial Age when the standardization of parts and processes released the might of American industry and made the U.S. a world power is past. To be effective education must belong to its time. There is no reason other than profit for the testing industry to support what results in assembly line learning.
Kudos to Ralph!
And just like knowledge can’t be measured, neither can the love of acquiring such knowledge and sharing it with others be quantified, at least not on a test score – and that includes all subject areas.
Flos56 and Ralph –
You’re both so right. I think I’ve been using the wrong terms when describing my beliefs about education. I really mean there are certain kinds of information that children and adults need to have knowledge of to be considered educated in today’s world.
Intriguing ideas…
Well said… too bad that here we preach to the choir, and all the analysis of what works and what doesn’t never makes its way into the ears of people who might make a difference… like Bernie Sanders.
I have been begging Diane to give him an earful of what really causes income inequality… the end of our public schools.
I have been writing to his campaign managers to get him to call Diane and learn what we need to do to stop this insanity, and to bring back the PROFESSION of teaching into the schools.
Sigh.
Sorry Susan. I don’t see Bernie as President, but he does have some good ideas which should be adopted by the eventual candidate.
If you knew Bernie ,like I know bernie… ho oh oh what a guy!
He is everything we need… visit his site, see what he offers.
His campaign is run by 50 youngsters and boy are they doing a job. Not a penny comes from PACS> It is all from people like US. I send $3 a month, bought a shirt, and volunteered to handout fliers and sign people up at a fair to register.
He is the real thing… and if you think he is not presidential material, you need to take a look. HE can win this primary, but not if smart folks say he cannot win, or he isn’t presidential material..HIlalry is not… HE IS!
but then, I have known him for eons.
http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Why-Bernie-Sanders-Is-Best-in-Best_Web_OpEds-Bernie-Sanders-2016-Presidential-Candidate_Hillary-Clinton_Women_Womens-Issues-150829-438.html
On women’s issues, consistently forever… he is within 7 points in Iowa…if we cannot see him as President, he has no chance…. we have to see the possibility…go to this address and see what he offers,
info@BernieSanders.com
or go to help@BernieSanders.com
and make it happen…
Sorry, I just love this man. He is the only authentic person running.
This is a response to Flos56, who said here: “Shouldn’t 5 and 6 year olds learn about their own community (you know – the policeman, fireman, mailman, etc) before they learn how to decipher hieroglyphics?And I think it’s more important to locate their own city/state/country/continent on a world map before identifying Egypt as a country in Africa.
But then, what do I know, I’m just a certified elementary school teacher turned school librarian.”
Dear Flos
Perhaps, you don’t grasp WHY or how this became the ‘way things are NOW’ — so I wrote an answer to you!
You are correct by the way. — age-appropriate activities have been the way the classroom professional facilitated the acquisition of skills in the way that the human brain of an emergent learner could handle it. Kids learned about their world first, their own community, and picked up familiar vocabulary, before they learned “how to decipher hieroglyphics?”
But along came a spider (named Gates) with a bundle of silk($$$$)
…and sat down beside her — the classroom teacher– in order to tell her what she MUST USE HER professional PRACTICE. Gates decided to write a curricula basic rubric, although teachers, librarians and anyone who knows a thing about pedagogy was not consulted.
Thus, he purchased 28 non-educators to ‘imagine’ what kids should know, and Duncan got to broadcast this as the ‘magic elixir’ to fix ‘failing schools.’ Did you ever read Krugman on “Inventing Failure”? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/opinion/krugman-inventing-a-failure.html?_r=0
So applicable to what they did to the schools in order to monetarize it.
NO need for the real ESTABLISHED SCIENCE of Learning, or third level research like the Pew funded real National Standards research by the LRDC (U.of Pittsburgh) in the nineties called “the PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING,” (out of Harvard) for which I was the NYC cohort.
http://www.opednews.com/author/author40790.html
THAT STUDY CLEARLY SHOWED what LEARNING LOOKED LIKE?
In education any cockamamie theory is fine, as Daniel Willingham describes in “The American Educator ” http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/fall2012/Willingham.pdf
It was the subject of my essay “Magic Elixir; No Evidence Required.”
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Magic-Elixir-No-Evidence-by-Susan-Lee-Schwartz-130312-433.html
The first 2 PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING, (Clear Expectations & Rewards for doing good WORK) demonstrate why YOU ARE QUITE RIGHT about what a five and six year old can DO. The reward for doing good WORK* is actually learning about the neighborhood and how people cooperate, and offers a GRASP of civics, as well as the acquisition of vocabulary that are useful in their personal lives, and in their reading and in their writing.
* The standards research…by the way…was ALL about DOING WORK! Learning facts (prior knowledge) was necessary of course, but APPLYING what one knows IS what learning looks like! Drawing a map of the block one lives on, is applying knowledge for a seven year old.
GENUINE CURRICULUM is all about setting real GOALS — OBJECTIVES for realistic and appropriate OUTCOMES,. That is why the core curricula is bogus.
Not only are there no CLEAR EXPECTATIONS for what the little kids is expected to DO (the work) with this plethora of information, but there is also NO REWARD for what they are asking kids to know or to do.
Passing a test is not a reward for a 6 or 7 year old, as you and I know.
But these top-down dictators know nothing about LEARNING (OR PEDAGOGY) which is why they talk endlessly about ‘teaching’… which few people understand… as it is a COMPLEX PROFESSION.
Our public thinks anyone can teach, but they DO expect their physicians to know a thing for to about how to help them. They do not ‘get’ that to enable the brains of 20 to 40 very young human beings to LEARN a complex skill like analysis, takes some skill and education (not to mention talent and dedication).
It is education in the profession of pedagogy which offers teachers CHOICES– regarding what procedure will work with the patients—the kids!
Those billionaire oligarchs, whose scions go to private academies, run the people and the legislatures, and thus, get to mandate what our school systems must do, and their goals are not to educate our citizenry. It is to keep the people ignorant and stressed, so they can be scared and manipulated.
The ‘people’ who run our schools, are the ‘corporate’ personhood of Pearson and clones, who make big money by selling ‘shinola’ and magic elixirs, and who love to see the experienced professional BOOTED, so that novices will come and go, their salaries low, their benefits not vested, and their voices silenced.
They oligarchs control the media which they own completely: http://billmoyers.com/segment/john-nichols-and-robert-mcchesney-on-big-money-big-media/%C5%93
Thus they control the national conversation about what kids should know, or what teachers must ’teach.’ They are clueless about learning techniques and the brain, but very clear about how incompetent teachers are.
I was born in 1941, (just like Bernie Sanders with whom I graduated from Highs school). I remember when our schools were a road to opportunity because kids were given a chance to acquire SKILLS and knowledge so that they might apply those skills.
Soon, people lo my generation, and of yours, will be gone, and the public will believe that CHOICE is found with vouchers and charter schools, and that a curriculum is dictated from above. and by billionaires like Koch https://dianeravitch.net/2014/12/05/north-carolina-plans-to-adopt-koch-funded-social-studies-curriculum/
Actually, the best way to teach is to take topics which excite the class and “run with it”, whether it’s trucks or dinosaurs or the Titanic or Big Foot or Ancient Egypt, etc, so much can be learned along the way.
But not if the teachers hands are tied and they are forced to teach In a repetitive, boring manner. Yes, first graders can learn the bullet points listed and with the proper techniques have fun with it, but shouldn’t the teacher have some discretion on the subjects they choose to focus on based on their classroom composition?
It almost seems like the topics were chosen at random – just pulled out of the air or a part of our anatomy I won’t mention.
You should see what is on the list for Kindergarten.
So, Flos, what is your name?
You are right… all of us experienced primary school teachers know that the objectives for these kids can be met by DOING THINGS THEY LOVE… which is why I wrote here at this blog post and at OEN
http://www.opednews.com/articles/LEARN-WHAT-IS-A-CURRICULUM-by-Susan-Lee-Schwartz-Core-Curricula_FAILURE_LIES_Language-150828-728.html#comment560663
that MOTIVATION always comes first.
I remember making bread with one second grade in the Bronx. The kids had been ‘held over’ and were almost 8 &9 years old and could not yet read or write. How sad is that?
They gave me nothing… not even desks and chairs that first day, nor glass in the window panes, so I did what I had done for every assignment in NYC, I created an activity the kids would love, and we ‘read’ recipes, made lists to go shopping )I.e Flour, eggs…etc
which let me introduce the blend FL and the homonym Flower…etc
and we did some math to figure out how t make change when we got to the store, where they had to read the signs FRUIT, DAIRY ETC..
We also made a menu for our party, where we ate our baked bread with jam, which rhymes with Ham and… well, you get it. We are on the same page.
All my kids were reading and writing by the end of that year, so the principal told me that I was in trouble for ‘doing my thing,’ and not using the readers or some other insubordination, and I transferred to the new magnet middle school on the east side, where 8 years later, I became the NYS Educator of Excellence”
Thus, the next year I was charged with ‘incompetence.” luckily Randi Weingarten came to my rescue and helped me to retire… something I had not desired… but you cannot fight the oligarchs who need young blood and low salaries…and the willingness to follow anti-learning.mandates
Yeah! I just love the rewards that I reaped for my dedication and brilliant teaching.
I understand what you are saying. I had similar issues – the kids loved me, their parents loved me, the teachers loved me, the teacher’s assistants loved me, I got along with the secretary and the custodian, BUT the principals never understood me and criticized all the things which made me special. They just didn’t get it. Luckily I wasn’t forced to retire, but I did take a decent incentive when it was offered.
My name is Ellen Klock and I was a School Librarian (PreK to 12) in the Buffalo Public Schools ( as well As other schools in Western New York ) for over 30 years. Flos stands for Fredick Law Olmsted School 56 the Gifted and Talented School I taught at for twelve years.
They understood you Ellen.
They just didn’t want your salary and benefits. They saved 40k when a young novice replaced you…. and without support, she is probably gone, and replaced ,too.
That is the game.
What a loss to FLOS and Buffalo when you left!
Please end this post.