The latest Siena poll reports that most Néw Yorkers like the idea of a $15 per hour minimum wage. But not many like Common Core.
“The Siena poll shows that 40 percent of voters say the implementation of Common Core worsened public education, and 24 percent said the implementation had no meaningful effect. Only 19 percent said the implementation improved education.
A plurality of voters (38 percent) also called the standards too demanding. Twenty percent said they aren’t good enough, and 23 percent said they’re just right.
“The regional divide here isn’t much of a surprise either: Those in the suburbs and upstate are more critical of the standards in this poll than those in New York City are. Recall that the highest percentages of state test opt-outs in April were from outside the five boroughs.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Hence the rebranding underway via Elia, Tisch, etc. They’ll rename it, fool a few folks, probably just NYSUT leadership, but the real stuff won’t be touched…..the egregious and insane VAM-based APPR designed to begin the process of separating teachers from their careers….that is the golden nugget that is going to be protected at all costs.
Make no mistake: Cuomo, Elia, Tisch, etc….they’ll bend and rebrand and change and throw out all day so long as the above golden nugget doesn’t get harmed. So many people, many here, will look at all the bending and changing and think that wow, we must be winning! But no. Their goal isn’t common core. Their goal is to dismantle organized teachers. Common Core was always just a tool, a disposable one even, towards that goal.
Let us not be fooled when the bending and rebranding begins. I know NYSUT will start declaring victory post haste, but for those of us with real skin in the game and functioning minds, lets not be distracted. Common core, New York Core, whatever they call it, and even if they toss it out….they are
after us. Period.
LikeLike
So how does this help NYSUT ? If the teaching profession goes away, unions go away, union dues go away….
LikeLike
used to love NY,
“So how does this help NYSUT ? If the teaching profession goes away, unions go away, union dues go away….”
Unions need to step up to the plate instead of letting the superintendents intimidate them. Strikes are the answer – elections can’t even be trusted. But our unions are weak – so afraid of retaliation by the superintendents toward the teachers and parents. Unions need to make calls for opting out and in turn get rid of the invalid testing. Unions need to strike to get rid of the CC. If every union and every member of the unions struck at the same time superintendents would have to listen. If PA couldn’t find enough subs for sure other cities and states will be in a quandary.
Philadelphia: Firm Paid $34 Million, Fails to Find Subs 9/1315
Dire measures need to be taken in dire times. Superintendents who don’t support parents and teachers are either ignorant or are paid off.
Another opt is good lawyers going to court over the whole mess.
LikeLike
Hence the rebranding underway via Elia, Tisch, etc. They’ll rename it, fool a few folks, probably just NYSUT leadership, but the real stuff won’t be touched…..the egregious and insane VAM-based APPR designed to begin the process of separating teachers from their careers….that is the golden nugget that is going to be protected at all costs.
Make no mistake: Cuomo, Elia, Tisch, etc….they’ll bend and rebrand and change and throw out all day so long as the above golden nugget doesn’t get harmed. So many people, many here, will look at all the bending and changing and think that wow, we must be winning! But no. Their goal isn’t common core. Their goal is to dismantle organized teachers. Common Core was always just a tool, a disposable one even, towards that goal.
Let us not be fooled when the bending and rebranding begins. I know NYSUT will start declaring victory post haste, but for those of us with real skin in the game and functioning minds, lets not be distracted. Common core, New York Core, whatever they call it, and even if they toss it out….they are
after us. Period.
LikeLike
I agree wholeheartedly with your statement and would be surprised if they left pensions alone. After they eliminate the occupation of teaching, the next step will involve dismantling the pension system for current and near future retirees. They’ll accomplish this with a legislative end run, just as they did tenure.
LikeLike
This is a definite if we have a Constitutional Convention.
LikeLike
New Yorkers tire of being a first-world country with the high standards that accompany such a status. Citizens ask to be measured on a much lower bar so that US per-capita GDP can drift down towards the world average.
When asked if he would mind receiving a lower salary in the future, a particularly vocal opt-out activist was quoted as saying: “Not if it increases income inequality! I don’t care how much others study, I deserve a piece their pie. I just don’t really want to study or be held to high expectations. What’s so wrong with me taking other people’s money?!.
And that, my friends, is what your “movement” is all about.
LikeLike
Let’s take a look at how New York’s pre-core students held up using our pre-core standards. Being a STEM fan, I thought you would appreciate this slice of the edu-pie:
Top States for Intel Science Talent Search Finalists (1942 – 2015)
(formerly Westinghouse Science Talent Search)
New York 959
California 256
Illinois 173
Pennsylvania 117
New Jersey 111
Maryland 107
Florida 106
Virginia 97
Massachusetts 90
Ohio 87
Texas 85
Your mockery of the NY opt-out movement is based on your very deep pool of personal ignorance when it comes to former New York State standards. We were one of the many states that traded down for the common core. Better to keep ones keyboard quiet and be thought a fool than to start typing and prove it.
LikeLike
Care to take the edu-faker Common Core challenge vasgp?
List the ONE, most remarkable, ground-breaking, earth-shaking, scintillatingly magnificent Common Core standard that you can find. The ONE CC standard that just blows away our old New York standards. Bring it on.
LikeLike
[start]
When asked if he would mind receiving a lower salary in the future, a particularly vocal opt-out activist was quoted as saying: “Not if it increases income inequality! I don’t care how much others study, I deserve a piece their pie. I just don’t really want to study or be held to high expectations. What’s so wrong with me taking other people’s money?!.
[end]
Source, please, with online link.
Thank you.
😎
LikeLike
You assume a great fallacy.
If education is destroyed, the descent will be faster than a drift.
LikeLike
Considering the state in which you live, and its historical record of student achievement I’d be careful about making silly comments like yours.
But wait a minute…perhaps that’s why you persist in your futile worship of data and VAM. When the schools where you live has had such poor performance, when its general public is demonstrably less informed than those who live in more more modern and better educated states,…well I guess you’d have to grasp for any educational reform straws, even when they have been shown to have little to no value.
Your comments are always good for a chuckle, especially going into a weekend.
Thanks!
LikeLike
Sorry, “have had”
LikeLike
Would the reformers’ path for him be a no excuses charter school where he was to walk silently, arms at sides or behind the back in a “cuff me” position, made to parrot the teacher and bark answers and wear his hair in a certain style and not be inquisitive and not be given the chance to even form an opinion? What a loss that would have been to the world, huh?
LikeLike
Your silence is compelling and telling.
I suppose this is just like the time you declared that in-class products by Atlanta teachers were the foundation of the testing scandal—when they were demonstrably state-mandated standardized tests, with VAManiacal perverse incentives driving the objectionable behavior in predictable ways.
Campbell’s Law. Not Campbell’s Conjecture. Not even in the most Chettyesque moments…
It’s real simple, even for those like yourself that inflict the severest forms of Rheeality Distortion Fields on themselves. Computers. Internet. Google. Key words. Then you have real facts to use. *I suggest you ask Duane Swacker to explain it to you.* Combine that with logic, facts and respect for others and you will start the learning journey of a lifetime. But then again, actually expending time and effort on something so vital to argumentation would go against your instinctive horror at personally demonstrating the “rigor” and “grit” you would love to impose on others.
But all is not lost. I must give a tip of the hat to your fascination with Homer.
“I didn’t lie! I just created fiction with my mouth!”
Creative innovation/disruptive innovation/SGP/VAM. Such a lot of cage busting achievement gap crushing nonsense from “thought” leaders of the self-appointed “education reformers”
Ok. In my day, we didn’t take Homer’s bit as a stern admonition. We didn’t use all your fancy lingo and terminology and catchy phrases.
We had a pretty simple word for it:
Lies.
I guess I’m just not ready for rheephorm’s 21st century.
Or any century where those that self-servingly promote double thinking, double talk, and double standards attempt to rule the roost.
“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” [Samuel Johnson]
And that refuge is composed of falsehoods, fabrications and deception.
I’ll see you a 13th percentile, give you a 90th percentile and your hero Michelle Rhee, and I’ll still walk away with the laurels.
😎
LikeLike
Boy, am I ever embarrassed!
😱
How could I possibly have thought that said commenter would actually go to an authentic original source?!?!?
No, he was riffing off of a fictional character created by Matt Groening who said:
“I didn’t lie, I was writing fiction with my mouth.” [Homer Simpson]
But, in my [feeble] defense, both the rheeal character and the fictional one share the name “Homer.”
😳
So accept my apologies, one and all. After all, remember that a soulmate of said commenter has said of me that “Your moniker is most appropriate.”
Go figure…
😎
LikeLike
Yes, you got us. You totally nailed it.
Opt Out and concerns about both Common Core and the EngageNY system put into place for it are totally about wanting to be uneducated slobs who still get paid a decent wage by picking the pockets of the truly worthy. That’s what it is all about.
I swear that even Bill O’Reilly could do a better job at worthless blather than you manage.
LikeLike
danielkatz2014: even if it seems like a trifle to you, please remember that associating “Bill O’Reilly” and “worthless blather” with said commenter cheapens the first two.
And they’re already pretty…
I had better stop now before I violate the very sensible ‘Rules of the Road’ of this blog.
Thank you for your comments.
😎
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Mywayman came riding,
Riding, riding!
LikeLike
Do they care whether they Common Core is popular? They put in the testing. Turns out that’s all they cared about anyway. As long as the Common Core testing is rolling right along it’s Mission Accomplished.
LikeLike
Now at 5,736 emails/letters sent to your senators, reps, and the president.
The ESEA re-write may eliminate the federal requirement for Common Core testing.
http://www.petition2congress.com/15080/stop-common-core-testing/
LikeLike
Be clear….common core testing in support of VAM-APPR to hammer teachers. As I stated above, common core was and always was and is a TOOL of political pursuasion. They needed a seemingly rational, scientific-y framework by which they (reformers) could begin the process of hustling teachers out of the profession.
We continually make the mistake of assuming that common core was designed as an educational model/tool/theory/body of ideas. It never was. From its moment of inception Common Core was a ruse…. an engine for manufacturing data that showed teachers are the problem. We are much too nice and gentle in our analysis assuming that it was created as an earnest piece of educational thinking. Never. This was fairly clear and obvious at the very beginning to most people with functional minds and perhaps even a small bullshit detector. Yet, every major player on our side took it as an educational model rather than a political model and helped to roll it out. With those kinds of folks on your side, who needs enemies?
LikeLike
“VAMmer and Fail”
If all you have is a VAMmer
Then everything looks like a fail
If all you have is a scammer
Then money all ends up in Vail
LikeLike
Common Core is anchored in David Coleman’s figment of his imagination – too egotistic to think that people who have devoted their lives to researching and observing what real education is about, could have any meaningful contribution. His standards are an insult to the great minds that have gone before us and that are presently living among us. His arrogance reveals no understanding much less empathy for multiple intelligences nor an understanding of how people learn.
Anyone who thinks those standards are great have either not read them or has no background to evaluate them. Sure there are aspects of Vokswagen that are good but it’s marketed under a major lie- unacceptable just like CC.
Those that are praising the CC could be TFA people who wouldn’t have a clue what researched standards look like. How could they with only five weeks to prepare. There is no time for in depth studies of philosophy of ed., psychology of the learner, educational theories to mention a few courses that are waved for the TFA. Time doesn’t allow for the 100 hours of observation and participation before Student Teaching which NY states requires plus the NY State’s practicum consists of a complete semester of full time teaching.
Possibly substitutes would praise the CC’s scripted text since many are called in at the last minute with no time to prepare. I have heard some uninformed people say, “Oh we are finally teaching critical thinking skills.” True educators have always developed critical thinking skills and still do, going beyond what the CC mandates. Past standards emphasized the importance of developing the imagination – the most important higher order thinking skill.
Other major problems is the 50% non fiction mandate ignoring the affective realm. along with closed reading- ignoring the importance of students’ background in constructing new knowledge. I found problems with each standard for the primary literacy level. Who ever formatted the standards for Coleman on the primary level don’t even understand basic terminology of primary educators. Nor do they understand the problem with a reading program anchored in a phonetic approach. CC doesn’t understand the Socratic method encouraging and supporting the active learner; CC prefers the passive learner. There are countless problems but time doesn’t permit further elaboration.
LikeLike
Stop assessing the Common Core in detail. It’s a tiring waste of time that our side does ad nauseum, basically to repetitively show ourselves that we are right. It’s late in 2015. We must all be very tired at this point….all the stress about our job and democracy and all that…..lets agree: we are right. Ok good. That’s completed now. We are right.
Turns out that’s not enough. Turns out that much more is required. Maybe that “much more” requires us to assume the truth: that common core is a disposable political tool that was never intended to be an earnest educational model. Getting rid of organized teachers is their goal. Not common core. They are after your livelihood. Defending that is going to require more than being right.
Lets stop nitpicking all that’s wrong with common core and focus our energy to where it matters. Common Core was always bullshit. Nobody on the reformers side cares! It was and is a disposable tool! Cuomo could toss out Common Core tomorrow, but his intentions of dismantling organized teachers wouldn’t go anywhere!
A majority of NY citizens hate common core. Great. Do a majority of NY State citizens hate VAM and are they willing to become politically active and vocal about it? That’s the question that should concern us.
LikeLike
My dear NYSTeacher, I was responding to:
“A plurality of voters (38 percent) also called the standards too demanding. Twenty percent said they aren’t good enough, and 23 percent said they’re just right.” Evidently some people see no problem with CC.
Why were those results posted if a comment wasn’t being solicited? Sometimes the truth needs to be reiterated. Not all who read this blog are presently teaching and consequently know the CC problems. It is only hear say for many.
You stated, “Getting rid of organized teachers is their goal.” Now that is old tough. I realized that from day one – nothing new. I called the CC a Trojan Horse from the beginning.
If you truly are concerned about protecting the teachers, start searching for good educational lawyers who can defend the parents’ right to opt out. Find lawyers who can demonstrate the unconstitutionality of the Charter Schools and who will challenge the TFA. Find lawyers who will take the US Dept. Ed. to court and show
how the whole corporate movement in education on every front is unconstitutional. Then find people who are willing to take the place of our present legislature who we can vote in at the next election. You will also need people to sacrifice their time in an all out campaign for these people with a conscience.
LikeLike
“…the truth needs to be reiterated.” The problem is that unless people are following this or other bloggers, there is no access to real information about the “reform” movement or CCSS. NYSTeacher said it best. The standardized tests with the mysterious formula to create VAM are in place for union and due process busting as well as providing the governor with some quasi-legitimate tool to close schools.
LikeLike
NYSTEACHER< I love you; you have articulated my visceral anger so well. How do like minded people start a movement that actually has legs?
LikeLike
See my response to you below.
LikeLike
It just keeps getting funnier:
http://pjmedia.com/parenting/2015/09/25/watch-comedian-tom-shillue-demolishes-common-core-math-in-a-completely-unexpected-way/
LikeLike
What I’d like to know about is: when these polls about the Common Core State Standards are taken, are the respondents well versed? Have they even read them? How well can they speak to them (i.e can they compare them to earlier standards)? Because I’ve worked with standards since the first, OPTIONAL standards were created by the Clinton administration and watched the evolution of the CCSS. I find that those I talk to who oppose them can’t really provide specific reasons–other than the testing is out of control, but that is a problem brought on by legislation, not the CCSS. As a former teacher and textbook publisher, I find that the CCSS do not dictate the learning activities materials, or even the testing—-that is done by entities outside of the classroom, unfortunately. A teacher, at any level, and of any subject, has the freedom to create any learning activity tied to one or more standards at any given time. The language in the CCSS is the most concise I’ve read.
The education reforms happening in this country have turned professional educators into computerized facilitators—they have forgotten that teaching is not just a science, but an art that involves diplomacy, people skills, creativity, empathy, passion, problem-solving, fast-thinking, and instructional design based on human needs.
LikeLike
Based on constantly changing, multi-faceted and genuinely myriad human needs
LikeLike
The problem lies in that the CC standards weren’t even created by current educators nor child development experts. Many of the standards are not grade appropriate. In addition, many of the standards are asking children to think abstractly at an early age when developmentally children are not able to do that until 12 years old. And even at 12 or older, only about 20% of the population in the world can think abstractly. The new texts that were created when CC came about are littered with errors and contain developmentally inappropriate information
LikeLike
I absolutely agree that the CC requires young students to think like “miniature adults”. The idea that a 6 year-old can demonstrate cognitive thinking goes against everything Piaget discovered about how children learn.
However, the standards are the most concrete, crystal-clear standards I’ve seen. Again, the teacher is the ultimate constructor of the standards—as long as the teacher understands a standard, they can create lessons appropriately designed to meet the developmental level of their students. Teachers provide the “magic” by constructing the bridge between the ridiculousness of the requirements to the designed learning activity that engages students so that the learning of the standard actually takes place.
Again, it is not the standards or the implementation of them that is the problem, in my opinion, it is the way in which assessments are created and held as the “end-all, be-all” indicator of a student’s progress and the high-stakes they have had (dictating secondary level classes, crushing self-esteem, etc.). People who work with students and care about their learning understand that there are many factors to consider when assessing a student’s mastery. In addition, the many outside players in education dictate the curriculum and materials, binding teachers’ creativity and turning them into robots. They are no longer respected as knowledge providers, but are viewed as facilitators of a “fool-proof” systematic approach dictated by legislators.
LikeLike
Lore, you stated, “A teacher, at any level, and of any subject, has the freedom to create any learning activity tied to one or more standards at any given time. The language in the CCSS is the most concise I’ve read.”
Lori, I worked under the NYLS; I have read the present CCSS on the primary level. Reading the CC is like painfully enduring electrical shocks.
Reading programs that have a proven track record have been thrown out for the failed program CC mandates. Teachers are not free to choose their instructional material nor a curriculum for developing literacy. CCSS is in opposition to a developmentally, constructive approach. Add to that dilemma, textbooks are published by Pearson who supports CC and controls what and how the literacy is developed. Math has its own set of problems.
You stated, “The education reforms happening in this country have turned professional educators into computerized facilitators—they have forgotten that teaching is not just a science, but an art that involves diplomacy, people skills, creativity, empathy, passion, problem-solving, fast-thinking, and instructional design based on human needs.”
David Coleman, the prime mover, didn’t forget. He never knew that,
“…teaching is not just a science, but an art that involves diplomacy, people skills, creativity, empathy, passion, problem-solving, fast-thinking, and instructional design based on human needs.”
If he hasn’t a clue what meaningful education is about then constructive standards can not embedded in the CCSS.
LikeLike
Mary,
I’d like to see an example of a CC standard that gave you an electrical shock.
Understanding standards is not an easy task. It is one that teachers rarely receive professional development in doing. The best education I received regarding this was working for an educational publisher—3 months correlating standards to texts was worth 2 years of educational prep courses. Because I have read so many district, state, and national standards for over two decades, I may come across as a CC cheerleader. It’s only because, I find them concise, logical, and “open”.
Pick a reading standard and we can demonstrate to each other what we mean.
LikeLike
Lori says “A teacher, at any level, and of any subject, has the freedom to create any learning activity tied to one or more standards at any given time. ”
What “could be” or “should be” and what “actually is” are often two completely different things.
The reality is that the folks who were responsible for Common Core understood *****and actually counted on ***** the fact that “teachers will teach toward the test”.
David Coleman has even used those very words and indicated that tests should be designed and developed with that in mind.
And Bill Gates indicated back in 2009 that the end goal was basically to get the curriculum and tests aligned to the standards.
Alignment of everything (curriculum and tests with the standards) for the express reason that teachers will (and should) “teach to the test” is completely incompatible with the idea that teachers will somehow be free to “create any learning activity tied to one or more standards at any given time”.
It’s not clear where the “mythology” that “under common Core teachers will be free to choose whatever curriculum and methods they desire to teach the standards” came from, but it clearly did not come from Coleman and Gates, who “birthed” the Common Core — with Coleman being the mother and Gates the midwife.
LikeLike
“Breech and Teach”
David Coleman was the mother
Of the Common Core
Billy Gates was midwife brother
Really nothing more
Birth was breech and babe was ill
But Coleman sent it school-ward
Under care of Midwife Bill
As only crazy fool would
LikeLike
“Understanding standards is not an easy task. It is one that teachers rarely receive professional development in doing.”.. This is why the implementation was so poor in my opinion – absolutely NO professional development regarding standards – or examples of how to teach using the new methods (math) .. With a degree in mathematics and I can see why it’s a good idea to teach students math (from an early age) using these methods – but implementing them all at once, without training teachers to learn the math within the standards or how to teach these methods- it’s an absolute disaster.
LikeLike
“The language in the CCSS is the most concise I have read.”
Oh, come on. How about these ELA examples from 1st, 6th, & 11-12:
CCSS-ELA-LITERACY.RL.1.10 “CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.1.9 “Compare and contrast the adventures and experiences of characters in stories.”
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.L.6.6 “Acquire and use accurately grade-appropriate general academic and domain-specific words and phrases; gather vocabulary knowledge when considering a word or phrase important to comprehension or expression.”
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.WHST.11-12.4
Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience.”
There are lots more examples of such vague, global statements in CCSS-ELA.
And, tho I’m no math expert, there are math standards so specific as to set the curriculum reqd for teaching the basics, such as this from 1st grade:
CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.1.OA.A.1
Use addition and subtraction within 20 to solve word problems involving situations of adding to, taking from, putting together, taking apart, and comparing, with unknowns in all positions, e.g., by using objects, drawings, and equations with a symbol for the unknown number to represent the problem
LikeLike
bethree5
Two essential aspects in guided reading are not included in your description above: linking background knowledge to the text and application. Sometimes an entire lesson may have to be used in developing background knowledge. We must contextualize our readings to develop critical thinkers by starting with the child in relationship to the curriculum and ending with the child. We must apply information to the child and to his/her environment. The child comes with experiences and interacts with the environment. Through interaction adjustments are made and learning takes place. Learning isn’t the mind taking a picture and then reproducing it. It’s not a mechanical processing, when children memorize and give right answers. CC doesn’t want background knowledge to enter the picture. CC limits higher order thinking skills of analyzing and comparing to “close reading” – an explanation you just gave us. Developing background knowledge, connecting the text to the child’s experience is the way new knowledge will be constructed. We must bring meaning to print in order to acquire meaning from it as Frank Smith maintained. Emmanuel Kant, a philosopher in the 18th century purported that new information, new concepts, and new ideas can have meaning only when they can be related to something the individual already knows…Reason without experience is hallow. Experience without reason is aimless.
We must begin with the students’ words so that we can empower them to own them. We begin with what is familiar to the child and build on that. CC however, introduces text with the drill of sounds, letters, abstract definition of new vocabulary and then repeat and repeat until the text is practically memorized – that is not reading. Crucial background knowledge is ignored.
I have a page on my web site attempting to implement Dr. Marie Clay’s philosophy in teaching the emergent reader. I have another page for the more advanced readers entitled Guided Reading Strategies/ Comprehension /At Risk Students. Those skills and strategies can be applied through the grades.
My web site address gets clipped off because of its length. Google will take you to my site if you type in Primary Reading Teacher Mary DeFalco.
bethree5, why does your description of guided reading sound so much like an employee’s manual? Could it be because it was developed by a group of business men – not educators. Dr. Sandra Stotsky, the literacy expert, wouldn’t even sign off on the “Work” document.
LikeLike
Bethree: I’ll stop taking up so much room here. You are cordially invited to my unofficial blog. I have analyzed the ELA standards in the first part of your message.
In regards to WHST.11-12.4, there are numerous programs and curriculum that clearly spell out writing forms and provide rubrics for elements of each. A trained Language Arts/English teacher knows where to find them and the elements of each (Thus, the freedom!) Most DOEs put out requirements at specific grade levels anyway. But that doesn’t mean you can’t create your own spontaneous writing assignment!
I’m not qualified to discuss math:)
LikeLike
In my experience, people don’t know what common core is, how it is supposed to make, say, math teaching different. Is there a good, readable critique (or just plain description) of common core somewhere? Thanks.
LikeLike
The CCSS are to promote: critical thinking by using specific reading skills (in all content areas) to interact with text through active questioning; promote process- or project-based learning activities AND TESTING. It borrows a key principle from Human Performance Improvement found across all industries—the application of knowledge as demonstrated by doing. It’s what every employer wants, someone who not only has an impressive resume, but can perform the work.
One may begin with CCSSO.org to learn the rationale and implications of Common Core. It includes the research-based evidence behind them. Then one may research Kentucky, the state that implemented them first, for a case study. An objective source is: theatlantic.com “What Kentucky Can Teach the Reset of the U.S. About the Common Core”.
The Common Core promotes:
basic literacy—reading, grammar, and decoding skills necessary to unlock the meaning of words and phrases in order to comprehend text. I see it as the teaching of grammar in context. For example, clauses in text provide key details that answer the following questions about text: who, when, where, why, how, to what extent, under what conditions. Readers are asked to find evidence to support an answer about the text, their opinion about an idea/character, or specific details comparing/contrasting two or more things.
critical thinking skills—readers implement interactive reading strategies while reading text, it is not a passive activity (i.e. What do I think will happen next? What does the author mean by this phrase? What detail hinted that this was going to happen? How does this paragraph relate to the one before it, does it support the information or is it a separate, contrasting idea?). Cornell notes is an interactive reading strategy used in college that secondary, and now many elementary schools, have implemented to encourage this. As a result of this standard, content-area teachers are required to implement reading strategies and skills just like reading teachers. Reading and writing across the curriculum, an idea from the 90’s has been reborn.
rich, classroom discussions—teachers use guided reading questions to stimulate talking about the text, not just the meaning of the text but ideas surrounding it—what is the author’s purpose for writing this? How do you know? Is there bias? Find the evidence that indicates how the author thinks/feels about . . . This really isn’t a huge change because all research-based textbooks have these thought-provoking questions readily available to the teacher. However, only a teacher can help students make connections to other texts they have read, conversations they have had, ideas presented in other lessons, etc. One major push of CCSS related to this goal is to introduce and use a common ACADEMIC vocabulary across all subjects and classes (i.e. compare/contrast; evidence; author’s purpose v. author’s perspective; credible source, etc.). This impacts math greatly.
Project/process-based/inquiry-based/hands-on learning and assessments—-this is the most misunderstood aspect of Common Core, in my opinion. Common Core does not dictate that multiple-choice tests be given each year to assess mastery of the standards. That comes from outside forces. The Common Core provides instructors with the freedom to differentiate instruction for students, provide a variety of learning activities and assessments based on the strengths and needs of students. The PARCC assessments was about college readiness—it’s not enough to know something, can you apply it?
Research Literacy—this is the application of critical thinking to determine valid and credible information sources for researching a topic. It is simply what the school librarian and cool English teacher who questioned everything (think of the wacky professor at a liberal college stereotype) would help student do—find information, read it, form an original opinion by uncovering author’s purpose/perspective, analyzing their sources, questioning their credibility/reliability, then reading about the topic from a variety of sources. The ultimate goal of research literacy—and the Common Core—is to ANALYZE and SYNTHESIZE information. The presentation of this synthesis encouraged by the Common core, can take any form—a traditional research paper, technological presentation, simulation of a process, etc.
LikeLike
Thanks, takebackedu. Can you show me where all the theory behind common core was tested ? Who did the testing? Like where was the “accountability system”, mentioned at the CCSO site, tested and who did it?
There are many things I don’t understand at CCSO. Very strange language in education. Whom was the webpage written for? Parents?
For example, what do “student performance” and “district performance” refer to? Do students perform somewhere? What do they perform? What do districts perform?
What does “assessments designed to better measure if students are on track to college and career readiness.” refer to? What is “college readiness”? At what age do kids start undergoing these measurements? What are they measured with? Was the measuring tool tested somewhere? Where can I see its description? How are the measurements used to conclude readiness for something?
LikeLike
You have lots of questions, and I will reply with what I understand it to be when I’m able to take the time to do so.
First begin by noting who published the document, assess the group’s credibility and note that ITMS intended audience and authors’ purpose. Then you will have performed a basic standard for research literacy from which to base your line of questioning.
I’m not a PR rep for CC or any entity influencing education. I am a former textbook editor, corporate librarian, teacher, parent and someone who has a unique perspective because of tear experiences. I may not have all the answers but it enjoy a good challenge!
LikeLike
“Teachers use guided reading questions for stimulating talking about the text, not just the meaning of the text but ideas surrounding it– what is the author’s purpose for writing this? How do you know? Is there bias? Find the evidence that indicates how the author thinks/ feels about… This isn’t really a huge change…”
Well, yes, this is a huge change. Since when in past state standards, or in good lit-crit practice, is the author’s intention a huge factor? All the ‘not just’ questions you list are only about that, not about for example situating the work in its historical or political context or the literary tradition of the era, let alone in the context of the student’s experience.
If there is any precept of ‘The New Criticism’ — whose subtext can be found throughout Coleman’s CCSS-ELA– on which most current lit-crit theories agree, it is that the work of art must be judged on its own merit without regard to imputed theories of its author who in most cases is long-gone, rendering such ascriptions at best theoretical, at worst irrelevant. How else would one tease out qualities which make the work universal & thus worthy of study?
You’ve zeroed in on one of my major problems with CCSS-ELA. Consideration of the author’s intention is at best an obscure tangent, hardly central to a high-school-level analysis of text. Even if you disagree, consider that this slant is highly controversial among scholars & hence its study is more appropriate to college, even grad-level analysis.
As The NYT Book Review recently stated with regard to Joan Didion’s latest book: “‘Where I was born and where and how I lived is unimportant,’ she [Didion] quotes [Georgia] O’Keefe. ‘It is what I have done with where I have been that should be of interest.’ In other words, study the particulars of the paintings, not the particulars of the life.”
LikeLike
Wierdimate, I listed the CCSS for the primary literacy level on my web site. If the foundation isn’t solid the future structure is going to have problems. Each standards are quoted in blue and then I proceed to explain why the standard are problematic.
file:///Users/marydefalco/Sites/A2Hosting/reading__language_arts_primary_teachers_2/reading__language_arts_primary_teachers_2/30a_Common_Core.html
LikeLike
Mary:
I’m very interested in reading this but the link is not working, even if I Copy & Paste. Do you have a better link? Thanks in advance.
LikeLike
Mary, the link you gave is to a file on your computer (as is signified by file:/// )
LikeLike
I found this analysis by googling “Mary DeFalco hosting/reading”
Very good stuff
LikeLike
Ohio reduced state testing time in response to pressure from parents and teachers:
http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/3bd9a8b1-675e-44e2-ae7c-b7a116c6bfae/Testing-Time.pdf.aspx
I’m glad they were (eventually) forced to look at it, instead of accepting what the contractor handed them.
I’m old enough to remember all the way back to last year when they were all told to stop complaining and comply 🙂
LikeLike
Tim, type in Primary/Reading Teachers on Goggle then go to the first page on Common Core- Common Core Standards.
LikeLike
Takebackedu,
“…students (grades 2- 12)should be given text that they may struggle with in order to expand their knowledge.”Also found in the document “CCSS guidelines on text complexity encourage teachers to engage students in reading at least some texts they are likely to struggle with in terms of fluency and reading comprehension.”
Oh the damage that will be done if teachers adhere to that directive. Our reading problems will escalate and the Reading Gap will just get wider. The text that the teacher gives the students for guided reading in order to develop skills, strategies, and higher order thinking skills must be on their instructional level. Primary children including second and third graders should not struggle: should not be forced to try and read on a frustration level. Students will regress if they are forced to read on a level that is too difficult for them. To expect second and third graders to cope with material that is too difficult is poor teaching and will cause a student to regress and worse can cause a disability say nothing about squelching the desire to read.
LikeLike
As a teacher, I follow this rule: skills must be taught with approachable text first. The skills must be practiced with great double text. As the year goes on, the complexity of the text increases. You don’t dump on a second grader and a fourth grade level text that just isn’t common sense. Nowhere in cc does it say to do that. Most curriculum is designed with scaffolding in place and easiest text happening first followed by more complex. For example grade 9 we can begin with and understanding the elements of short story, move onto poetry or plays, followed by nonfiction etc. Only at the end of the year to students get introduced to the odyssey or Romeo and Juliet. You don’t start the year with Shakespeare. All this criticism take i does not give teachers credit for being able to interpret the cc and apply them as appropriate in the classroom. The standards are not the end all, be off, they are a starting point.
LikeLike
takebackedu, you stated that, “You don’t dump on a second grader,,,”
However, this is what CC states,
“Far too often, students who have fallen behind are given only less complex text rather than the instruction they need in the foundational skill in reading as well as vocabulary and other supports they need to read at an appropriate level of complexity.” Isn’t that “dumping?”
I maintain that students haven’t fallen behind. They were behind before they began formal education. As I said before, children must be instructed on their instructional level but that is not the directive from CC. CC is trying to force a mold on all our students – once size fitting all. It can not work.
LikeLike
So true, Mary. Among other assnts, I tutor families in for-lang. My main thrust is to help them initiate & maintain conversational exchanges; reinforcement includes reading between weekly lessons. Very hard to find reading passages appropriate to their level, but recently happened upon a few novels with a rare focus on ‘frequency words’– for these adv beg/early-intermed level, corresponds to the 250-500 words most frequently used in the target language. Positive response was immediate. These are families who (esp the parents) are quick to judge themselves as under-par. They were encouraged to find they could understand the passages w/just a little ‘looking up the words’– & could get the gist w/o doing that– & stimulated to try harder reading next time.
LikeLike
Again, please give teachers credit for having brains.
By nature, teachers are autonomous. Do not worry that teachers may “adhere to that directive”. Good teachers would never hand students reading material two grades above their reading level. Every teacher “meets” children at their level. And the fact that CC advocates for differentiation, is all I need to legitimize my using a different selection to meet the same standard.
What I find so attractive about CC, and it is obvious that others struggle with this trait, is the open-endedness of the standards. They do not state: Read X selection, then ask X question, then have students do X activity.
LikeLike
takebackedu,
You stated, “Every teacher “meets” children at their level. And the fact that CC advocates for differentiation, is all I need to legitimize my using a different selection to meet the same standard.” You must have a superintendent that has a lot of faith in the teachers and doesn’t use the optional lesson plans.
Why did CC develop scripted text? They obviously exist. Apparently districts have the option to use the scripted lessons. To insure that the students pass the test some districts don’t give the option. There have been some studies that indicated that school administrators felt that teachers weren’t intelligent enough so those administrators most likely would mandate the scripted text. Some teachers may like the scripted text. They could blamed the scripted text for their students’ for not meeting the criteria.
The following article talks about scripted text:
“Teacher slams scripted Common Core lessons that must be taught ‘word for word’”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/11/30/teacher-slams-scripted-common-core-lessons-that-must-be-taught-word-for-word/
Let teacher leaders lead Common Core professional development
http://www.teachingquality.org/content/blogs/susan-carle/let-teacher-leaders-lead-common-core-professional-development
NYS Learning Standards did not change the curriculum; only the process and goals were different.
Not true for CC’s. Here is another example:
Listening and Learning Strand, “Grade 1 ELA Domain 4: Early World Civilizations
http://www.engageny.org/resource/grade-1-ela-domain-4-early-world-civilizations
Other strands:Domain 1: Fables and Stories
2. The Human Body
3: Different Lands, Similar Stories
4: Early World Civilizations
5. Early American Civilizations
6. Astronomy
7: The History of the Earth
8: Animals and Habitats
9: Fairy Tales
10: A New Nation: American Independence
11: Frontier Explorers
CC wants the readings to “stay on topic” year after year. The designers of the CC think by assigning increasingly complex information texts on the same topic each year starting with the “very earliest “ grades will increase the students’ ability to read more complex informational text. CC maintains that by having students listen to informational read-alouds in the early grades helps lay the necessary foundation for students’ reading and understanding of increasingly complex texts on their own in subsequent grades. Ugh!
LikeLike
What about the CC Reading List or the use of lexiles to determine reading materials? Please note that many of the items on this list are inappropriate for the recommended grade level and that lexiles indicate readability not whether the topic of a book is appropriate for the given age. (Most upper elementary age students have the ability to read Porn based on lexiles scores, but I wouldn’t suggest allowing them access to such books.)
LikeLike
Another:
CC is making demands but until it is grounded in a good philosophy and educational theory, children won’t be free to learn.
Just because authority demands that a child flies it won’t happen unless you give him wings. Opening paragraph of the Common Core Standards for English Language Arts,
“One of the key requirements of the Common Core State Standards for Reading is that all students must be able to comprehend texts of steadily increasing complexity as they progress through school. By the time they complete the core, students must be able to read and comprehend independently and proficiently the kinds of complex texts commonly found in college and careers. The first part of this section makes a research based case for when the complexity of what students read matters.”
[First of all the Common Core is not researched based. Crucial researchers were totally ignored. Secondly, a standard cannot demand but only be submitted as an objective, NB must]:
LikeLike
Common Core Knowledge is a platform used to advance artificial intelligence. Our kids are the Human Capital being used like lab rats to make Gates and Broad and the rest of the Billionaires richer and more powerful. I do think Common Core is “researched based” and based on computer science learning, not on REAL LIVE human individuality learning.
Yesterday I had an interesting conversation with a current Public School parent who is an educator in the LAUSD system. This educator said the data aids in knowing where students are falling short and might need help was particularly a fan of common core. Why? Because “robotics is where the jobs will be, so kids are learning to think like computers.”
My comment “This is why I am diametrically opposed to using our kids to ‘think like computers’…and then I explained what Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking had to say about their Fears for Humanity.
http://www.newsweek.com/stephen-hawking-warns-artificial-intelligence-could-end-humanity-332082
Read Elon Musk’s funded “futureoflife.org priorities paper. Common Core Knowledge is the means for computer scientists to advance AI. Musk’s people warn that it will eliminate teachers.
Click to access research_priorities.pdf
LikeLike
Clarity,
Your are so right! As I stated before Common Core is a Trojan Horse. Gates thinks he can replace the teachers with computers.
LikeLike
Alison Bianco
September 25, 2015 at 1:35 pm
“NYSTEACHER< I love you; you have articulated my visceral anger so well. How do like minded people start a movement that actually has legs?'
We need more leaders like Jeanette Deutermann, our opt out leader, to fire up our unions and take action. We need another Lech Walesa to rise up to form a solidarity teacher union as Poland did in the 1990s with the dock workers. How about NYSTEACHER at the helm?
LikeLike
NYSTEACHER, re: “Stop assessing the Common Core in detail”, above. Actually we could use a lot more reasoned and detailed critiques of CCSS on this blog, complete with specific cites– ‘nit-picking’ as you put it.
There is good and detailed info here about the origins of CCSS, and much evidence suggesting the intentions of its promoters. There are many invaluable snapshots from the classroom demonstrating the results of wrong-headed implementation. And we have excellent bird’s-eye views reflecting on the ills inherent in imposing top-down standardization, mostly from Dr Ravitch and Arthur Camins. But aside from a few detailed commentaries on CCSS-ELA by Robert Shepherd, we have precious little in the way of specifics. I’ve read little here on the failures of CCSS-Math; the typical complaints one reads in mainstream articles apply as well to math methods taught in my region since the early ’90’s. And I’ve never, on this blog, seen point-by-point comparisons of CCSS vs better previous state stds.
I appreciate your exhortation to direct ourselves to the political realities. But specific, reasoned critiques of CCSS have their place in that picture, especially in my NE area. Keep in mind, many non-educators come here to understand what they can’t glean from starry-eyed glosses by major newspapers, and from low-info rants in right-wing papers (not to mention comment threads on every ed article).
What success we’ve had politically comes mostly from Opt-Out, which comes mostly from higher-income parents with good schools supported by high taxes. Opt-Out can be broadened in those areas beyond parents feeling the heat this year on their specific kids. An understanding of how specific K-12 standards affect teaching at every level in their district will open many more eyes, especially for parents whose kids are getting by at the moment.
And once you have large family Opt-Out in a hi-priced municipality, you create a community discussion that draws in older & childless taxpayers whose interest in paying hi school taxes is to maintain hi-home-market value. All these folks are mostly educated and curious. Many of them are conservative & may respond to CCSS hype– yet they lean toward classic measures of achievement, such as hi grad rates & caliber of colleges to which local grads are admitted. Conservatives in my NE area are not necessarily knee-jerk ideologues. They are reacting against a history of Tammany-style Democrats, & can be shown, with specifics, that the Republican ed-reform movement is not better, but actually incurs higher local costs for state-imposed measures which water down the curriculum. Their voices have clout with their state reps.
LikeLike
OK, so I read Mary’s comments on CCSS. Thanks.
Is there anything on math out there?
Since the CCSS’s writers repeatedly claim that what they are saying is research based, they must, somewhere, give the references to this research. Can anybody show me a link?
More importantly, the CCSS must have been tried out, experimented with in small student and teacher populations before being mandated to the whole country. Are there references to these experiments?
LikeLike
OK, wierdimate, I know you’re being rhetorical, but figured I’d fill in blanks for newcomers.
Sandra Stotsky and four other members of the CCSS Validation Committee refused to sign off on the final version because their many requests for the promised ‘body of research’ evidencing international benchmarking and other claims were ignored. We can assume no such research exists.
The 40-odd states which adopted the CCSS committed their state DOE’s to implement the CCSS sight-unseen, by Memo of Understanding signed by their governors and state ed supts, in 2009 before the CCSS was written. Implementation began upon release of CCSS one year later. We can assume there was no field testing.
I have not seen any point-by-point critiques of CCSS-Math, perhaps others have. The press often quotes user issues with its clumsy attempt to instill concept by virtue of wordy explanation and multiple, roundabout methods to solve simple arithmetic. But those methods were already being used a decade before CCSS-Math. The substantive issues usually mentioned are introducing Algebra I a year later than normal, and pushing abstract concepts down into earlier grades where they may be developmentally inappropriate. The three issues are addressed in general terms, with some good links, here: http://stopcommoncoreillinois.org/common-core-state-standards/
LikeLike
“OK, wierdimate, I know you’re being rhetorical, but figured I’d fill in blanks for newcomers.”
I wasn’t being rhetorical, and thanks for the info you gave.
That there is not a single indepth analysis of math CC out there is a scandal.
Based on what you are saying, the basic flaw with the CC implementation is that it hasn’t been tested at all. Anything like this should be tested in a lab environment, argued over, etc. This takes years, probably even more than a decade. Even with drugs, we take years till we allow them to be released to the general public.
But CC is much more serious than drugs: they affect almost all kids in this country.
Imagine if CC was a drug. Then its release in the wild happened like this:
“Hey state governors. We have this new stuff which we affectionately call Common Core. This is a drug we came up with to help kids learn things better. We have no idea how effective it is, we have no idea about its sideffects. But we and our insanely wealthy sponsors think, it’s really cool, and for us that’s enough. We’d like to distribute CC in your state. I know you’d like to ask some questions now, but lemme finish what I wanted to say: we are so sure about the coolness of CC that we give you half a billion dollar taxfree cash if you agree to the distro in your state. You don’t have to give us an answer right away. Just go back to your hotel, sleep on it, dream about what you can do with all this $ in your state, how it can help during elections, and we’ll talk in the morning over coffee.”
LikeLike
Bethree5, the video in your link is excellent. The psychologist explains what “age appropriate” really means so that not only any teacher but any parent can understand. Completely avoiding being vicious even for a second, she manages to show clearly, through specific examples, how inappropriate CC is. In fact, I learned a lot from her video about how kids think, say, about math.
LikeLike
Wierdmate,
You stated and asked, “More importantly, the CCSS must have been tried out, experimented with in small student and teacher populations before being mandated to the whole country. Are there references to these experiments?
That is a major problem: it was never tested, never experimented and since it has a copyright, it can not be altered.
LikeLike
bethree5, I have a problem with what you wrote on Sept. 5th. You stated, “Teachers use guided reading questions for stimulating talking about the text, not just the meaning of the text but ideas surrounding it– what is the author’s purpose for writing this? How do you know? Is there bias? Find the evidence that indicates how the author thinks/ feels about… This isn’t really a huge change…”
bethree5, no where do you talk about the text from the child’s perspective- how it affects him/her personally. You talk about the author’s intent, his/her organization, about facts but you don’t make connections with the reader’s personal life.
In “The School and Society” Dewey took the position that curriculum must always be a question of the child’s experiences and the ability of the child to connect the experiences and the subject matter.
Concentrating on the author’s purpose and background isn’t important. The reader is most important. After making a connection with the text the students need to predict. To the degree they can predict, to that degree they will comprehend the text. They then read to verify. Prediction doesn’t play role with Common Core.
To reiterate,the child is most important – not the author. The reader needs to interact with the text and relate to how it affects them. After the text is read the teacher needs to guide the students in evaluating the text. e.g.,
Why would you or wouldn’t you want the main character as your best friend? Which characters in the story were kind? Were any characters mean noted through their conversations and actions? What was the problem/problems and how were they solved?
Evaluation isn’t an important goal with CC.
Application and connections need to be made to self, another text, and to the world , e.g.,
What did you notice about the story?
How did the story make you feel? Why?
What does this story remind you of in your own life?
Did this story remind you of any other story you have read or listened to?
Application isn’t an important higher order thinking skill with CC.
Coleman didn’t and still doesn’t care about how students feel or think so you wouldn’t find a Common Core standard directing the teachers to develop a connection with the student’s experience, evaluate in light of the student nor make application to the student’s life. This is evident from his comment on writing.
Here is Coleman’s own words:
“Do you know the two most popular forms of writing in the American high school today?…It is either the exposition of a personal opinion or the presentation of a personal matter. The only problem, forgive me for saying this so bluntly, the only problem with these two forms of writing is as you grow up in this world you realize people don’t really give a **** about what you feel or think. What they instead care about is can you make an argument with evidence, is there something verifiable behind what you’re saying or what you think or feel that you can demonstrate to me. It is a rare working environment that someone says, “Johnson, I need a market analysis by Friday but before that I need a compelling account of your childhood.”
“Common Core Director to You:”no One gives a S**t What You Think or Feel”
http://theline.edublogs.org/2011/11/02/common-core-director-to-you-no-one-gives-a-st-what-you-think-or-feel/
LikeLike
Then how do they discuss poetry?
Disclosure: even at the university, even teaching math I do give a shit what the students feel. Otherwise, there’s no teaching.
In any case, the basic mistake of CCSS is the belief that the main purpose of K-12 education is preparing kids for the workplace. Imo.
LikeLike
To read the CC Standards, go to: http://www.corestandards.org/
In the English Language Arts section, there are strands. One strand is entitled: “Reading: Informational Text” and the other is entitled: “Reading: Literature”.
Specifically, if I were reading poetry with a grade five class, these standards may apply, depending on the poem:
CCSS.ELA.-Literacy.RL.5.1; CCSS.ELA.-Literacy.RL.5.2; CCSS.ELA.-Literacy.RL.5.4; CCSS.ELA.-Literacy.RL.5.5; CCSS.ELA.-Literacy.RL.5.6.
However, I would often apply any Informational Text standards, if they fit a specific work. For example, CCSS.ELA.-Literacy.RL.5.1 is a basic comprehension skill; if the poem juxtaposes two contrasting ideas then CCSS.ELA.-Literacy.RL.5.3 may apply; if the author gives reasons or expresses strong feeling then CCSS.ELA.-Literacy.RL.5.8 may apply. For grades 6 and up, if a poem is autobiographical, it begs to ask, Why did the author write this? What is the author’s purpose? CCSS.ELA.-Literacy.RL.6.6
If you need me to extrapolate this further, please suggest a specific poem and grade level.
LikeLike
Thanks, takebackedu. The original idea here was that in reading poetry, the reader’s (the kids) personal opinion, feelings are the most important. Coleman’s reaction to this was
This comment seems to confirm that the dreaded “college and career readiness” purpose of CC is to be taken literally.
And this is exactly where supporters of CC and its opponents will differ immediately, and fundamentally: the purpose of education; to be exact, the purpose of K-8 education.
As I see it, many of the opponents of CC think the purpose of life is not work; we likely have to work to live, but we don’t live to work. Correspondingly, the purpose of K-8 education is to help kids live a full life.
So my question to the CC creators is not how their program help my kids get into college or land a great job, but how the CC ensures that my kids end up loving poetry or any other subject they encounter in school.
Based on what you wrote, and what Coleman is saying, there is some kind of objective, universal content in a given poem that every kid needs to learn. This view makes loving (or disliking!) a poem secondary to understanding, interpreting, evaluating it. That’s a shame.
My comment was that even in the ultimate objective subject, math, even at the highest level (college), the student’s opinion, personal view is very important. Why? Because the personal relationship of a student to a subject is a much greater and more urgent motivating factor than getting ready for the job market. Without digging out and (positively) exploiting this great personal energy, there is no teaching at any level, only training.
If I do not know what’s in the kids’ minds, if I only want to ensure the “standard” way of interpreting things, how will I notice when they discover a new way of looking at something?
At a typical workplace in a typical job, the employer needs you to get things done. Getting things done is not the main purpose of K-8 (or even in K-12) education. Why not? For one, a school is not a work place, and in my (and many other opponents of the basic assumption behind CC) education’s primary purpose is definitely not to prepare you for a career.
In my opinion, this is how math needs to be taught (hopefully somebody can show a poetry example), and I’d like to know how CC makes sure all kids get this. If CC doesn’t help in this, then CC is useless, as far as I am concerned. Please listen to the conclusion.
LikeLike
The ELA standards are essentially, critical thinking skills that encourage readers to break down and understand text. What happens with that understanding is up to the teacher. I never stopped at that point—comprehending the text is imperative to doing anything at a higher level of thinking/creativity or collaborative in nature.
Think of the teacher as a conductor. The standards form the most basic premise. No where do the standards state that the teacher may NOT use graphic organizers, interactive learning games, etc. The standards DO NOT DICTATE learning activities or conversations. (If this is your experience, it is because of decisions in your state/district, not the intent of CC).
The teacher brings enthusiasm, encourages thoughtful connections, employs visual organizers, supplies relevant media, and may even design collaborative projects and research activities—-neither teaching techniques nor instructional strategies are dictated.
So when you write: “There is no standard on the primary level that directs the students to make a connection with the text to self, text to text, and text to their environment much less use graphic organizers to make help visualize and make connections and comparisons.” Are you asserting that just because something isn’t explicitly written in CC, you won’t do it—-even when it is appropriate, been proven to work with your student sin the past, enjoyable, and based on sound research? If yes, then shame on you. You are proving a point as to why some reformers think EVERYTHING must be dictated to teachers who simply follow scripted curriculum.
Common Core standards have become the “boogieman” due to OTHER convoluted educational reforms.
I stand by my opinion that in their simplest form—-written standards on a piece of paper—the CC is the most concise and flexible set of standards I have ever worked with as an instructional designer, curriculum writer, teacher, and parent. Assign me any subject at any grade level, and I can interpret them to help my child or design curriculum using research-based instructional strategies and techniques while considering the complexity of my audience—their needs, interests, and abilities.
There is a difference between: 1) the actual standards AND 2) educational reform movements, how they are implemented, and the reality of teaching.
Educational reforms have high jacked the Common Core Standards and made them very unpopular.
LikeLike
takebackedu, your reply above starting with “The ELA standards are essentially, …” appears after my post, but you are quoting Mary DeFalco whose original post ends up appearing after your reply to it.
LikeLike
I am very embarrassed by the LACK of confidence that these posts express about teachers.
I thought teachers who oppose CCSS, do so because they feel CC dictates exactly what skills to teach?!! Yet this post reflects that the CCSS don’t say enough!
Mary, every good teacher helps students make connections. There are three types: text to self; text to text; and text to world.
Actually, every research-based reading/literature program contains guided reading questions, end of selection questions, and a review lesson comparing multiple selections. At least one question in each section is labeled “reflection”, “opinion” or something similar, in which students make a connection to the character or idea in the selections.
Ironically, understanding the author’s purpose/perspective, a skill that was criticized in another post, helps begin the process of empathy–which addresses the affective domain you speak to, Mary.
LikeLike
There is another Mary contributing, I use my full name. Juxtaposition of name and comments implies I made statements I didn’t make.
CCSS has a copyright, teachers are not free to add or change a standard. David Coleman and his work group did not and would not add a child centered touch – evident from his own very words. That is why he stresses the closed reading approach. There must have been a good reason why NY State turned down David Coleman’s application to teach in NY State.
A primary standard states, :“Ask and answer questions to demonstrate understanding of a text, referring explicitly to the text as the basis for the answers.”
CC believes that the answers are to be found in the text itself so they concentrate on the text instead of starting with the child and what the child knows. “Closed reading” negates the years of research stating the importance of utilizing prior knowledge.
The philosophy embedded in the CC is a modified version of Behaviorism. For the primary grades CC states, “varied and repeated practice leads to rapid recall and automaticity.” Being able to regurgitate information will be of no use to the students if he/she can’t relate to the information in some way.
Research reveals that learning is social; we learn from one another. Learning can’t be abstract, passive mode. We don’t see with our eyes, or hear with our ears; we perceive with our whole being which is based upon our experiences. Dewey wanted to teach students how to think – think beyond just comparing and analyzing. Those references are never made.
I have even seen Common Core flash cards advertised!!! CC ignores research that proves that rote learning is flawed. CC ignores the importance of developing the conceptual tools of semantics and syntax which researchers have proven to be most effective in teaching emergent and early readers how to construct meaning. Personal connections/cues are missing with the CC.
CC, wants to withdraw scaffolding by the end of third grade. ( Figure 4: The Progression of Reading Standard 10) CC Work Group doesn’t understand the meaning of scaffolding. CC doesn’t understand scaffolding as described as researchers. Jerome Bruner and Lev Vygotsky define scaffolding as a learning theory that bridges the child’s prior knowledge to the new text.
So if CC wants to take away scaffolding already in third grade then for sure it is not going to appear in the later standards.
CC document of standards continue with misinformation: It defines phonological awareness as word awareness (Spoken Language). CC states, “Move a chip or marker to stand for each word in a spoken sentence.”
Phonological awareness refers to awareness of sounds- not awareness of words.
How can CC claim to be researched?
CC does not consider evaluation and application important. Which standard directs teacher to develop background knowledge? Which standard directs the teachers to connect the text to the students? There is definitely no standard on the primary level that directs the teacher to make a connection with the students before they begin instruction. It is obvious that no attempt is made with making connections when they teach skills. There is no standard on the primary level that directs the students to make a connection with the text to self, text to text, and text to their environment much less use graphic organizers to make help visualize and make connections and comparisons. Just because you skirt the standards along the spirit of the standards doesn’t mean you are adhering to the CC standards. Please list a standard that give those specific directives. It appears that at times you are confusing the Learning Standards with the Common Core.
You stated, “I thought teachers who oppose CCSS, do so because they feel CC dictates exactly what skills to teach?!! Yet this post reflects that the CCSS don’t say enough!”
No, teachers are appose to standards that are not anchored in sound theory.
You stated, “Actually, every research-based reading/literature program contains guided reading questions, end of selection questions, and a review lesson comparing multiple selections. At least one question in each section is labeled “reflection”, “opinion” or something similar, in which students make a connection to the character or idea in the selections.”
But CC’s program is not research-based program. Which standard directs teachers to make the curriculum child centered?
Certainly not, “Ask and answer questions to demonstrate understanding of a text, referring explicitly to the text as the basis for the answers.”
Even if Pearson’s teachers’ edition would suggest a procedure grounded in sound practices, that is not reflected of the CC standards. The worksheets that come home are a far cry from sound teaching. Plus, writing and creative responses should be used in lieu of workbooks. Workbooks are a waste of money.
You stated, “Ironically, understanding the author’s purpose/perspective, a skill that was criticized in another post, helps begin the process of empathy–which addresses the affective domain you speak to, Mary.”
What I said the the child is the most important- not the author. I didn’t say that the author’s intent wasn’t important. The child and his background/ his experiences take priority.
LikeLike
takebackedu,
You stated, “Common Core standards have become the “boogieman” due to OTHER convoluted educational reforms.”
You make it sound as if teaching critical thinking skills are new. The process – critical thinking skills were in place long before CC came on the scene with the NYState Learning Standards Add to that, the curriculum remained in place with the NYSLS- no need for new textbooks and teacher training. NY State had its curriculum chosen by the educational experts of the state, contrary to how CC’s curriculum was developed.
Why were the Common Core Standards forced on the teachers of New York when we already had better standards. They were not what you claim to be “convoluted.” They have more inclusive higher order thinking skills, plus they were anchored in a sound teaching theory of Constructivism. Around the state teachers met many times discussing the new proposed standards before they were finalized. NY Learning Standards included the most important higher order thinking skill – imagination along with evaluation and application which CC does not. Plus NYLearning Standards are both curriculum and child centered but not CC. Place the NYSLS side by side the CCSS”s and see for yourself the difference- hopefully you have the needed background to compare the two.
Why was CC forced on us? The fed. govt. wants to control education which is unconstitutional; however, the fed. govt. skirts around the blatant control by having Gates pay David Coleman millions to write new standards. By taking away money via the budget sequestration, an austerity budget was imposed. Many programs and teachers had to be eliminated. With that money gained by the sequestration, the fed. govt. had money to bribe the governors to sign on to the Common Core which was never discussed by the teachers nor tested. In fact the governors signed on to the CC before they were even finished.
Now new text books and computers have to be purchased. Gates gets his money back and Pearson gets control over the textbooks and testing in lieu of bringing back needed teachers and smaller classes. Millions would be wasted on invalid aligned testing bringing along all kinds of harmful psychological problems and much more.
takebackedu, when you stated, “I stand by my opinion that in their simplest form—-written standards on a piece of paper—the CC is the most concise and flexible set of standards I have ever worked with as an instructional designer, curriculum writer, teacher, and parent. Assign me any subject at any grade level, and I can interpret them to help my child or design curriculum using research-based instructional strategies and techniques while considering the complexity of my audience—their needs, interests, and abilities.” you sound like someone who was paid off or could even be the Commissioner herself. You have totally ignored all the problems about CC that I have reiterate numerous times. You could also be a TFA with no background in ed theory or child psychology. As stated many times CC standards were not researched and above all not by educators.
LikeLike
I think you nailed it– teaching critical thinking is not new. The CC makes sense to me because they represent what we we’ve always wanted students to learn to do.
Most posts reflect NY teachers. I was trained in NY (C.W.Post) but I’ve only taught in Florida. Need I say more?
Context is important too, In 2011, I re-entered the classroom after working in publishing for 13+ years, when the CC was rolled out . They made sense and I didn’t skip a beat getting started but a lot of chaos has happened since.
If I had stayed on Long Island, I’d probably has less enthusiasm, but in Fl, it was the most tangible direction I had. Oh the stories here! Don’t get me started!
LikeLike
takebackedu, you stated, “Most posts reflect NY teachers. I was trained in NY (C.W.Post) but I’ve only taught in Florida. Need I say more?”
It appears that our paths might have crossed in the past; you must have known my husband.
Through the years I kept searching for better ways to teach literacy. I made an about face with my approach. I was so blessed to have colleagues who were well versed on Marie Clay’s philosophy; I learned so much from them.
LikeLike