Robert Shepherd, teacher, author, curriculum developer, and all-round educator, does not like Common Core. Since he returned to the classroom, he likes it less each day. He wrote the following commentary for David Coleman, developer of the Common Core and now president of the College Board.
A piece I wrote for David Coleman, in Honor of Shakespeare’s 450th Birthday
I once read, in “The American Scholar,” I think, or perhaps it was in “Verbatim,” a tragic report on the paucity of dedicated swear words in classical Latin. The Romans were always envious of the subtlety of the Greek tongue, of its rich resources for philosophical and literary purposes, but the Greeks were even less well endowed with profanities than the Romans were. The poor Romans had to result to graffiti, which they did with wild and glorious abandon, while the Greeks stuck to salacious statuary and decoration of vases.
I have a nice little collection of books on cursing in various languages. French, Spanish, German, Italian–the modern European languages, generally–are rich mines of lively expressions. But our language, which has been so promiscuous through the centuries, has to be the finest for cursing that we apes have yet developed. We English speakers are blessed with borrowed riches, there, that speakers of other tongues can only dream of.
So, when I watch a David Coleman video, there’s a lot for me to say, and a lot of choice language to say it with.
Those of you who are English teachers will be familiar with the Homeric catalog. It’s a literary technique that is basically a list. The simple list isn’t much to write home about, you might think, but this humble trope can be extraordinarily effective. Consider the following trove of treasures. What are these all names of? (Take a guess. Don’t cheat. The answer is below.)
Green Darner
Roseate Skimmer
Great Pondhawk
Ringed Cascader
Comet Darner
Banded Pennant
Orange Emperor
Banded Groundling
Black Percher
Little Scarlet
Tau Emerald
Southern Yellowjack
Vagrant Darter
Beautiful Demoiselle
Large Red
Mercury Bluet
Eastern Spectre
Somber Goldenring
Back to my dreams of properly cursing Coleman and the Core, of dumping the full Homeric catalog of English invective on them.
I have wanted to do so on Diane Ravitch’s blog, but Diane doesn’t allow such language in her living room, and I respect that. So I am sending this post, re Coleman and the Core, thinking that perhaps Diane won’t mind a little Shakespeare. (After all, it’s almost Shakespeare’s birthday. His 450th. Happy birthday, Willie!)
Let’s begin with some adjectives:
Artless, beslubbering, bootless, churlish, craven, dissembling, errant, fawning, forward, gleeking, impertinent, loggerheaded, mammering, merkin-faced, mewling, qualling, rank, reeky, rougish, pleeny, scurvie, venomed, villainous, warped and weedy,
And then add some compound participles:
beef-witted, boil-brained, dismal-dreaming, earth-vexing, fen-sucked, folly-fallen, idle-headed, rude-growing, spur-galled, . . .
And round it all off with a noun (pick any one that you please):
Bum-baily
Canker-blossom
Clotpole
Coxcomb
Codpiece
Dewberry
Flap-dragon
Foot-licker
Hugger-mugger
Lout
Mammet
Minnow
Miscreant
Moldwarp
Nut-hock
Puttock
Pumpion
Skainsmate
Varlet
Or, if you want whole statements from the Bard himself:
“Thy tongue outvenoms all the worms of the Nile.” (worms = snakes)
“Methink’st thou art a general offence and every man should beat thee.”
“You scullion! You rampallian! You fustilarian! I’ll tickle your catastrophe!”
“You starvelling, you eel-skin, you dried neat’s-tongue, you bull’s-pizzle, you stock-fish–O for breath to utter what is like thee!-you tailor’s-yard, you sheath, you bow-case, you vile standing tuck!”
“Thou sycophantic, merkin-faced varlet.”
“Thou cream-faced loon!”
There. Glad I got that out of my system.
BTW. Those are names of dragonflies, above. Beautiful, aren’t they? Shakespeare loved odd names of things. Scholars have shown that he used in writing a wider vocabulary than any other author who has ever wrote in our glorious tongue. Again, happy birthday, Willie. What fools those Ed Deformers be!
All praise to William Shakespeare (or to William de Vere who may’ve been Shakespeare’s ghost writer)!
All praise to Bob Shepherd, and to Diane, a lover of words. I though I had exhausted my adjectives for the events of the last year, or month, or week, or day, or tweet. I am restored: Thanks. I am really fond of beslubbering.
Below are the Next Generation Standards in New York, but basically they represent the common core standards. Which ones do you think are detrimental?
Literacy 6-12 Anchor Standards for Reading
Key Ideas and Details
Standard 1: Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly/implicitly and make logical inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text.
Standard 2: Determine central ideas or themes of a text and analyze their development;
summarize the key supporting details and ideas.
Standard 3: Analyze how and why individuals, events, and ideas develop and interact over the course of a text.
Craft and Structure
Standard 4: Interpret words and phrases as they are used in a text, including determining
technical, connotative, and figurative meanings, and analyze how specific word choices
shape meaning or tone.
Standard 5: Analyze the structure of texts, including how specific sentences, paragraphs,
and larger portions of the text (e.g., a section, chapter, scene, or stanza) relate to each
other and the whole.
Standard 6: Assess how point of view or purpose shapes the content and style of a text,
drawing on a wide range of global and diverse texts.
Integration of Knowledge and Ideas
Standard 7: Integrate and evaluate content presented in diverse media and formats,
including across multiple texts.
Standard 8: Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, including the validity of the reasoning as well as the relevance and sufficiency of the evidence.
Standard 9: Analyze how two or more texts address similar themes or topics in order to build knowledge or to compare the approaches the authors take.
Literacy 6-12 Anchor Standards for Writing
Text Types and Purposes
Standard 1: Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.
Standard 2: Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas and information clearly and accurately through the effective selection, organization, and analysis of content.
Standard 3: Write narratives to understand an event or topic, using effective techniques,
well-chosen details, and well-structured sequences.
Standard 4: Develop personal, cultural, textual, and thematic connections within and across genres through responses to texts and personal experiences.
Research to Build and Present Knowledge
Standard 5: Conduct short as well as more sustained research based on focused
questions to demonstrate understanding of the subject under investigation.
Standard 6: Gather relevant information from multiple sources, assess the credibility
and accuracy of each source, and integrate the information while avoiding plagiarism.
Use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing and to interact
and collaborate with others.
Standard 7: Draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support analysis,
reflection, and research.
Is this multiple choice? I’ll take (E) All of the above.
Gad. Really horrific.
Clearly the result of bueaucrats being allowed to have at baseless, putrid standards: taking them to their logical extensions, then boiling them down to their essence. Here we have the brown bits scraped from the bottom of the pan, offered up as guidelines for the assessment.
Every one of these is bad, for lots of reasons. And the whole enterprise is bad. I spent a lot of time trying to spell it out in a comment, but the comment didn’t get through. I’ll try again later.
The Shakespearean insults are fun, but they’re not going to topple the Coleman house of cards. Neither is a catalogue of dragon flies, as exciting as that may be.
Now’s the time to get strategic and make a strong appeal for parents and their kids to refuse the tests, call out the charlatans, and hit them where they live. Easier said than done, but it CAN be done.
Boy, am I HAPPY that I’m retired. I taught elementary music but this sounds like garbage. No wonder teachers burn out and either suffer or leave.
Here’s what’s wrong with these standards, NYTeacher: they describe actions, not knowledge. You can elicit actions, but you can’t teach them. You can teach knowledge. Thus the Common Core curricula coming out are all about kids performing tasks but not learning anything. The hope is that all this performing will strengthen some sort of mental muscles that will make them better analyzers, better drawers of evidence, better information gatherers, etc… But what if there are no such mental muscles that can be strengthened through these daily activities? What if an old-fashioned education of acquiring knowledge not only banishes ignorance (pretty important, don’t you think?) but ALSO, counterintuitively, bolsters one’s ability to perform such tasks? What if it’s the only way to bolster one’s ability to perform such tasks? A kid who’s spent 12 years on CC skill drills, but knows nothing, will never be able to analyze War and Peace, or even the phone bill. Knowledge is what we ought to be teaching kids. These CC skills have never been taught and never will be taught because they’re just names of things that don’t exist. We are aiming at things that are mere phantasms. There is no such thing as a strong literary analysis skill that is independent of lots of knowledge about literature and the world it describes. There is no such thing as a tech troubleshooting skill that is independent of detailed knowledge of tech. Teach a kid about cricket and, voila, he can read, write and think well about cricket. No lessons on thinking skills necessary. but absent this knowledge, no amount of skills practice will enable him. Show me one person who lacks knowledge but got smart through such a curriculum.
Ponderosa, you have expressed exactly what is wrong with CC. Good analysis!
O, please help us to see
That without Duncan
Devos would not be!
Outstanding! Bob, I still have one of your pieces on how to teach writing saved to the desktop of my school laptop for easy access. And the Shakespearean insults lesson (which I learned about from one of my student teachers) is an annual, beloved event in my classroom. I use it with SomeDAM’s method of rewriting poetry to rework Willie’s Sonnet 130. Then, we write our own sonnets from scratch. I love, love, love, not just the wide vocabulary used by Shakespeare, but the structure. I challenge myself and my students to think, write, and rhyme in iambic pentameter. (I’m very slowly writing a novel in iambic pentameter. (Very slowly. (With a pen. On paper.))) I never thought to go all Homeric on the students, though. Looks like thoughtful fun. I’ll have to try it. This is a great post! Thank you, Diane and Bob!
Now, regarding DeVos, she is an artless, idle-headed wagtail. Take her away; for she hath lived too long, to fill the world with vicious qualities.
InService, I loved your description of DeVos. Can you write a description of Trump?
Donald art a lumpish, errant, impertinent, ruttish, vain, unmuzzled, loggerheaded, beef-witted, flap-mouthed, ill-nurtured lout, a fustilarian, a coxcomb, and art ratsbane to all.
InService: Stunningly accurate!! You have amazing abilities to write such brilliant a description.
I wonder that he will still be tweeting. Nobody marks him.
Nobody marks him? EVERYBODY marks him. One reason he got elected is that otherwise smart opponents couldn’t understand his fiendishly effective communucation skills. Apparently they still can’t.
To underestimate and smugly dismiss the effectiveness of boldfaced liars like Coleman and Trump is to keep them in power. If we want to unmask the likes of Claudio, Borachio, Conrad, Petrilli, Finn, Campbell Brown, and the rest, we’re gonna have to try a different approach. At least Dogberry showed up and did his best. Somehow I don’t think we’re going to defeat these people by accident.
Sorry, I messed up that little analogy. If we want to unmask the likes of DON JOHN, not Claudio… Claudio was Don John’s dupe.
On second thought, the analogy doesn’t work anyway. Unlike Don John, people like Coleman, Petrilli, and Finn are PAID villains. Not sure about Campbell Brown, though.
You guys need to get a hold of this past Saturday’s SAT. It felt like a competency exam one would take to be employed in an operational capacity by one of the Fortune 500. As if these were the only reasons to attend college or worthy careers.
It was such a weird test. I don’t want teachers to become corporate trainers if that is what common core is emphasizing.
Bob, you just wasted some good Shakespeare on a seggfej (lett Google translate do its work).
It was splendid reading, though.
lol