Will Fitzhugh is founder and editor of The Concord Review, which publishes outstanding historical essays by high school students. I have long been an admirer of the publication and of Will for sustaining it without support from any major foundation, which are too engaged in reinventing the schools rather than supporting the work of excellent history students and teachers. You can subscribe by contacting him at fitzhugh@tcr.org.
He writes:
A few years ago, at a conference in Boston, David Steiner, then Commissioner of Education for New York State, said, about History: “It is so politically toxic that no one wants to touch it.”
Since then, David Coleman, of the Common Core and the College Board, have decided that any historical topic, for instance the Gettysburg Address, should be taught in the absence of any historical context—about the Civil War, President Lincoln, the Battle of Gettysburg—or anything else. This fits well with the “Close Reading” teachings of the “New Criticism” approach to literature in which Coleman received his academic training. This doctrine insists that any knowledge about the author or the historical context should be avoided in the analytic study of “texts.”
The Common Core, thanks to Coleman, has promoted the message that History, too, is nothing but a collection of “texts,” and it all should be studied as just language, not as knowledge dependent on the context in which it is embedded.
Not only does this promote ignorance, it also encourages schools to form Humanities Departments, in which English teachers, who may or may not know any History, are assigned to teach History as “text.” This is already happening in a few Massachusetts high schools, and may be found elsewhere in the country.
The dominance of English teachers over reading and writing in our schools has long meant that the great majority of our high school graduates have never been asked to read one complete History book in their academic careers.
Good English teachers do a fine job of teaching novels and personal and creative writing, but it is a Common Core mistake to expect them to teach the History in which they have little or no academic background. Treating History as contextless “text” is not a solution to this problem.
The ignorance of History among our high school graduates is a standing joke to those who think it is funny, and NAEP has found that only about 18% know enough to pass the U.S. citizenship exam.
In The Knowledge Deficit, E.D. Hirsch writes that: “In a 1785 letter to his nephew, Peter Carr, aged fifteen, Jefferson recommended that he read books (in the original languages and in this order) by the following authors in History: Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon [Anabasis], Arian, Quintus Curtius, Diodorus Siculus, and Justin.”
We may no longer imagine that many of our high school students will read their History in Latin, but we should expect that somehow they may be liberated from the deeply irresponsible Common Core curriculum that, in restricting the study of the past to the literary analysis of “texts,” essentially removes as much actual History from our schools as it possibly can.
Not to defend Common Core, but is this really a phenomenon of “close reading”? In my day we had this enormous textbooks in “history” class that presented history as a series of Things That Happened. There’d be a paragraph or two on each Unimportant Thing and a few pages for the Important Things. That history was the actual lived lives of individual people reacting to events that had gone before and trying to shape events to come was really not part of the lesson. As long as you knew things like George Washington, 1776, Abraham Lincoln, Civil War, 1860s, Battle of Gettysburg, World War I, 1917, World War II, 1940s, etc., you were all good. It wasn’t until I read Howard Zinn in my 30s that I finally got it.
Arg, cx, “textbook”, singular. Sorry.
That history was the actual lived lives of individual people reacting to events that had gone before and trying to shape events to come was really not part of the lesson.
Well said! It wasn’t until I was out of high school that I realized that history was everything that ever happened and that a lot of that stuff was pretty darned amazing. And it wasn’t until even later that I realized that history, like memory, is to an enormous extent confabulation–just so stories that we tell ourselves when we have imposed a narrative structure on events, assigned protagonists and antagonists, hero roles, villain roles, and, importantly, attended to this and not to that
It is a shame when socio-political forces determine what “stories” get told.
For the record, the “close reading” or “New Criticism” that Coleman promulgates and that has — in a clumsy fashion — seeped its way into K12 is not “literary analysis” either. That is, most university English faculty can tell you the brief history of “New Criticism” and its limitations. But, given this is a comment post, let me just say that Coleman’s take is the equivalent of pushing creationism in Biology — I guess we do that too. Professor and Chair, English, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
yes. well said
Good English teachers and critics recognize that texts exist in context. To use an example I often trot out, if someone says, “You better tie up those loose ends,” it makes a difference if the speaker is Tony Soprano or a macrame instructor.
Also, Coleman clearly did NOT receive training in New Criticism. He clearly doesn’t have the advanced analytical tools that someone with such training gains, despite the obvious deficiencies of the approach. The Common Core can most charitably be described as a collection of received folk mythologies about language, literature, grammar, composition, speaking, listening, and thinking–dull, ignorant, confused, vapid, pedestrian, mediocre, often based on inherited, unexamined misunderstandings of how language and literature work.
Ah, tell it like it is Bob!! Love it!
Those of you who think that history and civics are an essential part of a strong liberal arts curriculum might take a look at the new California History/Social Science framework. (Just google it for a link) The framework emphasizes history as an engaging narrative, developing content and deep understanding in every grade, using questioning and an active classroom as key ingredients of instruction, equitable treatment of all groups, and substantial attention to civic engagement and a commitment to our democratic heritage. Be sure to look at the appendices.
I don’t know about new books, but existing pre-common Core 2006 edition of World History is pure religious propaganda. It talks about Noah’s Ark as if it actually happened.
Gruff,
I read all the world and US history textbooks in use in 2006, and I didn’t see any that referred to Noah’s Ark as history. In fact, I didn’t see any reference at all to Noah’s Ark. Where did you get that from?
See my book “The Language Police.”
The books are deficient for many reasons, but not that one.
It is a 2006 World History for middle school by McDougal Littell, still in use. It can be traced back well into the 1990s.
Here is some fun info, yes these are older editions, but thing did not change much since then: http://www.textbookleague.org/sp-nogo.htm
Bill Honig,
The new CA history frameworks, like the new ELA frameworks before them, are an indigestible mishmash of high-falutin’ gobbledygook. Publishers must pore through them, a nighmarish obstacle course, but most teachers probably ignore them, as they should.
Like the Bible, one can cherry pick these prolix frameworks to support any approach. What matters is the dominant interpretation. From the county-sponsored training workshop I’ve been to, it seems the dominant interpretation is have kids do “inquiry”. What this boils down to is: sage off the stage. Give kids a question and have them try to answer it using texts you give them. Gaining historical knowledge is not the object. The aim is to have kids “grapple” (this word was used over and over) with the text. The aim is to have kids talk to each other (the presenter called student talk “sacred”). Somehow all this grappling and talking is supposed to be beneficial, and of course there is probably some benefit. But I can tell you that if the aim is to get kids to learn history, this is not the best approach. Nothing beats lucid direct instruction for that. I guarantee you that this approach will LOWER the already low level of historical literacy among our students. I’d love to see evidence that I’m wrong.
The “inquiry” approach is not new and not limited to history or literature. The Core-Plus math course uses it. Developed since 1992, first edition in 1999, third edition in 2015, supposedly aligned with Common Core, still as bad as it has always been. If you lament about fewer ELA hours under Common Core, don’t. These 600-page math books look like pulp fiction with occasional charts and tables and barely any formulas. These books are horrible and NOT because of Common Core. The irony is that they claim to present math in context instead of simply explaining what a linear function is.
As a language arts teacher in middle school I used Kids Discover magazine to teach the civil rights movement to students in my resource special education class. I felt justified when a student told her parent that civil rights was not about Martin Luther King but about the organization and work of many people to gain rights.
WCT: I find that my ordinary 7th grade kids find it very difficult to extract information from texts about history, including articles from National Geographic and Smithsonian, not to mention primary sources, unless I read them aloud with the students, explain words and concepts, fill in background info, draw on the board, etc. Did you give your students any help in reading this piece?
Ponderosa
Yes, just as you described and incorporating my personal experiences registering voters in the South.
In response to Bill Honig, people who actually know history have a different opinion of the new California History Framework that he peddles. https://www.ocregister.com/2016/04/08/new-school-history-framework-is-unhistorical/
Not being a history expert but knowing math and the recent California Math Framework developed under Honig, my personal impression is that he wouldn’t recognize a decent framework even if it hit him in the face.
I have not seen the latest California history curriculum. I was one of the writers of the previous CA framework, along with teachers and other scholars. I note that Bill Evers, who wrote the linked article is not a historian. He usually writes about math education, though so far as I recall he was never a teacher. Bill is a Hoover fellow who worked for the Bush Coalition Authority in Iraq and was Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education for Bush 2. It is easy to find flaws in any document, and they should be corrected. But you don’t throw out the effort by nitpicking.
Actually, Bill Evers is probably more knowledgeable of history curriculum than of math, although he has been active in both areas in California.
But I do know math, math frameworks, and math standards. I had direct interactions with some people behind the current California math Framework, and with Bill Honig, and I stand behind what I had written.
Give me a break. Bill Evers knows a lot about Iraq, but when did he teach history?
Here is a fascinating look at how history/civics is being taught, in conjunction with the 2d amendment:
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2018/03/15/post-parkland-the-second-amendment-gets-a-closer.html?cmp=eml-enl-eu-news1&M=58416689&U=2306083
And now Coleman, as head of the College Board, as been doing this to AP history classes by “redesigning” the AP exams to match the Common Core model.
I won’t go far into the implied philosophical background of David Coleman’s view, but the treatment of “texts” portrayed in the article rings of how physicists treat their field data. That data are non-conscious, non-historical, non-developmental, and non-dialectical. Added to that, that treatment doesn’t allow for the background and history, and also-developmental and dialectical viewpoint, of the scientist/researcher.
Things, they are a’changing; and no less in the theoretical fields where theoreticians are breaking through their received scientific positivism and finally becoming aware of the great differences in the data and, therefore, the methods to be applied to the different fields and subjects. This includes all of the sciences (that is, the human sciences) from which the fields of education regularly draw.
With that in mind, Coleman’s view, as well as (apparently) the underpinnings of Common Core, are naive and TOTALLY behind the curve in their understanding of theoretical developments in the fields.
It might not be necessary (?) to study history to understand theoretical physics or even the natural world (?); but to be educated in a world where humans happen to live, where we all have ethical, political, and spiritual questions that develop over time, and who have histories and cannot do otherwise, to not understand that history and our place in it, is no education at all.
What a dolt–he’s drawing from the model of natural and physical sciences rather than what would cover and include human beings. He didn’t get an education and doesn’t know it.
What a freaking awesome response! Thank you.
yes, yes, yes
Here Here! As an engineer turned teacher and then a PhD in Curriculum and development, your comment reads so true. Physics Today has a recent article about physicists delving into social research that cautioned those do so to get out of their positivist bubble ( they definitely did not phrase it that way) and to read the theoretical underpinnings of the social science area in which they are data mining.
“it is a Common Core mistake to expect them to teach the History” – where exactly Commomn Core expects this?
Lies My Teacher Told Me is a great starter book of American history.
Lies My Teacher Told Me does not include a single textbook that is currently in print.
These textbooks are rehashed, renamed and reprinted with minimal changes to the content. But the value of the book is not its critique of outdated textbooks, but its approach to history as a series of events happening in context. It reads as a novel, yet it is very precise it connecting cause and effect. Exact dates are not important.
No, textbooks do not read like a novel. They are disconnected facts loosely strung together.
Check out Diane’s The Language Police, which contains many wonderful examples of politically motivated revisionism by folks on the right and left.
I can’t say you’re incorrect, but there are instances where they are novelistic:
Don & Jean Johnson’s The Human Drama
Joy Hakim’s A History of US
Many AP World textbooks at least make the attempt.
Larry Gonik’s Cartoon Histories are also quite good at narrative.
Thanks. Love Larry Gonik, btw.
The best of the practitioners of the New Criticism, William Empson, understood its limitations quite well and broke the rules all the time. But Coleman, again, clearly is not good enough at New Critical close reading to grok what it was really about–ramifying the text into a world. Recommended reading for Lord Coleman: Empson’s Seven Types of Ambiguity.
New Criticism, practiced well, can be a fascinating and revealing interpretive style, but it’s one of a great many. Catherine King hit the nail on the head, above when she said that Coleman’s New Criticism Lite is way, way behind the times. And furthermore, his version is more like a caricature of New Criticism. The Common Core is like what one would get if a committee of plumbers wrote new standards for medicine based on the Wikipedia article about Galen and the 1859 edition of Gray’s Anatomy.
How ironic that Gates paid him so very much money to hack together, without any thought whatsoever, the collection of superstitions about ELA that is the Common Core.
I am not a student of literary theory, but it seems disingenuous to imagine that a piece of writing can be interpreted outside of the context in which it was written. Worse, it robs students of a valuable lens through which to understand history. How people express themselves, whether in writing, through the arts, or for that matter scientific investigation, provides evidence through which we can make sense of history. History, of course, answers the all-important question, “How did we get here?” Without history, we are doomed to imagine that the circumstances in which we live are a normative constant. Maybe that serves, the interest of the privileged who benefit from the inequitable status quo. Historical context is vital to science as well. How else are we to make sense of people holding on to the view that the Earth was the center of the universe, or in out time, that humans are not the major contributor to climate change.
Without history, we are doomed to imagine that the circumstances in which we live are a normative constant.
So well said. Yes yes yes.
As someone that read a great deal of 19th century literature in both English and French, I understand that it is impossible to read these works that often focus on social injustice in isolation. Anyone that has a ever read a Charles Dickens’ novel understands that the narrative is a reflection and commentary of what was happening in19th century England.
The worst part of this, in my little corner of the world, anyway, is that elementary students are “learning” history and geography (which needs to be emphasized, too), as well as civics, through reading instruction. So, I’m told: “Elementary DOES have social studies curriculum. It’s in their reading instruction.”
WRONG! There is no curriculum there. The kids read about ancient Egypt one day, the Cotton Gin the next, Martin Luther King, Jr. the next, and animals of Madagascar the day after that. There is no coherence, no patterns, no way to make sense of the material. Not to mention that when social studies is “taught” in reading instruction, the over emphasis of the reading “skills” outweighs the content, and the kids forget the material by the next day.
ANY social studies “instruction” that ignores location, background information, and patterns of events is deficient. And that is MOST history, geography, and civics education today.
THE modern-day school “reform” insanity being exposed: studies now argue that the baby boomer (after WWII) students have been our nation’s best educated generation. Students who had entire classes devoted to history, geography, civics, government…
So Jonathan Swift was a cannibal and not a writer of social and political commentary?
This is the sort of philosophy behind those who believe the world is flat because they can’t see the curve.
Try putting up wall paper without the glue. It doesn’t stick.
History continues to provide a means of understanding the forces, economic, military, ideological, political, and scientific which continue to shape our world. It is then vital that our students be able to analyze how these forces act and the persons and events that contributed to the formation of our world as it continues to transform.
Students should understand the Louisiana Compromise, the Civil War as well as the dynamics of the influence of the West. They should when it is their time to take power be able to understand how it is that Russia seems to have something of an antagonistic relation to Europe, and to U.S. Black students in addition to this should be knowledgeable about the history of their origins, the Continent and its relations to the rest of the world.
“It is then vital that our students be able to analyze how these forces act and the persons and events that contributed to the formation of our world as it continues to transform.”
It is vital to us as citizens, yes. But by the same token, it is vital to the ruling powers that students not be able to analyze such forces. Hence the elimination of history, civics, etc. and the imposition of context-free “close reading”.
Agreed, Melch34. The facts themselves are important mental furniture that we must place in kids’ minds.
yes. I really wish we would move beyond the ridiculous debate about this. One of the huge problems with the Common [sic] Core [sic] State [sic] Standards [sic] for ELA is that despite their lip service to substantive texts, they are almost entirely content free.
I must say that the quality of the response to this post is outstanding. As Robert Frost said of a bug on his book, it’s awesome to encounter evidence of mind on a page.
I was working on a doctorate in history when I came to New York to teach high school. The salient feature of history teaching in this system, I noticed instantly, was its confusion about how to conduct historical inquiry, and how to perform historical analysis. History, to risk being too Marxist about it, is a process. If we want kids to learn history (rather than be bored into ennui by it, as many of the students I serve complain), our best bet would be to teach them “cognitive apprenticeship” style, how historians work.
But that would require inquiry that would expose class conflict, racism, gender discrimination, and all the kinds of conflict that is part of history process.
And I suspect that is why we have turned history into a boredom-inducing slog through a series of disconnected and decontexualized facts.
to teach them “cognitive apprenticeship” style, how historians work
we have turned history into a boredom-inducing slog through a series of disconnected and decontexualized facts
oh yes! on both counts
Agreed, history is a constant pursuit for new evidence, better reasoning, clearer thinking. It is an unfolding detective story in which students should be actively engaged.
I’ll often say to kids during a lesson, “people spend entire academic careers on this issue” (or question) and “this particular historical problem–e.g. the agon between faith and reason–is currently playing out in…the debate on climate change” or the like.
Kids at least get a sense that history and its process is not just a series of inert facts lodged in the distant–and to them boring–past.
And thanks, Bob, for your kind endorsement.
History lectures do not have to be boring.
What is a non-fiction text but an ossified lecture? Yet we valorize kids’ “inquiring” into texts as a superior alternative to the vilified sage on a stage.
Think about a lecture as a text brought to life, given human voice and interactivity. I tell you this: most of my 13 year old students would much rather hear an adult tell them about an episode of history (especially if accompanied by elucidating pictures) than try to extract that knowledge from a text.
I want my students to learn a lot of history and for that history knowledge to be “sticky”. If someone knows a more efficient way of doing this than via good lectures, I’m all ears. I frequently hear from parents that students like my class and that I’m their favorite 7th grade teacher, so I don’t buy the argument that lecture is necessarily boring. And the local HS says my students, of all the local world history students, are the best prepared, so I know the knowledge sticks.
My work is 45-50 minutes away from home. Recently I listened to The American Revolution With Joan Freeman off YouTube, all the 25 lectures. Quite fun, relatable, and not just dry dates, locations and names.
On the other hand, lecture as a teaching format lost its value in times of recorded video and podcasts. Why being there if it is not interactive?
Ponderosa, what happens to kids with questions during the lecture?
History is particularly STORY, in my mind. When I can catch kids with interesting stories about people (well known as well as less well known) and events, I have them in the palm of my hand. And a lot of those stories come from the historical analysis mentioned above. My students LOVE to analyze historical documents, especially political cartoons, and get quite adept at them (I teach 8th and 9th grade).
Mate and Gruff,
I stop many times during lectures and ask if anyone has questions. Students are also welcome to raise their hand with a question during the lecture. In a giant lecture hall, a lecture cannot be interactive. In a classroom of 30 or so students, it can be. It’s this ability to stop and clarify that distinguishes a live teacher lecture from a video which, I find, often loses the kids because it’s often too fast and can’t answer their questions.
TOW, I agree that stories are the way to go (not always possible). Dan Willingham also suggests describing a problem (like the obstacles to growing crops in the forests of the Yucatan Peninsula), soliciting possible solutions from students, and then explaining the ways people solved the problem (e.g. slash and burn agriculture).
And imagine reading that same text three times. I thought torture was outlawed?
Learning how to DO history, like learning how to do programming, is a revelation. One can never think in the same way again.
Bob, how important do you think it is to teach 7th graders how to “do history”? I don’t think very, but I might be persuaded.
It is impossible to think that any high school student would come out of high school with enough historical background to be even vaguely conversant in most subjects. There is just too much of it. We can easily launch ourselves into a lengthy lament about the absence of one thing or another in society’s consciousness, complaining about this or that mistake that occurred because of short memory.
What is unquestionable is that the experience of focusing on all of history obscures more of it than it elucidates. Survey classes are almost always too broad. Students forget the tiny points they learn because they are tips of icebergs on a vast sea of information.
“What is unquestionable is that the experience of focusing on all of history obscures more of it than it elucidates.”
Ah, yes! When I was supporting middle school/jr. high students through a two year focus on American history, the amount of material to cover became overwhelming. I don’t think I remember an occasion where we got closer to the present than the Vietnam War. (That year also include an expanded unit on government.) It was easier to parse out what would be included in the first year which covered through the Civil War. There were several good cross department units, particularly the ones on the Civil War and WWII. The social studies and language arts teachers joined forces and planned their units to compliment each other, so they could go deeper than a more typical race through about 400 years.
Breadth or depth? That is the question.
I say, breadth first, then depth.
I believe in survey courses. Yes, it’s frustrating that they have to be superficial, but they are useful. They give the Big Picture, as a table of contents does. Should we banish tables of contents because they’re so shallow? The Big Picture gives a sense of proportion that in-depth courses cannot. They show connections that cannot be seen in “post hole” type courses.
Roy, you’re right that you can’t know all the important stuff, but isn’t better to give kids a brief dose of all the important stuff than to leave them totally ignorant?
Upon graduation, a colleague asked one of our best history students whether he’d rather have a “table of contents”-type world history course or a in-depth focus type course. He said the “table of contents” because it gave him ideas for where he might like to learn more.
Breadth and depth are important, as well as knowing how to see patterns and analyze material. Kids are not going to know everything that they should from junior high and high school history, but it would be helpful if elementary schools were allowed to teach actual history and geography instead of sending kids who are absolutely ignorant and expect secondary teachers to start from scratch.
Note that I DO NOT blame the teachers for this problem. It’s the constant testing and ridiculous curricular demands of districts and states that I blame for this problem. But my 8th and 9th grade students are coming less prepared every year, and I am forced to teach more and more basic material in lieu of more depth, just so they have a basic understanding of basic events and locations. Those basics used to be taught in elementary schools, and then I could build from there. I can’t do that now.
TOW: it seems to me that the common thread amongst all the trends in ELA, math, history and science is a profound disrespect for and failure to appreciate the basics. Behind the grandiloquent language of the CA history frameworks, for example, are a bunch of authors ( teachers and education bureaucrats) who would be embarrassed to say something as plain and simple as, “Kids should be able to find Europe on a map.” Oh no. Seventh graders must be able to discourse on “How did the environment and technological innovations affect the expansion of agriculture, cities and human population? What impact did human expansion have on the environment?” I don’t know about you, but I cannot answer this question. How is a zero-knowledge 13 year old supposed to answer it? We overpromise and underdeliver. Let us underpromise and overdeliver.
Speaking of out-of-touch crafters of standards and curricula…while canvassing for Democrats today, I found myself paired with a woman who was involved with the crafting of the Common Core math standards! Very smart woman, who, from her teaching stories, was clearly able to do some impressive pedagogical jiu-jitsu with struggling learners. It seemed to me that she was blind to her own exceptionality and thinks her aptitude can be transferred to the mass of teachers. When I told her that CC math seems like a s***show at my school, she blamed it on the top-down implementation. I think it’s the underlying conception. It’s like giving builders a blueprint for a Frank Gehry showpiece when they’re only able to build a cabin, and in the end we get neither the showpiece nor the cabin.
When I was in eighth grade, I was abruptly thrust into a curriculum that touted new math. I was totally lost. The teacher was a recognized authority on the new math and taught it with a vengeance. She had little patience for our inability to immediately grasp what she was teaching us. Later on when I re-entered the classroom as a substitute I ran into her in a first grade classroom. She was a consultant by that time and was teaching the kids some “simple” math games. I remember her nearly losing her cool when one student did not grasp what she was trying to teach him. I had to step in and protect the child from her vehemence. She was so focused on what she wanted to teach that she ignored the signals that he was giving that would have pointed her to an explanation he would have understood. She knew her math backwards and forwards. She did not know kids.
speduktr: very interesting anecdotes!
Sheesh I’d never made the connection. Thought Coleman brought in “close reading” as an anachronism he’d studied briefly at Oxford that neatly applied to his concern over the supposed K-12 preponderance of self-indulgent creative writing. How neatly it also applies to countering claims of pubsch ‘liberal indoctrination’ by eliminating historical [political] context!
I see close reading as prep for standardized tests where every passage is decontextualized
Coleman would like to see every passage “decontextualized” while most English teachers would like to see every passage “decontestualized”.
Isn’t it amazing the world of difference that a single letter can make?
YES!
David Coleman on history:
“People don’t really give a s#!t about what you feel or about what you think about Adolf Hitler”
Coleman has been quoted as saying that teachers should be “guides to the universe”. I heartily agree with this. But it’s puzzling how this sentiment conflicts with what’s actually happening in Common Core classrooms. I don’t think he knew enough about teachers and schools to be able to predict that skill-drills would crowd out actual teaching about the world. He thought close reading would sit comfortably alongside imparting knowledge about the world.
Blaming Common Core for everything that was happening with schools – or brewing around them – in the last 25 years or so is a bit disingenuous. Talk about a slowly boiled frog.
It’s a generous thought, but not reflected in the make-up of the CCSS working group, which had a couple of educators & a bunch of test-makers.
I have to say I agree with this in the sense it was given.
That students should be using texts and sources to prove their points.
Not their feelings.
The point is to get away from a prompt such as:
Explain examples of racism today (This after reading To Kill a Mockingbird or When people are treated unfairly today what should be done?
And towards a prompt such as the following:
Explain how racism is shown in To Kill a Mockingbird
Hopefully, you can see the difference.
The first two prompts do not even require reading the book.
The third does.
Jeremy, of course. But why were teachers ever assigning such text-free prompts in the first place? The reasons may be complicated, but I suspect one reason is that too many kids weren’t comprehending the texts, so in an effort (conscious or unconscious) to save kids from failure, teachers asked questions about the theme of the text rather than the text itself. Once one grasps the text, citing supporting evidence is fairly elementary, isn’t it? This is not some rarefied skill. The real heavy-lifting is coming to understand the text. So the underlying issue may have been poor reading comprehension. If so, a knowledge-rich education, not close reading drills, is the way to address to the underlying problem. Yet close reading drills is what we’re getting, as if kids suffered from a deficiency of a rarefied close reading skill, not word and world knowledge.
Rarefied maybe not.
But those that do it well surely stand out in the academy and business.
Going over the author said what? Did what (style, mode of argument)? So what? Now what?
is what most of my grad history seminars were about – just done at a high level.
The book club I belong to is mostly the same thing.
Skipping to so what and now what without making sure that kids know the said what and did what is a recipe for disaster. And should take years of practice – just like writing.
The case in which students are asked to cite evidence from a single source” (eg, from To Kill a Mockingbird) is actually a special case and teachers have been doing that forever.
The far more common situation in the real world (which Coleman obviously has had no contact with) is the situation where one is presented with some claims in a text and has to determine whether those claims are correct. To do that, one has to draw on everything one knows and all the expertise one has gained from many different sources. One certainly has to understand context to do that.
And as far as Coleman’s claim that people don’t give a s#!t about what you feel or about what you think”, that’s simply false.Silly, actually.
Coleman obviously has no experience in business, science, engineering, teaching, surgery, law or any other profession because in every single one of those, individuals are regularly asked what they think and or feel about some particular matter.
I spent a good part of my career working as an engineer and was asked for my “professional opinion” — ie, what I think — almost every day. That “opinion” is the sum total of everything one has learned. Of course, one needs evidence to back up one’s “opinion”. That’s obvious and once you reach a certain level, the assumption is that you could provide such evidence if asked to so.
So, the claim that no one cares what you think is completely false.
Now, if Coleman had said “no one cares what I — David Coleman — think and feel” he would probably have been right. And for good reason. The fellow is utterly clueless about the real world and has screwed up everything he has touched since he came out of college.
Well, I’ll say maybe more could be done in how trustworthy sources are in the ELA standards. But the history/social science covers it adequately imho (grade 9-10 standards below):
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.3
Analyze in detail a series of events described in a text; determine whether earlier events caused later ones or simply preceded them.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.6
Compare the point of view of two or more authors for how they treat the same or similar topics, including which details they include and emphasize in their respective accounts.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.8
Assess the extent to which the reasoning and evidence in a text support the author’s claims.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.9-10.9
Compare and contrast treatments of the same topic in several primary and secondary sources.
But argumentation is a part of the ELA standards (grade 9-10 band):
Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.9-10.1.A
Introduce precise claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and create an organization that establishes clear relationships among claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.9-10.1.B
Develop claim(s) and counterclaims fairly, supplying evidence for each while pointing out the strengths and limitations of both in a manner that anticipates the audience’s knowledge level and concerns.
Research to Build and Present Knowledge:
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.9-10.7
Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects to answer a question (including a self-generated question) or solve a problem; narrow or broaden the inquiry when appropriate; synthesize multiple sources on the subject, demonstrating understanding of the subject under investigation.
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.9-10.8
Gather relevant information from multiple authoritative print and digital sources, using advanced searches effectively; assess the usefulness of each source in answering the research question; integrate information into the text selectively to maintain the flow of ideas, avoiding plagiarism and following a standard format for citation.
I think you’re being a bit pedantic. Coleman perhaps was not enough. He does not want a student to say he does not like To Kill a Mockingbird without using evidence or write a thought piece on how racism influences their life without having to draw on any use of the text they actually read!
So CC would like a student to be able to answer this:
Analyze Thomas Jefferson’s ‘Declaration of Independence,’ identifying its purpose and evaluating rhetorical features such as the listing of grievances … [and] compare and contrast the themes and argument found there to those of other U.S. documents of historical and literary significance, such as the Olive Branch Petition.
Instead of:
Describe one time when you or someone you know used your freedom of speech or press. Additionally, describe how that made you feel.
This is a profile of Coleman: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/10/the-schoolmaster/309091/
I think you agree with him more than one blunt statement would let on.
I hope this helps.
David Coleman advocates close reading. That means reading text without context. He made cleR that personal responses to literature are not wanted and no one cares what “you” think or feel. The Common Core set absurd ratios for the proportion of literature and informational text that should be taught, based on NAEP instructions to assessment developers. These ratios have done terrible harm to the teaching of poetry and fiction.
I’m being pedantic?
Good one.
I don’t know about you and David Coleman, but I’m living in the real world
Coleman made a very specific claim — “people don’t give a s#!t” (which my original comment quoted — sans the part about Hitler, which was mockery, of course — and which you responded to) which anyone who has worked in the real world would recognize as simply false — indded silly.
No matter how many chapters and verses you quote from is not going to change that.
I really have no idea why you would defend such an indefensible statement.
You are free to defend the claim, but that does not make it true.
Yes, you’re being pedantic.
You purposefully neglect what the CC says – which from your previous post it seems you fully agree with and secondly the context of his statement – which from your previous post it seems you fully agree with!!!
David Coleman:
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.”
Now you wrote:
“individuals are regularly asked what they think and or feel about some particular matter.
I spent a good part of my career working as an engineer and was asked for my “professional opinion” — ie, what I think — almost every day. That “opinion” is the sum total of everything one has learned. Of course, one needs evidence to back up one’s “opinion”. That’s obvious and once you reach a certain level, the assumption is that you could provide such evidence if asked to so.”
I hope you see that Coleman and CC standards are just asking for what you said happens in your professional life: THE EVIDENCE. You could have, it seems to me just wrote what David Coleman said after he said S$#& is what I believe!
SomeDAM poet, you are free to defend the claim that you and Coleman disagree with each other on opinions and arguements, but that does not make it true.
Jeremy,
Coleman also advocates “close reading”—answering an excerpt of text without knowing anything about the context. Reading a seminal text without knowing anything about the speaker or the circumstances. Do you agree? Is that what you do in your classes?
Diane, I must be doing close reading wrong (and will continue to do so) because I have no rule against giving context. Neither does any history teacher I know. Even DBQs give a short statement of context for students in what is more or less a close reading exercise imo.
For instance, Determine how much contextualizing information your students will need to make sense of the text/excerpt: author, publication date and location, purpose, historical context, etc.
This is from a presentation on close reading in history classes:
Click to access WEB-Close-Reading-Presentation_Part-II.pdf
As far as I know Coleman and CCSSO stepped away from the teach without context. See C3 on Close Reading here: https://www.socialstudies.org/resources/c3/c3lc/meeting-common-core-state-standards-ela-part-two-reading-informational-text (see video #2 for use of historical context)
As to ratios if we include history, science, etc. I support the suggested ratio.
If the ratio is only applied to a literature course then I don’t.
The ratio is absurd. How much poetry and fiction is assigned in math, science, and history classes.
The ratio has zero evidence behind it.
As for close reading, that too is absurd. You cannot give snippets of information about the context of the Cilvil Rights Movement or a World War and expect students to comprehend the meaning of the text. Unless you don’t care about comprehension, just the right answer.
The ratio is across all subject areas! I am not a hard-liner on it. I could see one senior our school opting for a few humanities courses and their ratio equating to 60% literature and 40% informational and another electing to take science courses and having a ratio of 85% informational and 15% literature. But, for the overall 9-12 population taking science, history, and ELA 70% seems about right.
To be clear the 70% ratio is for all classes:
“Because the ELA classroom must focus on literature (stories, drama, and poetry) as well as literary nonfiction, a great deal of informational reading in grades 6-12 must take place in other classes if the NAEP assessment framework is to be matched instructionally.”1
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/introduction/key-design-consideration/
[footnote] 1 The percentage on the table reflect the sum of student reading, not just reading in ELA settings. Teachers of senior English classes, for example, are not required to devote 70 percent of reading to information texts. Rather, 70 percent of student reading across the grade should be informational. http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/introduction/key-design-consideration/
Part of it is imho an encouragement for history teachers to use non-fiction texts for longer reads. Instead of the Killer Angels how about excerpts from McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom, in addition to All Quiet on the Western Front how about MacMillan’s Paris 1919.
Someone who might support this is Will Fitzhugh, perhaps you’ve heard of him? Will Fitzhugh once wrote: “The English department, for a variety of reasons, has chosen personal and creative writing as its favorite kinds, along with the occasional five-paragraph essay. While the English department does assign complete books, of course they are fiction. Fiction, indeed, is all that many high school students have heard of. Some even think that history books are correctly referred to as novels, because they haven’t heard anyone speak about nonfiction books. Some infamous historians have introduced fiction into their history books, but that news is not really current at the high school level. I recently heard a high school teacher, in a Teaching American History seminar, ask an eminent historian what made him write his “novels.”
The ratio of literature to informational text is nonsense. It is not based on any research or studies. Coleman pulled it out of NAEP instructions to assessment developers. It was meant for testing companies, not for teachers. It is sheer garbage and the CCSS committee has zero authority to prescribe ratios of this sort.
I don’t know of any reputable history that can be described as fiction, although there are many histories that are literature. Just because a history is well-written, like David McCullough’s books, it doesn’t mean they are fiction.
Diane your rejection of the ratio is not based on research either.
Taking it logically though, should a full complement of 6-7 courses in a school day have more informational text than literature? I would say yes.
You wrote: “I don’t know of any reputable history that can be described as history.”
I think you were trying to write something else.
Then you wrote: “Just because a history is well-written, like David McCullough’s books, it doesn’t mean they are fiction.”
Right! I think you are responding to the quote by Will Fitzhugh – perhaps you’ve heard of him? Just to repeat, I suggested that in many history classes long reads that are chosen are fiction – for instance, Michael Shaara’s Killer Angels and suggested there should also be longer secondary reads like James McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom.
In other words students should be reading either entire books or long excerpts from approachable history like McCullough’s. His 1776 would be a good book to use, whereas his Truman or Adams would be best to use as an excerpt.
I was there during the evolution of the CCSS. I know where the ratios came from. They are instructions to test developers for NAEP. They were never intended for teachers. If you find any evidence that contradicts me, please let me know.
I believe teachers should be free to assign the readings of their choice and not to be measuring what proportion is literature and what proportion is informational text.
Is there someone in your school who keeps careful count to make sure the “correct” CCSS ratio is taught across all classes.
I call BS.
The ratios are nonsense.
You are quite right about my mistake. I meant to write “I don’t know of any reputable history that can be described as fiction.”
Jeremy, I don’t see anything you are doing as falling in the category of close reading. I also don’t see you adhering to any false ration of fiction to informational. It appears to me that you are choosing text to answer the big ideas/questions your curriculum is asking whether it is fictional or historical. This argument sounds to me to be around a difference in definitions.
Speduktr, pretty much all the reading my students do in class falls under the umbrella of close reading for history class.
It does not follow Coleman’s no background information which Coleman as far as I heard stepped away from and the NCSS’s C3 framework did not follow. C3 which had input from Coleman and CCSSO was published after CC.
Yes, I do follow the big questions.
And yes I do not have any arbitrary formula. But my guess would be my class is over 90% informational texts. I would have an issue if a survey history (or a science) class was 50% literature.
See: https://www.socialstudies.org/resources/c3/c3lc/meeting-common-core-state-standards-ela-part-two-reading-informational-text
Jeremy,
Your version of close reading is not the same as Coleman. You do not exclude context. He says read and interpret the text without regard to context. History cannot be taught without context. The very nature of history requires understanding of causes and effects.
The ratios for literature and informational text specified in CCSS affect English teachers, not teachers of math and science, where fiction is never taught.
If history teachers see value in historical fiction, that’s their prerogative. Great history writing may read like fiction yet be completely accurate in sourcing.
“Jeremy, Your version of close reading is not the same as Coleman.”
Agreed. And as far as I know CCSSO and Coleman stepped away from this idea. I can’t find it online, but I did hear it from the President of NCSS at the time (We served on the same board – interestingly, a board Will Fitzhugh used to be on.). As I have posted elsewhere here C3 is a successor document to CC in the sense it was published after CC. It’s version of close reading is not context-less. See the NCSS suggestions: Video 2 under Close Reading is the best example (note: question for Coleman’s video is what is missing from this approach?)
https://www.socialstudies.org/resources/c3/c3lc/meeting-common-core-state-standards-ela-part-two-reading-informational-text#Choice
Please let me know where and when Coleman “stepped away” from close reading. The word has not gotten out to the profession. The CCSS drafting committee has more members from testing organizations than any other group, and test makers love close reading. That’s what tests specialize in.
Hearsay. But again look at C3.
And let’s use surveys not tests.
I see no problem with your description. Coleman’s idea of close reading is what has caused such a tizzy. The social studies and language arts classes at the local middle school (7-8) coordinate their programs. The language arts teachers choose fictional books that support the social studies program, which is divided into two years of U.S. history (and government). The high school does have some coordinated classes as well. As much as CC waffled afterwards saying the reading guidelines were supposed to be across the curriculum, that was not the original message and would have been a nonmessage anyway since language arts had always concentrated on literature and other academic areas focused on discipline specific texts. Saying you do close reading in history is just saying that the focus is different and frequently requires attention to different kinds of information than when reading a novel. I don’t read a novel the same way I would read a book on learning disabilities (my training). The setting of a ratio is silly. Kind of a “Duh!” moment. It’s not like physics(insert any discipline you want) teachers all over the country have been throwing out their reading requirements because there was too much fiction included. In any case, Dianne has explained where that artificial ratio came from. I have never heard someone who can speak with similar authority dispute her explanation.
I agree with all your points except the ratio being silly.
If a high school’s curriculum has 50 of reading being assigned and read in literature it is time for an intervention. What that probably means is that the science and history classes need to assign more informational texts.
Is there someone at your school with a stopwatch to check what % of assignments are literature and what % is informational text? What is the punishment for teaching too much poetry or fiction?
I would agree that a 50-50 ratio would be ridiculous, but I can’t imagine the school that would have that sort of ratio. None of my four kids were reading literature outside of their English or foreign language classes in high school nor were the students in the school system where I taught high school nor in the two elementary districts where I taught at the middle school/junior high level. I call the imposition of a ratio silly because first of all the chosen ratio was not based on research and second of all because such a guideline was unnecessary as well as being an overreach.
And there is no way to monitor or enforce the 50-50 ratio.
That task would stymie the most dedicated micro-manager (thank God!).
So you’re saying there is no need for it because we’re already doing it.
Then you did not have to change anything so I don’t see why you would care
But I do believe there were districts where outside reading in history and English class were nearly all literature. In other words the history outside reading when not from the textbook was all literature too – read novels outside of class. And science did not have any outside reading other than the textbook. Others where there was just way more reading being done in literature courses which should imo have comparable reading to a history class.
Jeremy,
You know nothing about the history, origins, intentions of Common Core. You should. As a history teacher, you should want to be informed. Read Mercedes Schneider’s excellent and thorough book, “The Common Core Dilemma,” published by Teachers College Press. After you have read it, please report back. Until then, you are offering personal anecdotes. We have had five years of discussion of Common Core here. You are late to the party. If you can’t drop your hostile tone, you won’t be welcome here much longer.
I am not sure where you see hostile tone?
Perhaps after you said I was a terrible teacher leading my students to hate history?
Maybe then.
But methinks that was apropos for that type of baseless assertion.
Don’t you think?
Then you told me to do what I was already doing and complained about David Coleman telling teachers how to teach. The irony was lost on someone.
Now you’re charging me with ignorance that does not entirely exist.
See the FB page I administer for my engagement with education and history and history education. For someone who loves history so much I am sure you already liked it: https://www.facebook.com/nehta.org/
Oh, and I am sure I was here 5 years ago. But I do not follow the blog.
That said I will try to take the sawdust out of my own eye…
Jeremy,
I am not the only person who noted your tone.
Rule 1 of the Blog. Don’t insult your host. This is my living room, and I don’t welcome sneering or hostile comments directed at me.
Rule 2: no cursing. You are ok on that.
Rule 3: no conspiracy theories. Sandy Hook really happened. Ok on that too.
Rule 4: be civil. You have skirted the line.
“So you’re saying there is no need for it because we’re already doing it.
Then you did not have to change anything so I don’t see why you would care.”
Seriously? Go back to previous discussion about what CC originally said about the “proper” proportion of narrative vs. informational text, which they based on a decision pertaining to the ratio of testing text to be either narrative or informational. The decision was not based on any pedagogical research. I care because I am/was a teacher that decisions about instruction at least pretend to be based on a sound pedagogical process. We can argue about what each one of us has seen anecdotally in our own little worlds. Either position might be valid in our own experience. In any case, decisions about what should or should not be included in curriculum (outside reading, unless assigned, is a student’s business) should hardly be left up to non-educators.
On the NAEP point I do not care. Schools usually choose to do this.
I do care that when it comes to reading that not most of it is not done in English class. If over 50% of a student’s reading in 10th grade is literature then are they not reading in history and science classes? How can it be over 50% literature? To me that ratio is more nonsense than 70% informational. If we are arguing 64% or 70% or 74% – yes it is not worth arguing. But if there is more reading being done in English class than history that to me seems like an issue. Is science not assigning any reading? That is an issue.
Though I don’t care about NAEP I do care about annual state testing. And the great thing in my opinion about CC – which has not been done yet – is to move from testing to surveys.
Parents can be surveyed about 4-5 random standards 3-4x a year to ask where their child is. There could be an online database of text and video samples of what R.L. 2.1 looks like, even test-like items if they are not sure where their child is.
This way parents 1) know the standards and 2) can better advocate for their children, and 3) their child spends exactly 0 time with state testing.
Ask parents: Is your child able to “Ask and answer such questions as who, what, where, when, why, and how to demonstrate understanding of key details in a text?”
If yes, parent could try and find where they are 2.1, 3.1, 5.1? If no, does the child have 1.1 down.
At older ages students can also answer the questions.
Hopefully all this takes no more than a half hour on average.
Surveys not tests. That is my big idea.
The ratios prescribed by CCSS derive directly and exactly from NAEP instructions to test developers that were never intended as directions for teachers.
Literature and poetry are not typically assigned in math and science classes, though I would not object if they were.
Tom Loveless, a researcher who studies NAEP intensively, concluded that the CCSS ratios had caused a significant decline in the teaching of novels, plays, and poetry in English classes.
Again, who cares if they came from NAEP or Neptune? Why would students be reading over 50% literature? That means either the school is assigning too much literature (the only reading being done is in English class) OR more likely that history and science are not assigning enough reading.
I could go for a little bit less reading of literature for say some very good journalism pieces here and there, but my take on what Loveless is suggesting is that some people are misguided. They did not see the footnote that the 70% is for the entire day / course load. That is unfortunate.
Why should David Coleman tell the English teachers across the nation not to teach so much literature? What is the basis of his authority to do so?
He is not telling literature teachers to do that.
He is telling history and science teachers to assign reading.
What gives Coleman the authority to tell any teacher what to do?
He is a businessman and entrepreneur.
I really do not understand your hostility . Perhaps it is because you have not taken part in this debate here from the beginning. I really don’t care that you don’t care if you know the history of these policies decisions. We have been discussing them and their impact for years. Coleman had no business telling any teacher how and what to teach with his almost nonexistent experience with teaching. You seem to be convinced by the waffling that went on after the fact of Coleman’s purity of soul. If anything positive came out of CC, it was due to the hard work of teachers. The teachers in my district routinely develop and rewrite curriculum on a district defined schedule. It caused some major turmoil to squash the district product into a CC and PARC ready format that would make the state happy and still provide a good learning environment.
I don’t think I am hostile at all.
The be all and end all of why these were implemented is that states (those in charge) wanted them and adopted them. Like many I was able to see them before adoption – because I follow education news – and comment on them if desired.
Coleman was in charge of a committee. He was the spokesperson for CC. He does not tell anyone what to teach. Math CC is more prescriptive, but ELA is hardly prescriptive in what content to teach. You choose. The skills seemed mainly in line with what was being taught. My wife a first grade teacher did not have to change nearly anything (this was a district choice) and I did not change anything at the high school level. (Again, other districts – like yours apparently – and especially states probably had to change a lot to make sure there students were getting the skills – but that should have been happening already!)
Jeremy,
Your ignorance of the origins of Common Core is embarrassing to you. I repeat: read Mercedes Schneider’s “Common Core Dilemma.” States adopted CC before it was finished, some adopted it unseen, because they would not be eligible to receive millions in Race to the Top funding if they did not. In other words, they were bribed. Please do not comment on the CC until you learn more.
True, I have not read her book but I did used to read her blog posts on some teacher website. And I read, see, heard Jane Robbins, Duke Pesta, Sandra Stotsky, Terrence Moore, you, and many more, etc. Believe me I am not completely ignorant.
But your problem with me is not what was in the creation but what was the result.
I like them.
Like them better than MA’s previous standards.
Where the rubber hits the road which ELA standards specifically should we replace, change, get rid of, move from one grade to another? The worst I would say is I would move some standards from one grade to another. That is very good imo.
Read Schneider’s book.
Massachusetts had the best history and ELA standards in the nation. It dropped them for CC.
Right! The new ones are better imho. (Our humanities director felt the same and I know one of the leaders of UDL also from our district was pleased too. But again, as stated to others we did not really have to do anything to meet CC)
I read most (?) of Schneider’s book or what would become it on @thechalkface (seem the links are dead – maybe the wayback machine has archives). At this time I don’t intend to re-read it. This is not to say it is not worth it, but my academic interests are elsewhere at this time.
You should not pontificate about CC when you won’t take the time to learn about why and how it was created.
Again, how much more do you ask of me. We talked about context. I am sure I have watched over 40 hours of YT videos, I have read Schneider’s blog posts and other writings – lots and lots of articles, pdfs, book excerpts – well over 40 hours I would guess maybe like 100, and listened to at least 10 hours of podcasts many from @ the chalk face radio when that existed.
I think that is enough – 3 complete work weeks. Will one more book for which I read many posts from the author while she was writing the book make that much of a difference?
My guess is no.
My take is that you don’t like that it took coal to make a diamond.
My take is hey I like the diamond.
(Now if the diamond was from slave labor I would reject it as my wife and I did.)
But CC was not made with slave labor.
I am of the mind that the CC final product is very very good. I am not against tweaking it. As some states have. But I do find it interesting that most states that “replace” it end up with something like CC. Don’t you?
And I like NextGen (this is not my field) and C3.
Have you or anyone wrote a much better set of standards. That I would be interested in checking out. Please reply with links if you have them. TIA.
I would like to do away with the state testing and replace it with 3-4 short surveys as mentioned before.
I would like to state that the MA world history standards were slightly out of date when they were created in 2003 (there was an earlier version that was edited but not changed to make it true world history). A comparison of those world history standards and the early version of AP world history – c. 2001 – would show how Eurocentric the MA world standards were compared to WHAP. And since then the WHAP standards have had several re-writes. MA none.
They have not been changed since CC. They are still in effect. Unless you are stating that history teachers are supposed to hit the “Grades 6-12 Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, & Technical Subjects” – that is true.
Here are my thoughts on the proposed standards for MA (which were not changed much from 2003): 1) https://bit.ly/2DNjGis 2) https://bit.ly/2GhYKp2 3) https://bit.ly/2FT7pz3
Enjoy!
States didn’t want them! They wanted the money promised to them if they adopted them in many cases sight unseen. My state is unfortunately home to some of the carrot wavers, so curriculum had to be rewritten to put it into CC language. Textbooks had to be chosen and/or justified as aligned with CC. Especially at the younger ages CC pushed skills and content to younger ages. The district in which I live is very high performing and would have continued to be without changing but that was not an option under state leadership, so the administration and teachers went to work to meet state demands while not destroying what already was working. I won’t even get into the costs of technology upgrades demanded by the testing. You apparently live in a state that did not threaten districts with sanctions for not complying with CCSS as they interpreted it.
I will agree that the RttT funding was unfortunate.
But if CC is so bad that funding is gone and not coming back.
And I do not support state testing. See my other replies as to surveying parents, students, and also teachers. This could take all state testing out, and lead to a better informed public (than testing does). Should be way way cheaper and way way more instructive for parents, students teachers, and districts.
Without RTTT funding, we have no way of knowing how many states would have adopted CC. They would have insisted on genuine field testing, as opposed to none at all.
Agreed.
Not a fan of surveys of students and parents other than as a source of reflection for the teacher. For the most part, the parents of my students and I were on the same page, but a few stand out as a little off the wall (and not just from my point of view). In general, my students liked me, but few of them were in a position to rate my performance as a special education teacher other than in the most simplistic manner. So much of teaching in those circumstances depends on the relationship between student and teacher (and parent).
Although I am sure some teachers would feel judged the surveys I envision would be about 4-5 common core standards given 3-4 times a year to parents. All one has to do is re-engineer the standards into questions.
So if the standard was: CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.NBT.A.1
Use place value understanding to round whole numbers to the nearest 10 or 100.
One could ask parents: Can your child use place value understanding to round whole numbers to the nearest 10 or 100?
There would be a link to a short video, examples of what this looks like, and 2-3 questions (if the parent wants to test their child.)
If not parent can see if their child has 2.NBT.A.1 down.
If yes, parent could gauge where at or above on the scale.
Questions would be random.
So, it would not be how is speduktr as a teacher. Although, I do give students these surveys myself similar to those of the MET project. I believe those are useful, but should be the teacher’s choice. I could see a slippery slope argument too. But I am for getting rid of all the test days for surveys done at home by parents and students of a certain age, and possibly teachers.
As a special education teacher I used standardized testing as part of the profile to identify strengths and weaknesses for planning purposes. They were never used to rank or rate a student. From my position assessment was for formative purposes only although the powers that be required letter grades for report cards which really tell a parent or student little. I had the luxury of being able to sit down with my students individually although never enough time in which to do it. Now that I am retired, I have the advantage of twenty twenty hindsight. I would love to be in the classroom again but on my terms. There is far too much documentation and data collection, for what purpose I don’t know. No one has the time to really look at it. I suspect it is only used when the powers that be are looking for ways to exercise their authority.
I know you were able to provide a sample of a survey question based on the standards, so this criticism is probably unfair, but I would not need a parent to tell me whether their child knew place value up to standard. My district didn’t use to give report card grades until the middle of 7th grade. Reports were in a narrative format which might include skills checklists if the curriculum lent itself to them but always contained an extensive narrative. One of the two reports was followed by a conference of 20-30 minutes. This continued until a large number of parents wanted their 5th and 6th graders to receive grades. The narratives were dropped. Interestingly enough the parents soon started complaining that conferences were not detailed or long enough. They got their ranking sheets, not realizing what they were losing.
It would be for you as a teacher, but it is more for the parents.
I actually have not formed an opinion how results would be shared with teachers – anonymously? with student’s name? I think I would leave it up to the parents how they would like to report and the parent could get a summary report.
The surveys directly asks parents – is your child making progress on the standards.
The survey alerts them to the standards – every year. So they become quite familiar with the skills their child should be gaining and where the child is ahead and where behind. (Kudos to you and your district for doing that without this. But I don’t think what you did is even close to universal.)
(Aside: one frustration with discussing CC standards is that many people have never taken the time to read them – I don’t mean all of them I mean any of them. The survey and complementary materials – videos, examples, quiz items – could lead to stronger more informed discussion of the actual standards.)
How you especially as a special ed teacher or your district used standardized assessments would be up to you and the district. I envision the statewide tests going away in lieu of surveys, but of course there are many more standardized tests to use. (One could even cobble together a test copy and pasting the CC items on the database of all items. That would kind of defeat the purpose, but if local districts or teachers wanted to use it I would not be against it. Hopefully, in short assessments.)
To clarify – dbqs give a snippet as a reminder – the student hopefully has covered the material.
BUT when it comes to context – and how much – I have no rule.
I don’t cover the Spanish Civil War, but I do show Guernica – a close reading of a painting as text. I give the students very little background information, not much on the war, not too much on the bombing of Guernica, and not much on who Picasso was/is, etc. But for a reading of King Leopold’s Ghost not only do I give them a few pages of background but some of my guided reading questions (which are imo close reading questions) include context as does my scaffolding / vocabulary to help them. So in some cases a snippet in others a whole unit.
The reality of classroom teaching is that we often have to give less context for close reading and all sorts of things.
Jeremy,
To see Picasso’s Guernica and to know nothing about the Spanish Civil War is a dereliction of duty. It is anti-war. But if you know nothing more, you learn nothing more, and the painting loses its power.
Do you let the students read all of King Leopold’s Ghost, or do you give them a snippet.
I have taught history, I write history, and your methods are very superficial and will not lead any student to love history or understand it. Even when I write a post for this blog, I immerse myself in additional reading to get a broader context.
A snippet – about 20 pages.
During this unit they also read 40 pages from Sarah Rose’s All the Tea in China
Read Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant, Kipling’s “The White Man’s Burden”
Read a few paragraphs of Conrad’s Heart of Darkness
An excellent reader’s theater on the Macartney Mission
Read a NYT magazine article on China in Angola.
Spend about an hour watching Queen Victoria’s Empire
About an hour watching various parts of the excellent Millennium series
Look at sources from China, India, and Africa
Do 2-3 days Kevin O’Reilly’s choice activities
Here and there some board notes.
textbook notes for homework
And discussions which include short 250+ word responses:
how does tea connect the world?
Whose burden was empire?
Is China imperializing Africa (Angola)
And a 3 short answer assessment.
(due to a few lost days from a freak loss of electricity I dropped reading an excerpt of Niall Ferguson’s Empire and a discussion of what did it mean to live an empire?)
I am not sure what I am doing that is superficial in this unit (about 25 lessons). Please advise! Note: this unit 1 of 5 is already 25 days and can’t be the whole year!
If there is a way to make it more enjoyable I am all ears. I do want students to enjoy history and do choose something more fun over something less fun whenever possible. If you have any ways to make student to love history please share. I will say that although you seem to know more about my students and the supposed effects of it on them than even I do I will say some have suffered through my courses and still loved history enough to major it and even pursue a doctorate or history teachers themselves (maybe they were gluttons for punishment?).
Additional note: I do believe this is the unit with the most fictional reading in it.
Totally agree that the more context you know about the Spanish Civil War the more appreciation one would have. But one has to make choices. I am comfortable with what I choose. I would not be comfortable not showing Guernica at all. Sometimes I show it at the end of WWII after we have spent time during the unit on civilian bombing.
I have been called worse than a derelict by my own mother fwiw.
Your mother was right.
She’ll call you worse than a derelict too if you don’t put your money where your mouth is.
Looking forward to your suggestions – how to make my class less superficial and get kids to love history.
You seemed to already know these answers. Are you holding out?
(I think we can skip how you know that my students have not learned to love history. It actually sounds a bit creepy that you would know that.)
Teach the controversies. Teach history like an unsolved mystery. We know facts but there are debates about interpretations. Get yo the human dramas instead of smiling the surface, as textbooks do. Ken Burns is great at the human details that engage the imagination. That’s what makes history gripping. My view.
As a strong believer in telling kids stuff, I don’t regard “pedantic” as a put down.
Jeremy,
What is it that you hope kids get out of close reading? Knowledge? If so, I would argue that direct instruction is a more efficient vehicle for this. Better reading comprehension ability? Is there any evidence that close reading practice actually does this? I agree with E.D. Hirsch that infusing the mind with general knowledge is the royal road to reading comprehension. Evidence: the famous study where “bad” readers and “good” readers answered questions about a baseball article. The “bad” readers who played baseball scored better than the “good” readers who didn’t. See: background knowledge (here, knowledge of baseball), not “reading skill”, is the key to comprehension. I imagine there is a benefit to close reading exercises, but it’s fuzzy to me. Perhaps you could clarify.
Amen to this (the baseball part).
But I am a firm believer that to become better readers students have to read. And to do history you have to read. Not just reading – primary and secondary sources, but write about it, and discus it. This to me is the fun of history (Like many students I could skip writing about it. And there are also videos!)
My close reading usually 4-5 longer articles, but starting today my students are doing what I would call a close read of the movie All Quiet on the Western Front.
My question to you would be, are you having them read a long article (whatever that is for your students) about baseball after having directly instructed them about it?
There seems to be some dis-connect here about close reading being cold. In most history classes that is not how it is done. We usually learn about something and then have an in-depth reading about it. Kids have enough context to make sense of what they are reading. Readings are usually full of scaffolding to help them understand words on the page. This in my experience whether it be back when I was a student, as an undergrad, in grad school, or in my or other teachers classes is how it is done in history classes.
You miss the point a bit, I think, ponderosa. When reading tests are given, both familiar and unfamiliar text is used as well as informational and narrative. The differences in scores tell us things about the kids. A rich content background definitely helps all readers, but knowing how we tackle a passage that is unfamiliar is important as well. Good readers will still read better than poor readers if background knowledge is equal. In addition, good readers invariably have solid background knowledge, but poor readers do not invariably have poor background knowledge.
Jeremy, it sounds like you’re saying the benefit of close reading is improved reading ability. Plausible, but I’d like some solid evidence. Like so much in education, it’s kinda vague, and people seem OK with that vagueness. In this vagueness lies a lot of fraud, I fear. We have them think-pair-share, for example, and say it’s giving them communication skills and helping them construct knowledge. Maybe, but maybe not. Maybe it disrupts and worsens the acquisition of content. Maybe it makes no appreciable impact on their skills. Do we really know? I like solidity. I know solidly that giving kids core knowledge a. makes them better readers and b. makes them less ignorant. That’s why I’m full steam ahead on direct instruction –I know for sure it does kids good. I’m not so sure about close reading exercises. I do expose my students to primary sources to get flavors of history that cannot be conveyed through lecture, but I am reluctant to make claims that the exercise gives them transferrable reading skills.
I am not sure I even understand your argument.
Are you arguing for reading passively? Leisurely (which should be encouraged)?
Reading like a lawyer or detective should be the norm for short pieces of texts in history classrooms. Close reading in history classes looks at the 6c’s: https://historytech.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/6-cs-to-better-document-analysis/ (the chart here is for primary source but could be used for secondary sources too)
If you’re tackling all of All Quiet on the Western Front, or maybe in your case A Single Shard – that is asking too much. And as I’ve mentioned n some posts your guided reading questions should do this for the kids – they do not even know they are doing close reading.
I am not sure why you think direct instruction and close reading (which just means in history class – interrogating a document like a historian (detective) – see the 6 C’s I linked before) are mutually exclusive. Lecture and close reading are exclusive.
You’ll notice that any lesson plan template for direct instruction is similar to my link to SHEG (below) or Schmoker’s advice. The difference, my guess would be, is how much work the students are doing – how much reading, writing, and discussing compared to how much teacher talk is happening (your interchanging of lecture and direct instruction is a bit confusing on this point – they are not the same thing). That is all. Or, in other words, you can do direct instruction with these approaches. The research of Hattie and Marzano agree with this too: http://www.evidencebasedteaching.org.au/robert-marzano-vs-john-hattie/ If you ever look at John Hattie’s list you’ll see that direct instruction is right up there with discussion and cooperative learning techniques like think-pair-share are a positive classroom practice. Although lecture is not on the scale – the use of powerpoint leads to growth below annual progress (http://www.evidencebasedteaching.org.au/hatties-2017-updated-list/)
SHEG lesson – quite like Direct Instruction model: https://seced2012.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/avishag-reisman-2012-the-document-based-lesson-bringing-disciplinary-inquiry-into-high-school-history-classrooms-with-adolescent-struggling-readers-journal-of-curriculum-studies/
Speduktr: ARE there poor readers who have robust background knowledge? The poor readers I know (adults included) are not rich in general knowledge. I’m skeptical of the au courant techniques for “tackling a text” (e.g. scan headings first). I don’t think they help that much, nor do they overcome knowledge deficits. If you know the words and concepts, you don’t need the techniques. If you know the techniques, you still need background knowledge to grasp the text.
Jeremy: “read like a lawyer” sounds admirably ambitious. I’d settle for “read with comprehension” –which, I’m afraid, is plenty ambitious for most of my students (and a lot of adults I know).
“Speduktr: ARE there poor readers who have robust background knowledge?” Yes, ponderosa, there are. It takes a great deal of determination, but poor readers actually do manage to absorb material despite their difficulties with reading. Before the advent of speech to text and text to speech protocols, we relied more on “old school” audiovisual materials to support reading, but believe it or not, there are many talented, capable individuals who have struggled with reading their whole lives.
Jeremy,
I do equate lecture with direct instruction.
You seem to share the ubiquitous prejudice against teacher talk. I think this prejudice is irrational. Think about your own best teachers. Think about the power of the human voice. Think about the interactive robot par excellence: the human being. Would you really argue that a lecture, especially in an intimate classroom setting where kids can ask questions and make comments, is a sub par tool for education? We fetishize texts. Do you have a text fetish? I don’t. We demonize teacher talk. Why? It’s crazy. They say that kids listening to a lecture are passive, that they are clearly not learning effectively. Nothing could be further from the truth. Listening is the basis of learning. Think about your own learning experiences. When you read, you are listening to a voice mediated by text. Is listening to a live voice inferior? On the contrary, it’s superior. A reading mind is not more active than a listening mind, it’s just active in a different way. A student who is talking to his peers is not necessarily learning more or better than a student listening to a teacher; in fact, the opposite is often the case, especially when the conversation veers off into sports or whatever. My own experiences doing group work in professional development sessions and college classes were very often miserable and dull. Nothing beats listening to a teacher with something to say.
I certainly would not say that lecture can’t be a part of Direct Instruction.
But if you start class with “take out your notebooks” – then run through slides the whole class – with a few questions – and students just taking notes in whatever way then that is not direct instruction.
Teacher talk is an important part of any class.
Short story: We had a teacher in our department who was par excellence lecturer. His class was not all lecture but he lectured more than any other teacher in the dept by a long shot. Students would come back and say “he was the best lecturer I ever had” or sometimes they liked someone in their field better but other than that he was the best. But his results APUSH test were no better than the other teachers who taught the same class with varying strategies. So if the best ever – and he might have been – I did observe him a few times can’t beat what I considered average teachers where does that leave the rest of us? (So yes a good teacher who does not say much can actually beat the teacher with something to say!) That and all the research into lecture (not direct instruction) have turned me off to the idea of lecture as a highly effective strategy. Which is not to say I never use it.
Anecdotal evidence: Text vs. talk Speaking for myself, my retention from reading a book is much stronger than listening to an audio book. I’ve done this several times with the same book.
Every technique has its drawbacks. Certainly group work needs parameters and I have had classes where it was not fruitful and was not used.
There are the kind of guides like Sacajewea that help you explore and navigate through new territory.
And there also the kind like “guide rails” that keep you on a straight and narrow path with no deviation.
If Coleman actually said he believes ” teachers should be guides” he was clearly envisioning the latter type because he also has said the goal should be to have teachers teaching to the test (the guide rail).
David Coleman is one of those people who hates the idea of giving either teachers or students any leeway in their own education.
Like Gates, he thinks he knows it all and that everyone else should simply bow down to his superior intellect.
The irony is that no intelligent person would ever have tried to use the Florida school massacre as an opportunity to sell AP tests.
And no intelligent person would have tried to “correct” a survivor of the massacre (Emna Gonzales) on her speech about guns.
Coleman has let us all know what an idiot he really is and at this point, no one should pay him any attention whatsoever.
To ” sell AP courses”
And I would say that the other members of the College Board who have not called for Coleman’s resignation deserve the same treatment as Coleman. They are certainly not worthy of anyone’s respect, no matter how hard they try to distance themselves from Coleman’s recent statements.
Poet, how do you really feel about David Coleman?
I can’t say that here because, unlike David Coleman, I respect the fact that some people are offended by certain words.
Not Coleman, of course. I don’t give a hoot what he thinks.
And not incidentally, apparently neither did Coleman’s parents when he was a boy, if his “as you grow up in this world you realize people don’t really give a s#!t about what you feel or think”
I suspect that there is far more motivating that statement than a mere concern for arguments based on evidence.
SDP: perhaps an ornery reaction to parents who gave a s#%! what others think: Dad a shrink, Mom a force at Bennington and the New School.
Heil Coleman?
The Common Core fans at my California school have merged the English and history departments. We meet together. I am an English teacher teaching history this year. I am credentialed to teach history, but English is my subject of experience and expertise. While I am trying to teach history with context, the other history teachers at my school, young and trained to use Coleman’s methods, are doing exactly what this post describes. They taught Gettysburg without teaching anything else about the entire 1800’s. While I recognized from the outset the wrongfulness of everything I just described, I did not realize until reading this how it all fit into the big scheme of Coleman’s destruction of education. Now I know. I am thankful for the insight. I will refuse to teach history next year, and I will drive a wedge between the two subject departments if I can.
Young teachers are defenseless against bad ideas from on high. They don’t have enough experience to feel confident in bucking authority. Alas most veteran teachers I know won’t buck authority either.
What you describe is horrid, but a logical consequence of the prevailing bad ideas about education: that school is a Lumosity-type mental workout session rather than a stocking of the long-term memory with a library of knowledge about the world. People don’t realize that true intelligence and civic competence requires a library inside the brain. The existence of Google doesn’t obviate this fact. This inner library is the indispensable foundation of all skills: reading, writing, thinking. So teaching content IS teaching reading, writing and thinking. Close reading Gettysburg for a month imparts precious little new content to this inner library. It has a huge opportunity cost that most of us are blind to, sadly.
Common Core: seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new standard, conceived in Gates Foundation offices and dedicated to the proposition that all software markets — particularly public schools– are created equal ( and open for business).
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing (and re-testing) whether that nation, or any nation so illconceived and so decimated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their careers (David Coleman, Michelle Rhee, Arne Duncan, Etc) that Deform Nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not decimate — we can not desecrate — we can not hollow — this school ground. The brave Deformen who struggled here, have desecrated it, far above our poor power to add or subtract (or multiply or divide). The world will little note, nor long remember — nor even give a s#!t — what we say here but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so ignobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored Deformen we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these Deformen shall not have deformed in vain — that this nation, under Betsy, shall have a new birth of privatization — and that schools of the people, by the people, for the people, shall one day perish from the earth.”
That’s the “Gatesburgh Address” in case you did not recognize it
The perfect parody for Coleman. Thanks for making me laugh.
You are my HERO, SomeDAM.
Edit (because a “poet’s) work is never done:
“Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing (and re-testing) whether that standard or any standard so illconceived and so decimated, can long endure.”
And I think the better title would be “The Gatesborg Address”
awesome, someDAM. Thank you!
Reblogged this on Nonpartisan Education Group.
Geology and geography are also history, as are anthropology and paleontology.
History is ALWAYS understood within some context and when that context changes, the history also often changes.
A good example is the history of the earth, which changed dramatically (eg, with regard to age) with Charles Lyell’s work that placed the history of the earth within the context of long, slow acting geological processes . The history of life on earth changed dramatically with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by natural selection.
The whole idea of “contextless history” (or contextless anything, for that matter) is absurd.
There is no such thing as human knowledge existing outside context. Everything is interpreted within some context. That’s how we create meaning out of an otherwise seemingly random series of facts.
I was one of the writers of the California History-Social Science Curriculum, adopted by the State Board of Education in 1988. The approach that the overall committee took was that history correlates with science and technology, with culture and arts, with literature and politics. The idea was not to cover everything in a shallow way, but to pick times and places and study them in depth, with attention to causes and effects of great events.
I love the CA history standards because they enumerate lots of important facts about the world that are worth knowing –e.g. that Muhammad founded Islam in Mecca around 600 CE; that the Christian Church has undergone several schisms and was once very different than the Protestant churches that most of my students attend; that Confucianism is at the heart of many East Asian cultures; that the ancestors of my Mexican students have interesting roots in complex Mesoamerican and Roman civilizations; an overview of the history of the Jewish people…It seems to me that all these and more ought to be taught. None should be omitted.
ponderosa,
“the ancestors of my Mexican students have interesting roots in complex Mesoamerican and Roman civilizations” along with Iberian, Carthaginian, Gothic, Visigothic, Jewish, and for only around 700 years, Arabic (Islamic) so that a full 1/3 of the Spanish language can be traced to Arabic words-think algebra.
Duane: good point. In fact, I do point out that my Mexican students may have some Visigothic blood when we learn about the barbarian invasions; that they may have some Arab blood when we talk about the expansion of Islam into Spain in 711; and that they may have some Jewish blood during a lecture on the history of the Jews during the Middle Ages. I tell them about the thriving Jewish community in Spain prior to 1492, how some became conversos when given the choice to convert or leave, and how many left and became the Sephardic Jews (Sepharad =Hebrew term for Spain) some of whom still speak Ladino. I tell the story of a Turkish-born Jew I met here in CA who grew up speaking Ladino.
The CCSSO worked on social science / history standards – they are the C3 Framework:
https://www.socialstudies.org/c3
Click to access C3-Framework-for-Social-Studies.pdf
The CCSSO did drop out from authoring those standards because they thought it was not good politics (Too much flak for math and ELA standards). Imho, this was bad because with CCSSO gone public attention was gone too. But that said, every NCSS member was sent a softcover copy of the standards.
I would argue that Mr. Fitzhugh should read them.
The contributing organizations were as follows:
American Bar Association
American Historical Association
Association of American Geographers
Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools
Center for Civic Education
Constitutional Rights Foundation Chicago
Constitutional Rights Foundation USA
Council for Economic Education
National Council for Geographic Education
National Council for History Education
National Council for the Social Studies
National Geographic Society
National History Day
Street Law, Inc.
World History Association
His criticism seems outdated since, like NextGen Science standards, these are the successor standards or the recommended standards for teachers in the disciplines.
Jeremy, here’s a sample of the history standards you linked to (for 8th graders):
D1.2.6-8. Explain points of agreement experts have about interpretations and applications of disciplinary concepts and ideas associated with a compelling question.
Really? I’m struggling to picture the hypothetical 8th grader who can do this. Sure, a teacher can contrive to get a kid to do this…on one “compelling question” after weeks of front loading information about this historical episode, the actors, the experts’ interpretations, the disciplinary concepts (I confess I cannot readily conjure up examples of these). Once all these knowledge components are in place, the climactic “explaining points of agreement” is fairly elementary, isn’t it? It’s simply comparing one historian’s take with another’s. But isn’t the standard suggesting that there’s some all-purpose “explain points of agreement” skill that a good teacher can impart, and and that an 8th grader can possess that’s independent of the weeks of knowledge-loading? I don’t buy it. There is no all-purpose skill here. Knowing is the true basis of this “skill”.
Uggh. I posted a reply I thought but it did not show up.
Anyways, I will summarize what I wrote in my longer excellent post (with several links).
9th grade world history
Yes, if you’re asking for advice – follow the world historian’s creed: Dare to Omit.
Less is more. See Mike Schmoker and SHEG – they did a study comparing their methods to not using their methods in SF public schools.
I don’t agree that it is a zero sum game, but I do agree you’ll probably have to cut something. I would first not try to keep everything and secondly try to pick and create lessons from SHEG, World History for Us All, New Visions for Public Schools, C3teachers.org, etc. that do in a lesson what you would have done in a lecture. Thirdly, you can ask a question like To extent were medieval Japan, the Americas, and Europe similar? Different? That can cover a lot of ground.
Yes, more time in class would be good. I am for a 200-210 day school year. Probably the most likely way to get a raise of 10% for most teachers…
I just watched the first 8 minutes of a YouTube video featuring Mike Schmoker. Yikes, he sets off all my edu-charlatan alarm bells. He lectures, but recognizing this contradicts his lucrative guide-at-the-side gospel, tosses in moments of “think-pair-share” for the participants. He tells them, “Talk about the evils of calling on kids who raise their hand”, not, “What are the pro’s and con’s of calling on kids who raise their hand?” Clearly he wants the orthodox Doug Lemov-ian answer: that you’ll be missing all the kids who are tuned out. There’s something to this, but there are times when calling on the raised hands makes a lot of sense. I don’t think I can watch more of this guy, but I will examine some of the SHEG stuff.
ponderosa, I am beginning to question your reading skills – first you don’t believe memorizing math facts is part of CC math and now you think Schmoker is into new stuff.
Overall, I would advise you to read Schmoker’s book Focus. (Sorry I had this linked in my post that did not post) I would call him a no-nonsense traditionalist. He is not against lecturing, but he is for the students doing work. They should read, write, discuss (and think) more in class. Good book review: https://www.cultofpedagogy.com/schmoker-focus/ And an article by Schmoker on lesson planning: https://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2013/06/04/fp_schmoker_lessons.html
The links are nice, but I believe the book is worth reading. And that is saying something, because most pedagogy books are not worth reading. Though Lemov is worth reading too.
Yes, sometimes it is okay to call on raised hands, but it is generally not a good idea for checking for understanding. The research base on this seems quite solid and unlikely to change imo.
A SHEG link from that post that did not show up: https://seced2012.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/avishag-reisman-2012-the-document-based-lesson-bringing-disciplinary-inquiry-into-high-school-history-classrooms-with-adolescent-struggling-readers-journal-of-curriculum-studies/
Remembered one excellent resource – which if you are in CA – you might already be using the HOT (Humanities Out There) curriculum.
Here is a page with 7th grade links: http://historyproject.uci.edu/7thgraderesources/
I am not sure if this page has all the original sources, but one can find them online or ask the project coordinator.
Are you sure these are great resources? Have they been tried on real children? How did it go? Were they bored and confused? Enthralled? What residue remained in their brains afterwards? We need a Consumer Reports or Cooks Illustrated for lesson plans –how are we to tell what’s sheer garbage and what’s brilliant?
I look at the Norman Sicily lesson and think, my 7th graders will be bewildered by this unless I spend a lot of time telling them about Latin Christians, the Greek Christians, the Jews, and the Arabs first. I’d also have to teach them a lot of geography first. Even with this front loading, this lesson looks like a plunge into confusion for many of my kids. I question whether this is an appropriate activity for the average 7th grader.
If one’s aim is to have kids read a lot, sort through data and write, in the hope that such mental calisthenics will strengthen their brains –a sort of old school Lumosity –then these lessons are certainly the way to go. But I think our aim should be, above all, to solidly install a foundation of knowledge in kids’ minds. If fashionable constructivist activities like this one, which sure impress principals and uninitiated lay people, do a poor job of laying this foundation then they should be rejected.
I can’t speak to the 7th grade lessons and how good they are.
But I use many of the 10th grade lessons from the cd-rom and they are excellent.
Also used to use some of the US history lessons too. Also good.
Anyways, the cd-rom lessons for grade 7 which might be different than what is on the website previously linked can be found here (bottom of page): http://www.rowlandblogs.org/groups/studentdata/wiki/3af3b/RUSD_Grade_7_World_History_20132014.html
Yes, their applicability is on a hit or miss basis – but the same should be said of all curricular materials. It is true if all you were doing was the lesson(s) provided without background textbook/lecture/other readings and lessons that would not be enough.
Created by teachers and college faculty who work with teachers.
I would be a fan of rating lessons but I find that not very useful since what I like would be so much different than others. As a first grade teacher my wife runs into this with teacherspayteachers She thinks most look nice but are garbage – and they have 5 stars!?! Show ponies in other words.
Jeremy Greene,
thanks for the links. I clicked Medieval Europe, Grade 7, it is pure religious propaganda. Funny, “crusade” is not among the keywords, only mentioned in references to two books. “Burn” only used once, in relation to burning incense. “Stake” not mentioned. “Heretic” not mentioned. “Convert” is only mentioned in the context of supporting” missionaries and monks who spread the religion throughout Europe.” This was “one way to do so.” I wonder what the other ways were?
Sorry, this has nothing to do with history.
I assume you are referring to the pdf on Rowland blogs.
These are single day lessons -probably 3 – not the whole unit.
I think they are approachable lessons for 7th graders.
And I’ll strongly disagree with you these lessons do tackle parts of Medieval European history.
Of course, a lesson on the Crusades would be a part of a teachers lessons.
The pdfs are meant to supplement the lessons someone like ponderosa would be teaching. I’ll be interested if ponderosa’s take is the same as yours.
I have an example where historical context matters.
When my mom was young Colonel Custer was a hero but over the years he has lost that former status and is now considered a “dog”.
I read a recent article where the author said that Truman compared General Patton to Custer and concluded that Truman did not like or respect Patton based on current standards when the opposite was true based on the times.
Knowing is the true basis of the skill.
But not all who know can do what is asked.
Knowing how to throw a ball and swing a bat does not necessarily make one good at hitting a thrown ball with a bat.
For disciplinary concepts see: https://www.socialstudies.org/resources/c3/c3lc/dimension-2-applying-disciplinary-concepts-and-tools
And a lot more: https://www.socialstudies.org/resources/c3/c3lc/introduction-c3lc-investigation-series-putting-c3-framework-practice
All that said above, it is your complaint that is timely and about the standards that will be increasingly be used for creating standards. See CT’s, for instance which adopted the C3 more or less whole cloth. And now other states as they change their standards, MA for example, adopt parts of it.
Thanks for the links. Ugh. I started watching the NCSS webinar on the C3 and quickly learned that the funding came from Bill Gates. He has compromised every education organization’s integrity. Now I understand why the latest professional development on the new history frameworks here in CA makes it seem as if we’re supposed to convert history into ELA class, Common Core style. Gates is maneuvering the whole history/social studies establishment into a redefinition of the discipline that’s similar to Common Core close reading and skills practice. Learning history is now learning history skills (create! investigate! inquire! collaborate!). You think American’s historical ignorance is bad now? Just wait.
Custer is a great example.
The Vietnam war is another good example, although the pendulum seems to have swung from “good policy” to “bad policy” back to “good policy…but just poorly implemented” on that (at least among the ruling class)
“Good policy but poorly implemented” seems to be a popular excuse these days for things that are just bad, idiotic, illegal, unethical, even sometimes murderous.
That excuse has also been used in the case of the Iraq invasion and Common Core.
Not incidentally, it’s how the architects of the bad policies (people like Paul Woefulwits for Iraq, David Coleman and Jason Zimba for Common Core) attempt to escape all responsibility.
They blame all the problems on” poor implementation” — in many cases by the ” stupid pee-ons”. Of course, those out of control Privates were responsible for the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and teachers are responsible for all the problems with Common Core. Of course, isn’t it obvious?
Whenever someone says “it was just poorly implemented”, it means “It was a great idea. It’s just that you were too stupid and incompetent to carry it out.”
Exactly. But why are the edu-elites so out-of-touch? My new hypothesis is that there’s a sort of intellectual status anxiety that forces them to crank out pretentious sounding verbiage about education. Saying “kids will know their times tables” will be greeted by derision from peers and, most importantly, paymasters, so they don’t say it, even though that’s what kids need.
Yeah, that or the work of Sam Wineburg on historical thinking.
“Skills practice” is actually what historians do.
If you want to know about America’s historical ignorance see the work of … wait for it …. Sam Wineburg (https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/march31/history-331.html)
See also the group he is head of Stanford History Education Group SHEG: https://sheg.stanford.edu/ I think of it like Fenton’s 60’s and 70’s work which was ahead of its time.
I am a historian, and I have no idea what “skills practice” is in my field. The study of history involves context, knowledge, critical thinking, and the ability to see connections. None of these are “skills” that can be practiced in isolation.
So Diane they are skills? Agreed.
And every time we build knowledge, partake in critical thinking, etc. it can be considered practice.
I am not sure who was arguing for them to be practiced in isolation.
Sam Wineburg (NO: http://www.socstrpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/MS06548_Neumann.pdf) Me (never)? A straw man? Yes!
Math facts should be memorized in CC math: https://edexcellence.net/articles/does-common-core-math-expect-memorization-a-candid-conversation-with-jason-zimba
3.OA.C.7. Fluently multiply and divide within 100, using strategies such as the relationship between multiplication and division (e.g., knowing that 8 ´ 5 = 40, one knows 40 ÷ 5 = 8) or properties of operations. By the end of Grade 3, know from memory all products of two one-digit numbers.
I teach history, and I know a fair amount of history, but I do not consider myself a historian. Am I a disgrace? If I don’t aspire to “do history”, to act like a historian, but only to know a lot of history, should I expect my students to be junior historians? I aspire to get them to know important history, not to be historians. Is this negligence?
You don’t have to be a historian or act like one to ponder the reality that there are facts and there are speculations, and historians know the difference. They disagree even about facts. History is far more interesting when students see debates and controversies, not just a parade of facts. Some of which are disputed.
Re: memorizing times tables. I’m glad to see it’s included in the CC Math standards, but isn’t it the exception that proves the rule?
Let this simple phrase be the new all-purpose national standard: “Teachers, teach your students as much as you can about the world.” I have no doubt this would result in an educational renaissance.
Ponderosa,
What do you think the rule is for CC math?
If you did not know that it asked for fluency in addition, subtraction, multiplication and division it would not seem you know enough about them to judge.
Ponderosa,
Yes, expect and create opportunities for students to be junior historians – also give opportunities for them to discuss historical questions (Harkness style) perhaps by giving them jigsaw readings where they have to read 2 out of 5 articles on who started WWI and come to their own conclusion in writing before discussing with the whole or half the class (fishbowl technique).
Again SHEG’s resources are a great starting place but not the only place for this.
Jeremy,
I teach medieval and early modern world history to seventh graders (by the way, do you teach, and if so, what grade?). There’s a lot of important information to convey –too much to fit in one year. As it is I cannot cover all the topics. The more in-depth activities I do, like the one you describe, the more topics I have to cut out. Which should it be? West Africa? The Enlightenment? Islam? The Aztecs? If covering these topics through lecture and the occasional longer activity were as stultifying as you seem to suggest, I’d consider sacrificing a few more for activities like the jigsaw you describe (though many of my students cannot and/or will not read history texts well, unless I’ve front loaded them with domain knowledge first, so I’d still have to lecture). I hope you and Diane realize, however, that we’re talking about a zero-sum game. Going in-depth on a few topics means kids may very well never get exposure to the Reformation or Golden Age China or the Maya, or whichever topics get omitted as a result. Most have one crack at these subjects in the K-12 curriculum. If we doubled the amount of time devoted to history, it would be otherwise.
Comparing Common Core with the invasion of Iraq will not move this discussion anywhere.
“NAEP has found that only about 18% know enough to pass the U.S. citizenship exam.”
NAEP hasn’t found a damn thing. It’s a standardized test and therefore using the results of the NAEP to say anything about anyone or thing is completely invalid.
Not to mention that as a supposed logical thought the statement is utter nonsense. The NAEP cannot do anything as it is just a standardized test and has no inherent capabilities to say, think or do anything.