Peter Greene here makes a case for “vagueness” and against national and state standards.
“I am opposed to national or state standards. I recognize that in this I am a bit out there, and I recognize that reasonable people can believe that state and federal standards would be a good idea. I just don’t agree.
“However, I am not an advocate of completely unstructured wandering classrooms. You should know why you’re teaching what you’re teaching; you should have goals and objectives in teaching that material. So, no– I’m not lobbying for the Classroom of Do As You Please.
“Also, feel free to insert “in my opinion” in front of all the following.
“That said…
“The kind of laser-sharp focus advocated by some educational folks gives me the creeps.
“Sitting a department down to say, “We’re going to figure out how we can all teach exactly the same things for exactly the same purposes aimed at exactly the same outcomes,” diminishes the professionalism of the people in the room and does not serve the education of their students.
“Laser-sharp focus on a single objective is a bad idea, a stultifying limiting idea. I say this not just as an education viewpoint, but a life viewpoint. People who focus on one single objective are the people who throw away gold because they were focused, laser-like, on digging up diamonds. Yes, some of them find diamond mines, but mostly they barrel through a lot of other human beings and riches of another kind because of their laser-like focus.
“Laser-like focus also encourages you to view every deviation from the path as a crisis, a sign of impending disaster, instead of an opportunity. Laser-like focus fosters high-strung panic instead of sparkling improvisation.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
That laser-sharp focus also limits and hinders children of all ages from finding out what makes their hearts sing. It keeps teachers from finding out about their students and how to best approach the teaching of their content and curriculum in ways that become relevant to their students – not “relevant” in terms of the “real world”necessarily, but in terms of how their students learn.
LikeLike
I was involved in an effort of the public colleges and universities in California (US, CSU, CCC) to develop recommendations for high school science curricula for students preparing to go to college. We took the approach that the drafters of the U.S. Constitution took and tried to not tie the hands of future generations, all the while giving direction. We made recommendations regarding 60% of the high school science classes curricula and left 40% up to local preference. Current efforts seem to be declaring everything as being “core” and nothing left to the interests in the local community. This is, I believe, a grave mistake as the resources of the local community are often unique. For example, if the Grand Canyon were in my back yard, I would want a fair amount of the Earth Science curriculum in my high school to address it. Obviously, if you live in New York, this is not an option, but Niagara Falls is, etc.
LikeLike
Another thought…..while I am not thrilled about Common Core, I don’t think all the blame for such focus and lock-step teaching should necessarily be placed there, but, rather, at least equally on those statistically invalid and totally useless tests.
LikeLike
And that blame should also be shouldered by the Go Along to Get Along Good German attitude of adminimals and teachers who willingly and knowingly instituted what they knew to be educational malpractices, especially the standardized testing regime as you mention, Susan, that harms all students.
LikeLike
“Adminimals?” “Good German Attitude”?
LikeLike
Adminimal is my derogatory term for any administrator who, knowing the ill effects to the students of the malpractices that they are implementing, continue to implement them. And every administrator with whom I’ve worked acknowledged that harm. It also has to do with so many of them jumping on newest, latest education panacea forcing that crap down the throats of the teachers. Minimal thinkers and animal-like herd behavior characterize adminimals.
As far as GAGA Good German Attitude. It applies to all in education who dutifully follow the mandates and implement malpractices that harm students. In other words 99.99% of all teachers and administrators. You see, only about 14% of the German population in the 30s were members of the Nazi Party and/or the SS. In order for the atrocities to occur as they did it required that the “good German”, the 86% or so, following his/her duties unquestioning, turning a blind eye to the atrocities. Without their complicity the Holocaust couldn’t have happened. We are currently witnessing a “holocaust” of the students minds, the killing of the teaching and learning process, instituting malpractices that destroy that process. It cannot be done without the help of the GAGA Good German attitude of those who do the implementation-the teachers and the administrators.
Most don’t like my analysis as being to harsh. So be it. I stand by my analysis.
LikeLike
being too harsh. ay ay ay.
LikeLike
The main problem with the CCSS English standards is that they demand the teaching of unteachable skills like finding the main idea. There is no “finding the main idea” skill. You can easily identify main ideas if you understand the text and understanding is mainly a function of background knowledge.
LikeLike
As a professional writer, I despise the mechanistic way that children are taught to analyze written work. Find the main idea is stupid.
LikeLike
If I see another “writer’s workshop’, I will FALL DOWN and expire. If my eyes are glazing over, I ache for the poor kids. Hence….my retirement.
LikeLike
The exercises are stupid. The idea of identifying the main idea is not. What’s the gist of what the writer is telling you? Amazingly, there are people who can’t tell you. Learning to summarize is a part of effective note taking rather than just writing as much as possible by rote. Recording information without comprehension has become a real danger with the advent of note taking on computers where lectures can be recorded almost word for word. Handwritten notes require that the student think about what the speaker is trying to say in order to get the essence of a lecture. The same ability applies when reading difficult text.
LikeLike
Oh, and let’s not forget “close reading” and the never ending annotations. My gosh….I thought my 13 yo boy was going to shoot his eye out for entertainment after taking 4-5 months to “closely read” and annotate EVERY SINGLE PAGE in Frankenstein. What a way to suck the joy out of reading! I can’t even get him to read comic books at this point.
LikeLike
All the English and literature classes I loved taught me to appreciate the life lessons of literature, not by reading in isolation, but by having class discussions and projects that made the reading fun. That’s how I teach now. Reading is fun, dagnabbit! So is writing! Anyone who tries to stop me and get me to teach “identify the central idea” finds me being, as Peter Greene put it, “a pain in the [neck] every step of the way.”
LikeLike
speduktr, the concept of “main idea” is not an objective one. In math, we argue about what the main idea is all the time.
LikeLike
Ask the author what the “main idea” is. I bet most would have an answer different from the right answer on the tests
LikeLike
That’s why I said the exercises were stupid. Discussion/debate about central ideas is not.
LikeLike
Just like there are many purposes to education, there are many paths to fulfilling those purposes.
When I get together at my summer conference with my fellow physics teachers, we do not all agree on what should be taught, how it should be taught, but we are all interested in helping our students learn something about the world. Some of us want a very strong connection to the real world or to engineering projects. Others want to go very deeply into only a few topics. Some focus on scientific methods and practices. None of these are unworthy goals and our students are stronger for this diversity.
Finally, when I hear that the purpose of state or national standards is to help students moving from one place to another, I always groan and roll my eyes. Having the standards be the same does not mean that the day to day classroom practices will be the same across any geographic area, including the actual school building. I fear that the people in charge want school to be like “this is day 65 of the school year, so I must be on page 129 and do this activity.“
LikeLike
Your fear is well placed. The aim is to have a multigrade curriculum in every “core’ subject deliverable by computers and software programs that function to keep students “on track” with arrivals on time for the next set of courses/assignments. The logic is from military and like training programs where the objectives are set forth and you “backmap” to each and every pre-requisite that must be met to get to the objective. Variants are present in the PERT system for just in time delivery, notably used in building the Polaris submarine.
I really appreciate your discussion of how professionals working on the same general content differ in their approaches and tour conclusion that: “None of these are unworthy goals and our students are stronger for this diversity.”
LikeLike
So to me the problem is that those in policy only focus on the extremes of the pendulum (i.e. – total freedom – you can do what you want OR everyone is on page 65 on day 12). To me, neither of these are acceptable. In working with the CCSS they are more of a guide – a sense that by the end of a year (or end of a course) here are the main ideas that teachers should be addressing. They don’t say WHAT day teachers should be doing things, or even HOW they should be teaching them.
In my experience, without any of these common ideas, teachers end up doing whatever they want. While that freedom can have some positives, as Spiderman says “With great power, comes great responsibility” and unfortunately in my own experiences, many teachers who have the power of freedom don’t always use it responsibly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is possible to find a middle ground, like agreement that US history and other subjects will be taught in certain grades.
LikeLike
But what about WHAT is taught in US History? What if a teacher decided to spend the entire year of a US history course on the colonial era? Would that be considered ok? OR teachers in one part of the country focused only on the Civil War and reconstruction and did not teach anything about the Civil Rights? Is that Ok?
LikeLike
The Common Core history standards here in California are not content standards. They are reading and writing skill standards. (History is dying.) Common Core fans in the history department at my school ignore historical time periods in meetings, and instead insist on meeting with the English department to discuss writing strategies. And yes, they skip decades and even millennia of historical content, teaching formulaic writing out of a can instead.
LikeLike
So that sounds like an issue with implementation of the CC standards, not the standards themselves. Too often people will have issues with how something is implemented and then blame the issue/policy/item itself. They are two separate things.
LikeLike
Look at the history standards. They are English standards.
LikeLike
Exactly. The teaching of history, geography, and civics are nearly gone. There ARE no “standards” for teaching social sciences in the CC, and because they aren’t tested, the social sciences are ignored. The lack of knowledge in basic history, geography, and civics is astounding and sad.
LikeLike
“In working with the CCSS they are more of a guide – a sense that by the end of a year (or end of a course) here are the main ideas that teachers should be addressing. They don’t say WHAT day teachers should be doing things, or even HOW they should be teaching them.”
No, CCSS is not “more of a guide.” It is a very specific doctrine that is imposed top-down from people who should not be telling teachers across the nation what to do.
CCSS does tell teachers what to teach, when to teach, and by extension, very much how to teach. CCSS is a mistake, so is defending it.
If you want a guide for how to do “standards,” look at the Finnish school system. And even they have been rethinking their entire model, because they have recognized it is flawed (though far better than the US model).
LikeLike
Ed Detective, please SHOW me in the CCSS (http://www.corestandards.org/Math/) what you are describing, because I certainly don’t see it. Now, I am not saying that there are states or districts that have misinterpreted the CCSS to what you say, but from my reading of the link here, that is NOT the case.
LikeLike
First of all, that is the Common Core website, so of course they are going to talk themselves up.
Still, you can go to any link on the sidebar and you will find a specific list of things that teachers must teach and students must “learn” in specific time frames. I put learn in quotes because the tests will try to “measure” the learning of those standards (and fire or humiliate teachers based on those metrics), but there is no real way to measure the learning of them, just a pretend way.
That’s assuming already that those are the things teachers should be teaching and students should be learning. Says WHO? Plenty has been written on this blog about who wrote the standards and who they really benefit. CCSS is not primarily built for the true benefit of teachers and students (it’s built more in mind of what will benefit the “workforce” aka US business interests); nor was CCSS built BY teachers and students. Both of these render CCSS indefensible.
If we’re talking about some other form of national and state standards, those will suffer from similar fundamental problems as CCSS.
Of course, that does not mean teachers “do whatever they want.” There can be oversight, there can be peer review, there can be exchange of ideas and other forms of checking that teachers are doing good things that are acceptable… and ways to support them in doing this.
LikeLike
SHOW me where exactly the time frames and specific things are listed (i.e. when they should be taught). Because when I click on the side, I do see more specific listings of standards and I do see examples of what could be taught with those standards, but in no way shape or form do I see the details you are describing. (Here’s an example of when I hit on a HS standard (http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/HSN/RN/). Please don’t just make claims about what is happening or not happening and then not back them up with evidence.
As for “here can be oversight, there can be peer review, there can be exchange of ideas and other forms of checking that teachers are doing good things that are acceptable… and ways to support them in doing this.” – SO how is that going to happen? And who is going to do the oversight? And how are we going to make sure this is happening on a regular basis?
I will say this -I do think that if a teacher has shown success in the classroom for a certain number of years (through various means, not just standardized test scores) that such teachers should earn the right to have more freedom and flexibility in their pedagogy or their practices. BUT such freedom should not just be provided on day 1.
LikeLike
No need to show anything. Just look at the BS Test for your state. You can talk “implementation” all you want, but the only implementation that was going to happen was to kowtow to those stupid tests. Even if CC was the perfect document (and it isn’t–the standards for young students are horrible), the tests guaranteed that these “standards” would be implemented EXACTLY as they were.
LikeLike
jlsteach – now click on any of the grade levels (“grade 5”) which will drop down 5 or 6 more categories, each of which has its own list of what to teach during the course of one academic year. That’s a lot of stuff in a year, and who decided what that stuff will be?
In each of these categories, you will find a list of what to teach, no matter where the teacher is, no matter who the teacher is, no matter who the students are. You have to do it in that year, whichever “grade” you are teaching. All these standards dictate most of what will be taught, and to a large degree when and how it will be taught.
As “Threatened Out West” pointed out, these are not mere guidelines either, since they are enforced through the tests (and always were intended to be).
I’m not simply “making claims” without evidence, I told you where to go on the website to find what I was talking about. What do you want me to do, post screenshots for you? I’m not gonna copy/paste the 100000000000000 (slight exaggeration) Common Core Standards™ for you here.
LikeLike
Um, Ed Detective – I just did that, and I got to this level (http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/5/OA/). So, you are saying that a 5th grade for math in LA should be different than a 5th grade math in Florida? Or an Alg II in Mississippi should be different than an Alg 2 in Miami?
Here’s the deal – You are still wrong. you state, “All these standards dictate most of what will be taught, and to a large degree when and how it will be taught.” – not true. It doesn’t say that in Oct that all students need to learn x, y and z – rather it states that at the dn of a year students should know x, y and z. How is this different than what states have done for years (having state standards?) It doesn’t state that in CA you can create word problems that are more applicable to CA students and that in Miami you can create problems that are more related to students in Miami.
As a teacher who has taught in different states and different schools, I don’t think that it’s fair or equitable that students in one school get less access to math than in other schools. From my own personal experience, giving teachers total to control HAS led to students NOT getting what they have needed.
Please don’t exaggerate what this page or the CCSS is supposed to do.
LikeLike
“So, you are saying that a 5th grade for math in LA should be different than a 5th grade math in Florida?”
Yes, I am saying the students in front of the teacher should determine what is taught, rather than a group of far-away officials in a closed-door meeting.
“Or an Alg II in Mississippi should be different than an Alg 2 in Miami?”
See above. Also, I do not even accept the basic premise that “Algebra 2” must be a requirement in K-12 curriculum. You, like many, seem to take it for granted.
“It doesn’t say that in Oct that all students need to learn x, y and z – rather it states that at the dn of a year students should know x, y and z. “
It doesn’t say in October, it says by the end of the year. That is telling teachers what to teach and students what to learn by the end of that year. Hypothetically, at least, since the tests cannot actually “measure” or determine what the students really learned and understood, just report a numerical score.
“How is this different than what states have done for years (having state standards?)”
I am against both state and national standards. If they are to exist, they must be general guidelines, determined by teachers, students, parents, communities, the public — rather than an elite chosen few. Then the teachers must be given flexibility to adapt to their own students. Again, like I said, refer to the Finnish school system for a good example (book: “Finnish Lessons 2.0” by Pasi Sahlberg), though again, like I said, and like you would read in that book, the Finns are also rethinking their entire system of standards and education because they have . What they are NOT doing is adopting our model, or coming closer to it, they are actually moving further away from it, and specific standards and specific subjects and specific tracks, etc.
“As a teacher who has taught in different states and different schools, I don’t think that it’s fair or equitable that students in one school get less access to math than in other schools.”
I don’t want anyone to have less access. I want teachers to have autonomy, and students to love what they’re doing and actual learn things. Specific national or state mandated standards make this more difficult. If we want equity then howbout fixing the funding system, offering more support systems for teachers and time for collaboration, local control and community schools, not top-down initiatives from a few supposed experts.
“From my own personal experience, giving teachers total to control HAS led to students NOT getting what they have needed.”
You don’t have to give teachers total control, just more control than Bill Gates and tiny hand-picked groups that create and enforce curriculum for an entire nation. Control should be in the hands of educators, students, communities etc. There can be a balance between teacher autonomy and others’ autonomy, there may even be room for administrators, as long as they are experienced educators and not just teacher-police.
“Please don’t exaggerate what this page or the CCSS is supposed to do.”
Please try to consider that CCSS may not be the right way to go.
LikeLike
Here we go again comparing us to Finland. Have you also compare the number of students in the K-12 system in Finland this is the number of students in the K-12 system in the US? I’m not sure how you see the common core state standards as not being died much. It doesn’t say you have to teach a certain way it doesn’t say when you have to teach and fix. By giving teachers full control there could be some positive outcomes but on the other hand you can also end up with situations as they have been for years we kids don’t have the same access from multiple reasons
LikeLike
There are less people in a US state or city or school-building than students who are in Finland. You can’t just dismiss their model and their lessons because more people live in the USA than Finland. That’s a cop-out to examining what they’re actually doing and why it “works” better than what we’re doing.
I will repeat, I never said give teachers’ full control, I said they should have AUTONOMY, which CCSS strips from teachers, and I said that autonomy can be checked and balanced by others than teachers. See — again — the Finnish model, for example.
I also said there are other ways to fix problems of “inequity” than CCSS, which DOES NOT solve the problem of inequity! Shouldn’t it be obvious by now? To many of us, it is.
Telling teachers what to teach, then pressuring them to produce the highest test scores, is indeed telling them — to a large degree — “how” to teach. If you have been teaching, like you say, surely you get this.
LikeLike
So having a set of standards and then how to measure them (ie high stakes standardized tests) are NOT one in the same. I’m not saying that I think that high stakes testing connected to teacher observstions is the way to go. What I do think that having some common expectations on what is taught in each content area is a good thing.
As for looking at Finland and what works and then try and get here my problem with that is the constant search for the golden ticket and education more often than not
LikeLike
jlsteach “What I do think that having some common expectations on what is taught in each content area is a good thing.”
In what other profession would you like to prescribe workers what they need to do? Do you think, it would be a good idea for scientists to have some minimum standards about what to research? How about a Common Core for professors? How about dancers, painters, architects, actors, film or theater directors? Would they all suck unless they get federal or state minimum guidelines to micromanage their profession?
Why is it that some people want to control exactly those professions where peer and public review (and pressure) have been working extremely well for decades or even for hundreds of years?
Why not get on the case of those people who have demonstrated over and over that they are willing to pursue power or wealth at the expense of others: billionaires, CEOs of gigantic companies, politicians.
LikeLike
I’ll respond a little bit more later but two thoughts:
All of the professions you mentioned focus on creativity. I am sure you see teaching as more art than science. And in that case I agree with you – no one at any level should mandate or control how teachers teach (even those who lecture all the time have the right to to that).
But I am wondering – would you be comfortable going to a doctor whose only exposure to anatomy was looking at a body on the internet versus those who actually touch a cadaver? Shouldn’t what one doctor does for anatomy also be the same as another doctor?
And why shouldn’t the same be for what kids learn?
LikeLike
Just giving my two cents. I find it crazy that if one, like myself, doesn’t believe in national standards others think they support a free for all.
That’s just silly. There are expectations for educators and we’ve never had a free for all in public education.
I know of no reason for national standards other than the likes of gates et al wanted them. And for a purpose to standardize education so massive amounts of data can be collected, and of course to make education into a lucrative business. And many are also seeing the next step of all children in front of computers meeting standards with no human teacher at all.
LikeLike
So, where’s the compromise – state standards are ok? Most of those on this blog that have spoken against the CCSS have said they are against them because of teacher autonomy, They say that parents, teachers, etc should have say in things. Do you all think that Bill Gates just sat around and came up with CCSS. No -educators were involved in the creation of the standards. In addition, as I have stated (but others have tried to contradict) the standards only point to what should be covered at different age levels.
Here’s my problem with keeping things at just the local level – there are some great teachers that certainly can make great decisions on what to teach or how to teach. But there are plenty of others that are not the great.
Throwing out suggestions like “get more teachers involved, get more parents involved” is all well and good – until one tries and thinks about what that looks like at a practical level.
Finally, I end with this about teacher autonomy and teacher decision making. I have worked at the district level where teachers actually WANT more information – they want pacing guides. Heck I am fairly certain if I were to create lesson plans for them they would want those to. Now, let me be clear, NOT every teacher wants these, and candidly, when I worked at the district level I felt that wasn’t my job to give them daily lessons. Rather, I see providing standards or even a pacing guide helps a teacher think more about being on track. Oh, and the pacing guide does not mean that every day every person has to be on the exact same lesson.
So what about THOSE teachers, who appreciate having some sense of direction where no direction was given?
LikeLike
Definition of autonomy – freedom from control, independence
So – explain to me how you want teachers to have full control but that that’s not autonomy?
And do you think that any teacher – good or bad – should have the same autonomy?
LikeLike
There are degrees of autonomy, it’s not all or nothing. Of course there must be limits, boundaries, oversight, to what teachers are doing in their classrooms.
I think educators themselves, along with parents, students, and their communities — like I said — are more well-placed to regulate and improve themselves than a few distant, elite authorities.
Now, who is determining what is a “good” and “bad” teacher? That’s a very important question, and CCSS assumes the answer (the CCSS creators/tests).
Teachers should have a baseline level of autonomy, let’s say, we should respect them as professionals who generally know what they’re doing. That should be the default for teachers. Then, educators and their communities, and perhaps certain administrators (who exist to support teachers, rather than simply command and fire them) can oversee and self-correct. We don’t need Bill Gates telling us what is right and wrong educating, good and bad teaching. We can determine that for ourselves, and act accordingly.
Look, I’m not in alignment with a lot of teachers on what they teach or how they teach. But unless they are making ethical violations, it is not up to me (much less Bill Gates) to boss them around.
What we can do, however, is work together, collaborate on what is better or worse teaching, and solve problems that appear or look like they may appear. Students and parents can (and should) be involved in this process as well.
The question goes back to who owns our schools and who decides what education, teaching, and learning will be. Let’s be democratic about it, not totalitarian.
LikeLike
I think educators themselves, along with parents, students, and their communities:
Just wondering, which educators, which parents and which students? The ones that are well to do? Or the parents that work two jobs? And how does this happen on a regular basis? In the county that I live in, considered one of the better counties in the state, there is LARGE disparity among wealthy and non-wealthy schools…Provide me something practical as opposed to just throwing out nice feeling ideas.
Now, who is determining what is a “good” and “bad” teacher? That’s a very important question, and CCSS assumes the answer (the CCSS creators/tests):
NO, Not true. But I do think that part of a teacher observation should be what they teach. Imagine an Algebra II teacher that only taught the material for Algebra I? Is THAT a good teacher? I would argue that even if he/she did lots of many other great things as a teacher, the fact the students were not learning the right material is a HUGE issue.
Students and parents can (and should) be involved in this process as well. –
Going back to my first point – how does this work. Mr. Popular teacher who the kids really love but really doesn’t teach any of the material is a fantastic teacher? As for parents – see my first point as well – which parents are involved? How does that happen. Candidly, in my daughters’ school where 60% are Free and Reduced lunch and the majority speak languages other than English, having a common set of standards helps those parents make sure their students are learning what they should be learning as opposed to being hoodwinked. Those parents working two or three jobs don’t have the time or the resources to make sure their kids are getting the right material in their classes.
You keep mentioning Gates – if you look at the CCSS, and cross referenced them with state standards from various states, my sense is that many of the things would be the same Yes, CCSS and it’s push for critical thinking can go TOO Far in a direction – I don’t agree that kids need to learn 10 different ways of adding or subtracting. BUT I do think that having students understand what it means when you have the problem 32-17 that you cross out hte 2 and make it a 2 and put the little 1 next to the 7. When I grew up I just was given a procedure. If a kid asked why you were told that’s the process. I think THAT is a good part of CCSS and of the current practice…Explain to me why things like that are bad things in education?
LikeLike
Helping teachers out is not the same as mandating what and how to teach. The CCSS system is mandating.
LikeLike
Please share with me exactly how CCSS mandates what is taught, when it is taught, on a daily basis? Because that is not the case.
LikeLike
I think you are arguing that the Common Core standards have no bearing at all on instruction. Why did Gates spend so many hundreds of millions, or billions, to “standardize” the classroom, if the CCSS don’t matter at all?
LikeLike
So that would be combining two different initiatives. From my vantage point, CCSS does bring about some standardization of what is taught in a given content. The standards themselves do not say how they should be taught or even specifically in what order they should be taught. Gates or others may have poured more money into other initiatives that aimed to do this, but that would be related to the CCSS (the how), as opposed to the standards themselves (the what)
LikeLike
“Gates or others may have poured more money into other initiatives that aimed to do this, but that would be related to the CCSS (the how), as opposed to the standards themselves (the what)”
I think the above is trying to break down CC to parts that don’t exist.
What do we find here, CCSS or CC or the “standards themselves”?
http://www.corestandards.org/
Separating the what and the how is impossible. Once you prescribe that it’s as important for kids to be able to understand technical user guides, law and science articles (close reading) as reading Shakespeare, you determined how English classes are structured and how texts are read. You trade much of personal enjoyment of literature to “objective” explanations and analysis.
People don’t drink water the same way as whisky, don’t eat apple the same way as barbecue, don’t play football the same way as basketball.
LikeLike
You want to restart an argument we have gone through here many times, explicitly or implicitly claiming that poor innocent (but worldclass) CCSS doesn’t mandate anything, it’s optional, it is misunderstood, it has nothing to do with tests and teacher and school evaluations, school takeovers, turnaround programs, etc.
As I indicated, the Gates/Pearson Common Core program is a system: It can be abbreviated as CCSSS, the last S referring to “System”.
If anybody wants to argue about CCSSS but allows me to refer to only the text of the CC website, i can say two things:
1) 5 year olds have to business in learning math, so the very foundation of the CC building is shaky.
2) get real: It’s not teachers and students who are out of control in this country but corporations, so spend your time figuring out how to control them.
LikeLike
accidentally erased on my last post:
” because [the Finns] have” … determined their standards and school system are flawed and insufficient.
typo: “actual[ly] learn things”
LikeLike
In our district, the suddenly decided theory of test score “reform” quickly came to mean pushing teachers inside low-scoring schools into lock step; co-opted by the testing/curriculum pushers, this idea rapidly became associated with endless out-of-school trainings and endlessly new standardizing programs. SO MUCH WASTE, so much unused (suddenly revamped) material, and so many hours where teachers have been separated from students who desperately need them.
LikeLike
Except that in my district, curriculum is dictated by Central office and the same curriculum (verbatim) is being taught in every single classroom on almost the same day. The tests given in the maths, ELA, history/social studies etc….are exactly the same in EVERY school and given on almost the exact days. Talk about cookie cutter education….this is what CC has put into overdrive. I live in a very large school district (MD) in the suburbs of DC. Teachers are afraid to shut their doors and do what is right for the kids.
LikeLike
Lisa, not every county is that way (even counties that are outside of DC – I could probably guess your county based on the description as I live in the same area. That too is an implementation issue – the county doesn’t understand what curriculum is supposed to look like. I know folks that work in different central offices that offer different curricular supports – to me it’s all about the implementation and who is making the choices.
LikeLike
This is no pendulum shift. This is purposeful and meant to move students to computers. The backers are Mrs. Jobs, Zuckerberg, Gates and all others. Once you standardize everything, they can implement their initiatives. So much has been written to the idea of who is behind the common core movement.
Common core is also not a guideline. It is an excessive amount of skill based learning. Forget about meaning and learning skills within the content of meaning.
Just watch this video to see where we are going. This is the district my children attend in MN. It looks pretty personal, huh?https://empower.district112.org/default.aspx?LOAD_PAGE=true
And in my 20 years as a teacher, starting before NCLB, and when I was a student we didn’t have a situation where teachers end up doing whatever they want.
LikeLike
“I recognize that in this I am a bit out there
Well there’s the problem. It shouldn’t be.
LikeLike
That was my thought too when I read that.
LikeLike
I guess that puts me and many others way out there, eh, Ed!
LikeLike
Anything coming from the deformers, take the opposite of what they say. Laser-like focus…HUH? Guess the deformers want dummies to boss around and NO QUESTIONING. Duh.
LikeLike
I have taught in situations in which I invented everything, those with a curriculum as a framework, and those that were prescribed and micro-managed. The worst was the last, because prescribed instruction is soul sucking and mind numbing. It also does not allow the teacher to modify instruction to meet individual needs. Having no guidelines or materials for teaching can be interesting, but it is also extremely time consuming. It also relies on the teacher to decide what, when and how material is taught. It depends heavily on the skill and understanding of the individual teacher. I agree with Greene that having a curriculum or framework is useful. Even if some materials are required, the teacher still has a chance to plan different ways to get to the goal. This is what keeps teaching fresh and interesting for teachers and students.
The logical conclusion of standardization is virtual instruction. Every subject is taught in behaviorist way, even subjects for which it makes little sense. A steady diet of CAI is also mind numbing and tedious. Computers are useful tools, but it is absurd to assume they can supplant instruction from a trained, caring human.
LikeLike
It’s time to rethink ‘standards’ to something more akin to building codes…really minimums. Like all children should be offered engaging, contextual learning opportunities. All children should be able to read at a basic level with the goal of progressing through learning. All students should be offered a clear connection between their skills, the generation of knowledge and problem-solving that links to critical thinking skills. Students should see a clear connection between their learning and the needs and problem they see and will face. All students will learn to create and foster a healthy learning environment for their peers.
These were written before the coffee had fully kicked but its the foundation. Building codes make buildings safe(r) but don’t tell you how to make a house nor make a home. They give power to professionals to make wise choices. There are not maximums nor do they state that 85% of homes will meet these by 2020. They are foundational minimums. Yes there are industry ‘Best Practices’ but that is part of the professionalism, the leadership of the building community.
LikeLike
And that is what the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Principles and Standards do….their standards are, as I said in a previous post, curriculum standards and are suggested as guidelines.
LikeLike
Saying that NCTM standards are just “suggested as guidelines” is disingenuous, because a whole slew of math programs, precisely thirteen of them, have been developed based on these standards. All these programs are integrated, inquiry-oriented, groupwork-based, technology-rich, all the proper buzzwords. Those programs that haven’t been culled off have got Common Core seal of approval on them, and are now being approved by the same districts that rejected these programs twenty years ago. If one wants integrated math program – integrated is better than AGA, after all European countries use integrated math, that is what Common Core website says – then one gets one of these NCTM-based programs – there is no other option. All these programs are horrible. I’d rather be using EngageNY worksheets than CMP or CPMP textbooks.
LikeLike
“It’s time to rethink ‘standards’ to something more akin to building codes…really minimums.”
It’s time to get rid of those supposed “standards” as they are bogus from the gitgo. How the hell did this country become the “top dog” nation of the world before there were educational “standards”? Yes, in quotes because they are in reality pseudo-standards, for an explanation why see Ch. 6 “Of Standards and Measurement” of my book “Infidelity to Truth: Education Malpractice in American Public Education”.
The term standard is used specifically to imply/suggest that learning can be atomized, categorized, and quantified. And that is false thinking. Learning is fluid, swirling and non-linear progressing as it may depending upon each and every student, circumstance and his/her teacher. To not recognize that fact is to be blinded by ideology, really idiology*, and is ludicrous and risible.
*Idiology, (n) 1) Ideology based on errors and falsehoods. 2) the ideology of fools and idiots. For example: psychometric and economic thinking.
LikeLike
How the hell did this country become the “top dog” nation of the world before there were educational “standards – Are we really the “top dog” – yes, there are plenty of places that one can point to as success in education – but a few success don’t make us the top dog. Certainly by some measures we are and have continued to be the “middle of the road” and for every pocket of success – either a particular school, district, etc. one can point to pockets that are still struggling…
LikeLike
Those “some measures” are bogus-we’ve been through that a gazillion times. And of course some schools (upper and middle SES located schools) do a better job than others-poor urban and rural poverty districts. The correction for those differences lie in providing the proper resources to those poverty districts to enable all students to learn what they see fit and can learn.
The top-dog status comment is not meant to be limited to the education realm.
LikeLike
Should that be the goal, to be the “top dog” – to be #1? As for the comment about resources, yes that is part of it, but there are teachers who still make poor choices even when they have all the resources they want. Or they make poor choices without resources. The fact is they make poor choices. Also, the so called curriculum and expectations for courses that teacher supposedly received every year – that wasn’t provided every time and second, that differs from state to state – is that really ok? I know, back to that argument again – but to me here’s the question – is equity meaning that each kids are exposed to the same thing OR that they are provided individual attention to meet their needs? Which one is it?
LikeLike
It’s not the friggin teachers fault when the administration doesn’t do its job.
And yes, it is okay that different curricula hold sway. Standardization is for those who can’t handle plurality and differences.
It is important to take considerations of equity into account. But that is not the end all be all. Equity includes not only the concept of equal but also of fairness. What constitutes that fairness in education? Well for me it certainly doesn’t mean “standardized” curriculum. The fairness issue, or as Rawls puts it “justice as fairness” is not an easy nut to crack. Those who simplistically believe that equity is giving the same thing to all have a very distorted view of equity. Equity is not the same as equal.
We should be providing the needed resources so that each student can grow and develop as much as he/she (and parents) sees fit. So my answer is “provide individual attention to meet their needs”.
LikeLike
Just saw a more recent response. Been out watering the garden. You wrote:
“What I, and others, are saying is that we need some type of common expectation that at the end of a course a student has learned certain knowledge.”
And therein lies the problem of the expectation of being able to determine that the student “has learned certain knowledge”. I can tell you that I never knew what a student learned and no test or assessment could ever come close to giving, inferring or delineating a student’s particular knowledge of any subject. One is fooling oneself if one believes that we can get inside the mind and being of students to even begin to understand what they have learned and incorporated into their being.
It can’t be done! It’s an impossibility to do such a thing-coherently and completely assess what a student may or may not know. Not only that, but minutes after the assessment they may or may not even remember some of what was assessed. That’s the nature of human cognition. Knowledge, while we would like to think it is permanent and fixed, and sometimes it is, is fleeting at best.
The hubris of one human to say that they know what another human being knows is beyond my comprehension. And it was never my charge to do so. That type of supposed assessing is an error filled and false malpractice.
LikeLike
Fine Duane. You’re right. Replace learned with exposed to, included in, tried to be taught, etc. quit playing semantics.
LikeLike
The way to tell if the teacher has covered the curriculum is through their lesson plans. We had to have written/hard copy lesson plans for each subject.
And no, I’m not playing semantics. What you wrote, which I disagreed with because it is a false notion is not “playing semantics”.
LikeLike
Really Duane their lesson plans? Because that’s right every single teacher does every single thing that they write in their lesson plans.
Would disagree on the semantics part. For me to say that standard to represent what kids learned and you disagree with that is to me is ridiculous. But we always seem to disagree on many things. Probably because our experiences in education have been vastly different
LikeLike
Yes, our experiences have been vastly different. And our take on what constitutes a good, decent teaching and learning paradigm appears to be quite different.
And yes, what we did was expected to be in the lesson plans. Again, if proper documentation for what is happening in the classroom is not occurring then it is an administration problem and perhaps a deep legal problem.
LikeLike
So in your world if somebody speeding, then it’s the responsibility of the cops to pull them over and not the driver to follow the law? Because every response you’ve made to my asking what happens when teachers don’t do wha they should is “administrators should do their job” Really – no responsiblity on the teachers??
LikeLike
On the speeding example: it’s not an either or situation. Yes it is the officers responsibility to pull them over and issue a citation if deemed necessary. AND it is the drivers responsibility to follow the rules of the road. And when that doesn’t happen then it’s the policeman’s responsibility to enforce the law.
Just as it is the teacher’s responsibility to teach the curriculum, it is the administrator’s responsibility to make sure the teacher does so. When the teacher doesn’t do so, then it is the administrator’s responsibility to address the issue in accordance with school/district policy. Again, it’s not an either or situation in regards to the responsibilities, both have a set of responsibilities and to properly do their job they should be doing them, both the administrator and the teacher.
LikeLike
Have you ever tried to get a teacher removed for not doing their job? It can take two years . In some cases yes there needs to be due process. But often that process lingers, etc…it’s not as easy as you describe
LikeLike
I’ve seen teachers gone in less than a couple of months. Some were legitimate firings, others were not. I would tell you how it works here in Missouri to get rid of a tenured teacher that quickly but I don’t want to give any adminimal any ideas on how to do it if they don’t already know they most certainly are an adminimal.
LikeLike
As you mentioned before, our experiences in public education, mine for 21 years-after having been in the business world for 23 years, have been radically different it seems.
LikeLike
And no, I haven’t gotten a teacher removed. I was never given the chance to be an administrator even though I was certified and had managerial experience in the business world. You see I gave the answers that I believed in to the questions asked in the interviews and not some kiss ass responses.
Now I did all the necessary work to have a union subordinate/employee removed. I was told it would never happen as he had union status and had been passed around from job to job with no one doing what was necessary. I did that work. Didn’t like it but we couldn’t have an alcoholic handling pharmaceuticals and IV solutions/sets and messing up.
So yes, I do understand what it takes to get rid of a recalcitrant employee. Unfortunately in the public education realm, I’ve seen administrators go after people who weren’t recalcitrant and who were doing a good job. Sad but true.
LikeLike
My last word of the evening – addressing two different things.
So, yes, unions can play positive roles in protecting those that are doing their jobs and are attacked by administrators (although principals can have different ways to cause chaos for teachers they don’t approve up). That being said, on the other side – as you noted, with union protection, poor teachers are often passed on from school to school, simply passing the buck. I wish that there again was a happy medium in place where poor teachers could be more easily dismissed.
as for the comments about Hattie – I don’t have them on me, but I encourage you to reach out to him personally (his email is on his school website) and ask him about Wilson and his thoughts. As for the comments on your book, etc. here is what I would say – it seems that of course this person would approve of your book and approve of Wilson. In the same vain, I shared my dissertation work with Hattie and he was quite impressed (am trying to publish it soon somewhere – when I have the chance). In many ways its great to have such support. But in the realm of discussion, it seems that it’s rather two folks in two separate camps.
Finally, this thought. I think we agree that teachers should not be able to do “whatever they want” And I think that most would agree with you that standardized testing is not productive. However, where we would disagree is the need for some type of accountability (or what that should look like)…
LikeLike
Not that there shouldn’t be accountability. I’ve never even hinted at that. There always has been accountability in the schools in which I worked and that I know of. It’s just not the kind of accountability that you seem to believe needs to be there.
I threw Cullen’s quote out to show that anyone can throw names around. Names don’t do much for me. I look for the argument/discussion to take precedence.
LikeLike
“Standardization is for those who can’t handle plurality and differences.”
Well stated. I believe that qualified teachers can meet students where they are and take them where they need to go. This was exactly how I taught my ELLs, many of whom were severely under educated. How do grade level goals serve students that are so far behind the grade level expectations? What is the point of teaching over their heads, except to show them they are inadequate? These students generally have lots of potential, but they must crawl before they walk or run.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t try and say that those of us that think there should be some type of standards aren’t about differences. Of course I agree with differentiation. And as someone who has a sister in law with Down’s Syndrome, I also understand that accommodations must be made for those with special needs, ELL learners, etc. My issue is this – when students that are considered the same level, taking the same course, end up doing TWO very different things in terms of content, etc. that is the value of having some type of standards involved. I don’t think anyone in this discussion that has advocated for some type of standards views it as everyone is doing the same thing at the same time like automatic robots. What I, and others, are saying is that we need some type of common expectation that at the end of a course a student has learned certain knowledge. As for Senor Swackers spanish 4 example, as long as that is published at the outset, that students will be studying these short stories or these poems, that makes sense.
LikeLike
Well stated, rt!
LikeLike
Objectives and goals became standards, curriculum became scripted and the god awful test became everything. All of it is awful for children.
LikeLike
I’d say that those supporting standards usurped those objectives and goals for their own nefarious purposes. Yes, nefarious for without supposed standards against which to hold students and by extension teachers accountable (sic) their desire to destroy public education and privatize it all cannot be realized. Non-educators usurping what is rightlyfully the realm of teachers. Screw those SOBs.
And it doesn’t have to be “awful for children” if we were to listen to the professionals in the classroom, the teachers.
But hey, they’re mostly women so who needs to listen to them (TIC).
LikeLike
Teachers have always had a curriculum that spelled out what to learn for each course, the rough sequence taught and goals and objectives in learning. What do “standards” do that curriculum doesn’t??
Yes, I’d appreciate some answers from all of the “standards” supporters here, jlsteach, rcollay, Susan L Osberg and any others.
LikeLike
Teachers have always had a curriculum that spelled out what to learn for each course, the rough sequence taught and goals and objectives in learning. – really? Are you sure about this Duane. Because I can share MANY instances across many schools where that has NOT been the case – including my own experiences teaching…That’s why the idea of having some type of common standards is important, because what you just said is NOT the case.
LikeLike
Yes, that has always been the case in the schools in which I taught. If that wasn’t the case in your teaching experience what did you do to insure that there was a proper curriculum in place?
And if there wasn’t a curriculum in place, place the blame where it should be-on the adminimals who should have been making sure a curriculum was in place. Again, what did you do to insure that a proper curriculum was in place?
LikeLike
Ah yes, it’s always someone else’s fault – NEVER the teacher. Well, maybe its because the state or district didn’t have such curriculum. As for what did I do – well I turned to the internet and I used my own experiences to create a scope and sequence…that’s what I did. But to say that it exists for all schools just because it was at your school – well as Spock would say “That’s highly illogical”
LikeLike
I never said it was that way in all schools (although one can imply ‘all schools’ from my comment), I said that “Teachers have always had a curriculum that spelled out what to learn for each course, the rough sequence taught and goals and objectives in learning.” So I will modify that statement to “The vast majority of teachers. . . ” There, does that make it better?
Be that as it may, even though you weren’t given a curriculum, which you should have been and it’s the administration’s fault for it not being there unless it was a new course. And then you did what any teacher would do, make your own curriculum. Now, what did you do to insure that your curriculum fit into the whole program of instruction? How did you know that it did, if it did?
And by the way, I never said ” it’s always someone else’s fault – NEVER the teacher.” Again, for the second time putting words in my mouth is “bad form”*!
Yes, it is “highly illogical” to infer that what happens in one school happens in all schools. . . which is exactly what you do in insisting that curricular problems are the teacher’s fault. To suggest countrywide standardization of curriculum problems with “national standards” is so problematic as to be ludicrous and risible. It is a solution for a non-existent problem. But you see it as an all-encompassing problem because in your experience there was a lack of curriculum and continuity at the school at which you taught. Hmmm. . . “as Spock would say ‘That’s highly illogical’.”
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVzoedLk7ds
LikeLike
You didn’t really answer my question. If I may ask it again: What do “standards” do that curriculum doesn’t??
LikeLike
Sorry if I didn’t answer it – simple.
Standards are why should be covered. Curriculum is how it’s covered.
LikeLike
Standards are “why”? Did you mean what? I’ll assume so, but what is covered is one of the main functions of curriculum-scope, breadth, depth, goals and objectives are what curriculum entails. It’s up to the professional, the teacher to ensure that those things obtain. (Even perhaps with a little guidance from an adminimal, eh!)
So I do not see the advantage of using “standards” versus using curriculum as has always been used as the term/concept of choice in the education realm. Curriculum has the what, why and how included. The term “standard” has a lot of secondary “baggage” in what it suggests about the teaching and learning process. Please explain why you believe that “standards” is a supposedly better option/word than curriculum. Gracias.
LikeLike
Yes it’s the what and not the why.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s my concern (otra vez!) if you “leave it to the professionals” what happens when they person doesn’t do their job or has freedom to do whatever. Or more importantly why should kids in Tennessee have a different expectation for an Alg II than kids in Maryland? Set the same expectations for a course and then let the teacher do their job
LikeLike
What happens? That is up to the administrator using the district/school policy and procedure manual. Each individual situation is very site specific. And, again, it is up to the administrator to determine whether a teacher is doing his/her job properly. And then if not to do something about it.
Kids don’t have those kinds of expectations. As it is, setting up a national policy/standard for the very, very few who do actually transfer from state to state is not a wise policy decision in my mind.
“Set the same expectations for a course and then let the teacher do their job.”
EXACTLY! And that is what a curriculum does for the teachers of the same course.
And that is how it was in my 21 year Spanish teaching career. The first three levels were fairly well consistent through the curriculum and expectations of what was to be learned. Levels 4 & 5 were a lot more open to what was taught as the curriculum was purposely not designed to be so stifling as each one of those classes had quite a different mix of kids, with the teachers having favorite genres of literature, etc. . . . We always included a bit of grammar review as part of the process, so that the students would be ready for the particular college’s foreign language placement tests. Many of those whom I taught in 4 & 5 were able to quiz out of some levels at the college level. No, no AP as that is a joke in Spanish-couldn’t resist pointing that out.
LikeLike
I should have said the 99.99% of the students don’t have those expectations.
LikeLike
One other thought. Curriculums are usually locally made at the classroom, school and/or district level. Would you prefer to have that decision making at a federal or even state level, far from the students who will be most affected by said curriculum?
LikeLike
Duane – I will give you the latter – although with the first part, when I asked if teachers really had always had access to the curriculum, etc your response mentioned the schools you had taught at -which would represent a small subset of all (or even most). As for placing the blame, it seems that often times in your posts the teacher can never be wrong. My example – in this case, you blamed administrators for not doing their job in giving the teacher a curriculum – what if it was a dept chair (a fellow teacher). Or maybe someone else. And maybe the curriculum wasn’t created because of the other demands/jobs, etc, of someone. One could argue that having a common set of standards and expectations helps take one less things off the role of administrators, etc. Give teachers a set of things they should cover and then let them do that -I am fine with that. what I am not fine with is teachers NOT covering those items.
Oh, you took my spanish 4 comment literally, but I will respond two fold -first, would you be ok if in Spanish 1 someone only taught the present tense? Or if in a Spanish 4 class instead of teaching stories (or poetry) that a teacher only taught present tense? What would you do then. I do agree there needs to be some choice – I think that subjects such as English or History or WL would offer some variety as opposed to Math or sciences. so I think this could be a case of tomatos/to-ma-toes.
LikeLike
First, an agreement: “what I am not fine with is teachers NOT covering those items.” Thoroughly concur. And if a teacher wasn’t doing so (as in your example in the 2nd paragraph) I would first confront that teacher. If nothing changed I would take it up with the dept chair. If nothing changed I’d take it to the dept’s administrator. If nothing changed I’d continue taking it up the administrative ladder. Never had a chance to do so, though.
Actually, until I was able to pick my own books, all of the level one books that were used only had the present tense, and that is what the curriculum dictated. I felt that was lacking. So when I got the opportunity I made sure that the book I chose (not from one of the three major book companies at the time) got into the preterite. So, yes I was okay with only the present tense when the curriculum mandated it. When I had the choice, I wrote the curriculum for our rural poverty school, no, I wasn’t okay with it so I included the preterite as part of the level one curriculum.
LikeLike
Tha NCTM standards are a guideline of what mathematics should be taught in the grade ranges of K-2,3-5, 6,8, and high school. These are not the “engraved in concrete” standards of the Common Core and there is no test that tests the NCTM standards. Whenever we needed to rethink and rewrite our curriculum at the high school level, we referred to the NCTM standards for a guideline, especially for the newer teachers who had less experience in what should be taught where. I am against the form of “assessment” type standards that say this is what and how students will be assessed on a topic or body of knowledge that is basically what Common Core and their related PARCC tests do. Sometimes we would realize that we had left out something we should have been teaching and look at NCTM to see where that content might fit in the best.
So, saying I like Standards needs to be qualified…..I approve of the NCTM Mathematics Standards because they are guidelines, especially for newer teachers who need more guidance than more experienced teachers might. After all, none of us knows it all…we can all learn new things all the time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the clarification, Susan!
LikeLike
My comment on Peter’s blog (with minor corrections/additions):
So, so spot on Peter! I can think of so many instances where that laser-like focus actually hinders one’s development-thinking of a doc who I grew up with, next door neighbors, were in each others weddings, who lost quite a bit of his humanity in becoming a doc and then “growing” his practice into a money making machine. Yep, laser-like focus!
But what caught my eye as a retired Spanish teacher, and that hits home from experience is “Yes, different teachers may teach different things. So what?”
In a foreign language I believe it is better that each teacher focuses on what they know/do best and no two teachers ever focus on the same things. Are there curricular goals and objectives that are covered by all? Of course! But the differences that the student experiences with different teachers and focuses helps broaden their knowledge and learning of a foreign language. I was chair of an FL department and we all encouraged each other to do our own thing.
Later in my career I was also the only Spanish teacher at a rural high school and I can say as a fact that the students were a lot worse of for having had only one teacher. While they learned Spanish, it certainly wasn’t as good of a learning environment for them.
As usual, great commentary, Peter
LikeLike
So Duane, if a teacher in Spanish 4 ONLY taught the present tense because that is what they “knew best”‘ that would be ok with you? Just checking. Gracias.
LikeLike
The fact that you ask that as if you think that’s really what happens says all that needs to be said about what you think of teachers.
LikeLike
What does it say that I think about teachers – do I think that most teacher would do such a thing? Of course not. And I hope not. Have I seen teachers NOT teach the proper material in math classes (i.e. because they didn’t have standards and just did their own thing!). Um, yes.
LikeLike
De nada, jlsteach.
But you seemed to have missed what I stated “Are there curricular goals and objectives that are covered by all? Of course!” I never said anything of the sort that you suggest. Nor did I suggest whatsoever teaching students “what they know best”. Strawman, eh? Putting words in my mouth? Sorry but no go on those no-no’s.
And since you bring up Spanish 4, which is generally a more of reading/literature based course, which texts/readings should be used? I’ve never been much of a poetry type guy, but I would at least include a few writers of poetry-Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz, Jose Marti, Garcia Lorca, etc. . . but my main focus was on “Cuentos”-short stories which are a very treasured writing form in the Spanish speaking world. Now other level 4 teachers did focus more on poetry than I did. And that was quite fine. What “standards” dictate which should hold priority? I’m quite happy that there were/are no “standards” that determine that priority, mainly because if poetry was dictated I would not do as good of a job for the students.
LikeLike
Peter Greene pulls out a false equivalence from the thin air – national standards equal to laser-sharp focus – and then argues with it. There is no reasonable way to discuss it besides pointing out that it is a classic straw man argument. And what is “laser-sharp focus” anyway?
Standards mean ease of communication, whether it is communication of ideas (measurement standards like SI or email standards) or communication of people (telephone standards, postal standards) or transporting of goods (rail gauge standards). You can have anything from a steam engine to a bullet train riding on the same rail because the gauge is the same. You can have scientists of the world sharing ideas because they use the same scientific language of representing these ideas in written form.
In particular, standards in education does not mean teaching off a script, or “day 129, page 65”. It means that students of certain grade should have certain skills and have certain knowledge. Why? To be able to interoperate with other students, other schools, colleges, etc. We live in a 21st century, not in 17th century. We cannot afford to raise the kids in a vacuum and teach them whatever we please.
He, obviously, is wrong.
Someone above mentioned “Earth science”. Really? You live in the 17th century indeed.
LikeLike
“Peter Greene pulls out a false equivalence from the thin air – national standards equal to laser-sharp focus….”
Oh for pity’s sake, did you watch the video he was responding to? It’s not “thin air”. People are actually making a case for “laser-sharp focus”, which is what the whole piece is arguing against.
LikeLike
No, I had not the video, why would I? Diane’s post does not mention it. She quoted what she thought was important for the sake of the argument, and I am responding to HER post, not to Peter Greene’s post or to the video he linked to in HIS blog.
But after you asked me whether I watched the video, I watched it. And I am in agreement with it. One of the comments to the video says that this video predates Common Core. Whatever, I still agree with the video. Nothing that he said sound wrong to me. Yes, many standards are written badly. Yes, many standards are a jumble. Yes, standards must be clear and aligned with other standards, the curriculum and the tests.
He said “the teachers must be laser-light clear” about the standards, nothing wrong with that. “Show them the target at the beginning of the unit” – totally makes sense. “What prior skills and knowledge do you need for this unit” – absolutely. “To learn how to multiply you must know how to add” – of course. “Vertical articulation conversation” – a fancy word for grade-to-grade progression. Sure, pre-algebra teacher should teach skills and knowledge needed for algebra class. “You must teach the essentials in about the same time” – agreed.
“We are trying to identify the things the kids got to know… but we can also teach the things which are nice to know, and they are meaningful” – he talks about baseline standards FOR EVERYONE at about the same time, and the nice to haves are left for a teacher to identify and teach. The better the teacher, the faster he teaches the basics, the more freedom is left for the nice to haves. Meaning, a good teacher will have more creative freedom, and a so-so teacher should at least be able to teach the basics.
So, after watching the video I am completely in agreement with it. The “laser focus” that Peter Greene attacks was said just once in the whole video, and it relates to understanding of the standards by teachers.
I’d say, those who criticize this video did not actually watch it, or worse, did not comprehend what it is about.
LikeLike
“We cannot afford to raise the kids in a vacuum and teach them whatever we please.”
I have never heard of or known of any teacher that “teach(es) them whatever we please.” Now, jlsteach will object that I can’t extrapolate to all teachers who ever taught anything anywhere, but that is not what I said. Nor do I believe that any teaching/raising kids has ever occurred in a vacuum. Ya know why, jlsteach? Because no one can survive in a vacuum.
Sorry, BA, but just had to vent and give jlsteach a little more grief. Yeah, I’m a prick like that.
LikeLike
“He said “the teachers must be laser-light clear” about the standards, nothing wrong with that. ”
Yes, there is a ton wrong with that. Because those supposed standards are pseudo-standards at best. None of the protocols from organizations that promulgate standards legitimately have been followed, none! Those supposed standards are fatuous, inane and obscene in the makers’ hubristic attitude towards the teaching and learning process. They should be rejected outright for the educational malpractices that they are.
LikeLike
To understand, BA, why the concept of “standards” in the teaching and learning process are completely invalid and bogus please read Noel Wilson’s never refuted nor rebutted 1997 dissertation “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at:
http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700
After reading it please get back with us with your critique and rebuttal. I won’t hold my breath waiting (it’s a long work but I know you can understand it).
LikeLike
Duane, as much as people like to comment and opine, they do not change their point of view. This blog is no different from other forums, where people shout out the words and stand their ground. I know of no one who changed their mind after a heated discussion on an internet forum. The document you linked to will likely not change my mind as well. If it were 10-15 pages I would read it, but 255 pages – I don’t think so. So, I’ll pass.
What I am doing here? Do I expect to change someone’s mind? This is unlikely. I guess the main reason is that Diane is a historian and a writer and has some important people in higher places, so maybe if she simply acknowledges that there are people who have opinion different from her, and she may take another look at it… and maybe add another chapter in her book. Another reason I am here is to ask questions from time to time when I am not shouting, and to get some answers once in a while… Susan’s remarks on NCTM are interesting… if only for the sake of the historical context.
LikeLike
I find it sad that anyone interested in public education and the teaching and learning process cannot take the time to read THE most important piece of education literature of the last half century. Sorry to hear that, BA.
LikeLike
BA,
You wrote “they do not change their point of view.”
I have to disagree with you on that blanket statement. I’ve had a number of posters here (and in other forums) who DID change their mind about the standards and testing regime, realizing that all the inherent errors and falsehoods and psychometric fudging makes that regime completely invalid. They posted that after having read Wilson they understood my responses and positions a lot clearer and that what Wilson has to say. I’m just a mouthpiece with a little of my own commentary such as “there is no measuring in the teaching and learning process due to. . . won’t get into it here I’m sure you’ve seen it.
So yes, minds do change! So, paraphrasing (or should I say bastardizing) an old aphorism “If you tell a truth stridently and often enough people will come to believe that truth.”
LikeLike
“paraphrasing (or should I say bastardizing) an old aphorism “If you tell a truth stridently and often enough people will come to believe that truth.”” — does not it sound more like this: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
LikeLike
Oh, the onto-epistemological errors and falsehoods and lies permeating the education realm certainly fall under Goebbels thought. Try dissenting with your adminimal to the malpractices they are implementing. Good luck!
LikeLike
“A laser works taking all the different paths of light and forcing them into one, single, one-colored directed beam.” – It is bad enough he decided to pull the “laser focus” adjective and to make it his talking point. It is worse that he decided to go forth with it and enhance the analogy, one that was not present in the original video. And it is completely pitiful that he decided to explain how laser works, and failed miserably. Yes, that beam is “one-colored” (coherent is the word), but the dubious “paths of light” are not “forced” into a single “one-colored” beam. Instead, the beam is created coherent. I don’t know what does he teach, but I would not let him teach physics. Or logic. Or law.
LikeLike
The term “laser focus” is used ALL THE TIME in the “professional development” that we are subjected to in my corner of the world.
This is NOT a made-up term or something that Peter Greene picked out of thin air. “Complete fidelity to” and “laser focus on” the standards are what we as teachers are being told about the CC. And it’s ludicrous.
LikeLike
I’d get into trouble for laughing my ass off hearing “complete fidelity to” or “laser focus”. I’d be ssschmmmming it the whole time. Oh well, can’t get anymore reprimand letters for my file now that I’m retired.
LikeLike
Both you and jls suggest that ‘laser-focus’ was just a passing metaphor and not the point of the video. I found to the contrary that this was the thrust of Mattos’ lesson. He’s saying, don’t just plod through stds 1 by 1, you’ll never cover in a yr. Zero in on the ‘must-be-covered’s, separate out the ‘nice-to-cover’s for indep assnt to advanced while you’re re-teaching ‘must’s to others, link ‘must’s to assessments, collaborate to integrate the flow from last yr’s ‘must’s to this yr’s & next yr’s, etc.
LikeLike
Peter Greene perfectly described department meetings where I teach. Many people, administrators and teachers alike, veterans and newbies alike, believe that lock-step uniformity in instruction will save the world. Seriously, they even like school uniforms. I constantly argue that —
we need to respect each other as professionals, and share ideas instead of forcing uniformity on each other.
They ignore me of course, so I ignore them. One of them wants me to put the students on Chromebooks, using scripted lessons and Google apps. Another wants me to use a writing formula. Another wants me to assign lots of detention, for chewing gum for example. Students will not get into college chewing gum, I guess. I ignore them. I am not a factory worker on an assembly line; I am a teacher. My students are as varied as life on Earth. I appreciate their differences. My class is fun. Learning is fun.
LikeLike
Well said, LCT!
LikeLike
¡Gracias, Señor! Y gracias por su trabajo arriba con la persona que piensa que una — solo una — visita de una clase de matemáticas se hace el experto de lo que los estudiantes en la clase necesita, sin conociendo a los estudiantes. (Y de mi gramática, lo siento.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
LCT entiendo espanol tambien (lo siento que no estoy usando las marcas de accentos. Porque creia que Senor Swacker que tiene una experencia en una escuela es mas de un experto de mi. Como el yo solamente estoy describiendo mi experencias en una escuela. Solamente estoy ofriendo una experencia diferente de el.
LikeLike
Love the Spanish usage by both of you!
LikeLike
Okay then, back to Énglish. I didn’t mean to compare or contrast commenters. You have, over a long time, repeated the story of walking into a math class and not seeing “the proper thing” being taught. That’s what I referred to. I have experience with people walking into my English class and not seeing “the proper thing” (usually meaning not enough screens and keyboards) for their taste. It’s not a valid accusation (except in extreme cases), only slightly more meaningful than test scores, to say the “wrong thing” is being taught, unless you know the subject AND the students as well as the teacher.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You should hear my accents, Duane!
LikeLike
Hey, as far as one is attempting to learn and use a second language, all is fine with me! I applaud you for doing so!
LikeLike
Well, to those defending standards, are they working here? Are similar standards working elsewhere? We’ve been in this mess in some form or another since 2002. That is plenty of time to measure the effectiveness of these things. They either work or they don’t. Let’s see the data.
LikeLike
Implementetion matters LCT – one can’t say something works or doesn’t work if it’s implemented completely differently in different cases. That’s why the search for the golden ticket in ed policy is futile
LikeLike
Yes. The search for the golden ticket in education is futile. And if one thinks the golden ticket has been found, one might just wind up drowning in a river of Wonka chocolate. There’s no golden ticket, and that’s another Charlie and the Chocolate Factory lesson for corporate “reform” billionaires, by the way, greed is not good.
LikeLike
So… where is it being implemented correctly? How do we know standards can lead to great outcomes? I want to see it.
LikeLike
When will the “implementation deficit” meme wear out?
LikeLike
About the same time you stop with Wilson
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good one jlsteach. Have you read Wilson’s work?
LikeLike
Tried to try to read is more like it because it seem like you were just going in circles and honestly wasn’t making a lot of sense. And to be honest you seem to be the only person that I know of that is quoted Wilson. I talk to other educators at universities and education policy and none of them have either a herd of him or be given any credit to him also find it interesting that his work is not why me cited.
LikeLike
Yes, reading his dissertation is definitely not easy. I’ve read it at least a dozen times and get more out of it each time. It took two or three readings to really “get” what he is saying, to get the gist and then understand how it all comes together as a total condemnation of much of what we do in education, at least the standards and testing part, but there is even more than that. My summary, while reviewed and okayed by Noel, just touches on some of what he has shown.
The reason, at least I think, that not many have read/heard of his work is because he is from Australia and the dissertation is 20 years old. Many PhD education dissertations never see the light of day. Just because the “establishment” hasn’t heard of Wilson does not in any way shape or manner denigrate what he has proven. I’ve been asking since the turn of the century for a rebuttal and nothing, absolutely nothing by anyone. Why? Perhaps what you state about the anonymity of the work but also, I believe because there is no rebuttal to be logically made.
Don’t allow other’s ignorance to blind you to THE most important piece of educational writing in the last half century. As I have done in the past with those who struggle with his work, I’d be more than happy to go over it chapter by chapter to help you understand it. You can contact me at duaneswacker@gmail.com anytime.
LikeLike
Duane have you heard from John Hattie – he’s from Australia. I asked him if he hard heard of Wilson. He hadn’t. He read his work. And thought it was bunk.
LikeLike
Yes, I’ve heard of him and I have responded to a couple of posts on his blog. I do not know him personally nor have I interacted with him personally that I remember. I would have to go back and read his posts to understand better where he comes from regarding education practices.
I’d appreciate it if you’d send me his rebuttals. Something more than “it was bunk”. Anyone can say such a thing and is a very weak statement. Someone called it a “post modern diatribe” but didn’t address any of Wilson’s concerns. Name calling is not a valid form of rebuttal/refutation.
Have you heard of the late Aussie Phil Cullen? He who received the Australian Order of Merit for his lifetime work (around 70 years worth) in Australian education from the “Queensie herself” as he put it. He thoroughly agreed with Wilson and me on the malpractices that are standards and testing. Here’s what he had to say about my book (in which I condemn the standards and testing regime as state sponsored discrimination): “I must say that I was impressed by what you say and the down-to-earth way you say it. It’s a studied and thoughtful presentation. . . . I especially like the way you have arranged the presentation. Your work is impressive and I would be obliged if you kept in touch.” And we kept in touch up to the day he passed away. A sad day for education in the world.
LikeLike
A little extra! A serious critique of Hattie’s work: http://www.darcymoore.net/2017/08/26/cult-hattie-wilful-blindness/
LikeLike
I have no problems with standards — as long as they are handled the same way Finland does it. Standards in Finland are an optional guide only and the decisions on what to teach from the standards are up to the schools and teachers and there are no high stakes rank-and-punish tests in Finland based on that country’s standards that are more of a suggestion than an autocratic mandate.
In fact, Finland allows parents the choice between sending their children to private or public schools supported by public money, BUT, this is the difference — the private schools must follow all the same rules the public schools follow. There is no double standard.
That’s why in Finland about 1-percent of the schools are private schools and the private schools don’t spend fortunes on advertising to mislead parents and steal children away from the public schools.
LikeLike
Sounds like Finnish “standards” are the old-fashioned curriculum that we used to use here in the USA.
LikeLike
Except in Finland there is a national movement by their standards are national. Because in Finland education is run at the national level. Yes I will repeat the same because we’re at the state level things can’t be the same as Fenlon argument. Why? Because it’s true.
LikeLike
Finland is akin to a small state in regards to population, student numbers, number of schools etc. . . so to extrapolate out and say what they do is fine for our country is. . . well you know a bit of Spockian illogic.
LikeLike
“Finland is akin to a small state in regards to population…” – is Russia large enough for you?
LikeLike
Don’t know and don’t care.
LikeLike
“Don’t know and don’t care.” – Of course, why would you. You have a classic superiority complex: Finland is too small, Russia is too backwards, and the good ole U.S. is the top dog and knows better how to do everything. In fact, it knows it so well it takes every opportunity to advise other nations on how to go about their lives, whether they ask for advice or not.
LikeLike
WTF are you talking about? “A classic superiority complex”? Really? Unless I am missing out on the sarcasm? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt at the moment.
LikeLike
Since my response is in moderation I’ll modify slightly to get it past wordpress.
What are you talking about? “A classic superiority complex”? Really? Unless I am missing out on the sarcasm? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt at the moment.
Delete the other one please, Diane.
LikeLike
They do … before the high stakes, rank and punish tests that were a declaration of war from the Alt-Right Inc’s Deep State against everything public.
LikeLike
I don’t know, but I don’t think standards and curriculum are the same. The national organizations for different academic areas seem to lay out foundational ideas that may be appropriate to approach at a certain point in learning whether it is determined by readiness (age related) or depth and content of previous study. No where do they lay out a curriculum for how those ideas should be approached. That is curriculum which should be a more local decision, and, frankly, I see no reason why a more local decision-making body might decide it is more appropriate to place a particular topic or depth of topic in a different place on whatever standards continuum they have adopted. If nothing else it should be obvious that no one has yet found the holy grail of what, when, why, and how to teach, nor do I think they ever will. When people are standardized, then maybe we can talk about the perfect educational experience that can be applied to every human being.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the district where my children went to high school, the school started with physics for the freshman level science class with the reasoning that the principles and theories of physics undergird all the other sciences. Physics was a senior year course when I was a senior in high school oh so way back when-73.
I thought it to be a good local curriculum decision by my children’s district.
LikeLike
One of my Tennessee State Standards reads: students will do a research paper on….
This is not a description of what students should know. It is prescription of teaching methods.
LikeLike
A while back I was looking into the Netherlands education system and found the very same things you say here about Finland. Interestingly, there is much higher attendance at “private” schools in Netherlands (which has mostly do do with their history) – not private in our sense, it’s more like voucher schools, because everyone gets the same share of tax $ for tuition [except concentrated-poverty areas get more] – but no profits allowed – no ‘owners’ allowed – everybody gets audited. Anyway, re: stds, you can find them online. They are very much guidelines, but they apply to all schools. Schools develop their own curricula, may deviate as they wish pedagogically – & may teach other stuff ‘on their own time’ – but all must meet baseline expectations, & have to pass natl tests at a couple of stages.
LikeLike
This has been an interesting discussion. I can see why jlsteach does not like the idea of teaching two different things with the same title. I can see why Duane objects to the imposition of curriculum using the idea of standards. I can see why several voices rose above decrying the problems with prescription from above in the form of standards.
From the perspective of my 35 years of teaching, I see the problem emanating from the practice of forgetting what it is like to teach. Or maybe never knowing at all. When the diploma project hit us around 2009, a process started whereby all the students took the same courses at the same time. All ninth graders took Algebra I, for example. All juniors took Chemistry. Schools large enough created honors classes for those really capable, and generic classes for those not ready for this intellectual step. This approach exacerbated the problem of teachers teaching less than Algebra I in the class with that title, because there was really no room in the system for the child whose background was insufficient for advancement. Graduation rate entered the picture, and it became anything we could do to get kids credit, especially kids who were expressly going to welding school. It was the standards that caused all of this lack of uniformity.
One I got that I missed in the above discussion was the degree to which prescription education repels smart people. Put on a prescriptive curriculum, and independent thinking people will leave for other jobs like migrating waterfowl heading for warmer water. Soon the people who innovate and find new ways to get the point across are gone from the field, and we are left with mediocre thinking. Who wants that?
Giving teachers good guidance with a great latitude of methods and content will attract the best to the profession. That is what all of us want.
LikeLike
“This approach exacerbated the problem of teachers teaching less than Algebra I in the class with that title, because there was really no room in the system for the child whose background was insufficient for advancement.” – why did this happen? Because the teachers in the earlier grades knew it would not be them who would be teaching this child in the next year, so why bother. Also, they may not have the specific instructions – wait for it, standards – of what was expected from this child in the next grade. He was about to start algebra, but was not taught to use symbols instead of numbers. Whos fault is that? Oh, it is not the teacher’s fault, he was not given a curriculum, and was not bright enough to figure out the requirements for an Algebra class. But poor Johnny now cannot do Algebra. The system screwed him up.
LikeLike
“why did this happen? Because the teachers in the earlier grades knew it would not be them who would be teaching this child in the next year, so why bother.”
Your generalization is rarely true. I assume you have not really been involved with schools except to attend one at some point. Some students, even with the best of instruction, are not mature enough to learn some subjects at particular ages. Professionals know this.
LikeLike
Roy, I would disagree with this sentiment, ““why did this happen? Because the teachers in the earlier grades knew it would not be them who would be teaching this child in the next year, so why bother.”
I work in a district where teachers are constantly trying to play catch up. I actually met with a group of teachers that, as you noted, often see kids that have holes and are playing catch up. They try and remediate these children, but then end up in the situation where they do more remediation then the actual coursework.
Now, I do think that there are some cases where teachers do teach content that is not ideal. While there may be a few situations where kids are not ready for certain subjects, I think that in some cases teachers don’t believe that kids can handle certain math (they think that if a child struggles with multiplication that they can’t do Algebra – which is not the case)
LikeLike
I disagreed with that sentiment too. And I teach in a district where catch up is not a condiment. Perhaps there are teacher that sell students short, but I bet there are more who wish their students would study and quit playing fortnite.
LikeLike
Ok, well yes, I that latter part is true…I would argue that the responsibility of the teacher to play the main role in the teaching/learning process lessens over time. When I taught HS I had Top 10 ways to succeed in my class. #10 was ‘Do you part in learning’ – meaning that if a student tried their HW, came in for extra help and did everything he or she could to attempt to understand the material, I would help them and go above and beyond. But they had to do their part. My concern is that in some cases kids fall behind quickly (sometimes entire classes – due to different reasons – substitute teacher for the year, etc.) When that happens, then kids can fall behind, and then the game of catch up begins..
LikeLike
“Some students, even with the best of instruction, are not mature enough to learn some subjects at particular ages.” – the “professionals” who were peddling the whole language method were saying the same thing: it is not the teachers, not the instruction, it is the kids who are not mature enough. When they observed German, Austrian, Spanish kids who started to read and write early and with few errors, they chalked it up to the great European teachers. Turned out it was the method – the standard – that the Europeans have never abandoned, but that was abandoned in the U.S. in 1925, and it took almost 75 years to repel it.
American primary and secondary school lasts 13 years, and the students learn fraction of what their European counterparts learn. Maybe they are more mature.
LikeLike
BA: I need not point out that comparisons to European systems where they track all students early are not Germaine to the discussion. I find it interesting that you take my comment that not all students are ready for all concepts as a reason to convict teachers of intellectual grand larceny. Try a little reason here.
LikeLike
” especially kids who were expressly going to welding school.”
Interesting that this past week I was camping, floating and fishing with a young-24 man who went to welding school. The first year of welding he earned more than his parents combined, both public school sped teachers with 70 years of experience between them.
He admitted he was less than a perfect student. But he was grateful that they didn’t force the academic route (even though they both hold masters degrees and live in a college town) down his throat and encouraged him to do what he really wanted to do. He’s a fine young man.
What’s that have to do with the price of tea in this conversation? Well, just that many times, actually all the time, it is the student who determines how much he/she learns no matter how much we, as teachers, think we can make a student learn.
LikeLike
Hallelujah!
LikeLike
I think that this long discussion was shaped by the subjects of greatest interest concern to each speaker. For example, there are not Common Core standards for history, but for “literacy” in social studies/history. That means practice and enhanced skills in reading, writing, and applying math concepts with content from socdialstudies/history.
There are separate standards from the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) offered as ” Guidance for Enhancing the Rigor of K-12 Civics, Economics, Geography, and History (Silver Spring, MD: NCSS, 2013). http://www.socialstudies.org/system/files/c3/C3-Framework-for-Social-Studies.pdf
The “C3 Framework” was the work of a collaborative sponsored by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and CCSSO “business partners,” who paid a fee to attend meetings of the collaborative. Pearson, the only business partner for the social studies collaborative, probably paid $12,000 a year to participate in meetings. Pearson got a head start in in planning resources connected to the Framework. The main advisor and lead writer for the C3 Framework was Dr. Kathy Swan, Professor of curriculum and instruction at the University of Kentucky.
The C3 Framework, a 108-page document, is laced through and through with references to the Common Core. The framework “fully incorporates and extends the expectations from the grades K–5 English Language Arts standards and the grades 6–12 standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. The C3 Framework also recognizes the importance of literacy within the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (NGA and CCSSO, 2010b), and acknowledges mathematical practices as they apply to social studies inquiry” (p. 7).
The seventeen-member writing team included education experts in K-12 social studies and Individuals recommendations from fifteen professional associations. In addition to the K-12 standards in civics, economics, geography and history, standards were written for grades 9-12 in anthropology psychology, and sociology. These standards were written in consultation respectively with the American Anthropological Association, American Psychological Association, and American Sociological Association (p.14).
The C3 standards are organized by four dimensions of concepts and skills that form an “Inquiry Arc.” These dimensions are: 1: Developing Questions and Planning Inquiries; 2. Applying Disciplinary Tools and Concepts from Civics, Economics, Geography and History; 3. Evaluating Sources and Using Evidence and 4. Communicating Conclusions and Taking Informed Action.
Dimension 2 is given further structure with three to four organizing themes for the content and skills within each discipline (pp.15-19) Here are three examples:
–Civics: Civic and Political Institutions; Participation and Deliberation: Applying Civic Virtues and Democratic Principles; Processes, Rules, and Laws;
–Economics; Economic Decision Making; Exchange and Markets; The National Economy; The Global Economy;
–History: Change, Continuity, and Context; Perspectives; Historical Sources and Evidence; Causation and Argumentation
For each dimension and organizing theme there are four grade-span “indicators of skill” (benchmarks, expected skills or understandings).
So. This comment is late, but may be of interest in understanding the MUSH in discerning what history is about in the era of mandated Common Core MUSH, MUSH.
LikeLike