Today was Election Day. That meant a day off of school (yay!) but meant ... it is the midterm election, and a rather dismal one at that. ( Cut for political stuff )
I am a registered Democrat only to vote in the primaries; I'm actually way left of where the Democrats are, and so straight party ticket never works for me either. Bring on the research. :)
On Common Core ... the ironic thing to me is that conservatives tend to be the ones who bitch the most about how school curriculums have been "dumbed down" (always with the implication that this has happened so that minorities can graduate ... and also not true, of course) and complain about kids not knowing "basic facts" that often receive less attention because technology makes them less pressing to know. Then they turn around and bitch about Common Core, one of the main goals of which is raising rigor.
The sad thing is that I don't think Common Core is perfect, but I feel like most of my energy related to it is explaining it and correcting misconceptions about it rather than addressing where it could be improved.
I looked for Dorothy Scanlan's takedown of Common Core opponents, but it appears that the Carroll Media Center has removed everything except about the winning candidates. And, of course, she didn't win.
I'm registered Republican for the same reason. (My thinking is that I can try to keep the really, really conservative people out of office. But also *points to living at home* Mom kept telling me to vote against Grimes.) But I'm a libertarian of some sort.
With my parents, it's not the minority angle (I've never heard that from them), but the "can't make kids feel bad about themselves for failing so let's make everything easier" angle. I just don't know that much about Common Core, so I can't even refute anything. Not that they're willing to listen even if I did it.
the "can't make kids feel bad about themselves for failing so let's make everything easier" angle
Wow, that's a new one to me! I'm wondering the rationale behind that? Data points to the fact that, likely due to increasing exposure to information, IQs are constantly going up (the Flynn effect), so there should be no reason that kids can't keep up with a more rigorous curriculum. The argument could also be made that standards of college and career readiness will not lower because public school standards are lower. That is one of the major reasons behind Common Core: that colleges and employers were finding that high school graduates did not have the skills needed to go immediately into college or the workforce after graduation.
Now I can see the argument--and in fact have made it myself--that holding students to the Common Core standards who have not been taught by those standards for all or most of the school careers is not fair. For example, my ninth graders are the first class to be required to pass the PARCC assessment for graduation, the test aligned with Common Core. Yet this is the first year that we are required to use the Common Core standards in our school. These kids have spent the past nine years of their lives learning based on the lower standards, yet they will be obligated to catch up and pass the PARCC in order to graduate. That is not fair, imo, not because they are going to feel bad when they fail but because failing high school is too high a stake to place on 14-year-olds because they happen to be in an unlucky cohort. However, teaching them based on the more rigorous standards is not something I have a problem with.
The basics of Common Core: They are standards, not curriculum, and districts continue to set their own curriculum based on the laws in each state. They raise rigor with the purpose of preparing students better for college and/or the workforce and, ultimately, to make the U.S. more competitive economically. There is a strong literacy focus, especially in teaching kids to read texts other than literary texts; literacy should now be taught in all content areas. There is a strong STEM focus aimed at preparing kids to enter STEM careers and compete with kids from other countries who have received a more rigorous STEM training.
It has been rolled out quickly, there is a lot of misunderstanding about what it is and how it is being applied, and kids are falling in the cracks by being held to more rigorous standards that they were never taught. And there is always the problem of the standardized tests that go with it, imo of course. :)
I think a bit of it is experience. Quite a while back, Dad was teaching sixth grade, and one of the administrators dinged him in an observation for using a word that was too hard for the kids-- a word that was in the textbook. It probably also has to do with the "trophies for everyone" and such philosophy. I mostly tune out their rants and political discussions, so I really can't be anymore specific. Sorry! (Which means, in theory, they'd be happy with Common Core. In practise, not so much.)
Now I can see the argument--and in fact have made it myself--that holding students to the Common Core standards who have not been taught by those standards for all or most of the school careers is not fair.
That is not fair at all. How are they supposed to pass something they haven't learned?
But I honestly don't know how much Dad knows about the Common Core; if he knows they're standards rather than a curriculum or anything else. He's not in a subject covered by it. The minute Mom and he heard that the Bill Gates Foundation supplied some of the funding, they immediately went "liberal/Obama agenda." So there's really no talking to them.
On Common Core ... the ironic thing to me is that conservatives tend to be the ones who bitch the most about how school curriculums have been "dumbed down" (always with the implication that this has happened so that minorities can graduate ... and also not true, of course) and complain about kids not knowing "basic facts" that often receive less attention because technology makes them less pressing to know. Then they turn around and bitch about Common Core, one of the main goals of which is raising rigor.
The sad thing is that I don't think Common Core is perfect, but I feel like most of my energy related to it is explaining it and correcting misconceptions about it rather than addressing where it could be improved.
I looked for Dorothy Scanlan's takedown of Common Core opponents, but it appears that the Carroll Media Center has removed everything except about the winning candidates. And, of course, she didn't win.
Reply
With my parents, it's not the minority angle (I've never heard that from them), but the "can't make kids feel bad about themselves for failing so let's make everything easier" angle. I just don't know that much about Common Core, so I can't even refute anything. Not that they're willing to listen even if I did it.
Ah, well. Thanks for looking!
Reply
Wow, that's a new one to me! I'm wondering the rationale behind that? Data points to the fact that, likely due to increasing exposure to information, IQs are constantly going up (the Flynn effect), so there should be no reason that kids can't keep up with a more rigorous curriculum. The argument could also be made that standards of college and career readiness will not lower because public school standards are lower. That is one of the major reasons behind Common Core: that colleges and employers were finding that high school graduates did not have the skills needed to go immediately into college or the workforce after graduation.
Now I can see the argument--and in fact have made it myself--that holding students to the Common Core standards who have not been taught by those standards for all or most of the school careers is not fair. For example, my ninth graders are the first class to be required to pass the PARCC assessment for graduation, the test aligned with Common Core. Yet this is the first year that we are required to use the Common Core standards in our school. These kids have spent the past nine years of their lives learning based on the lower standards, yet they will be obligated to catch up and pass the PARCC in order to graduate. That is not fair, imo, not because they are going to feel bad when they fail but because failing high school is too high a stake to place on 14-year-olds because they happen to be in an unlucky cohort. However, teaching them based on the more rigorous standards is not something I have a problem with.
The basics of Common Core: They are standards, not curriculum, and districts continue to set their own curriculum based on the laws in each state. They raise rigor with the purpose of preparing students better for college and/or the workforce and, ultimately, to make the U.S. more competitive economically. There is a strong literacy focus, especially in teaching kids to read texts other than literary texts; literacy should now be taught in all content areas. There is a strong STEM focus aimed at preparing kids to enter STEM careers and compete with kids from other countries who have received a more rigorous STEM training.
It has been rolled out quickly, there is a lot of misunderstanding about what it is and how it is being applied, and kids are falling in the cracks by being held to more rigorous standards that they were never taught. And there is always the problem of the standardized tests that go with it, imo of course. :)
Reply
Now I can see the argument--and in fact have made it myself--that holding students to the Common Core standards who have not been taught by those standards for all or most of the school careers is not fair.
That is not fair at all. How are they supposed to pass something they haven't learned?
But I honestly don't know how much Dad knows about the Common Core; if he knows they're standards rather than a curriculum or anything else. He's not in a subject covered by it. The minute Mom and he heard that the Bill Gates Foundation supplied some of the funding, they immediately went "liberal/Obama agenda." So there's really no talking to them.
Reply
Leave a comment