tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post1141873576794066523..comments2024-03-27T08:53:29.267-04:00Comments on CURMUDGUCATION: Common Core Defenders Still Flailing AwayPeter Greenehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16511193640285760299noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-73106479342074700762017-07-13T11:34:46.931-04:002017-07-13T11:34:46.931-04:00NGSS may be an improvement for some people dependi...NGSS may be an improvement for some people depending on what their state standards looked like before. Illinois standards were really really detailed and became a "checklist" of things to cover and there wasn't enough time to cover everything. In that sense, NGSS was an improvement, but like CCSS, nothing has really changed with the way I teach Anatomy and Physiology, I just stick an NGSS number after my lessons now. S. Muskopfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10565244205610485233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-42192481685351917732016-08-04T11:38:15.795-04:002016-08-04T11:38:15.795-04:00As an elementary teacher, I would add a third ques...As an elementary teacher, I would add a third question to your list.<br />3) What are you not teaching/doing now that you did have time to focus on before Common Core?<br />Whatever happened to science and social studies? What happened to love of learning and FUN?!ethuestadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17537068174305238880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-62092901337023943882016-08-03T04:57:17.766-04:002016-08-03T04:57:17.766-04:00I think content vs. process/skills is a false dich...I think content vs. process/skills is a false dichotomy in general. It's like phonics vs. whole language; you need both. I think most curriculum should be concept, not content-driven, but to a certain extent, concepts ARE content. <br /><br />In my daughters' seventh grade science class, the teacher used curriculum from a university professor that consisted of doing an experiment and asking the students to make observations, inferences, and hypotheses about the why of the result. He never gave them any answer about the why because if he did, he couldn't use the same experiment with the next year's class. They learned the scientific method of making observations, inferences, and hypotheses, but they learned that the first quarter and didn't learn anything else the rest of the year, and were left with the feeling that any answer is valid and science is magic, with no explanation. They never learned any principles about the way the world works.<br /><br />It's like in social studies, history. You don't want just content; memorizing names and dates tells you nothing and is boring. You want to know why things happen, cause and effect. Rebecca deCocahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13168718846105012814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-54438491719879549062016-08-03T00:53:49.308-04:002016-08-03T00:53:49.308-04:00Good work. All those dust bunnies.. I had a link t...Good work. All those dust bunnies.. I had a link that identified the consultant that developed all those talking points that still persist. Sadly, I lost it in a computer crash. They really did a great job because those talking points still persist even though the supposed research to support them did not exist.<br /><br />Whenever that stuff crops up it seems like we have to smash it down like some sort of verbal whack-a-mole game. <br /><br />Nice smashing. Please carry on!Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16668306863080533413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-27763669317211339402016-08-03T00:42:17.975-04:002016-08-03T00:42:17.975-04:00There was plenty of BS about Common Core that was ...There was plenty of BS about Common Core that was true. A lot it appears in this piece. I'm not sure that the other is important.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16668306863080533413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-69080927003890493262016-08-02T19:58:51.598-04:002016-08-02T19:58:51.598-04:00"we cannot afford to continue thinking that t..."we cannot afford to continue thinking that training kids to jump through the memorize-test-forget cycle is "learning content".<br /><br />I have been teaching chemistry and physics for understanding for over 20 years - long before I ever heard of NGSS. So I'm not disagreeing on the importance of understanding how science works, but that is an essential part of any current science program. Your "rote " rant sets up a false dichotomy which should not be the basis of over-turning the system.NY Teacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06584135103498426410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-68789483957342366832016-08-02T18:47:28.339-04:002016-08-02T18:47:28.339-04:00NY Teacher, as one of those with a career spanning...NY Teacher, as one of those with a career spanning over decades, I am standing up to disagree with you. It is exactly because "knowledge and understanding are inextricably tied together" in science that we cannot afford to continue thinking that training kids to jump through the memorize-test-forget cycle is "learning content". It is entirely possible in a traditional science class to "learn the content" well enough to garner a good grade while having very little if any change in your understanding. I've seen it over and over again in my classes and it is borne out by research.<br /><br />What exactly is the "content" you expect your children to master? Some kind of calculations? Knowing terms and laws and constants they can find on their phone in a minute? How many of them will need that knowledge in their futures? Only the ones who will be exposed to that material over and over in their future educations. <br /><br />The rest need to come to an understanding of how science works, not only so they can call BS on the sciency-sounding scams that will come their way, but more importantly because the methods of science are really good methods for solving ordinary problems in anyone's life. Very few of our children will become scientists. Those that do will have access to the wonderful, detailed training that results in deep knowledge of a specific field. But every kid will, hopefully, grow up to be an adult. And we desperately need adults who know how to think, so let's focus on those "vague skill sets".Dave Eckstromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13521336850803352134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-31980102925736917382016-08-02T17:05:35.145-04:002016-08-02T17:05:35.145-04:00What this debate also says about teaching is that ...What this debate also says about teaching is that there are too many variables to ever say there is only one best method for every teacher and every student.NY Teacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06584135103498426410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-20716155035000655182016-08-02T08:44:31.340-04:002016-08-02T08:44:31.340-04:00Jen(n)
The NGSS controversy is nothing new. We’ve ...Jen(n)<br />The NGSS controversy is nothing new. We’ve had the math wars – and we’ve had the reading wars. Maybe this is the start the science wars. What this says about our profession is simple: teaching is a human endeavor complete with passion and strong opinions developed by individual teachers logging thousands of class periods over careers that span decades. When some of us feel that we being forced into using standards, methodologies, curricula, or scope and sequencing that runs against our intuition and experience - wars (strong disagreements) can break out. In the case of NGSS, they are selling the “deep understanding of scientific concepts, processes and principles” – over content. There is much missing from these standards as they favor vague skill sets over content knowledge. Remind you of a recent ed-controversy? NGSS is just a Common Core approach to a subject where knowledge and understanding are inextricably tied together. Removing too much of the content makes the skill sets impossible to master. The addition of engineering is unsettling to a lot of science teachers – and rightly so. Where and when will be trained? Where is the money for engineering supplies, equipment, and new textbooks coming from? Many of us see another “implementation” disaster about to unfold. The big question is why the change? Do we need to follow the money?<br />NY Teacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06584135103498426410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-54683246999553680762016-08-02T00:32:30.873-04:002016-08-02T00:32:30.873-04:00First, maybe parents will think one set of standar...First, maybe parents will think one set of standards doesn't make sense to apply universally, just as they know that each student learns differently. I have three children and they each have very different aptitudes, interests, and ways of learning.<br /><br />Second, it might be helpful to have actual documented teacher surveys where the teachers explain exactly why they have the opinion they do.Rebecca deCocahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13168718846105012814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-77365911619061291802016-08-01T17:13:53.066-04:002016-08-01T17:13:53.066-04:00That the standards will not work for all teachers ...That the standards will not work for all teachers and all students in all circumstances.<br /><br />Or, how about, that professionals have opinions that are formed over years of education and practical experience that do not march in lock step with every other professional in their field.CM Zirkelbachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02490789359056513039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-32186390148498266642016-07-31T19:55:29.961-04:002016-07-31T19:55:29.961-04:00It's Jenn. Two n's. That said, some of the...It's Jenn. Two n's. That said, some of the teachers are high school teachers with decades of experience and some elementary teachers dislike the standards. My question remains: what should parents think when one teacher bashes standards, another praises? Jennifer Borgioli Binishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17490308598117294457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-67565261507168408152016-07-31T19:43:38.287-04:002016-07-31T19:43:38.287-04:00Thomas, I must be in the 1%, because I think the N...Thomas, I must be in the 1%, because I think the NGSS are a step in the right direction and I am a certified secondary teacher with 20 years of lab experience.Dave Eckstromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13521336850803352134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-91211667021974093792016-07-31T18:47:15.952-04:002016-07-31T18:47:15.952-04:00I agree completely re NGSS. Another waste of time,...I agree completely re NGSS. Another waste of time, money and energy coming down the pike. Integrating "engineering" with no teacher training or resources will result in bad, "canned" bogus quasi-engineering activities.<br /><br />And Jen, the opinions of non-certified, elementary science teachers on NGSS don't hold much water in my opinion. Listen to the certified secondary teachers with years of lab experience and 99 out of 100 will agree with Thomas.NY Teacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06584135103498426410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-58405041024558962452016-07-31T17:29:03.649-04:002016-07-31T17:29:03.649-04:00And therein lies one of the great challenges in a ...And therein lies one of the great challenges in a profession that 3 million strong. I have heard teachers rave about how much they like the NGSS and how much better they were that their old standards. Some of those teachers may teach in the same building or district as you. <br /><br />What is the public to make of that? If their child's 5th grade teacher loves NGSS but the 6th grade teacher doesn't and openly bags on it, what is that saying about the nature of the profession? Jennifer Borgioli Binishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17490308598117294457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-27423318854897269632016-07-31T17:12:51.175-04:002016-07-31T17:12:51.175-04:00My sentiments as similar to Dave's - and I wou...My sentiments as similar to Dave's - and I would offer a third category: Common Core Pragmatists. <br /><br />Teachers didn't need CCSS to teach mental math and number sense. It just made it easier for mathematicians and teachers to speak the same language.<br /><br />Teachers in states with high populations of military and transient students didn't need CCSS to share curriculum and ideas across state-lines. CC made it easier for those exchanges to happen.<br /><br />Teachers didn't need CC to teach critical thinking. CC made it easier to understand what critical thinking actually means (i.e. stating claims, using evidence, attending to bias) and how it develops and strengths from K-12.<br /><br />Teachers in NY didn't need CC to be culturally responsive and to attend to diverse and complex texts. CCLS put it in front of them that they had to. <br /><br />The ironic thing about CC is that there at least six other sets of national standards currently being used by teachers in all 50 states and DoD schools. They use them without succumbing to a "national curriculum." No one knows the authors of those standards and no one really cared when state departments of education adopted them. Some before CC happened, some after.<br /><br />And so, the great "get all teachers in 50 states on the same page for Math and ELA" failed. There will likely be another try in 5 or 6 years. When that happens, not everyone will be happy with the standards. Here's hoping we learn lessons from the first attempt. Jennifer Borgioli Binishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17490308598117294457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-3227394425335413362016-07-31T16:16:18.303-04:002016-07-31T16:16:18.303-04:00I love your work Peter. This was a delicious take ...I love your work Peter. This was a delicious take down of another Gates folly. However, we science teachers are dealing with something even worse and less well written, the NGSS. Next Generation Science Standards are so horrible that they make the amateuristic CCSS look all-pro. Thomas Ulticanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14347503503072251716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-76064727004448051492016-07-31T14:27:28.522-04:002016-07-31T14:27:28.522-04:00I think it's important to delineate that there...I think it's important to delineate that there is a difference between common core promoters and common core defenders. Also, that there are two kinds of common core defenders.<br /><br />I became a common core defender on social media and among my friends and family by simply pointing out that the vast majority of the criticisms leveled at the common core were simply and unequivocally false.<br /><br />I'm talking about the crappy math worksheets posted online with the implication or outright declaration that they were part of a "common core curriculum", even though the publish dates on the workbooks predated the CCSS by years.<br /><br />Or the claim that the CCSS dumbed down our math education because there were no standards beyond algebra II (which isn't true), even though only a small fraction of US HS students take any math beyond algebra II anyway.<br /><br />Or the claims that the CCSS prohibited the teaching of literature because of the 70% informational text requirement, which honestly is a lower fraction of a typical student's total reading pre-CCSS.<br /><br />Or the blatantly false statements about the common core requiring socialist indoctrination, learning the Muslim call to prayer, reporting family religious beliefs to the teacher, etc., etc., etc., even though there were no social studies standards.<br /><br />Or the statements that the CCSS required the teaching of evolution and prohibited the teaching of intelligent design, even though there were no science standards.<br /><br />Or the statements that the CCSS prohibited the teaching of abstinence, required teachers to promote homosexuality, required students to report to the school authorities the contents of the family medicine cabinet, etc., even though there were no health standards.<br /><br />Or the more general claims that the CCSS were initiated by Obama's administration and the states were forced by Obama's use of presidential authority to adopt them.<br /><br />Do I think the CCSS were necessary? No. Do I think they were probably a waste of money? Yes. But that doesn't make any of the BS listed above true. Dave Eckstromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13521336850803352134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6534665086749553287.post-88800094043393586072016-07-31T13:56:28.137-04:002016-07-31T13:56:28.137-04:00"The dust bunnies can keep popping out to def..."The dust bunnies can keep popping out to defend it, but like dust bunnies, the Core has less and less substance and definition, and is ultimately best destined for the dust bin of history."<br /><br />I'm glad I read the whole piece. What a great ending. Come to think of it, I haven't seen or read anything about Common Core for several months. Like most reform ideas, it starts with a bang and goes out with a whimper. <br /><br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07228908566250306699noreply@blogger.com