Common Core Standards

[Slowvehicle]

Agreed.


I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. This is based on the assumption that everyone can do everything. Again, let's add a physical education requirement that everyone must pass and see how that works out for some kids. When it doesn't, let's figure out whether there is a difference between "mental" and physical requirements.


Absolutely. Go tell the public school systems.

~~ Paul

I am fine with a physical component for a "standard", or "academic" diploma. The heterodoxy I am preaching is that, if a student cannot pass, or achieve, a defined set of barriers, or competencies, that student should not hold a "standard" diploma.

There is no reason not to have a multi-tier "diploma" system; there are plenty of reasons not to award the same "diploma" (with all the rights and privileges thereunto appertaining) to a student who took, and mastered, (for instance) calculus, and at least one foreign language, and the President's Fitness Award; as to a student who never passed a math class; or wrote a legible, intelligible, gramatically-correct essay; or never walked a flight of stairs.

A diploma should mean no more (and no less) than that the holder did, in fact, demonstrate a set of defined competencies before being awarded the diploma. A "limited" diploma would mean no more (and no less) than that the holder did not demonstrate those competencies. Various kinds of "limited" diplomas would delineate which of the competencies the holder did not demonstrate (for whatever reason).

"NCLB" is misguided. What I offered my students was access to an education. I never pretended (even, or especially, to them) that I could educate them in spite of themselves.

 

[Dancing David]

I think you're talking about explaining how they solved the problems. That is irrelevant for kids who can't solve the problems. Lack of practice is not the culprit for the kids I've worked with. (Note that I'm not saying these kids can't do any math at all, but not enough to pass the standardized tests.)

I can think of no magic reason why we should assume that every kid can handle any given discipline X. I'm not sure what to do about it.

~~ Paul

Why would you assume that Common Core does not allow for states to modify requirements for LD and CI students, that is a state issue , I don't think that Common Core changes that.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I am fine with a physical component for a "standard", or "academic" diploma. The heterodoxy I am preaching is that, if a student cannot pass, or achieve, a defined set of barriers, or competencies, that student should not hold a "standard" diploma.

I have no problem with caveats on students' diplomas. I'm waiting for the pole vaulting caveat on half of them.

There is no reason not to have a multi-tier "diploma" system; there are plenty of reasons not to award the same "diploma" (with all the rights and privileges thereunto appertaining) to a student who took, and mastered, (for instance) calculus, and at least one foreign language, and the President's Fitness Award; as to a student who never passed a math class; or wrote a legible, intelligible, gramatically-correct essay; or never walked a flight of stairs.

Agreed.

A diploma should mean no more (and no less) than that the holder did, in fact, demonstrate a set of defined competencies before being awarded the diploma. A "limited" diploma would mean no more (and no less) than that the holder did not demonstrate those competencies. Various kinds of "limited" diplomas would delineate which of the competencies the holder did not demonstrate (for whatever reason).

Sounds good to me.

"NCLB" is misguided. What I offered my students was access to an education. I never pretended (even, or especially, to them) that I could educate them in spite of themselves.

I don't think most teachers pretend that. My point is that we tend to make assumptions about "mental" abilities that are different from our assumptions about physical abilities, and I believe some of those assumptions are invalid.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Why would you assume that Common Core does not allow for states to modify requirements for LD and CI students, that is a state issue , I don't think that Common Core changes that.

I didn't mean to beat only on Common Core and PARCC. I know that are all sorts of modifications for learning-disabled kids. The ones in Massachusetts don't make sense to me.

My main point is to question assumptions about the type and ubiquity of "mental" assumptions versus physical ones.

~~ Paul

 

[Dancing David]

I didn't mean to beat only on Common Core and PARCC. I know that are all sorts of modifications for learning-disabled kids. The ones in Massachusetts don't make sense to me.

My main point is to question assumptions about the type and ubiquity of "mental" assumptions versus physical ones.

~~ Paul

Well it is meant to meet the demand of 'business' for future employees...

SPED law is one of the few things Illinois gets close to right.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

SPED law is one of the few things Illinois gets close to right.

It's pretty good in Massachusetts, too. In Massachusetts, you can switch from the standard test (MCAS) to a customized program if you cannot obtain a "Proficient" on the test. If, however, the customized program (EPP) does not get you to at least "Needs Improvement," then you cannot get a diploma.

An argument could be made, of course, that the school didn't do a good job with the EPP and a different school could have helped the student more. That sort of information was what the MCAS was intended to uncover, but, of course, now it grades the students in addition to the schools.

~~ Paul

 

[Minoosh]

A student who has not mastered (for instance), high school mathematics should not possess an academic diploma.

It's debatable, IMO, whether current HS math standards are optimal. Higher-aptitude kids should have access to higher-level classes, but really, all many will need is fluency with arithmetic.

John Bennett on math instruction (TED talk):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyowJZxrtbg

One common claim about Common Core is that it will teach fewer mathematical topics, while going deeper into the remaining topics. My state's current HS trig standard is useless. We are also seemingly obsessed with pulling colored marbles out of bags.

It may be time to bring back trade schools, and apprenticeships.

It's happening. Vocational tracks fell out of favor decades ago, partly due to ideology - it was seen as discriminatory not to give every kid the same academic opportunities. Hybrid educational models are popping up but it's still a tricky proposition to accept watered-down academics in exchange for trade-related skills.

BTW, the NCLB thing was IMO never about holding students accountable to standards - it was about holding schools/districts/states accountable. Stigmatizing kids by withholding diplomas was - I *hope* - an unintended consequence.

ETA: Same points apply to the post immediately above this, though I was addressing vocational tracks, not special (or "exceptional") education.

 

[fuelair]

And you both missed the point of the story. Everyone had used calculators and computers to do math for so long that no one could do maths manually anymore.

The military was looking for a way to make their missiles cheaper, and discovered this old guy who had rediscovered how to do arithmetic by hand. This brought them to the brilliant idea of replacing the expensive computers with people - basically making a missile into a piloted vehicle, and incidentally killing the pilot when he hit his target.

The old fellow who rediscovered math killed himself for having made such a horrible thing possible. The story closes with the general who ran the project thinking some (humdrum) arithmetical thing (some simple addition or multiplication) and being proud of "the feeling of power" it gave him to be able to do math in his head without needing a computer or calculator.

It's been about forty years.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It's happening. Vocational tracks fell out of favor decades ago, partly due to ideology - it was seen as discriminatory not to give every kid the same academic opportunities. Hybrid educational models are popping up but it's still a tricky proposition to accept watered-down academics in exchange for trade-related skills.

Some of my experience is with Concord-Carlisle High School in Massachusetts. Years ago, they eliminated engineering and programming courses as "too vocational." Now with the excitement about STEM (science, technology, engineering, math), those classes are back in.

~~ Paul

 

[Slowvehicle]

<polite snip for focus>

It's happening. Vocational tracks fell out of favor decades ago, partly due to ideology - it was seen as discriminatory not to give every kid the same academic opportunities. Hybrid educational models are popping up but it's still a tricky proposition to accept watered-down academics in exchange for trade-related skills.

In your mind, is there a difference between "watered-down" academics, and vocation-appropriate academics?

I am in favor, for instance, of a fitness/health component for a "standard" high school track. I am not sure that pole vaulting, or power lifting, is any more appropriate for a "general" diploma than, say, differential equations or ecclesiastical Latin grammar.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Some of my experience is with Concord-Carlisle High School in Massachusetts. Years ago, they eliminated engineering and programming courses as "too vocational." Now with the excitement about STEM (science, technology, engineering, math), those classes are back in.

~~ Paul

I am a volunteer co-ordinator for the local STEM-H and MESA competitions, as well as for the international robotics competition that runs locally. That said, I no more think that every high school student should have to participate in STEM-H/MESA/HHMI classes than I think that every high school student should have to participate in choir, or in music theory classes.

Disclaimer: I "tested out" of most if not all of the academic classes I was required to take in the early 70's. My typical 8-class schedule went: Marching Band, Concert Orchestra, Men's Chorus, accompanying the Women's Jazz Chorus (audit), English, Drama, Stage Construction, Mixed Chorus. My experience was not typical, and is not normative.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I am a volunteer co-ordinator for the local STEM-H and MESA competitions, as well as for the international robotics competition that runs locally. That said, I no more think that every high school student should have to participate in STEM-H/MESA/HHMI classes than I think that every high school student should have to participate in choir, or in music theory classes.

I certainly wasn't implying that every student should have to participate in STEM per se, although STEM does include courses that are considered required in most high schools. Whether such requirements are a good idea is another question. My point was that engineering and programming classes were completely eliminated from the curriculum but are now coming back.

As far as requirements are concerned, I selected my university specifically because they had just dropped all distribution requirements. All I wanted to do was compute.

~~ Paul

 

[Minoosh]

In your mind, is there a difference between "watered-down" academics, and vocation-appropriate academics?

"Watered-down" has negative connotations I was trying to avoid - perhaps "streamlined" is more to the point. Like, my state requires 2 years of algebra. IMO one year would be sufficient, *if* students retained the knowledge from that one year. But obviously a lot don't. Hence, Algebra 2 for juniors. When my state recently begin requiring four years of math, it became clear that there had to be an alternative to, say, calculus. Watered-down? Perhaps, but only by insanely rigorous standards.

Then again, there are a few kids much more suited to calculus than to English literature. Still, they need 4 years of English. So, maybe technical writing could be a more relevant alternative. "Watered down"? Perhaps compared to making them read Shakespeare.

Common Core reportedly emphasizes nonfiction over fiction ("literature") and I need to spend some times looking at those standards.

I am in favor, for instance, of a fitness/health component for a "standard" high school track. I am not sure that pole vaulting, or power lifting, is any more appropriate for a "general" diploma than, say, differential equations or ecclesiastical Latin grammar.

Initially read this to mean everyone should take track!

PE has fallen by the wayside. Here's an alternative:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTYKcHJyLN4

Could help kids learn video production skills as well - very practical.

 

[Slowvehicle]

"Watered-down" has negative connotations I was trying to avoid - perhaps "streamlined" is more to the point. Like, my state requires 2 years of algebra. IMO one year would be sufficient, *if* students retained the knowledge from that one year. But obviously a lot don't. Hence, Algebra 2 for juniors. When my state recently begin requiring four years of math, it became clear that there had to be an alternative to, say, calculus. Watered-down? Perhaps, but only by insanely rigorous standards.

Then again, there are a few kids much more suited to calculus than to English literature. Still, they need 4 years of English. So, maybe technical writing could be a more relevant alternative. "Watered down"? Perhaps compared to making them read Shakespeare.

Common Core reportedly emphasizes nonfiction over fiction ("literature") and I need to spend some times looking at those standards.



Initially read this to mean everyone should take track!

PE has fallen by the wayside. Here's an alternative:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTYKcHJyLN4

Could help kids learn video production skills as well - very practical

.

I think four years of literature is as inappropriate for some as would be four years of math.

What I would like to see, in an ideal setup, would be an admission that NCLB means that everyone gets what they need; not everyone gets the same thing as everyone else.

I realize, in practice, that turns into "let's not bother to even try to teach those kids" (sub whatever group is out of favor), but that does not mean that we should pretend that everyone should do all the same things in high school, or even that everyone should want top go to college.

Guaranteed access to education should not mean "being forced to sit through classes just because the classes are part of an idealized track".

 

[marplots]

Are the homeschoolers affected by common core?

 

[phildonnia]

I posted earlier that it seems that the practical implementation of common-core consists in taking a traditionally structured exercise and tacking on "explain". Here is an example which seems to meet this description.

(I should add that I do not know if it was really the intention of "explain" to common-core-ize the exercise. In any case, badly made exercises are not unique to any particular education trend, and are a fault of the implementation, not necessarily the underlying philosophy)

The exercise asks students to randomly draw colored cubes from a bag, and create a histogram of the results. Then they must "[e]xplain how you know that the number of [marks] for blue matches the number of blue cubes."

My kid was absolutely mystified as to what was expected of him. Doubtless the teacher will eventually provide the correct answer so that the kids can write it on the assessment test.

 

[Minoosh]

I think four years of literature is as inappropriate for some as would be four years of math.

People in Elizabethan times generally didn't "read" Shakespeare and it's at least debatable whether requiring contemporary 15-year-olds to study it makes sense. Common Core supposedly places more emphasis on nonfiction and less on literature, which IMO is an improvement.

One charter high school in my area helps sustain itself with student-run enterprises and relies a lot on computer modules to get students through required academic courses, but more are positioning themselves as "college prep" which sounds classier.

The four years of math could be improved - it would be cool to offer vocational-type math across a broader range.

What I would like to see, in an ideal setup, would be an admission that NCLB means that everyone gets what they need; not everyone gets the same thing as everyone else.

*Per my understanding*, NCLB doesn't require that everyone gets the same thing. NCLB made states adopt standards and high-stakes test but the standards could be as low or as high as states wanted. The basics - number of credits required, distribution of credits required - is set at the state level. Not everyone has to get "the same thing" but in the traditional bricks-and-mortar school choices will be limited by staffing issues.

A cafeteria approach might work if technology allows students to "attend" several campuses.

I realize, in practice, that turns into "let's not bother to even try to teach those kids" (sub whatever group is out of favor), but that does not mean that we should pretend that everyone should do all the same things in high school, or even that everyone should want top go to college.

There's a lot of pretending in public education. Often well-intentioned, possibly even necessary at times.

Guaranteed access to education should not mean "being forced to sit through classes just because the classes are part of an idealized track".

If vocational education comes back it's going to have to be wrapped up with a nice politically correct bow. On average people with BAs earn almost twice as much as those with just high school diplomas. Learning a trade might narrow the gap but in practice it means writing people off in their early teens as "not college material."

One thing I like about the Common Core hoopla is that test-and-textbook publishers are finding the skids aren't as greased as they thought. I'm not a fan of most textbooks.

 

[Dancing David]

I posted earlier that it seems that the practical implementation of common-core consists in taking a traditionally structured exercise and tacking on "explain". Here is an example which seems to meet this description.

(I should add that I do not know if it was really the intention of "explain" to common-core-ize the exercise. In any case, badly made exercises are not unique to any particular education trend, and are a fault of the implementation, not necessarily the underlying philosophy)

The exercise asks students to randomly draw colored cubes from a bag, and create a histogram of the results. Then they must "[e]xplain how you know that the number of [marks] for blue matches the number of blue cubes."

My kid was absolutely mystified as to what was expected of him. Doubtless the teacher will eventually provide the correct answer so that the kids can write it on the assessment test.

Was that sent home before being taught? That would be bad.

(Was you child given that with no instruction?)

Depending on the grade there is more and then less guided instruction, but the materials should have been provided in class and the demonstration given.

 

[BobK]

snip ...
The exercise asks students to randomly draw colored cubes from a bag, and create a histogram of the results. Then they must "[e]xplain how you know that the number of [marks] for blue matches the number of blue cubes."

My kid was absolutely mystified as to what was expected of him. Doubtless the teacher will eventually provide the correct answer so that the kids can write it on the assessment test.

Pardon me for butting. I'm not a teacher or psychologist, but I did help raise my two boys, now in their 40's, and they were pretty quick on picking up math when they were in school. Of course they didn't have to do what appears to me to be a rather convoluted way to teach math.

The exercise is poorly constructed and is missing a crucial instruction. They don't tell the child to put the result of the draw in the same row as the matching color. Could it be your child realized this and decided the exercise was stupid? Therefore they did precisely what the instructions said without assuming that missing instruction and put the frowny faces where ever s/he wished. Thus demonstrating how poorly constructed the exercise was. With no smiley faces drawn, and maybe not in proper rows anyway, there is no way to explain anything concerning smiley faces and blue cubes.

Couple other thoughts.

Has your child been chastised in the past for making assumptions?

I would consider usage of exclusively frowny faces as indication s/he disapproved of the exercise for some reason. Unless that is commonly the way your child draws them.

Just my two cents.

 

[Brown]

Noted Educational Theorist Louis C.K. is throwing a hissy fit on Twitter, as reported by Salon.com. I can kinda see his point about some of the questions being unclear, but some of his other gripes mystify me.

My proposal to Louis and his fellow bitchers is to stop bitching and articulate their concerns, instead of assuming that the concerns are self-evident. Even better, they should stop bitching and offer a proposal as to how the question SHOULD have been written.