Common Core Curriculum

[BigRedBuster]

OK...this is an issue that I honestly have ignored because right from the start it seemed like it was politicized. So, what are your thoughts?

 

LINK

 

On one hand, I agree that we should have a minimum level of what a school should be doing and teaching. On the other hand, I believe schools should mostly be governed locally. To me, if it could be done without politics getting involved, nationally we should have standards that says all HS graduates should have been taught XY and Z. Now, local school districts, you go figure out how you are going to do that.

That is how you get innovation in the system and methods are adapted to the differing types of students you have in various districts.

 

I just don't know enough about "Common Core" to know how far it goes. Does it dictate what materials are used as far as books...etc? Does it dictate methods of teaching....etc?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Standardization stifles individuality. But standardization is the easy way out, so we do it.

[NUinID]

The Department of Education should be abolished and all school control should go back to the state and local level.

[huKSer]

I teach science so we have to deal with "Next Generation Science Standards" aka common core for science (common core is English and Math only), but it is the same thing. We found overall it requires more from the lower level students, but SIGNIFICANTLY hinders the options of upper level students, specifically AP level courses.

 

When national testing started I was thinking that it was going to be something like "These 5 - 10 basic concepts will be tested in this course, students must pass these. You are free to go above and beyond these topics." No Child Left Behind had many more topics. The first version of each states test required 50% failure rate, or the test was not valid. Every 2-3 years each state was allowed to make the test easier. Teachers were stressed, concentrated ONLY on the topics, which took away teacher creativity, administrators were stressed.

 

The Next Gen (and common core) to its credit is less fact memorization, and more upper level thinking. The following is one topic:

 

Evaluate competing design solutions for developing, managing, and utilizing energy and mineral resources based on cost-benefit ratios.* [Clarification Statement: Emphasis is on the conservation, recycling, and reuse of resources (such as minerals and metals) where possible, and on minimizing impacts where it is not. Examples include developing best practices for agricultural soil use, mining (for coal, tar sands, and oil shales), and pumping (for petroleum and natural gas). Science knowledge indicates what can happen in natural systems—not what should happen.]

 

This is loaded with Edu-babble, but not as bad as the AP revisions (more later), How are you going to "Evaluate competing design solutions for developing, managing, and utilizing energy and mineral resources based on cost-benefit ratios." on a multiple choice test? There are a lot of "tree hugger" topics (and evolution) which will be politically potent. There are 71 topics to be covered in 2.75 years (testing is end of 3rd quarter of junior year) if you do a thorough job, you will not have time to do anything else.

 

AP testing is going the same way. and because the course is going away from traditional college science topics and adding content that is not covered in college, fewer colleges are not accepting AP Exam scores to replace Freshman college courses, which is the idea behind AP courses.

 

So I feel that setting a few MINIMUM national standards would be good. Treating every school (and student) as the same is not such a good idea. Like the national school lunch - an 80 lb 7th grade girl is treated nutritionally the same as a 200 lb 10th grade couch potato and the same as a 275 lb 5-star offensive lineman.

 

Edit: BTW we are not getting our common core results this year because (a) it was online and the state computer system crashed (gee, I wonder why if all the students in the state are taking the exam at the same time) and (b) after they fixed (a) somebody hacked into the state computer system

[BigRedBuster]

I teach science so we have to deal with "Next Generation Science Standards" aka common core for science (common core is English and Math only), but it is the same thing. We found overall it requires more from the lower level students, but SIGNIFICANTLY hinders the options of upper level students, specifically AP level courses.

 

When national testing started I was thinking that it was going to be something like "These 5 - 10 basic concepts will be tested in this course, students must pass these. You are free to go above and beyond these topics." No Child Left Behind had many more topics. The first version of each states test required 50% failure rate, or the test was not valid. Every 2-3 years each state was allowed to make the test easier. Teachers were stressed, concentrated ONLY on the topics, which took away teacher creativity, administrators were stressed.

 

The Next Gen (and common core) to its credit is less fact memorization, and more upper level thinking. The following is one topic:

 

Evaluate competing design solutions for developing, managing, and utilizing energy and mineral resources based on cost-benefit ratios.* [Clarification Statement: Emphasis is on the conservation, recycling, and reuse of resources (such as minerals and metals) where possible, and on minimizing impacts where it is not. Examples include developing best practices for agricultural soil use, mining (for coal, tar sands, and oil shales), and pumping (for petroleum and natural gas). Science knowledge indicates what can happen in natural systems—not what should happen.]

 

This is loaded with Edu-babble, but not as bad as the AP revisions (more later), How are you going to "Evaluate competing design solutions for developing, managing, and utilizing energy and mineral resources based on cost-benefit ratios." on a multiple choice test? There are a lot of "tree hugger" topics (and evolution) which will be politically potent. There are 71 topics to be covered in 2.75 years (testing is end of 3rd quarter of junior year) if you do a thorough job, you will not have time to do anything else.

 

AP testing is going the same way. and because the course is going away from traditional college science topics and adding content that is not covered in college, fewer colleges are not accepting AP Exam scores to replace Freshman college courses, which is the idea behind AP courses.

 

So I feel that setting a few MINIMUM national standards would be good. Treating every school (and student) as the same is not such a good idea. Like the national school lunch - an 80 lb 7th grade girl is treated nutritionally the same as a 200 lb 10th grade couch potato and the same as a 275 lb 5-star offensive lineman.

 

Edit: BTW we are not getting our common core results this year because (a) it was online and the state computer system crashed (gee, I wonder why if all the students in the state are taking the exam at the same time) and (b) after they fixed (a) somebody hacked into the state computer system

Good post and I agree with your assessment at the end.

[Moiraine]

The thing that pisses me off about NCLB is there is no conclusive evidence that shows standardized testing is an effective way of evaluation. Another thing that annoys me is that they tout improvements in test scores since its implementation, but if you look back at the 90s you can see that NCLB has not improved them at a faster rate than they were already improving without the changes. So it has not made things better than they would have been in the first place, but a crapton of people have been fired and imo kids are just learning how to memorize crap.

[NUance]

LINK

[BigRedBuster]

This is going to be interesting.

 

LINK

 

What I find interesting is that one argument I remember hearing against Common Core is that the teachers will only teach up to the test level. Well, this article makes it sounds like that would be an improvement for one heck of a lot of teachers.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

I'm dealing with the common core right now with my boys. They just turned 5 in July so we didn't have to send them to kindergarten, but we did anyways because one of the boys was definitely ready and if we kept him out of kindergarten he may have started to regress if he wasn't sufficiently challenged and preschool wasn't going to be able to give him that. My other boy, was probably not completely ready and was right on the fence, but with them being twins, either they both go or they don't.

 

The first boy is doing great, no issues whatsoever, but the common core is a challenge for him. My other boy is having all kinds of issues, he's always been behind his brother on everything in life by about 3-6 months. He's starting to get better, but he has about an hour of homework every. single. night. It's a little ridiculous, but there is no way around it. The trouble is they're already saying, "If he's not at third grade reading level by third grade he gets held back!" Uh, let's worry about that when we get there, why are we talking about something that's 2 1/2 years down the road basically? He's in a special reading class and is tested daily now so kindergarten isn't what it used to be. It's "You better be at this level when we expect or else!" Trouble is, they just turned 5 and there are kids in their class that will almost be 7 by the time they're done with kindergarten. You can't judge them all on the same level, little kids can't learn math skills at 5, they can only memorize. They don't understand that part of the learning process yet and from what I understand they can't understand it. I read an article where it said if a kid learns to read at 5 and another at 7 by the time they're 11 they are on the same level, it doesn't matter.

 

So we hold these kids to the same standards, but we don't say, "You're child should probably be 6 before they come to kindergarten." Instead we say, "If they have a summer birthday and are 5 that's the parents choice, they can come here." I put some of the blame on us for putting them in early, but we had no idea it would be this way either so it was a surprise when this all came crashing down on us. Then since our one son is having problems the school thinks he has ADHD, which he doesn't, because he "can't focus and pay attention." Uh, he's barely 5 so I think he's doing pretty well. We're working through all this right now, but it started out rough and I got into it with the teachers and principal.

[BigRedBuster]

Deciding when to send our kids was interesting. Our first was born towards the end of the summer so we held her out. The second one was born in the middle of the summer. They were two years apart age wise so we held her out too just to keep it consistent. Our son came along and was three years age wise behind the his older sister. He was born a little earlier in the summer and so we actually sent him when he was 5. They are all two years apart in school.

 

My two daughters, have gone through school easily. They have 4.0s all through HS and my oldest has started college and is doing very well. My son is a freshman. He gets all As but just every once in a while will get a B. He has to study harder than his older sisters.

 

At the beginning, he was similar to your second twin where he just wasn't reading very well. He was in all the special reading groups to try to get him to improve. Over time, he has improved and he has no problem now with reading.

 

Here is the issue though that I am concerned about when he gets closer to his senior year. He is HORRIBLE at taking standardized tests when it comes to the reading and language usage parts. He does pretty good in math and science. I expect he will end up with somewhere around a 3.8 or 3.9 GPA when he is all done. But, I suspect his ACT tests will not be impressive at all.

 

Something my wife and I laugh about though. He is 6'5" now. If we had held him back, he would have been 6'5" in 8th grade. Probably would have done OK in middle school basketball...LOL.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Deciding when to send our kids was interesting. Our first was born towards the end of the summer so we held her out. The second one was born in the middle of the summer. They were two years apart age wise so we held her out too just to keep it consistent. Our son came along and was three years age wise behind the his older sister. He was born a little earlier in the summer and so we actually sent him when he was 5. They are all two years apart in school.

 

My two daughters, have gone through school easily. They have 4.0s all through HS and my oldest has started college and is doing very well. My son is a freshman. He gets all As but just every once in a while will get a B. He has to study harder than his older sisters.

 

At the beginning, he was similar to your second twin where he just wasn't reading very well. He was in all the special reading groups to try to get him to improve. Over time, he has improved and he has no problem now with reading.

 

Here is the issue though that I am concerned about when he gets closer to his senior year. He is HORRIBLE at taking standardized tests when it comes to the reading and language usage parts. He does pretty good in math and science. I expect he will end up with somewhere around a 3.8 or 3.9 GPA when he is all done. But, I suspect his ACT tests will not be impressive at all.

 

Something my wife and I laugh about though. He is 6'5" now. If we had held him back, he would have been 6'5" in 8th grade. Probably would have done OK in middle school basketball...LOL.

Our second boy is terrible at taking tests already, has test anxiety and gets worked up over it. So you have to try and trick him into taking the test without realizing he's doing it. He's getting better, but it's still a challenge from time to time. I've heard of parents holding their kids back, basically red shirting them for sports. We could've done that, but we decided not to as I'm 5'8" 205 lbs and my wife is 5'7" 130 and the only sport I was good at was football. So they probably aren't blessed with the sports gene. I'm willing to be surprised though!

[krc1995]

I have three perspectives regarding Common Core; as a teacher, as a Special Education Diagnostician, and as a parent. My opinion is that it is not Common Core per say that I dislike, it's my school district's new curriculum that addresses the Common Core standards. The standards are separate from the curriculum and I think many people may mix the two together. In addition to Common Core and the curriculum used to address the standards, is the assessment system that the school district uses to make monitor student progress within the curriculum. Our's is called PARCC assessments and they are administered over 12 days in March/April/May. The assessment system is usually adopted at the state level.

[BigRedBuster]

krc....

 

I am really interested in how schools are handling Common Core. Please expand more on how your curriculum pertains now to Common Core and how it has changed.

 

I ask this because opponents to CC have said that schools will now just teach "down" to the test standards and they won't go above and beyond to actually be better.

 

Thoughts?

[TGHusker]

Common Core will be a cornerstone of Jeb Bush's platform if he decides to run. There will be a big push back by conservatives who see common core as too much control by the federal govt, inflexible, and as a hindrance to high achievers. I still think that the best education is controlled locally - by state and local school boards. One size fits all - doesn't fit any.

[BigRedBuster]

Common Core will be a cornerstone of Jeb Bush's platform if he decides to run. There will be a big push back by conservatives who see common core as too much control by the federal govt, inflexible, and as a hindrance to high achievers. I still think that the best education is controlled locally - by state and local school boards. One size fits all - doesn't fit any.

I agree with that.

 

Now, I don't have a problem (if handled correctly) with a base level of literacy that the nation sets as..."this is the minimum of what our schools should be teaching". That seems to me to be reasonable. However, as usual, in these situations, many don't handle it well and and it becomes something very negative instead of something productive. Now, if every local school district or state would take those standards and try to honestly blow them away and see how far better they can be than the minimum standards, then great.