OK I reading about this and it sounds like 'No Child Left Behind' Part II. Came across this comment and it sounds like what I have been saying for 3 decades now. Unfortunately they can't get to that level until they learn the basics, the 3 'R's. Everything else can and/or will flow into place when they are taught "how to learn" and be passionate about learning, if they are not sidetracked by an incompetent educational system that is tunnel visioned with teaching kids how to pass a test.
Another ignorant piece on common core. Read the actual Common Core standards before posting this stuff. It pretty much goes beyond a list of things to know, and is more of a list of skills to learn when interacting with content. In other words, it encourages problem solving, leanring how to learn, etc. HEre is the link to the actual Common Core Standards: http://www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/ Here is a sample ( I chose semi-randomly, 5th grade literature standards) None of the above is specific to any set of literature. It's mainly teaching learning skills.
It's still being integrated into schools. That and a lot of crap is being sold as "common core." The true Common Core standards are reasonable. Could they be better? Of course, almost everything could be better. They will do for now.
I've seen a lot of different examples of these common core tests (mostly math) and I think the biggest problem is a misunderstanding of how the tests work. Are they confusing? Yes. Are they supposed to be? YES!
How does that touch what JoeSixpack was saying? If his point is to say we need to learn the basics before trying to tackle the bigger issues, then why would you post something from 5th grade curriculum? Wouldn't it make more sense to say Common Core does that by stating what the standards are for a child in Kindergarten or 1st grade, when they need to learn the basics?
I basically read his statement as saying the problem is that kids are taught to take tests, and learn a lot of facts, without learning much in terms of application. My point was that Common Core is primarily based on application, and not just lists of facts to take a test. You look up the Common Core Standards for k and 1.and tell him that.....
Some people defend Common Core like they have a vested interest in it--like they designed the textbooks or something---so anytime you mention it, you can expect to be shouted at and/or called names.
Most critics of Common Core have not read the standards. Critique the standards after reading the standards, not after just reading things that criticize the standards. That said there is an awful lot of crap being sold as "common core."
No what you provided is exactly what I wanted to see. The concept is there, if everything is taken one step at a time. You take an 8th grader who hasn't gone through the appropriate step to get to that level, or was improperly introduced in the early phases so they are not at that level, and throw them into this form of curriculum they are going to be dumbfounded, probably become frustrated, and just give up. Short steps. You take somebody who can't swim toss them out into a pool, talk them back to the edge and repeat, they eventually are going to swim to the other side of the pool. Drive them out a mile in the ocean, toss them in and drive away they are going to drown. Fail to perform. Take the same type of analogy with a car engine. Toss all the tools in a pile and all the parts to an engine in a pile, and tell them to put it together without ever teaching them the tools and the parts of an engine and it is going to take them considerably longer to achieve the desired results. In most cases those students will be dumbfounded, probably become frustrated, and just give up. That lunacy they called No Child Left Behind did exactly what it was designed not too. Ask the average kid who went through that BS what 2 x 2 is and they can most likely tell you because it was instilled into their thought process. Ask them why and about half of them will look at you like you are an alien with a third eye and be dumbfounded. This idea may have the same obstacles if the students are not properly prepared to accept the curriculum, doesn't matter how sound the idea might be.
NCLB wasn't a curriculum. Each state could choose how to test, etc. for NCLB. For example, in FL, FCAT (which existed before NCLB) was used to assess progress for NCLB. In Alabama, they used the Stanford 10 to assess progress of NCLB. The standards of knowledge for those two were different. IMHO, the worst thing about NCLB is that it only tested reading and math, so schools deemphasized teaching anything else. IMHO, it made school boring for people in the classroom. If Common Core is implemented the way it should be (i.e. the standards, not the crap they pass off as Common Core), school should be more interesting. It involves working with the content beyond simple regurgitation. The thing is a truly good school where teachers are teaching well, they are going to perform well, regardless of the standards used.
If this man in the video below had said this before Obama was elected, it would have been considered utter nonsense. The reaction from the crowd is encouraging, but the notion of white privilege is quickly becoming mainstream thought for many leftists it seems. That he relates it to Common Core is fascinating and disturbing. [video=youtube;LQ8Nr3_2724]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=LQ8Nr3_2724[/video]
But that's not what he is saying. Sure he talks about tests, but the point is that they need to learn the basics before they can be applied. Sure, right after you explain why you decided to post the criteria for 5th grade.
Does this include a user's manual for their brains? Does it teach them how to deal with difficult situations? Does it teach them anger management and how they get angry in the first place? Does it teach them how to generate positive thoughts? Does it teach them how to get along with each other? All part of running/controlling their own brains.
