No doubt you've at least heard the term before now, but if you're unclear on the details, well, Common Core is just what it sounds like--an effort to standardize the curriculum and objectives in primary and secondary schools nationwide. According to the official website, the standards, which so far have been adopted by all but five states, "focus on core conceptual understandings and procedures starting in the early grades, thus enabling teachers to take the time needed to teach core concepts and procedures well." Erm, okay. In layman's terms, it basically means "teach more stuff sooner."
Not a bad idea, though whether the suggested benchmarks per grade will accomplish that is anyone's guess. Third-graders should have basic comprehension of fractions and their place on the number line, while sixth-graders should begin learning about ratios, probability, and some basic statistics. In language arts, fourth-graders ought to be able to "compare and contrast a firsthand and secondhand account of the same event or topic; describe the differences in focus and the information provided"; for eighth-graders, it's "analyze how a modern work of fiction draws on themes, patterns of events, or character types from myths, traditional stories, or religious works such as the Bible, including describing how the material is rendered new."
Okay, especially in the reading category, there's no way this won't get dumbed down quite a bit in the classroom. But it seems fairly innocuous on the surface. And yet, it's gotten a ton of pushback, especially from grassroots conservatives and some religious (especially Catholic) groups. Why?
Well, in summary, a lot of people see it as No Child Left Behind, only more invasive and altogether crappier. A lot of objections have been made about the quality of education kids would be receiving under these goalposts. High schoolers, for example, would be reading far less literature in favor of nonfiction texts, and many important documents, historical as well as literary, would be presented with little or no explanation of background context. Or, students will have to comprehend them through lots of "creative" mechanisms, like featuring the Gettysburg Address as a "word cloud." (If someone knows what this is, please explain it to me.) So, long story short, there's a lot of concern about the complexity and sheer novelty of the project.
Others are worried not only about this, but about the government possibly using this to create a national database tracking all our kids and so on. Blogger Michelle Malkin, for example, has argued that Common Core is connected to new federal programs requiring schools to track everything from household voting status to religious affiliation to dental records. Some Catholic publications, meanwhile, have claimed that this data-collection effort is completely unsupervised, and expressed concerns that it might be used to force more direct oversight of diocesan and private schools.
So how realistic are these worries? Hard to say. It's not exactly like this was the product of any left-wing Obama goons (at least to begin with); it originated under Dubya in '07, making it brought to you by the same guys who gave you those fluorescent bulbs and the jacked-up Daylight Savings Time schedule. And whatever claims may be made about it being a plot by D.C. to subvert the states, the Common Core standards were largely developed by state governors and their advisers, as defenders of the program have pointed out. Besides, it's not hard to find liberals who also are not fans of the program, or at least aspects of its implementation. Even many urban school teachers are siding against the new curriculum, because of its lack of balance and flexibility. As for the privacy concerns, I don't blame those who are objecting, especially in the wake of all the agency corruption scandals this year; but it's not clear whether all this will pan out.
In my opinion, the real problem with Common Core isn't necessarily any tracking database, or even the controversial educational standards themselves. The problem is this persistent notion of a "one-size-fits-all" approach, especially when applied from the top down. When you consider the wide range of school conditions across the U.S.--urban, suburban, and rural; some with strong academic histories, others not so much--it should be obvious that they can't all be made to meet a single benchmark. Plus, it goes completely against the decentralized ethos that is so much a part of American conservatism. Schools need some oversight, but that should be as localized as possible. Even at the state level, there are problems in trying to run too much; taking it to the national level is just asking for trouble.
Common Core probably won't be as bad as some of its critics worry. But it's probably not the best way to improve education, either.
49 comments:
Excellent article, T-Rav.
I’ve actually been planning an article on this because I’ve been asked by a couple people to debunk the things Beck et al. are screaming about Common Core. You skip right over all the BS he says (you actually debunk a couple) and get to the real debate: will this work?
Personally, I’m more positive than you are on this as I think it will work. Indeed, this strikes me as exactly what conservatives have been advocating for decades: create a set of very high standards and then measure the progress of the kids.
In terms of the objection about less literature, I’m not worried about it. For one thing, any type of reading is equally valid when it comes to learning things like sentence structure, vocabulary, etc., i.e. reading improves reading skills. For another, this doesn’t preclude reading literature, it just suggests other types of reading in addition.
I also think this won't create the one-size fits all problem you talk about either because the curriculum seems remarkably flexible. So I see this as something conservatives should be good at.
Thanks, Andrew. I'll say more in the morning when I'm not half-asleep, but the benchmarks being outlined I pretty much shrug at. They're impressive in some aspects, but in the actual classroom they'll get dumbed down. They always are. So in the long run, it'll be a wash.
I'll keep reading on it and share additional research with the class, but from what I see thus far, it's not an age of educational tyranny, and it's not a "Great Leap Forward" either.
T-Rav, I agree, it's not earth shattering. What I think it does do is shift the focus from "money" to accountability and I think that's important. Though ultimately, this probably just moves the needle a little in most states.
Personally, I would rather see the plan I outline in my book, but who knows.
There are many of us who pay a lot in property tax that want to make sure that I am getting what I pay for. The basic principle as I see is it "Common Core", the basics. There are a lot of kids who struggle with the basics. They can tear apart a computer and understand how the internet and your phone really works, but they couldn't explain how to do it in writing or even address the envelope to mail it. If the core is solid, you can go on and do anything. It is the same thing as the Liberal Arts. Teaching kids to crawl and walk before they run. Many colleges are lamenting that many freshman are coming in with deficiency in basic math and english. This should NEVER happen in a kid with a high school diploma.
Koshcat, One of the problems for years was that the education lobby said that standards were bad. They claimed it would somehow restrict teachers from being able to teach, and that imposing standards would only give the appearance of kids knowing what they are doing because teachers would teach to the test, but would not really teach kids anything... somehow. Instead, they wanted money and no accountability.
Conservatives wanted accountability.
Up through the 1990s, the liberals got what they wanted and things kept getting worse. Then charter schools started showing up and showed that education works if done with "core values" and accountability.
By now, the data has become irrefutable that more money simply doesn't work. What is needed is better teachers, better goals, and a better education plan. So looking at charter schools, everyone has been trying to impose standards. The problem is that the standards in some places like WVA are 2-3 grade levels behind better states. So this initiative began with the idea of creating national standards that everyone should shoot for.
In terms of core knowledge, these try to define core knowledge and they do a pretty good job of it. So ultimately, this is a step in the right direction but more is needed. As T-Rav suggests, we need to keep them from being dumbed down. I think we also need stronger accountability -- testing etc.
I think we also need a new mindset in education -- a business mindset that views each student as a client rather than students as group. Schools should not be considered successful if they can't get every student up to par. But right now they only get graded on the percentage of the class who ____.
Word clouds are basically where you put the words in a text up and enlarge certain words with regards to their emphasis or importance in the text.
Examples: LINK
T-Rav.....I have no problems with changing curriculum to meet some 'national' standard. The problem I have is when those standards are applied to meet what the education experts ALL agree is right. This is where the politics of all this comes in, and we know who 'runs' the educational systems in this country.
For example: History - When teaching about the "Civil War" one must never call it the War Between the States, or the War of Northern Aggression. Politically incorrect terms, yet just as valid depending on your point of view. Don't teach about Lincoln's cave to the southern states in order to get elected in his first term in office.
So, I guess it comes down to the application of the standards and what is actually taught. It is great to state that 3rd graders will learn about American History and the important events in that history. Their minds will be molded based on what they are taught.
Who determines the actual material in order to meet those 'core standards' is where I have a problem.
I fear we are going the Lake Woebegon route, and individual excellence will be weeded out.
Why wouldn't anyone want increased standards for our children and a common core of knowledge across the land?
"People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome."
I just feel like if it comes down from the Federal.gov it probably won't work. having worked in vocational education for 10 years my observation is that two of the major porblems are the students and the parents. We had great teachers, a great cirriculum, great administrators and when we had good students and parents it worked great,,,however, throw in lazy students and horrible parents and that kid won't learn. One student flunked a test because he was caught cheating, his mom showed up the next day with a lawyer..the school stood it's ground..but many schools don't.
Patriot,
I'm confused. Are you for or against national standards. At the beginning of your comment you state you are for it but at the end you throw in a Serenity quote that implies such a thing is "meddlesome".
So, what is your opinion on a national standard?
Also, "Civil War" is a perfectly fine term. You can still spell out an argument that the South was right using that term.
"War Between the States" is a rather antiquated term. The term was used by Southerners because it implied a war between autonomous states while the term "Civil War" implied a war between two different factions inside of a country.
As for "War of Northern Aggression"? Almost no one uses it anymore except as a joke or half-joke and the people who use it in a completely dead serious context tend to be on the fringe with those who think that .
Hell, the term itself actually originated as a joke about the fact that many Southerners refused to use the term "Civil War" and insisted on using the term the "War Between the States".
T-Rav, Here is a word cloud of the Gettysburg Address: LINK
This one has a lot of nifty options to play with, I recommend doing so. What it does is it visually scales all the words in the input text according to prevalence. In the case of the Gettysburg Address, it is easy to see that the two most common words are "nation" and "dedicated" with some of the other notables being "people," "great" and "dead." It's an analysis tool and a heck of a lot quicker than making the students count words and a lot more impactful than simply stating which words are used most. Obviously, this does not substitute for a discourse analysis of the Address, but serves as an interesting jumping off point.
Patriot, the Common Core is focused primarily on math and language (the three 'R's). Can kids read? Can they add? Do they know a noun from a verb? Are they able to work with fractions? If anything, Common Core is a move away from indoctrinational teaching (insofar as it even exists). No, it does nothing to stop a teacher from promoting an agenda, but it does nothing to encourage it either.
Koshcat, that is a serious problem, and I can't say whether it's gotten worse (or if so, how much) since NCLB. One of the major hangups with that was schools began passing kids unless they did really bad, just to avoid looking substandard and losing funding or direct control. It's literally failing upwards.
Whether Common Core will fix that, I don't know. By the standards of my own public-school education, these are impressive standards; for some high-achieving private and charter schools, they probably mark a bit of a regression. Which is what a lot of the opponents are objecting to; no one seems to know if all schools will be held to the same standard.
Kit.....Exactly my point. What we call something, the name we give it, implies a certain point of view. Why do we call Black Americans "African" American when the vast majority have never even been to Africa, much less identify with it?
Having been raised in the South and taking courses on American history, it was always referred to as the "War Between the States." Just because the North (the Federalists) won, does not diminish the argument that many in the South felt that the country was heading down the wrong path and away from what was enumerated in the 10th Amendment of the limited power of the Federal government, further diminishing the power the States held as originally intended. If that argument was lost (as it surely was/is) shouldn't that be part of our study? Just an example.
My opinion on a national standard should be evident in the above. Why shouldn't the "People" of a State determine what the standards for education should be in that State? Again, I think it all goes towards the almighty Federal gov't knowing all and dictating to States what should be. If WVA wants to set lower standards for their State run schools, then I'm sure private schools will take up the slack and educate those with the means and desire to demand higher standards.
Kit, Patriot--come on guys, let's not re-fight the ol' War for Southern Independence here. ;-) (Technically, "Civil War" is an incorrect term altogether, but oh well.)
As to the question of national standards--because of the wide diversity in local school conditions, I personally regard any attempt to impose them as an exercise in futility. But, there are some fields where they might be more helpful and less controversial than others. Mathematics, I could see us trying to reach some kind of general benchmark, and maybe in science too. English/Language Arts is a different story, because that's where the district-to-district variation is greatest (some schools have well-developed literature and mythology programs, some just your basic reading and writing proficiency classes), and I don't like the idea for Social Studies because that could be most easily monkeyed with by whoever's in power in DC at the time. But then, that's always the risk with setting national standards, isn't it?
T-Rav....I guess my issue with all this is that you can have the toughest standards on the planet.....and you will still have students who can only learn at a certain level. The Bell curve phenomenon if you will.
How will we get those students (and parents) who just don't give a shit about education (math and language) to meet ANY standard, much less NCLB or CC? Hell, raise the standards all we want, and we will still have the same proportion of students who fail and or are behind in their learning skills. Just because we have a "new standard" doesn't mean more students will become scholars.
Bottom line, if we want to improve education in this country (whatever that means) maybe we should follow the Korean model of after school tutoring (hagwons), and move those that want to excel to challenge themselves even more. They won't get it in public schools here in the US because the "standards" that are being set come nowhere near challenging enough for the "good" students. All they will do is create more dropouts and cheating on a massive scale (Atlanta) in order to "meet the standards" and continue getting federal funding.
Kit, T-Rav......The North won. No dispute from me there! Therefore, they write the rules. :(
I guess it's just my curmudgeonly nature (libertarianism) that wants to see less government intrusion into daily life, not more. Yet, in order to see that I guess I have to move to New Zealand out in the boondocks.
tryanmax, Yeesh. That's pretty dumb.
Really, I don't get it. I know how this is going to sound, but is reading the text on the page so terrible? Does a document as short as the Gettysburg Address need to be expressed so "creatively"?
Of course, as you point out, this isn't directly related to Common Core, which is mainly concerned with math and reading. And if it can get across things like fractions and sentence structure, well and good.
I'll save a debate on the Civil War for another date (I don't want us to get sidetracked from education) and simply state that when I was in school in fairly conservative Central Alabama it was called "Civil War" and I attended it rather recently (within the past 10 years) and still managed to receive a fairly balanced view of the causes of the Civil War.
Question: When did you attend school?
Maybe we need to re-look at how we educate in the first place. The best teachers I had were able to explain (educate) to me the material by relating it to everyday things/experiences. Then I "got it." Memorizing and reciting didn't do it for me. I was able to understand chemistry, statistics, physics, etc., by this message. Yet that was at university level. I NEVER got that educational/teaching style in ES, MS or HS, and I went to some of the best schools in the nation at the time (NoVA).
So instead of common core standards of what we should be learning, perhaps we need to take a look at how the material is being taught and emulate those "standards?"
Kit......I'll show my age here.....the 50's and 60's. Maybe things were different "back then?" Hell, if you think about it, the "Civil War" wasn't even a hundred years prior! In fact, there might have even been soldiers who fought in it still alive in the 50's.
Just Wiki'd it....Last Union veteran died in 1956. Last Confederate veteran in 1951. Recent history! :)
"Really, I don't get it. I know how this is going to sound, but is reading the text on the page so terrible? Does a document as short as the Gettysburg Address need to be expressed so "creatively"?"
I think I agree there. A better way might be to break it down into bit-sized pieces and explain their context.
Patriot: Yet, in order to see that I guess I have to move to New Zealand out in the boondocks.
Check the NZ immigration laws. If you're over 50 you'd better have a skill they need or no go. OTOH, if you are a "refugee" from a 3rd world country then you've got a shot.
T-Rav:The testing thing is not going to be popular with teachers. This isn't Japan with a monolithic culture and the ability to start from zero in 1945. Getting inner city, hillbilly and suburban kids on the same page achievement wise is rather like setting price controls to fix inflation. A nice idea that doesn't work in reality. Either the standards will be dumbed down or the tests will be fixed. Either way it's bad.
I'm catching a conflation of ideas that I hope is not too late to nip in the bud. In the context of our system of governance, there is a difference between a "national" standard and a "federal" standard. While certainly all federal standards are national, not all national standards are federal. Common Core represents the possibility of the latter in that it is an initiative by states to align their curricula.
One could point to federal Race to the Top grants as a sign of federalization. To be sure, the lure of that money did urge many states to adopt Common Core. However, those dollars are not specifically tied to the Core; the Core merely satisfies the broader RttT requirements.
As an interesting aside, the State of Texas has effectively banned the Core, has pointedly not applied for RttT money, and implemented their own program called CSCOPE (which would qualify for RttT) and many right-wing Texans still aren't happy. This smacks strongly of "There's a problem with education. Somebody should do nothing about it!"
RE: word cloud. I actually like the idea. I find such tools useful in my daily work, actually. Perhaps I didn't make it clear that the use of a word cloud is in no way a substitute for actually reading the text, but serves as starting point for a different manner of discussion than might otherwise be had.
In the case of the Gettysburg Address, I would have never guessed that "nation" and "dedicated" were the two most recurrent ideas. That actually reveals a lot about the message Lincoln was hoping to convey. (Or it may affirm what was already suspected.) It certainly evokes more thought than spreading the fiction that Lincoln jotted it on the back of an envelope at the last minute.
Tyranmax,
"RE: word cloud. I actually like the idea. I find such tools useful in my daily work, actually. Perhaps I didn't make it clear that the use of a word cloud is in no way a substitute for actually reading the text, but serves as starting point for a different manner of discussion than might otherwise be had."
That makes Sense.
Patriot, memorizing and reciting don't work for me, either. I'm not convinced they really work for anyone, not in the sense of true learning.
I recently looked into what the fuss over "new math" was back before I was born and what I found was it was largely a step away from rote memorization of math. There were some ill-conceived aspects, as well, I'm not saying there weren't. But expecting a child to respond "21" to the question "3 x 7 ?" is not the same as getting her to understand how multiplication represents the addition of three sets of sevens.
Incidentally, I'm pretty sure what I got was some compromise between the two approaches, which I found quite confusing at the time. Flash card races absolutely baffled me. I understood the value of the arithmetic, but I couldn't for the life of me figure out how speed factored into it.
Patriot, I often wonder if we wouldn't be better off fully implementing a multi-track form of education, with separate schools for the college-bound and the vo-tech kids.
Although I'm not a fan of most European institutions, I think on this matter, taking a page from their educational systems--especially the German "Gymnasium," "Hochschule," and "Arbeitschule"--would be useful. (Fun fact: during the early stages of American occupation, one attempted move was to consolidate all German schools into a one-track institution on the U.S. model; the Germans flipped their lids and accused us of being quasi-Nazis. Oh, the irony.)
Patriot, I don't know how this will make you feel, but as of last year, there were two grandchildren of President John Tyler (1841-45) still living. And, while old, they certainly weren't ancient or anything. Makes you think about historical continuity, doesn't it?
tryanmax et al., memorization often works very well for some people. I refer you back to my comment the other week about being able to race a calculator, and that's why--all those "7x3=21" and so on I just have memorized in my head.
In my experience, the key to having students learn something is simplicity and clear exposition. If you're trying to get an idea across, don't complicate it with tangents; present the basic elements in a coherent and organized manner, and in terms that everyone can understand. Nine times out of ten, that'll do the job more effectively than a word cloud or anything else can.
Er, Patriot, if you're looking for a libertarian paradise, I don't think New Zealand is your best bet. If the idea is to re-live Lord of the Rings? Sure. But the New Zealanders have been very socialist at times, God bless 'em.
T-Rav, memorization works well for being fast, but beyond that...? In order for an education to be valuable, it must be useful. The best way for it to be useful (not just now, but always) is to instill analytical problem-solving skills, not rote solutions to problems already solved.
There is nothing anywhere that says even young children are incapable of analysis. To the contrary, we start our lives discovering and analyzing the world and learning how to move through it. We are born analytical machines. A curriculum focused on analysis and discovery should, by virtue of human nature, improve educational results.
The main reason why so many people struggle when they are suddenly confronted with algebra or a term paper is that they've never been taught to think in those ways prior. Simply knowing that 2 + 2 = 4 does not prepare one for the concept that x + x = 2x. We don't read The Iliad in order to distinguish nouns from verbs, we distinguish nouns from verbs in order to read The Iliad.
This isn't to say that memorization isn't a useful tool for education. Certainly it is better to simply teach a child his ABC's and 123's rather than explaining the development of alphabets and Arabic numerals. There must be a bedrock to build upon. But forgetting that memorization is merely a tool is like teaching a man to pound nails and immediately sending him off to build a house.
To close my thoughts, let me describe a common academic scenario. A child manages to sneak a copy of an upcoming test and memorizes the answers based on the problem numbers. That's cheating. A different child memorizes the problems from the textbook; his only disadvantage is not knowing the sequence of the test. That's not cheating.
tryanmax, You make this point: a word cloud is in no way a substitute for actually reading the text, but serves as starting point for a different manner of discussion than might otherwise be had.
This puts your finger right on the problem with a lot of the loonier criticism. There is this pattern of argument that gets repeated:
1. They want to use more A.
2. Ergo, they must want to eliminate B.
I see this over and over and over with the criticism and it's ridiculous. Adding A does not eliminate B.
This probably particularly appears in the memorization debate. No one learns through memorization alone. Memorization is a tool used to input data which you are then taught to analyze. If you aren't taught to analyze, then all you are capable of knowing is what you've been told: "Oh, you missed the day they taught you 112x19... sorry that will remains a mystery to you." Analysis is what lets you use the data you've stored and apply it. And they've always taught analysis.
But there is this idea that because they want to add new analysis tools that someone they are eliminating memorization. That's false. To analyze something, you need a reference point first, and that means memorizing the same things you always did. Yet again, this is something that gets twisted on the radio using the false logic above into "they want to eliminate memorization!" That's simply not true.
tryanmax, Excellent point about the Illiad.
Let me give you another example on your cheating example. I started college in engineering school. A lot of the kids who were there thought that if they could memorize the formulas, they could do well on test whether or not they grasps the concepts behind the formulas. Some even cheated by writing the formulas on their hands or in tiny sheets of paper.
First test. Everyone walks in... everyone is immediately handed a sheet of paper from the professor with all the formulas on it. Shock all around.
Most students still end up failing the test. Why? Because the professor didn't ask us to work through the formulas, he asked us to apply them. To do that, you had to understand how they worked and why. A bunch of students only learned the formulas, but not what they meant... they failed.
Rinse and repeat throughout test week.
T-Rav.....As an aside.....My reference to NZ was made tongue in cheek as that seems to be the default destination for Americans I know who want to get away from it all.
Any idea what country/area would be considered the most "libertarian-minded" these days? I wonder if the some of the old USSR republics have turned into them? They appear pretty lawless to me.
Patriot, Libertarian thinking pretty much stops at the shores of the US.
The Soviet republics, by the way, are all dictatorships or Islamic dictatorships.
To analyze something, you need a reference point first, and that means memorizing the same things you always did.
Exactly! But what I routinely hear from the memorization camp is that analysis is too confusing, or too subjective, or just unnecessary. And the nutjobs apparently think analysis is a code word for indoctrination--they couldn't have it more backwards!
What I see in Common Core that I think is promising is an implied belief that younger children can handle analysis more than has been tried in the past. I fully acknowledge that I may be a weirdo, but when I was a student, understanding the concepts did as much to facilitate my memorization as the memorization helped me to understand the concepts.
Analysis is just as much a tool as memorization, and the two often build on each other. Parsing which should come first is a chicken-and-egg problem. You don't solve it by deciding to go only with the chicken.
Patriot, Libertarian thinking pretty much stops at the shores of the US.
The Soviet republics, by the way, are all dictatorships or Islamic dictatorships.
Word.
Although, I suppose you could follow Abe Lincoln's suggestion--when the U.S. becomes a free country in name only, flee for the despotism of Russia where you can enjoy tyranny without hypocrisy.
tryanmax, The problem is misunderstanding and some misinformation. A lot of people simply don't know the difference between rote memorization and analysis, and they end up equating "rote memorization" with "basic education" and "analysis" with "newfangled stuff I don't understand."
Then you get people like Beck stepping into the ignorance gap and spreading misinformation like, "Common Core has lessons which require same sex kids to kiss."
Looking at just Common Core, I think it has potential because (1) it raises the standards significantly, and kids tend to rise to meet the standards they are held to, and (2) it focuses on giving kids multiple tools to analyze problems, which I think will increase their ability to smoke out BS, will increase their independence, and should give kids who don't fit in the one-size-fits all world of education more tools.
Will it work enough? Don't know. As T-Rav notes, there is the question of how it will be implemented.
I think it is promising, but not earth shattering.
T-Rav, LOL! Yeah, there is that.
Andrew, you know what 112x19 is? 2128. Boom. Didn't even have to get out my calculator. :-)
Look, I'm certainly not trying to say that education should consist solely of memorization. If you want to expand on what we already know in any way, then of course, analysis and critical thinking is crucial. But hey--there are some things for which you just have to have that knowledge memorized in your head before you can do anything. Take the German language, since you're maybe a bit familiar with it. There are a few rules for which nouns take which definite articles, but beyond that, it's a free-for-all. You just have to remember which nouns take der, die or das, because there is no rhyme or reason.
I only say all this because I don't want us to flatly knock memorization while rightly pointing out that it's not all there is, either.
tryanmax, see my previous comment. Also, having considered what you pointed out, I might add that some of it is just practicality. Absolutely, humans are born analytical machines. But in the classroom, where the teachers are trying to get through multiple subjects in the seven-hour day, and the students are often more concerned with passing notes or poking the kid in front of them with a pencil so many times it put holes in my shirt, there just isn't as much time or opportunity to get those analytic juices flowing as their should be. It may not be better, always, to say "Just memorize this!" but it is often easier.
Really, it kind of gets back to that question of whether you should make them 10% knowledgeable in 100% of the subject matter or 100% knowledgeable in 10% of it.
T-Rav, I absolutely agree and I'm not knocking memorization at all. I view memorization as THE building block of education and the building block of any new field of knowledge. You ALWAYS need to start by memorizing the key bits of knowledge that underpin everything else. That's always step one. Step two is the analysis.
The problem is the perception (pushed by talk radio) that (1) rote memorization is all that education has always been and (2) now these evil liberals want to eliminate it. That's just not true. Rote memorization has always been combined with analysis... they go hand in hand. And we must necessarily continue to use rote memorization because there's just no other way to get the fundamental underpinnings you need to address get to the next step, which is analysis. No one is trying to end rote memorization. They are just trying to add more analysis.
Unfortunately, as long as people are pushing this misperception, conservatives aren't even getting into the real debate, which is what you say in your article: are these good standards and will they work.
T-Rav, I appreciate the practicality of memorization, but that is all the conservative argument is based on anymore. It fails for at least three reasons:
1) Basic memorization is understood as necessary. It doesn't require any defense. As with my ABC's example from before, even the most hippie-dippy free-associative educator would agree that some things just have to be committed to memory. So defending memorization comes off as wanting little to nothing else.
2) It sounds kinda lazy. Just the way you put it--there's too few hours and the kids aren't interested anyway--sounds incredibly pessimistic. Plus, the counterargument is obvious: you hold kids' interest by engaging them. Engaged learners are more efficient learners.
3) Finally, it comes off as cold. The conservative response when the current model doesn't work is to say, "Well, some kids just can't be taught. I guess somebody's gotta flip burgers."
These are not winning positions. You can't tell Americans to not expect better. That was the Republican charge against Carter. But in this generation, the conservative line is constantly to say "this is as good as it gets, just don't let those nasty liberals make it any worse!"
forgetting for a second the desirability of core standards for learning (there are strengths and weaknesses, just like a move in chess) I sure don't want the Feds to dictate this. And I sure as hell want some reverse diversity in the people developing the standards so it isn't all PC.
On this one, consider me "States Rights Gist."*
* see Wiki to determine who States Rights Gist is
I would just like to see kids taught basic economics. Even just supply, demand, and the most important market clearing price. The latter seems to baffle most people and they don't understand screwing with it just causes more damage than good.
I would just like to see kids taught basic economics. Even just supply, demand, and the most important market clearing price. The latter seems to baffle most people and they don't understand screwing with it just causes more damage than good.
Jed, hopefully you have a more peaceful ending than General Gist.
Due to some experiences our district had when I was in high school, I've been very suspicious of any kind of government oversight, necessary though it may sometimes be. And, of course, the feds haven't been doing anything to inspire confidence this year.
Kosh, there is still some basic economics being taught in the schools; we learned supply, demand, capital, and things like that. The issue is that it often gets rolled in with civics or other courses, so there's less time to go over stuff and make it sink in. Ideally, there should be more; it often comes down to how many hours are in the day.
T-Rav, "Due to some experiences our district had when I was in high school, I've been very suspicious of any kind of government oversight, necessary though it may sometimes be."
Is this the federal judge in Kansas City who was running a school system in Missouri for a time?
Post a Comment