[Ohiogift] I think he's got it.....

[Gifted and Talented in Ohio Discussion List]

A Missed Opportunity for Common Core

By Robert Pondiscio 7/3/2014


Last week, I had the privilege to speak in front of a group of education journalists convened by the Poynter Institute and the Education Writers Association about identifying strengths and weaknesses in curriculum.

This is a heavy lift for journalists. It’s simply asking too much for even the most seasoned education reporters to develop a discerning eye for curriculum; it’s not their job, and it makes their job covering the instructional shifts taking place under Common Core uphill work.

I referred my listeners to a recent NPR effort to get “super-specific about what makes a good Common Core–aligned lesson.” The reporter enlisted the aid of Kate Gerson, who works with EngageNY, a New York State Education Department’s web site. She’s one of the leaders of New York State’s transition to Common Core; NPR asked her to walk through a supposedly exemplary ninth-grade lesson—a close reading of a short story by Karen Russell entitled, “St. Lucy’s Home for Girls Raised By Wolves.”

Great idea! I’m all for reporting that sheds light heat on Common Core. I’ll admit that I’m not familiar with Russell or this particular story, but no matter. Standards are not curriculum. Common Core isn’t top-down and lock step. Local control and teacher choice rules! This is gonna be great!

NPR’s report continues,

Russell’s work meets recognized benchmarks for literary quality—her debut novel was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize, and she’s the winner of a 2013 MacArthur grant. Being new is good, too. “The phrase ‘contemporary authors’ is in the standards in multiple places,” Gerson says. This story was originally published in 2007. Finally, including work by a younger, female writer meets the standards’ call for diversity of all kinds.

Hmm. The phrase “contemporary authors” appears in CCSS exactly two times, but why quibble? And this is NPR, so diversity rules. OK, let’s see how Common Core helps students dig in to some rich and meaty literature!

The students actually start by reading and discussing the standards themselves. The teacher passes out a list of all the standards, and they focus on the ones they’ll be learning that day. Gerson says discussing the standards is not necessarily part of the standards. But generally it’s part of good pedagogy—“to name the goal, tell students what you’re asking them to accomplish.”

Oh no. Please, no. This can’t be happening…

First the teacher reads an excerpt of the story aloud. “There is an orientation aspect,” says Gerson. “We’re going to do this new thing”— understand vocabulary in context, cite textual evidence—“and we’re going to get smarter at it as the year goes on.” Then, students turn to individual close reading. They are told to reread sections and draw boxes around unfamiliar words. They write the definition of new words on Post-It notes. Forty percent of the class time—the biggest chunk of the lesson—is spent this way.

Shoot me now.

This is what “good” Common Core instruction is supposed to look like? Hardly.

The biggest problem is that this is simply a deadly dull lesson. Given a golden opportunity to illustrate the promise of Common Core for a national audience, Gerson offers up a mechanistic, skills-driven lesson about a story whose place in literature is far from assured.

Lest you think I’m being unfair, I invite you to check out the source of this exercise: a fifty-three-lesson (!) module titled, “Reading Closely and Writing to Analyze: How Do Authors Develop Complex Characters?” The other works in the unit are excerpts from Black Swan Green, by David Mitchell; excerpts from Letters to a Young Poet, by Rainer Maria Rilke; and excerpts from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.

Excerpts. No complete works. Bleeding chunks of literature chosen because they presumably offer opportunities to learn and practice a reading “skill.” The Common Core standards are supposed to give students the opportunity to grapple with texts worth reading. If nothing else, it should mean a transition from skills-driven literacy to curriculum-driven literacy. Skills are tools for analyzing text; literature is not a delivery mechanism for teaching skills. And fifty-three lessons on character development? At one point in the NPR piece, Gerson says under Common Core, “It takes two to three days to complete a lesson.” Is this one unit on character development going to last all year?

“A curriculum as a whole should have coherence and meaning,” Diana Senechal notes in a critique of the lesson.

A ninth-grade literature course may well be a survey course—but the works can still be selected to combine in interesting ways….Without a literature curriculum, a Common Core lesson quickly turns into a lesson on reading skills. That may explain why, on the very first day of the school year, the students begin by reading and discussing the standards, and then turn to their main activity of circling and looking up words.

Senechal is a frequent Common Core critic, but she’s exactly right when she observes, “Common Core advocates are zealously repeating the mistakes of their predecessors.”

Those of us who have supported Common Core owe it to the field to do better. We can start by holding up as exemplary lessons that represent a sharp break with the skills-driven, all-texts-are-created-equal approach has come to dominate too many classrooms. A curriculum-driven approach means using the limited time we have with students to engage them with challenging and enduring texts worth reading closely and rereading. If you’re choosing those texts because they are a delivery mechanism for skills—even useful and valuable skills—you’re already at risk of losing your way. Choose a story, poem, or novel—something beautiful, important, or enduring that you want your students to read—and then use the standards to drive the work you ask students to do. The “fewer, clearer, higher” nature of the standards guarantees that if a literary work is worth teaching, you can apply the standards to it. That’s the difference between being standards-driven and curriculum-driven. In the former, you choose a skill to teach and practice it on any ol’ text. Under Common Core, the text is king.

I can’t pretend not to be disappointed—not at NPR’s reporters but, frankly, at Engage NY’s Gerson. Given the opportunity to show what a great reading lesson might look like under Common Core, she offered up something dull, uninspiring, and not that much different than what too many teachers are doing today.

-Robert Pondiscio

This first appeared on the Fordham Institute’s Common Core Watch blog.


================


The Report Card; St. Augustine, Florida
The Report Card <schoolcurriculums at gmail.com>

Fitzhugh: The Common Core Promotes Skills, Not Knowledge

Posted on 24 July 2013 

Tags: curriculum reform, educational standards, failure of common core standard, The Concord Review, will fitzhugh



Will Fitzhugh Publisher of The Concord Review

by Will Fitzhugh www.thereportcard.org  www.tcr.org

(Editor: The Common Core Standard (CCSS) has had increasing opposition in recent month across America, but Will Fitzhugh has the best reason to oppose it. He says it does not teach knowledge-just skills or learning how to learn. Will Fitzhugh publishes a quarterly of the best high school papers in America (and 38 other countries),. Mr. Fitzhugh is concerned that CCSS has “no standards about what students should know.”)


The Common Core is not a curriculum—that is plainly stated, again and again. That means that they do not tell teachers what books to teach, for example in history and literature classes. They say that a few United States founding documents would be nice to offer students and that someone should teach some other nonfiction.

The founding documents they suggest could be read by a good ‘B’ high school student in one afternoon, so presumably they would want more history than that, although they do not specify any (Common Core is not a curriculum).

Because they offer no curriculum in history and literature, teachers across the country will vary in the poems, plays, novels, nonfiction articles and the history books (if any) which they assign students to read and study. Common Core follows Kipling’s notion that “There are 97 ways to compose tribal lays, and every single one of them is right.”

This is very progressive, of course, but it makes for an insuperable problem for the National Testing Consortia which are preparing to examine students prepared to meet the Common Core Standards.

Because students will have read and even, perhaps, written about and/or discussed many different examples of history and literature, the Common Core Assessments can not ask them about what they have learned, because they will have learned (or not) many different things from the sources they have been offered.

As a result, the Common Core National Assessment Consortia can only test students for their critical thinking, deeper reading, and other analytic “skills” which do not require that them to show that they actually know anything about anything. 

So, even though supporters of the Common Core often make the mistake of saying it raises standards for what students “know” and can do, it really says nothing about what they should know.
 
The application of the Common Core to American students is thus directed at enabling students to be ignoramuses who may be able to talk glibly about their instant critical analysis of selected test passages, but they will have enough knowledge to do them a bit of good in college or at any workplace. And, if E.D. Hirsch is right (and he is), they won’t be able to read much either.



---------------------------
“Teach with Examples”
Will Fitzhugh [founder]
The Concord Review [1987]
Ralph Waldo Emerson Prizes [1995]
National Writing Board [1998]
TCR Institute [2002]
730 Boston Post Road, Suite 24
Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776-3371 USA
978-443-0022; 800-331-5007
www.tcr.org; fitzhugh at tcr.org
Varsity Academics®
www.tcr.org/blog













-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/ohiogift/attachments/20140705/0aa72811/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pastedGraphic.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 89550 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/ohiogift/attachments/20140705/0aa72811/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/ohiogift/attachments/20140705/0aa72811/attachment-0001.html>