X Post: Academic standards announced

[Guest]

I saw this article in the New York Times this morning with links to the actual standards, grades K through 12. They really lay out in great detail the kinds of literary thinking/discussion/analysis that they want kids to do (in an ideal world) at different grade levels and I thought many people here would be interested.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/-6-03/ed...ndards.html?hp

 

I often have problems making good links to NYT articles for some reason, so if this doesn't work it's in today's paper on-line under Academic Standards Are Announced.

[elegantlion]

I couldn't get your link to work. Here's my try.

 

Here's a link to the standards themselves. http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards

[Guest]

I couldn't get your link to work. Here's my try.

 

Here's a link to the standards themselves. http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards

 

Thanks -- I don't know why I have trouble with the Times only. All other links I put in seem to work.

[FairProspects]

As usual, pie in the sky and developmentally inappropriate, at least from what I read of the K standards.

[Momof2kids]

As usual, pie in the sky and developmentally inappropriate, at least from what I read of the K standards.

 

 

Whew! I was hoping someone would say that!

[Michelle in AL]

:iagree: For the high school English standards/expectations. I doubt many schools, if any are writing/anlayzing literature at this level. I'd be surprised if many college students are reaching these standards. I do appreciate something to aim towards.

[MommyThrice]

Wow. The group that prepare this has WAY too much time on their hands. I wonder if they have time to actually read literature? :glare:

[JennW in SoCal]

I'm not sure I understand everyone's reactions here. These are broad (and from what little I've read of them so far) reasonable standards and to me are no different from what the WTM aims for. I find most of what people on the K-8 board doing for kindergarten to be developmentally inappropriate, for instance, so a standard of having a 5 year old, with prompting, ask and answer questions about key details in a story doesn't seem out of line.

 

Each and every state has scope and sequence standards for each subject at each grade. This is an attempt to start making standards more uniform across the country, without dictating the how and what of teaching.

 

Some states, like California, have ridiculously detailed content standards. There is no wiggle room for how to reach those standards, no choices an individual public school or individual teacher can make about when one detail or another is taught. Textbooks are uniform statewide, and as it is such a big state, what California decides is important for 8th grade Social Studies text is what a large swathe of the country gets in its textbooks. Texas is equally influential. The standards driving the content of those texts are full of trivial points decided on by political groups with buzz phrases like "critical thinking" and "cultural diversity" thrown in.

 

So, I like these broad standards much better than the nit-picky standards I find in my own state. Not that they influence what I do at home, but I have looked them up from time to time when planning, and they are the bane of our existence every testing cycle.

[Guest]

Like JennW, I also find these standards not all that different from the idealized rigor of TWTM, although different in emphasis. Like TWTM, no one is going to try to cover them all; they are an ideal program meant to show the realm of the possible and the progression of complexity just TWTM does.

 

I thought the specific elements listed under literary analysis and writing might give people ideas for paper topics, as I see lots of questions about how to find a topic for a thesis statement or what kids should/could possibly be writing about. I don't take any of them as divine writ, but as jumping off points or directions to aim for at certain times in my daughter's education.

[FairProspects]

I'm not sure I understand everyone's reactions here. These are broad (and from what little I've read of them so far) reasonable standards and to me are no different from what the WTM aims for. I find most of what people on the K-8 board doing for kindergarten to be developmentally inappropriate, for instance, so a standard of having a 5 year old, with prompting, ask and answer questions about key details in a story doesn't seem out of line.

 

Each and every state has scope and sequence standards for each subject at each grade. This is an attempt to start making standards more uniform across the country, without dictating the how and what of teaching.

 

Some states, like California, have ridiculously detailed content standards. There is no wiggle room for how to reach those standards, no choices an individual public school or individual teacher can make about when one detail or another is taught. Textbooks are uniform statewide, and as it is such a big state, what California decides is important for 8th grade Social Studies text is what a large swathe of the country gets in its textbooks. Texas is equally influential. The standards driving the content of those texts are full of trivial points decided on by political groups with buzz phrases like "critical thinking" and "cultural diversity" thrown in.

 

So, I like these broad standards much better than the nit-picky standards I find in my own state. Not that they influence what I do at home, but I have looked them up from time to time when planning, and they are the bane of our existence every testing cycle.

 

FWIW, I don't like our state standards either. However, most of the literature standards I read sounded like they want literary analysis and lengthy narrations from K'ers, something that is hard even for 1st and 2nd graders.

 

No way could ds compare and constrast the experiences and adventures of characters in familiar stories. I'm not even sure he could identify the main character or plot of a story. He definitely couldn't retell a whole story. These are pre-writing skills that take time to develop, and expecting them from all 5 y.o.s I think is too ambitious, especially given that most of the K year is spent learning to decode letters and blends. You have to learn to walk before you can run and there are only so many brain cells to go around, particularly when they are little!

[MommyThrice]

I just find it amazing that our forefathers were well-educated without these long, detailed lists of what they should be doing at each stage. They were pursuing an education, not checking off boxes.

[Nan in Mass]

Yes, but they didn't try to educate everyone to a fairly high level. They didn't try to get everyone through calculus in high school. There was less science to learn. The ones who couldn't figure out Shakespeare dropped out of school.

-Nan

[LynnG in Arizona]

I'm glad that you posted this! I just saw the article recently in my paper, and have been pondering it ever since.

 

So I'm not the only one that wonders at the attainability of the kindergarten standards? It's ironic, because I consider myself to be a supporter of rigorous academic standards. But I just wonder if it's even developmentally appropriate for the majority of kindergarteners to be doing this?

 

This ties in to what I'm hearing from neighborhood parents regarding our nearby elementary school. They're telling me that the kids in kindergarten are expected to read by about Christmas, and are expected to write "short paragraphs" by the end of the year. Now that I've heard the exact same story from several families, I'm starting to believe them. I just can't picture *most* k'ers being able to do that.

 

No wonder so many kindergarten parents are "red-shirting" their students!

 

Come to think of it, I've heard similar descriptions of super-academic kindergartens from all over the country in recent years - from military friends and acquaintances. Apparently, kindergarten really is the new first grade. :001_huh:

 

The 8th grade math standards seem a little over-reaching as well. Isn't there something about how the student should be able to hear a function described and then graph it? (ie, parabolas vs. lines, etc.) I was a *really* strong math student back in my day, and I wouldn't have been able to do that until Algebra II, frankly.

 

So the bigger question is . . . do these new standards represent what they want most students to be able to attain? Or do they represent only an idealized version of what the top students from a given grade will be able to do?

[Heather in WI]

I'm not sure I understand everyone's reactions here. These are broad (and from what little I've read of them so far) reasonable standards and to me are no different from what the WTM aims for.

 

 

:iagree: I browsed it for a few minutes and didn't see anything I would consider developmentally inappropriate.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Heather in WI

[Capt_Uhura]

Writing Grade 1: Write opinion pieces in which they introduce the 1. topic or name the book they are writing about, state an opinion, supply a reason for the opinion, and provide some sense of closure.

 

I figure this really means "I read The Blue Dog. I liked the book cause the dog is funny. You should read this book."

 

I would think that is middle of the road for 1st graders? Some will write a lot more (those girls!) and some will write less.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Yes, but they didn't try to educate everyone to a fairly high level. They didn't try to get everyone through calculus in high school. There was less science to learn. The ones who couldn't figure out Shakespeare dropped out of school.

-Nan

 

Depending on where you lived and the time period you are examining, there were fairly high literacy rates. Math might not have involved calculus for all, but it also didn't involve calculators and house and barn construction would involve quite a bit of practical engineering.

 

And I always wonder about the less science bit. Sure they didn't know about DNA or the extravaganza of animals around the world. But they were far more likely to be able to idenify all the plants and animals around them, know what their habits were and know a fair amount of internal biology from skinning, gutting and eating them.

 

I had a high schooler tell me recently how much harder school is now than it used to be. It was all I could do not to laugh at him out loud. I think we talk a good game, but don't really have superior results than a hundred years ago.

[Nan in Mass]

Yes, but that bio you are talking about didn't have to be taught in school. I have old textbooks and know how much more they contained in some subjects, but my point is that they now have to teach more subjects to all (or at least almost all) of the population. Other issues: Teachers are kinder and gentler now. Perhaps some children learned more when it was beaten and ridiculed into them, but for others, this was very damaging. Sometimes the education was mostly rote and the student was left to learn thinking skills from real life. I'm not sure that would work well now-a-days. And sometimes the education was so dull that it was meaningless. I'm not saying our system now does not have problems, and that I don't fear for the state of world with modern education what it is. I definately think the old system had major problems, too, ones that we would do well to consider. A more European system based on tracking and testing is not ideal, either. I'm not sure there is a good solution to the problem of mass education. Better teacher training might be a start, though, and clear, not too ambitious, not everything-but-the-kitchen-sink goals. I think we as homeschoolers are able to idealize it, somewhat, because we are able to take the "mass" part out and as parents we have the ability to make our children work hard. Are we discussing whether people knew more back then or are we discussing whether schools taught more back then? And I think it makes a difference when "then" is?

-Nan

[SusanAR]

Writing Grade 1: Write opinion pieces in which they introduce the 1. topic or name the book they are writing about, state an opinion, supply a reason for the opinion, and provide some sense of closure.

 

I figure this really means "I read The Blue Dog. I liked the book cause the dog is funny. You should read this book."

 

I would think that is middle of the road for 1st graders? Some will write a lot more (those girls!) and some will write less.

 

:lol::lol::lol: well, I guess that meets the standaard, doesn't it?

[StartingOver]

These are broad (and from what little I've read of them so far) reasonable standards and to me are no different from what the WTM aims for.

 

Like JennW, I also find these standards not all that different from the idealized rigor of TWTM, although different in emphasis.

 

:iagree: I browsed it for a few minutes and didn't see anything I would consider developmentally inappropriate.

 

:iagree: I was expecting to be against the standards. But I have no issue with them at all. I would have no issue meeting them.