Spinoff educational standards. What do you think about common core?

[LNC]

The movement towards a national curriculum.

http://www.corestandards.org/

 

I had read a while ago that it was based on the work of E.D. Hirsch and core knowledge. But, my state has adopted it and is publishing info that the curriculum is less focused on memorizing names and dates and more focused on concepts.??? Sounds like a disaster... I want to read more about it though before I develop an opinion. Just wondered if anyone had thoughts about it...

[....]

I have several of his books and I like them. I've used them to homeschool. I think it would be a good, quality curriculum. There is a ps here that uses CK as their curriculum and they are rated "exceptional" or "exemplary" - I can't remember which one (and what's the difference).

 

I don't know if I would support some kind of "national curriculum" (I think that is CK's goal)...but one of the benefits of that would be if kids transfered to another school district, the new school is teaching the same curriculum...so there wouldn't be huge gaps from the kid changing schools.

 

I think it sounds great in theory, but it would all get messed up somehow. :tongue_smilie:

[LNC]

I have several of his books and I like them. I've used them to homeschool. I think it would be a good, quality curriculum. There is a ps here that uses CK as their curriculum and they are rated "exceptional" or "exemplary" - I can't remember which one (and what's the difference).

 

I don't know if I would support some kind of "national curriculum" (I think that is CK's goal)...but one of the benefits of that would be if kids transfered to another school district, the new school is teaching the same curriculum...so there wouldn't be huge gaps from the kid changing schools.

 

I think it sounds great in theory, but it would all get messed up somehow. :tongue_smilie:

 

I'm not sure it is actually based on Core Knowledge. I just thought I had read it somewhere. It doesn't seem to include all that Core Knowledge promotes that is for certain...

[EmilyinND]

but one of the benefits of that would be if kids transfered to another school district, the new school is teaching the same curriculum...so there wouldn't be huge gaps from the kid changing schools.

 

 

:iagree: I was one of those transferring kids growing up...sometimes it was great because I was way ahead, sometimes not so much...

 

But, I don't have enough information on common core to comment on that.

[SailorMom]

Being military - a common core curriculum throughout the US would be wonderful. Additionally - a standard school calendar would be great as well.

:D

[EmilyK]

I think the core knowledge scope and sequence (the one that's available on the website) would be wonderful if it were used more broadly. One of the big reasons we left public school (and before that, afterschooled) was the lack of coverage of things I think are key cultural knowledge (history, mythology, art, music, etc).

[ChristineW]

I really like it. The toddler has been sick so I'm operating on no sleep and can't articulate why but I thought this site was useful.

 

http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/myths-vs-facts

[DawnM]

This is the basis of NCLB. E.D. Hirsch worked with Pres. Bush to create more of a National Standards approach. There are still areas of weakness within it but the general concept is good.

 

However, I may not be the right person to answer as I don't think States' Rights should play into Education at all now that we are such a transient society.

[Parrothead]

:iagree: I was one of those transferring kids growing up...sometimes it was great because I was way ahead, sometimes not so much...

 

But, I don't have enough information on common core to comment on that.

:iagree: This was my experience as well. And it is one of the top 5 reasons we decided to homeschool in the first place.

 

But a common core across the board? I don't know. Who gets to decide? Our politicians are famous for doing what is best for them instead of what is best for the people (in this case the children).

 

Then there is the fact that there is never a one size fits all. Not even the so-called experts can agree on the phonics/whole word debate. The way it is now at least half the kids are getting properly taught to read.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

This is the basis of NCLB. E.D. Hirsch worked with Pres. Bush to create more of a National Standards approach. There are still areas of weakness within it but the general concept is good.

 

However, I may not be the right person to answer as I don't think States' Rights should play into Education at all now that we are such a transient society.

 

Are you in favor of a constitutional amendment, then?

[Sputterduck]

I think a national curriculum is a terrible idea.

 

One wrong curriculum choice and every child in the nation is crippled in that area. At least with every state choosing their own curriculum, there will be 50 fail safes. There will be many more minds going into choosing curriculum. If several states choose to go with a new curriculum that is horrible and several other states stick with the old time tested stuff, at least we are putting some functional people into the work force. A national curriculum makes it too easy to cripple everyone.

 

BTW, Mexico has a national curriculum. It's a disaster.

[justamouse]

I think a standard of curriculum is a bad idea, but I think that the *requirements* of graduating HS, with examples, left broad, would be excellent. that way the states could reach that goal however they saw fit.

 

There should not be a senior in HS graduating who reads below a 10th grade level (LD, aside). Certain benchmarks could be met, that way an A from Mississippi would be the same as an A from New Hampshire.

 

I wanted to take a two by four to my Dd17s guidance counselor when she was applying to PS, because I had no 'proof' of the work of her grades (all As) yet he could take a kid from Arizona and believe that THAT child's A was at the level of the school standards. Which we all know is bupkiss. :glare:

[Mom-ninja.]

I recently read Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know. I agree with much of the book.

[NicAnn]

Yes a national standard I can support. But not a set curriculum country wide.

[FlyingMOm]

I think a standard of curriculum is a bad idea, but I think that the *requirements* of graduating HS, with examples, left broad, would be excellent. that way the states could reach that goal however they saw fit.

 

 

But in our mobile society, how would that work?

 

As an example- We moved from NY to NC the summer between my 9th and 10th grade years. In NY, the big "grammar" year in English is in 10th grade. In NC, the big grammar year in English is in 9th grade. So I completely missed out on all but the most basic grammar instruction. Without a national core, how do you establish requirements for graduating for highschool without making it so broad as to be useless?

 

Our society is so mobile that I am in favor of some kind of national core standards- at the very least something that says certain subjects are taught in certain grades.

[Element]

Common Core is a set of standards, CK is a curriculum. The difference is explained a bit on the CK website:

Standards are not a Curriculum

The National Governors Association Center and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) partnered on a state-led initiative to develop common standards for mathematics and English language arts.

Forty states and the District of Columbia have adopted the

Common Core State Standards

to date.

 

The terms "standards" and "curriculum" are often—and erroneously—used as synonyms for one another. Standards define what children should know and be able to do at the end of each grade. A curriculum specifically describes what children need to learn to meet those standards.

 

The

Common Core State Standards

leaves curriculum decisions to the states, but the message is clear and unambiguous: there must be a curriculum and not just any curriculum will do. Successful implementation of the new standards depends on a

coherent, specific and content-rich curriculum

.

I think national standards are necessary... just as long as they don't try to impose it on homeschoolers ;).

 

ETA: To my knowledge, no one is suggesting implementing a national curriculum.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Element

[justamouse]

But in our mobile society, how would that work?

 

As an example- We moved from NY to NC the summer between my 9th and 10th grade years. In NY, the big "grammar" year in English is in 10th grade. In NC, the big grammar year in English is in 9th grade. So I completely missed out on all but the most basic grammar instruction. Without a national core, how do you establish requirements for graduating for highschool without making it so broad as to be useless?

 

Our society is so mobile that I am in favor of some kind of national core standards- at the very least something that says certain subjects are taught in certain grades.

 

I essentially don't disagree with a national core, but here's the thing--I don't think it's ever going to happen. That's waaay too much government intervention for some people to give it a pass.

 

I DO think that the standards could be met with free markets, where the children are given a voucher to go to any school they choose, thus shutting some down and making some an example and others would follow the model of the successful ones. And, if there was a move, such as yours, it would be up to the school to fill the gaps. But I wouldn't let my kids be a part of the system while the market adjusted itself. ;)

 

I have no idea. If it were up to me, I'd make a national core, but I'm not in charge. :D

[LNC]

It is confusing - why can't educators communicate clearly? The notion that they are eliminating the requirement to memorize names and dates in favor of general concepts is a red flag to me. What does that mean exactly? That doesn't fit the Core Knowedge sequesnce. Does anyone know if Common Core is really developed from Core Knowledge for sure?

[Tarreymere]

My biggest concern that is that any national standard at all is going to mean that there will be kids who, if the standard has any real substance, are NOT going to meet it. And there will be a huge outcry from some people who will argue that it isn't fair. But the point is that we can't just keep handing out diplomas to every child just so no one's feelings get hurt.

 

I have a stepson who is 'not bright'. Fairly assessed, he functions around a second to third grade level. He graduated last year from our local high school at the age of twenty with the same high school diploma that everyone else had. Is that fair? Sure he worked hard......but isn't a diploma supposed to mean that he can read, write, and do math up to a certain level? He can't and he never will, but he has a diploma anyway, sort of like getting a sticker for good behavior and hanging around for twelve years.

 

So, if we do decide to have actual standards for awarding diplomas, we will need a system of some kind in place for different levels of diplomas. And some kind of certificate of attendance or something for people like my son. And that is going to have to be okay.

[Ester Maria]

My biggest concern that is that any national standard at all is going to mean that there will be kids who, if the standard has any real substance, are NOT going to meet it. And there will be a huge outcry from some people who will argue that it isn't fair. But the point is that we can't just keep handing out diplomas to every child just so no one's feelings get hurt.

This is a problem.

 

Common standards should be such that an average child with an average effort gets an average grade, i.e. a C. It would take a HUGE, HUGE shift in the mentality which has been "adjusted for inflation" of grades in the past decades to allow for that correction and go back to normal, reasonable grades which actually mean something. The standards are modeled by the average typically, but the average meaning exactly what I wrote above - an average child should not be getting As as his default grades for a reasonable effort. And yes, it means that there are children who would never be promoted past certain stage. But it is what it is. Realistic.

 

I think a movement towards core standards in core areas is a very good idea, but unfortunately, I am far from sure it would ever be recognized and accepted as such. Either you are going to end up with standards vague enough to be manipulated at one's will, either it will not pass due to PC concerns.

 

I skimmed the link provided in the OP. Math is more concrete, but English is still quite vague in my eyes, and I am not sure I would agree that all of it is "as it should be" (frankly? some of the English language standards are what I encountered as ESL standards in some of those grades... it cannot possibly be that you are expecting of your children the level of literacy and grammatical distinction which is expected of children who never set foot in an anglophone country, these must be reconsidered or better exemplified and specified what is meant). However, as an *idea* itself that there should be some common ground rather than everyone doing their own thing, and some minimum ensured to all and clearly defined, I think it was about time.