IEW's fb post on Common Core

[dirty ethel rackham]

Did anyone see IEW's facebook post on Common Core?

 

Just in case you missed it, here is Andrew's take on the whole Common Core issue:

 

If anyone takes the time to actually read the Common Core standards for writing, they will realize that most of it is vague and non-specific, lacking concrete tasks and competences that will actually help develop basic skills.

 

Truly, a first grade writing standard should be something like this: "Student can copy short paragraphs of 3-5 sentences from poetry, scripture, or literature with accurate punctuation, capitalization, spelling, and formatting, with legible penmanship."

 

That might actually be a beneficial goal for 6-yr olds. But what do we find? Non-specific jargon like this:

 

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.1.1 Write opinion pieces in which they introduce the topic or name the book they are writing about, state an opinion, supply a reason for the opinion, and provide some sense of closure.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.1.2 Write informative/explanatory texts in which they name a topic, supply some facts about the topic, and provide some sense of closure.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.1.3 Write narratives in which they recount two or more appropriately sequenced events, include some details regarding what happened, use temporal words to signal event order, and provide some sense of closure.

 

Whoever wrote this has spent very little time nose-to-nose with first graders. But the strange thing is that the Grade 1 standards don't really sound much different from the Grade 4 standards:

 

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.4.1a Introduce a topic or text clearly, state an opinion, and create an organizational structure in which related ideas are grouped to support the writer’s purpose.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.4.1b Provide reasons that are supported by facts and details.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.4.1c Link opinion and reasons using words and phrases (e.g., for instance, in order to, in addition).

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.4.1d Provide a concluding statement or section related to the opinion presented.

 

Fortunately, we know that students who do IEW Structure and Style for a few years (whenever they start) come out qualitatively and quantitatively ahead of their peers at any grade level.

 

We are not playing the game that schools are forced to play "teach to the test"... but we do have a method that works, and if we re-word what we do to more closely fit the fuzzy vernacular of the Common Core initiative, homeschooling parents shouldn't for one second think that it means that we have changed what we do. We are just helping these desperate schools realize that our approach will indeed help them achieve their basic goals for competency in composition. We are trying to help the seemingly blind to see a slight bit of light.

 

So homeschoolers: IEW isn't either for or against the Common Core. In the big picture, it's probably irrelevant.

 

We are for helping all children learn to write and speak the English language more eloquently, and if we are to serve the hardworking school teachers in their efforts to nurture basic skills in their students, we may have to accommodate the verbiage that the schools are required to adopt. But it doesn't change anything about who we are and what we do.

 

Okie-dokie?

Andrew Pudewa

 

ETA: I didn't put this out there to advertise IEW, but to point out the mumbo jumbo that they call standards. I think even loosely following the WTM ideas out there would produce writers who can exceed these ridiculous standards.

[shanvan]

Excellent post! I've often made fun of educational jargon and rephrased some of our most mundane tasks to sound impressive. Unfortunately, I've seen many homeschool parents intimidated by the mumbo-jumbo just b/c it sounds professional. Ditto on being impressed by fads and trends in education b/c of fancy descriptions that in reality don't amount to much. I suppose this is one of the advantages of having taught in public schools. You've seen/heard it all before dressed up in fluffy language and it fails to impress or scare you. (Well, at least on good days...on the bad days many things scare me!)

[Nscribe]

TY for posting commentary/critique on the standards themselves.

[*Michelle*]

Reading those first grade standards made me think of this:

[SpecialClassical]

What really strikes me is the desire to have students proficient in sharing their opinion. Seems to me at those young ages children should be taught the mechanics of grammar in order to later express themselves when their brains are developed enough to support opinions logically. WTM, anyone?

[SpecialClassical]

Double post.

[Nscribe]

I read what he said as we are going to provide an ed-speak translation of our methods and processes that will help schools adopting our materials to document correlations.

[bethben]

Why don't we just teach 1st graders to write a thesis statement and back it up? That's what that 1st grade standard sounds like to me. I think about my current k'er and how she's just learning to read and write her letters. She's supposed to be able to go from having trouble just copying a sentence (which at this point she cant even read it all) to writing down an opinion and backing it up with details?!?! Yes, I can see some kids being able to do this, but some kids just won't be ready no matter how much you push them to be.

 

I remember 1st grade just learning how to read- which made k mostly a time to play and get used to school- maybe learn how to write your name/ know what the number 1 is...stuff like that. Just because we say 1st graders should be able to do xyz doesn't mean they can. Maybe this is why parental involvement is so important. The students just can't meet these standards themselves. They need a parental "stepstool" to get over that bar.

 

Beth

[SarahW]

I would have really appreciated his statement a lot more if he didn't use aggressive and negative language like "vague and non-specific," "lacking concrete tasks," "Non-specific jargon," "has spent very little time nose-to-nose with first graders," "the game that schools are forced to play," "fuzzy vernacular," "desperate schools," "the seemingly blind to see a slight bit of light."

 

That's all just over the top ridiculous.

 

Yes, it's vague. It's supposed to be vague. That's so teachers can apply the standards in any way/method/approach they want and will think work best for their class.

 

What does Anthony Pudewa want? For the big bad Federal Government to hand every teacher a set lesson plan?? A set curriculum??? Oh, what a howl that would produce!

 

Figure it out dude, why complain that something doesn't do what you don't want it to do anyways?

 

Or wait? Does he want a set curriculum, as long as it's IEW? It seems like it's the great savior of mankind, bringing light to the blind and all.

 

I don't know much about Anthony Pudewa or IEW, but I'm very not-impressed at the moment.

[elegantlion]

So homeschoolers: IEW isn't either for or against the Common Core. In the big picture, it's probably irrelevant.

 

We are for helping all children learn to write and speak the English language more eloquently, and if we are to serve the hardworking school teachers in their efforts to nurture basic skills in their students, we may have to accommodate the verbiage that the schools are required to adopt. But it doesn't change anything about who we are and what we do.

 

Okie-dokie?

Andrew Pudewa

 

ETA: I didn't put this out there to advertise IEW, but to point out the mumbo jumbo that they call standards. I think even loosely following the WTM ideas out there would produce writers who can exceed these ridiculous standards.

 

 

I would have really appreciated his statement a lot more if he didn't use aggressive and negative language like "vague and non-specific," "lacking concrete tasks," "Non-specific jargon," "has spent very little time nose-to-nose with first graders," "the game that schools are forced to play," "fuzzy vernacular," "desperate schools," "the seemingly blind to see a slight bit of light."

 

That's all just over the top ridiculous.

 

Yes, it's vague. It's supposed to be vague. That's so teachers can apply the standards in any way/method/approach they want and will think work best for their class.

 

What does Anthony Pudewa want? For the big bad Federal Government to hand every teacher a set lesson plan?? A set curriculum??? Oh, what a howl that would produce!

 

Figure it out dude, why complain that something doesn't do what you don't want it to do anyways?

 

Or wait? Does he want a set curriculum, as long as it's IEW? It seems like it's the great savior of mankind, bringing light to the blind and all.

 

I don't know much about Anthony Pudewa or IEW, but I'm very not-impressed at the moment.

 

Really, you find those words agressive and negative? And it's Andrew, not Anthony. Since this was posted on his facebook page, this commentary was meant for people who follow IEW. I am not one of them, I have never used an IEW in ten years of homeschooling. However, Mr. Pudewa has been a very diligent representative not just for homeschooling, but for education in general. From the representation I've seen of the man, he is not just out to "sell" IEW, although I'm glad he believes in the power of his product.

 

Many people on this board have successfully used IEW products for many years. If you will reread the comments from the original post, you can see that he is stating his position on CC, "It's probably irrelevant". It's not unusual for those who are considered experts in their fields, which Mr. Pudewa would be one, to be asked about their perspective of an issue. I'm sure he's been getting many questions about CC since there seems to be some confusion and ruffled feathers in the homeschooling community over it. He's not complaining, he's stating a position on his facebook page, totally different.

[dirty ethel rackham]

Well, I have read the standards and they are so vague that they are meaningless. What exactly is the difference between the 1st and 4th grade standards? How are they meaningful if there is almost no difference? Why have standards if they really don't mean anything? That is Andrew Pudewa's point. That is my point. After reading the common core standards, I have no idea what they mean (and I am not some rube with a 6th grade education, but have a bachelors in a STEM field and spent enought time in the teacher education program that I know how to read standards.)

 

My friend is a speech pathologist who works with kids on the spectrum. She has a couple of 11th graders on her case load who are barely verbal. But, she is forced to write the IEP goals according to state standards for 11th grade, even though it will be a miracle if these kids ever function at a kindergarten level. She does it; her jargoned-up IEP goals pass muster with the administration, which tells you how ridiculously vague the standards are. She usually has to spend at least an hour on the phone with parents explaining exactly what she means by her goals because of the way she is forced to write them.

 

Andrew Pudewa's proposed standard for first grade made sense ... it was specific enough to mean something but not so specific that it would dictate a specific curriculum ... (many, many ways to get to that standard). Plus, it was age-appropriate.

[5LittleMonkeys]

I would have really appreciated his statement a lot more if he didn't use aggressive and negative language like "vague and non-specific," "lacking concrete tasks," "Non-specific jargon," "has spent very little time nose-to-nose with first graders," "the game that schools are forced to play," "fuzzy vernacular," "desperate schools," "the seemingly blind to see a slight bit of light."

 

That's all just over the top ridiculous.

 

Yes, it's vague. It's supposed to be vague. That's so teachers can apply the standards in any way/method/approach they want and will think work best for their class.

 

What does Anthony Pudewa want? For the big bad Federal Government to hand every teacher a set lesson plan?? A set curriculum??? Oh, what a howl that would produce!

 

Figure it out dude, why complain that something doesn't do what you don't want it to do anyways?

 

Or wait? Does he want a set curriculum, as long as it's IEW? It seems like it's the great savior of mankind, bringing light to the blind and all.

 

I don't know much about Anthony Pudewa or IEW, but I'm very not-impressed at the moment.

 

If you are basing your opinion on ANDREW Peduwa based on this one article you are being a bit narrow minded. How about taking a little time to listen to some of his lectures or read some of his other articles before assuming that his main interest is selling IEW.

[SarahW]

Really, you find those words agressive and negative?

 

Of course I do.

 

And it's Andrew, not Anthony.

 

Whatever, I don't know the guy.

 

Since this was posted on his facebook page, this commentary was meant for people who follow IEW.

 

Facebook is public. Unless he makes it a private group anyone can read it.

 

Many people on this board have successfully used IEW products for many years.

 

Okay, whatever. But that's a logical fallacy. Doesn't change the fact that I find what he said ridiculous.

 

If you will reread the comments from the original post, you can see that he is stating his position on CC,

 

Yes, and his position is illogical.

 

"It's probably irrelevant". It's not unusual for those who are considered experts in their fields, which Mr. Pudewa would be one, to be asked about their perspective of an issue. I'm sure he's been getting many questions about CC since there seems to be some confusion and ruffled feathers in the homeschooling community over it. He's not complaining, he's stating a position on his facebook page, totally different.

 

So, because a lot of homeschool people think CC is the end of the world, he thinks it necessary to publicly poo-poo it and state all the reasons why his books will make all the kiddos who use his books vastly superior to all the kiddos being misled by all the poor blind people? That's not a perspective, that's rhetoric.

[TracyP]

I would have really appreciated his statement a lot more if he didn't use aggressive and negative language like "vague and non-specific," "lacking concrete tasks," "Non-specific jargon," "has spent very little time nose-to-nose with first graders," "the game that schools are forced to play," "fuzzy vernacular," "desperate schools," "the seemingly blind to see a slight bit of light."

 

That's all just over the top ridiculous.

 

Yes, it's vague. It's supposed to be vague. That's so teachers can apply the standards in any way/method/approach they want and will think work best for their class.

 

What does Anthony Pudewa want? For the big bad Federal Government to hand every teacher a set lesson plan?? A set curriculum??? Oh, what a howl that would produce!

 

Figure it out dude, why complain that something doesn't do what you don't want it to do anyways?

 

Or wait? Does he want a set curriculum, as long as it's IEW? It seems like it's the great savior of mankind, bringing light to the blind and all.

 

I don't know much about Anthony Pudewa or IEW, but I'm very not-impressed at the moment.

I think you are reading waaay too much into his words. I'm neutral on CC and know very little about Pudewa, but your response seems a bit over the top.

[5LittleMonkeys]

 

he thinks it necessary to publicly poo-poo it and state all the reasons why his books will make all the kiddos who use his books vastly superior to all the kiddos being misled by all the poor blind people?

 

I didn't take it that he is poo-pooing CC. He's simply saying, "Don't get worked up about having to change what you are doing to adhere to CC...simply re-word your transcripts to more closely match the jargon."

[SarahW]

Well, I have read the standards and they are so vague that they are meaningless. What exactly is the difference between the 1st and 4th grade standards? How are they meaningful if there is almost no difference? Why have standards if they really don't mean anything? That is Andrew Pudewa's point. That is my point. After reading the common core standards, I have no idea what they mean (and I am not some rube with a 6th grade education, but have a bachelors in a STEM field and spent enought time in the teacher education program that I know how to read standards.)

 

I understand the 1st grade standard quoted perfectly well. And I have absolutely no background in education. Maybe other parts or harder?? idk, but I don't see the problem.

 

My friend is a speech pathologist who works with kids on the spectrum. She has a couple of 11th graders on her case load who are barely verbal. But, she is forced to write the IEP goals according to state standards for 11th grade, even though it will be a miracle if these kids ever function at a kindergarten level. She does it; her jargoned-up IEP goals pass muster with the administration, which tells you how ridiculously vague the standards are. She usually has to spend at least an hour on the phone with parents explaining exactly what she means by her goals because of the way she is forced to write them.

 

11th graders who are "barely verbal" is not a problem caused by CC. And aren't IEP's meant to be technical and broken down into it's discrete parts to the student and parents?

 

Andrew Pudewa's proposed standard for first grade made sense ... it was specific enough to mean something but not so specific that it would dictate a specific curriculum ... (many, many ways to get to that standard). Plus, it was age-appropriate.

 

Other than the words "copy" and "3-5 sentences" it is not specific at all. The rules for proper capitalization, punctuation, and format between poetry, Scripture, and literature are varied, and can fall well outside the abilities of a 6yo to comprehend. In order to show the teacher what, exactly, in all that they are actually supposed to teach you would need to present a whole lesson plan or curriculum.

[*Lulu*]

>snip<

Yes, it's vague. It's supposed to be vague. That's so teachers can apply the standards in any way/method/approach they want and will think work best for their class.

 

What does Anthony Pudewa want? For the big bad Federal Government to hand every teacher a set lesson plan?? A set curriculum??? Oh, what a howl that would produce!

 

 

Well we should be hearing howling now then. In the state we currently live in I have friends and family who are teachers in two different districts and, while it is not coming from the Feds, the classroom teachers are having thier daily lesson plans dictated to them. The state says these LO's must be covered in week one, these in week two, and so on and so forth.

 

Going one step further, many of the new text books have teachers manuals that give a scripted classroom plan to the teacher right down to the instruction to the teacher to give the students x number of minutes on the practice problem. While I am sure these are considered suggestions (or were meant to be) they are being used verbatim by some teachers. In some schools locally the administration expects teachers not to deviate from the provided script and will mark the teachers who do down in thier yearly observations.

 

I do not believe CC will mandate this sort of lock step and dumbing down of the teaching profession, but I do believe that this will be the ultimate result in many areas of the country.

[*Lulu*]

Just to clarify, I do not have any problem with CC. I think, in theory, it is a good idea. I have, however, spent my entire life surrounded by educators and hearing the talk of how the rubber meets the road with policies and am skeptical of the implementation of this being positive across the board.

[kitten18]

I think you are reading waaay too much into his words. I'm neutral on CC and know very little about Pudewa, but your response seems a bit over the top.

 

That's EXACTLY what I was going to say. I have no strong feelings on CC, I've never listened to a Pudewa lecture or read one of his articles, and I don't use any IEW materials. I didn't see anything "aggressive" in his post.

[NASDAQ]

Has Mr. Pudewa ever read a curriculum before? This one is pretty standard. In fact, it's on the clearer side, I think.

 

A common practice for a given district or state is to provide some guideline examples of what work looks like for each standard.

 

I think that his suggestion for a first grade attainment would be considered pedagogically inappropriate by almost anyone working in the public schools. There is a focus on producing original writing at a younger age than home schoolers generally do. In fact, what he describes isn't even writing. It's copywork.