Post by Chris_Wendt on Dec 17, 2013 6:44:50 GMT -5
This is well worth the read (link). Please don't just skim it.
I did not comment on Newsday dot com, but found some of the comments posted, revealing.
I KNOW that some features of the Common Core Curriculum are working, or seem to be. I also have been told that one significant feature of the CCC is a real problem.
What is working is the introduction of the both the Common Core Curriculum and the Common Core CONCEPT in the lowest grades, meaning, especially K-3 for the CONCEPT. Schools that seem to me to be doing this right have initiated the concept of 'rigor' all the way down into Kindergarten. Rigor includes homework. In the K-2 (Princeton Plan) elementary school in Bay Shore, full-day K includes one hour of homework plus twenty minutes of reading each school night. Imagine kindergartners developing regular library habits and study/practice skills after one semester of school. I have mentioned this before, about one mom who herself was educated in Finland, along with two of her commuter friends (all from a neighboring district), being favorably disposed to the Common Core Concept, the rigor part, in the lower grades...because this (rigor) is all their (3rd Grade) children have ever known in their school experience, and it (rigor) is now inculcated into their children's expectations of what school is (supposed to be) all about.
What is NOT working? I think this is a huge, potentially fatal problem for the CC Concept and Curriculum: the (rigorous) dependence of math success on reading ability. I listened to a number of third and fifth graders reading recently. It should be no surprise that children younger than ten have vastly differing reading abilities, some developmental, requiring the passage of time to improve, and others requiring supportive or therapeutic services to overcome impediments. Regardless of which is which for any particular child, those with inhibited or immature reading capabilities will not have an easy time with a math curriculum intrinsically linked to the ability to read well.
I made a passing reference to the Princeton Plan, above. Considering the many implications of the Common Core Concept and the Common Core Curriculum, having the Princeton Plan in a school district seems to be an almost essential ingredient to improving the rate of successful outcomes. For those not familiar with the concept, under a Princeton-type plan, fewer grade levels would be concentrated in the same building, with, for instance, one school housing K-2, and another school housing 3-5. With three schools, maybe it would be K-1, 2-3, and 4-5, or some modified version of that concept.
Please read the Newsday feature carefully.
Chris Wendt
I did not comment on Newsday dot com, but found some of the comments posted, revealing.
I KNOW that some features of the Common Core Curriculum are working, or seem to be. I also have been told that one significant feature of the CCC is a real problem.
What is working is the introduction of the both the Common Core Curriculum and the Common Core CONCEPT in the lowest grades, meaning, especially K-3 for the CONCEPT. Schools that seem to me to be doing this right have initiated the concept of 'rigor' all the way down into Kindergarten. Rigor includes homework. In the K-2 (Princeton Plan) elementary school in Bay Shore, full-day K includes one hour of homework plus twenty minutes of reading each school night. Imagine kindergartners developing regular library habits and study/practice skills after one semester of school. I have mentioned this before, about one mom who herself was educated in Finland, along with two of her commuter friends (all from a neighboring district), being favorably disposed to the Common Core Concept, the rigor part, in the lower grades...because this (rigor) is all their (3rd Grade) children have ever known in their school experience, and it (rigor) is now inculcated into their children's expectations of what school is (supposed to be) all about.
What is NOT working? I think this is a huge, potentially fatal problem for the CC Concept and Curriculum: the (rigorous) dependence of math success on reading ability. I listened to a number of third and fifth graders reading recently. It should be no surprise that children younger than ten have vastly differing reading abilities, some developmental, requiring the passage of time to improve, and others requiring supportive or therapeutic services to overcome impediments. Regardless of which is which for any particular child, those with inhibited or immature reading capabilities will not have an easy time with a math curriculum intrinsically linked to the ability to read well.
I made a passing reference to the Princeton Plan, above. Considering the many implications of the Common Core Concept and the Common Core Curriculum, having the Princeton Plan in a school district seems to be an almost essential ingredient to improving the rate of successful outcomes. For those not familiar with the concept, under a Princeton-type plan, fewer grade levels would be concentrated in the same building, with, for instance, one school housing K-2, and another school housing 3-5. With three schools, maybe it would be K-1, 2-3, and 4-5, or some modified version of that concept.
Please read the Newsday feature carefully.
Chris Wendt