When the Common Core was first announced, I reviewed the reading/literature/grammar part of it because I wanted to see how different it was from what I had been teaching. Having started teaching in 1972, my first thought was how familiar the methodology looked. Discovery techniques, making connections, relying on skills rather than data memorization and the recommended reading lists were familiar as well. In fact, I was surprised by the copyright dates which made the selections seem dated.
Next, I looked at the sample anchor papers and that's when I went into full-on dismay mood. Just take a peek at the 10th grade writing sample and you'll see that it is formulaic, dull, limited in scope and a boon to teachers who wish to keep their students' writing mediocre. So non-educators - The Gates Foundation - got on a band wagon and it steam-rolled into another test measurement guided curriculum screw-up. In other words, the logarithm for producing the tests will determine the curriculum.
If the reading list had been more multi-cultural or showed reading selections that fostered a strong inter-disciplinary approach in high schools, I would have felt that it was indeed moving toward a 21st century model. I think we have to come to grips with the changing nature of our population and how best to serve the single-parent household. I believe that will only come if we extend teaming or outcome-based learning into high schools and continue to collaborate with corporations to insure our students are competitive. Many school systems are doing this, but students are still tracked because schedules can't be flexible - it is hard for AP students to get job skill certifications and equally hard for students in job skill certification programs to fit in AP classes. Virtual high schools have made this easier, but not every family can afford a computer.
So what do you think? How do you feel about test scores evaluating your worth as a teacher?
No comments:
Post a Comment