I’m not going to argue in favor of the Common Core. I realize there are concerns, the primary one being national vs. local government control. But, PLEASE, if you want to blog about how terrible the Common Core is, PLEASE (did I already say that?) do not blow the suggested reading list out of proportion—or your other arguments will lose some credibility with me.
Do not write:
Non-fiction manuals are now required to compose 70% of your child’s “literature” by the time they graduate.
And then list the following books:
Petroski, Henry. “The Evolution of the Grocery Bag.”
California Invasive Plant Council. Invasive Plant Inventory
Kurlansky, Mark. Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Department of Energy. Recommended Levels of Insulation
FedViews by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
Calishain, Tara, and Rael Dornfest. Google Hacks: Tips & Tools for Smarter Searching, 2nd Edition
Fischetti, Mark. “Working Knowledge: Electronic Stability Control.”
U.S. General Services Administration. Executive Order 13423: Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management
Gawande, Atul. “The Cost Conundrum: Health Care Costs in McAllen, Texas.”
Even that list isn’t as terrible as it might seem at first glance. If Kurlansky’s book Salt: A World History is any indication (I loved it), Cod: A Biography of the Fish that Changed the World is likely an engaging, curious look at world history through the odd (but fascinating) lens of cod. I wouldn’t be surprised if Petroski’s The Evolution of Useful Things: How Everyday Artifacts-From Forks and Pins to Paper Clips and Zippers-Came to be as They are is just as fascinating. In fact, these are just the sort of “living” narratives I’d choose as reading material for my high school students—the type of books that awaken a certain curiosity and wonder in students. Certainly, they couldn’t be more dry than a high school science text book.
Let’s pick apart the introductory statement, and let’s start with the choice of the word “manual.” According to that statement, the following books would be considered manuals:
A Weed Is a Flower: The Life of George Washington Carver by Aliki (lovely picture book)
The Year At Maple Hill Farm by the Provensens (one of my favorite picture books by two of my favorite writers/illustrators)
A Medieval Feast by Aliki (I just purchased this one for our collection)
Lincoln, A Photobiography (fantastic book)
A Drop Of Water: A Book of Science and Wonder (just added it to my Amazon cart)
What the World Eats (fascinating)
A History of US by Joy Hakim (“living” narrative history)
John Adams. “Letter on Thomas Jefferson”
Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass an American Slave (autobiography)
Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat (speech by Winston Churchill)
Travels with Charley in Search of America by John Steinbeck
The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
The Number Devil: A Mathematical Adventure (um, didn’t I just recommend that one for “living” math studies?)
The Story of Art by Gombrich
The Great Composers: An Illustrated Guide to the Lives, Key Works and Influences of Over 120 Renowned Composers
Euclid's Elements
The Story of Science by Joy Hakim (love!)
”Classifying the Stars” by Annie J. Cannon (we just read a wonderful picture book about this astronomer)
Circumference: Eratosthenes and the Ancient Quest to Measure the Globe
1776 by David McCullough
Speeches by Washington, Lincoln, Patrick Henry, Roosevelt, Martin Luther King Jr…
Maya Angelou
Elie Wiesel
Thomas Paine
Alexis de Tocqueville…
Where should I stop? That reads like a curricula of “living” books for a rich, integrated classical education. A “Great Books” list for high school humane letters classes contains many such non-fiction selections.
But maybe I don’t get it.
Let’s pick apart the second half of the above introductory statement: 70% of your child’s “literature.” This phrase seems to imply that non-fiction will replace 70% of the literature being read in Lit class. The above titles represent fine arts, history, geography, social studies, math, and science. I, for one, think that reading excellent books should not be isolated as a “literature class activity.” Absolutely, these living books and documents should be integrated throughout the curriculum in all subjects. And if a school fails to do so, putting all the pressure and expectations on their literature teachers, that seems (to me) to be a failure at a local level.
“But where are the literature suggestions?” you may be asking. You can check out for yourself the suggested texts of the Common Core. But here is a sample of authors:
Arnold Lobel, Tomie dePaola, Esther Averill, Christina Rosetti, Langston Hughes, A.A. Milne, Laura Ingalls Wilder, Edward Lear, William Steig, Cynthia Rylant, Robert Frost, Rudyard Kipling, James Thurber, Allen Say, Antoine de Saint Exupery, William Blake, Carl Sandburg, Mark Twain, Madeleine L’Engle, Rosemary Sutcliff, Walt Whitman, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Homer, Ovid, Voltaire, O’Henry, Bradbury, Harper Lee, Sophocles, Shakespeare, John Donne, Chaucer, Austen, Poe, Bronte, Fitzgerald, Hemmingway, Morrison, Melville, Chekhov…
Swoon.
Honestly, for all of you who enjoy my book lists and suggestions, just print off the suggested texts of the Common Core and go to the library. That’s what we do here at Mt. Hope. Read good books. About everything.
Rant over.
(No, I don’t want to debate Common Core. I just don’t want to see another blog post listing the three scientific manuals from a list of a few hundred reading selections.)
Hear, hear! The hysteria about the common core has been crazy...especially among homeschoolers, the community aftected least by it!
ReplyDeleteAll I can say is thank you! I love your lists and we have found so many new additions to our own library. Today's rant list added 6 more to my cart on Amazon. So, thank you!
ReplyDeleteOh, thank you for this post. I completely agree. The list is amazing. Actually, when I looked through the entire Core K-12 list, I was very impressed. Many of the books we have already covered. I was fascinated by "Cod: The Biography of the Fish that Changed the Word," and it was wonderful. I think I might add it to our own World History studies. "Salt," is also on my to-read list. :)
ReplyDeleteI recently read "Things Fall Apart," by Achebe because of the Common Core list, and have a few others sitting on my night table, waiting. Delicious. :)
We, many of us, already meet those Common Core standards. I don't know why we are in a big tizzy? Well, I do have one that is slower at processing, so fitting in all those books is not likely. I think, too, that many forget that the list is a suggestion, and that the non-fiction is spread over all subjects, not just literature and English.
Thank you for this. Everything I have read about the Common Core made me believe the sky is falling. You reminded me that it is not:)
ReplyDeletehere here to the comments.....just yesterday I was sucked into videos and posts about it and how as previous comments said "the sky is falling!!" I know you dont and wont want get into it....but I admit I'd love to hear your thoughts :)
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for this - our public school (& school district) is changing to common core with the start of the new school year in August. Since I enjoy your blog so very much and read it regularly I found this post delightful and will now proceed 'onward' with delving a bit more into 'what it is' exactly since your post has now REALLY motivated me.
ReplyDeleteHeidi, I will leave it up to your discretion as to whether or not you publish this comment, but I did want to get a chance to explain the data that I cited in my article. I was surprised that you didn't link to my article, in order that your readers could get the entire information in context. If they would like to do so, I will link to it at the bottom of this post. Secondly, in seeing that your article was aimed at debunking my claims about the literature standards, I was surprised to find that you didn't first do your own research and then comment on my post with your questions or concerns - which I could have answered and which others have done. To address some of these concerns in your post: the issue that 70% of the texts that students read will be nonfiction is not a mis-statement, and contrary to what you said, YES, that 70% WILL be in their Eng/LA classes. It is not spread out over history, science, etc, and there in lies one of my biggest frustrations with Common Core. You can find proof of that here, at the CCSS website: http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/introduction/key-design-consideration
ReplyDeleteThe writers of CCSS believe that students won't be dealing with non-fiction in their careers post-graduation, and so it's most important to teach them how to analyze non-fiction. Their words, not mine, and you can find it in the aforementioned article. Secondly, I did describe them as "manuals" first off because many of them are, and secondly because at the root of the choosing of these articles, there is the underlying agenda that they are being used in the same way as manuals: how to...fill in the bank: "be more green", "protect the environment", "understand the place of the Fed in govn't policy". And the list goes on. Either way, these works are being equated with the literary genius of Shakespeare and the like, which I would think would bother you. In addition, the book list that you cited with the varying authors is absolutely correct and full of rich texts and amazing living stories, many of which I have and will use. The point is, those are present, but in segmented chunks. Students will NOT be reading the entirety of many of those, just selected passages - because 70% of the content of LITERATURE classes will be non-fiction by 12th grade - and therefore it is categorically impossible to read ALL of those cited works in their entirety. You're welcome to state things firmly and think I'm crazy, but if you read the articles published by the CCSS and by parents who have looked in to it, you'll see that what I'm citing is true. I KNOW that CCSS can trigger an emotional response in many people, and I can tell it struck a chord with you. However, please, look into the FACTUAL literature standards of CCSS before you discount the entire thing and just assume that CCSS has your students best interest at heart. If you have further questions I would be more than open to discussing this, but please look over the FULL CCSS implementation protocols. As a fellow lover of literature, it makes me tremble to see what a shallow level of exposure our students will receive. For additional information, here is another excellent blog post on the topic: http://funnymonkey.com/common-core-70-percent-nonfiction
The link to my article that you referenced in part can be read here, and it contains all the supporting citations and additional articles for information on this subject: http://www.cheekybumsblog.com/2013/03/how-does-the-common-core-affect-homeschoolers-answers-to-our-most-frequently-asked-questions/
Kelsi~ I have no problems publishing your comment. And I did not link your blog because yours was one of *many* that have said essentially the same thing and picked out those same few texts for listing as a sample of the CC *suggested* reading list. I read the link that you shared in your comment, and I must be missing something because I cannot find anywhere where it says that 70% of *Literature class* reading must be non-fiction. Could you please provide those quotes (and additional links)? This is what I did read:
ReplyDelete"Because the ELA classroom must focus on literature (stories, drama, and poetry) as well as literary nonfiction, a great deal of informational reading in grades 6–12 must take place in other classes if the NAEP assessment framework is to be matched instructionally." and "The grades 6–12 standards are divided into two sections, one for ELA and the other for history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. This division reflects the unique, time-honored place of ELA teachers in developing students’ literacy skills while at the same time recognizing that teachers in other areas must have a role in this development as well."
It does state that there will be increased attention to literary non-fiction (which include texts by Thoreau, Emerson, Chesterton, Orwell, Thomas Jefferson, Tomas Paine, Elie Wiesel, Abraham Lincoln, and Maya Angelou... among others--none of which appear on your short list of non-fiction "manuals"), but I am missing the quote where it says that Literature classes must contain 70% non-fiction (which would mean that either science texts must be 30% fiction, or the over-all total would be skewed).
You also state in your comment that you called them manuals because "many of them are." I'm curious as to what other of the more than 200 suggested texts you consider to be manuals.
Also, to speak to two other concerns in your post that you linked:
ReplyDelete"Eventually, CC-educated students will be asked to verbally explain their method for solving the problem, regardless of whether or not the answer was correct. If your homeschooled Senior can successfully complete complex mathematical algorithms but he is unable to explain how he got his answer, he will not pass."
This is, in Classical education, what would be called the rhetoric level of a subject, or the level of mastery. If a student cannot explain how and why, the skill is not mastered (correct answers with only a surface understanding of the process would be considered more of a dialectic/logic stage ability). According to CC standards, are students *only* scored according to process (regardless of whether the answer is correct) or are both the process and answer scored? And what are they passing? It was unclear in your post.
And, I hesitate to commit such heresy, but I am not quite as convinced that the Romeike case heralds the end of homeschooling rights as we (have never?) know(n) them. It is difficult to find balanced posts (without emotions and fear running high, or statements taken out of context) on the subject, but this is one post highlighting some thoughts on the other side of the coin (the links at the end of her post are also interesting): http://alasandras.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-romeikes-should-be-deported.html
Again, as I stated in my original post, I am not arguing in favor of the Common Core. I would just like to see calm, balanced, un-exaggerated posts on the subject.
Heidi - so much to answer in just a blog post comment and it's getting late, so I may not address it all right now, but I'd at least like to chime in with a few things. First, to clear up the use of the word "manual" in my article - it seems to have caused some confusion in the way that I used it and I will most likely revise my post to say "non-fiction/manuals". I had several other people ask me, and as I explained, for a number of the articles, there are clear political agendas that don't represent both sides in a non-partisan way, and as I see them being used, they are forming a "how to" mentality in their very nature. It makes sense to me and in the way I intended to use it, but as it has caused some confusion, I'll most likely add in the "/" to make it read with less ambiguity. Second, as for the article, the title states that it is: "English Language Arts Standards » Introduction » Key Design Consideration". So we're talking about ALL Literature as it applies across the board in the article directly from CCSS. However, we have to be able to take it a step further and do the math when it comes to reality. For example, "If Tiffany (M. Ed. cited later in this blog post from where I got this) really thinks the 30/70 split means what she thinks it does, ask her how the English teacher can take care of 30% literary reading on a weekly basis (or daily basis) when she only teaches English 20- 25% of the school day or week. Where is more literary reading to be done to get kids up to the 30% Tiffany thinks kids should be doing? What other classes will literary reading be done in, if 30% of what kids read every day or every week must be literary and the English teacher is only 1 of 5 subject teachers?
ReplyDelete–Dr. Sandra Stotsky (from here: http://whatiscommoncore.wordpress.com/tag/70/)
Also, here is an EXCELLENT article truly breaking down the ABILITY that ELA teachers will have to truly teach great literature. it explains that the reading lists that we adore in Appen. B from CCSS are only "exemplar titles" as you'll see in the appendix, and not the actual reading list. Just a list from which to draw suggestions, and only in segments, as I mentioned before. In 180 (give or take) school days, it's impossible to cover even a portion of these and do them justice, given the high amount of req. non-fiction works. I started to quote several parts of this article, but it is extremely thorough and realistic - that the 70/30 split and the 50/50 split that is required in Eng. will translate (in reality) into the 70/30 split. (I hope that all made sense...!) here's the article: http://hoosiersagainstcommoncore.com/literature-or-technical-manuals-who-should-be-teaching-what-where-and-why/
Also, the portion that you quoted cited that the NAEP is the standard that we are trying to achieve (in effect) but at the NAEP site, it says: "The achievement levels should continue to be interpreted and used with caution." - because they are still not fool-proof or an adequate measuring stick (from here: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/achlevdev.asp)
And the last thing to address tonight, (although I do want to finish our conversation!) is this: (and will be one of my forthcoming blog posts) As we nit pick the fine (and not so fine) points of CCSS, we're arguing the symptoms and forgetting the disease. Despite how it may come across, I really do understand your "rant" about my post and your hesitation in discounting the CCSS altogether. However, we're arguing the details. The REAL issue is: big government control or state/local control. The CSS says taht teachers will have the choice on how to implement that material, so it's still at the State level. However, all that translates into is, as the teacher, do you want to present the material by means of a lecture, handout or video. The "state level control" is all smoke in mirrors and the CCSS is a direct violation of the 10th Amendment. plain and simple. My husband and I were talking about this, and I realized that EVEN IF the CCSS was THE most incredible, Bible based curriculum and encompassed everything I ever wanted my child to learn and was the ideal in every way, I'd still be opposed to it. It's not the curriculum/execution that I loathe. The MAIN reason I opposed the CCSS is because it's big government, over riding the Constitution, taking the power from the States, and doing so with almost no outside intervention or oversight. No one ever wants to talk politics, but we don't have that luxury anymore. CCSS is at it's very foundation, a political errosion of our rights to teach our children what we want at the STATE level. it's absurd to think that ALL children should be at the same level at the same time (no matter WHAT curriculum they're using) As a mom of three, I can tell you that my 3 children will NEVER be at the same developmental level at various grades and ages. So not only is the foundation of CCSS unconstitutional, but the very ideology is flawed. So I guess that's where I'm leaving it tonight. I do want to address the question you raised about the math standards/testing, etc, but beyond that...we may NEVER agree on what curriculum is the best or what reading list is most valuable (although I think we agree more than you may think). All details aside, we will ALWAYS be arguing this platform from 2 different positions and angles if you are of the persuasion that the government SHOULD regulate education. I know you don't want to debate CCSS (and I don't blame you!!) so where ever you stand, I didn't come here to change your mind. I still love your blog, your adorable kids and your wonderful resources, and will continue to read. However, I've clearly stated where I stand, but I'm unclear as to what approach you're taking to the overall ideology of CCSS, because that makes a huge difference in HOW and to what length we continue this conversation. I hope there are no hard feelings and if this comes off as defensive, please know that I only want to clarify what you assumed from the readings and I want NOTHING MORE than to be wrong. However, from the articles I'm reading and the first hand accounts of things happening here in Indiana (which has peitioned the state and we were the first state of the 45 that adopted CCSS to back out and put a pause on it's implementation because so little is known about it's efficacy/practices), I tremble at the laughable and border-line obscene standards that are headed our way. Again, please don't take this conversation personally - I have COMPLETE respect for you as a fellow educator and homeschool mom, but I do want to flesh out the details.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the discussion, Kelsi.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that there are serious concerns about the government over-stepping its bounds. I think that is why I feel that the conversation and debate should stick to the facts about that particular aspect. If we should argue the disease rather than the symptoms, then I am not sure why the majority of anti-CC posts (that I have read) are focusing on a (blown out of proportion) list of symptoms to get people up in arms. I suppose that is my original point.
Again, about the 30/70 split. The link you gave says this: "Is it logical to say that writing and literature will be effectively taught by all subject teachers? All teachers do not have adequate training in grammatical, literary and editing background teach writing and literature...Does that make sense? Can you imagine P.E. teachers, math teachers, and woodworking teachers effectively sharing the burden of teaching reading and writing skills, including literature and informational texts?"
This just strengthens my point with a little exaggeration (woodworking and P.E. teachers teaching writing?) and fuzzy math. Consider the *core academic* subjects of science/technology, math, history/social studies, and English Language Arts. It makes absolute sense that ELA could focus on 30% of the fiction and a small portion of the non-fiction, with the other disciplines sharing the remaining non-fiction. Let's say ELA shoulders 40% of the texts (which is reasonable considering that is the bulk of content and skills for ELA), history/social studies takes on 30-35% (reasonable considering the bulk of history in high school should be studied using source documents and living non-fiction narratives such as those listed as suggested CC texts, and classes should include a great deal of writing about history), science/technology picking up 15-20% (less due to more time spent on labs and such), and math bringing up the rear with the remaining 10%. Students should already be reading textbooks and writing in these classes, so it isn't unreasonable for them to replace some of the textbooks with source documents and living narratives. I simply don't understand how this is must be an all or perfectly even proposition: that ELA would shoulder either *all* of the reading requirements, or that it would have to be perfectly, evenly distributed across classes. That doesn't make any sense to me.
*Absolutely* a history teacher at the high school level should be capable of leading his or her students through source documents or narratives and related writing assignments. *Absolutely* a science teacher at the high school level should be capable of teaching students how to read and comprehend technical and scientific texts and synthesizing scientific information in writing. Scientists need to be capable of communicating their research in writing, and the average citizen should be able to read reports and manuals. *Absolutely* a math teacher at the high school level should be capable of leading his or her students through a text such as Euclid's Elements or Life by the Numbers.
With the reading spread across the core disciplines, I fail to understand how ELA teachers will suddenly be able to cover only short excerpts of these works of literature if they are currently teaching full texts, unless the suggested literature is much *more* comprehensive than what is currently being attempted.
And this is where I stand: I don't want to debate the disease (and said as much in my original post). And part of the reason I don't want to debate the disease is because I have not read a single logical, calm, balanced, accurate post on the subject. I'm simply pointing out the common exaggeration (for the purpose of emotional response) I've seen in every blog post I've read about CC. It was starting to make me twitch. ;)
"And part of the reason I don't want to debate the disease is because I have not read a single logical, calm, balanced, accurate post on the subject. " point taken. However, I fail to see where this prevents you from doing your own research and formulating a response and position. You're well versed in literature and history, and you know that by not speaking, you speak and not standing you stand.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I agree that there are some poor commentaries on CCSS on both sides. However, as long as they're well written and documented, I see their emotional involvement as adding credence to their passion, not detracting from their intelligence - that's the beauty of writing and blogging. We're talking about our children and the future of our country, and if you disagree with THAT, then I'm afraid we're at an impasse. As long as those articles have their sources cited (as I DO) then I can at least respect their intention to study the subject and come to their own conclusion. I did just that - by reading government reports and documents directly from the Dept. of Ed. If I encountered a mother who had truly done her research directly from the sources on CCSS and was NOT emotional about the subject, that would trigger huge red flags for me. We're talking about our children and their education. I fail to see where using persuasive writing to rouse people out of sleep and into action is a negative thing, unless we are diametrically opposed on the overall foundation of CCSS - big vs. small government, and our disagreement is political in nature and not simply your critique of my writing style. I understand that that is not the theme or goal of your blog (and that's fine), but it is of mine, so we are talking about 2 completely different blogging genres, if you will. To be fair, I don't happen to see any posts that you've done citing blog posts that are in favor of CCSS that are "exaggerations" and tearing them apart.
To comment on your summary of what I previously posted, I would disagree. I don't see how this article reinforces your argument at all. In fact, the entire post is saying that, yes, ELA teachers can cover that 30%, but they still have to reinforce a 50/50 rule, at minimum. From what I gather, you're assuming that the world will operate exactly as written and that teachers aren't teaching to the test. Maybe you have a great school district, but I don't. I fail to see how your assumptions will hold true across the nation. OF COURSE we want teachers of other subjects to engage in literary dissections of works in their field, but that's not reality, nor what they were trained for or accustomed to doing. The reality is, No Child Left Behind paved the way for a dumbing down of all subjects and the teachers are forced to teach to the test. They are bound to their respective text books and I'd be shocked to see that improving anytime in the near future, esp if CCSS is implemented. As much as "emotional" writings lead you to discount the entire argument, expositions based on optimistic assumptions deter me. I don't see why persuasive pieces like mine are suddenly attack worthy, especially when all of my sources are cited. I know that you read my article, but did you read the cited sources, because for the most part, all of the questions that you are asking are addressed in the links on my articles? It's fruitless for me to continue to summarize them here, when they're readily available. You're welcome to argue with the reporters, senators and professors that ARE opposed to CCSS and of whom I've shared. If nothing else I wanted your readers to know the entire context of my article that you quoted and didn't link.
Again, this is your blog and you are more than welcome to be for or against CCSS - it's a pretty black and white issue. As this is your blog, you're welcome to have the last word, but as we seem to be butting heads on the facts, I'm not completely sure where to go from here when your position is purposefully ambiguous and we seem to be reading the same articles but coming to different conclusions. Without you saying what your position is, I can't see where we can progress...you know the rules of debate. We can't argue the extraneous without hitting the foundation. If that's not something you're comfortable doing here on your blog, I completely understand and I didn't come here to force your hand. However, if that's the case, then I appreciate the dialog, but we are at an impasse. I want to leave things between us with the gracious understanding that my blog is different than yours, and vice versa and you are MORE than entitled to critique my article. I didn't come to fight about it, and as I mentioned before, I love your corner of the homeschool-blog world and will continue to read. I hope that you don't perceive my persistence as indignation or take any of this personally. We're in 2 different niches so OF COURSE we are not going to write in the same manner. I can handle a rant about my writing, but my facts are in order, so I really have a hard time seeing that my "emotional" writing is the issue - that's the nature of writing - to convey emotion AND facts, which I did.
ReplyDeleteKelsi~ I have read the links you have provided. And I have provided you with direct quotes *from your own sources* to reinforce my point, but you have not provided a single *quote* to back up your assertion that ELA teachers are required by CCSS to maintain a 50/50 balance of fiction and non-fiction. From your own link (http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/introduction/key-design-consideration), I will provide you with a *third* direct quote to back up my position: "The percentages on the table reflect the sum of student reading, not just reading in ELA settings. Teachers of senior English classes, for example, are not required to devote 70 percent of reading to informational texts. Rather, 70 percent of student reading across the grade should be informational."
ReplyDeleteYou write: "From what I gather, you're assuming that the world will operate exactly as written and that teachers aren't teaching to the test. Maybe you have a great school district, but I don't. I fail to see how your assumptions will hold true across the nation. OF COURSE we want teachers of other subjects to engage in literary dissections of works in their field, but that's not reality, nor what they were trained for or accustomed to doing." What I hear you saying (though I'm certain I must be incorrect) is that we're failing at a local level. The teachers *aren't* following the standards as written (then why be up in arms about them at all?), and they are not capable of doing so.
And "The reality is, No Child Left Behind paved the way for a dumbing down of all subjects and the teachers are forced to teach to the test. They are bound to their respective text books and I'd be shocked to see that improving anytime in the near future, esp if CCSS is implemented." This seems in direct opposition to the previous statement. You do not seem to want rigorous, literature and source-document based standards (that teachers are not themselves educated enough to teach), but you are upset when subjects have been dumbed down and teachers are bound to their text books.
It was not my intention to attack you, which is why I did not link to your blog. I've also made it clear that your blog was only one among many with the same outrage expressed with misleading information. And I am only responding to your comments directed to me here on my blog. I do not mind passionate blogging, but I expect it to be accurate. It may be documented, but I expect the information from direct sources to be quoted to support arguments--or at the very least be present in the linked source. I am not accusing you of not doing your research, and I would appreciate the same grace to be extended to me.
I am standing and speaking with my actions, which I document publically on this blog. I have made the intentional and sacrificial choice to homeschool my children.
As it was never my intention to debate, an impasse is acceptable to me.
Heidi, since you began this with your post, and my original intention was to clear up your initial points,I'm more than willing to close the dialog here. If you'd like me to address your last points, just say the word. However, I'll assume that we're at an impasse.
ReplyDeleteWhile I find the details of Common Core fascinating, it is very much beside the point. Whatever the standards are now, they will be subject to change. Giving up the freedom to choose wisely for our own children is foolish. It allows gov't a foot in the door and, IMO, will ultimately do more harm than good. I am passionate about retaining that right and find all this talk of the merits of the booklists to be incredibly distracting from the real problem, as I see it.
ReplyDelete