restating common core ness
most of us trust that a child will learn to walk/talk without enrolling them in a course on the basics of walking/talking 101. evidence that we must trust on some level is the essence of a natural process of learning.
and there’s always research – if we can’t trust our own observances ..
however, if we simply look at the functionality of society today,
ie: the number of remedial courses in higher ed, the number of ceo’s frustrated that employees are waiting for daily instructions, it seems many of us have lost/suppressed that natural process of figuring things out, of knowing what to do when we don’t know what to do.
and if we look at the mindset of society today,
ie: the suicide rate, the high percentage of people unhappy in their careers/marriages/days , ..
it seems we’ve not only lost the means to figuring things out, but we’ve lost the pleasure of figuring things out.
imagining that people who have not been exposed to the toxins of a compulsory curriculum/mistrust don’t need a template/help to be the best they can be. they don’t need any said basics, because their natural curiosities self-direct them to figuring out the things that matter to them. whimsy, it turns out, is a remarkable road map. it will direct us to just in time (rather than just in case) learning/doing/being. and the difference is that just in time ness has a tendency toward sticking with us, rather than leaving us after we’ve proved/tested/demonstrated/masqueraded it.
most people, however, have been exposed to a toxic/dependent mindset. most have been for many years. those people might likely need a common core – so to speak – a template/curriculum/road map – to getting them back to their natural state. imagining this is more of a placebo device – as it’s only needed to get us to trusting ourselves again, to trusting learning/curiosity.
for that, for those people, for whatever amount of time they need some help/guidance back to themselves, ….
..we offer a restatement of this current common core:
Mission Statement of Common Core Standards:
The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them. The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers. With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy.
[the last sentence is pretty much damning us before we even begin. competing is stripping away what common is all about. no?
and the only knowledge/skills anyone needs today, that will help anyone survive in our rapidly changing times, is to be usefully ignorant …]
..with this common core:
a common core global detox might provide an emergent//uncovering/open access, to what people were naturally equipped to do/be/learn. it might also open the air for all people to better know how to listen/help/facilitate each other. detox was designed to be a real/alive/functional/useful cure, re-connecting each person to their basic nature of curiosity/useful ignorance. with people of the world fully trusted/supported for the today, our communities might be more inclined to collaborate/co-create meaningfully in the share/relationship/trust economy. ongoing prep for our only certainty – uncertainty.
more tangling and untangling ness..
not questioning any of it.. just stating.. as matter of fact.
that should be unsettling.
of interest. no?
1 – prevalent? found? as opposed to manufactured/mandated.. seems to beg a listening rather than an enforcing – ness
2 – unladylike, ungentlemanly, uncivilized, unrefined, .. perhaps what we fear if we don’t enforce some basic code/foundation
2 – huge – the central or most important part of something… the common core standards use the word – essential – meaning vital, absolutely necessary..
1 – containing the seeds is huge – to sustainability – no?
it would be really important that we not use core as verb, if we’re talking about essentials.. ie: are we coring out what is essential..? what may appear boorish? who gets to define unrefined? does unrefined sugar have anything to do with that definition?
esp using core as verb and common as noun. or is that exactly what we’re doing.. what we’ve come to..?
Grant Wiggins on math and common core
oh my. presented as a given. brings up remedial math in uni. et al. focus on the word – understanding. saying – that’s a part i can say i’m totally in favor of – but nobody knows what that looks like, ie: conceptual understanding. says the standards are not providing curriculum. which he says – is the biggest argument. so – what grew the push back – is that a duncan funds curriculum to go with the standards.. money dangling. money all traces back to gates and achieve and race to the top.
Grant keeps repeating – standards do not give a curriculum… but – they do assume the what part of the understanding. so – to me – just the same as curriculum. assumed content. that must be understood. to be deemed worthy of moving on.. ness.
27 min – something has to change – esp grade level – but there are huge logistical problems – on the other hand – that’s what we want (points to the slide of the math standards – with the big words like – understand)
29 min – says best of standards is: independence as aim..
? what about interdependence as aim..
going into higher ed as well – says people are wanting standards there for accountability reason.
32 min – important to remember this is a state effort – the dangling of money by arne is a fed role.. but this is a state level
states signed on right away – all but texas. and now we’re down to 32 states..
34 min – biggest problem is that people are connecting standards with testing. and they can be separate. you can test at state level.
what? oh my.
the issues are whether the expectations are tough but fair.. yet age appropriate.
why is this going on – in this session.. and tons else where..
38 min – what do we mean by problems.. and problem solving.. i want to know what you’re giving your kids as a problem.
is that not the problem.. that we’re giving the problems?
40 min – so let’s think about – what is a problem – and what is an appropriate problem.
41 min – i want to think about assessments and the embodiment of the standards within the assessments
42 min – why psycho- matricians make good money – it’s not easy to figure out good problems.
43 min – most famous (naep army bus) problems – student is totally insensitive to context and gives a ridiculous answer
how is it possible for good students to make these mistakes… key word is “solve”
27% got this right – the words are not a problem because there’s a glossary.. because of extraneous info, and no labels..
transfer deficit of misconception..
55 min – i thought the baseball question was brilliant because it had things left out.
one reason we do poorly on international comparisons – most american students know it doesn’t count.
struggling with this. been to too many mtgs like this.. math people laughing together. over ridiculous questions. trying to tweak them. spending forever figuring out how to make them better. rather than trying another way.
59 min – another whole study – that kids don’t like the books they read and they don’t like the papers – but we don’t have time for that.
i don’t like the standards for a very basic reason – they don’t say what a problem is
1:01 – an exercise vs a problem – key
this is a problem grant loves: on your recent studies, what do you think would be the fairest way to calculate grades? (your thinking need not be limited to mean, median, mode.)