General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHoly Mesopotamia Batman: First Grade Common Core Social Studies vocabulary
I have been giving the New York State Education Department’s new Common Core curriculum modules a study over the last few weeks. I see these modules as an insulting scripted curriculum that favors test preparation skills over learning. I teach middle school social studies so new reforms such as the Common Core have not had much of a direct impact on my classroom yet, but as a parent the Common Core and its related high-stakes testing machine has my full attention.I came across this First Grade curriculum module on Early World Civilizations that I have found troubling. I have my doubts about the historical content of this ELA module. I am putting together a piece I hope to finish soon on the random nature of the history topics contained in the NYSED modules so I will pass on analyzing if the social studies content is appropriate for six year olds for now.
So primary grade educators: I need your help:
What do you think of the vocabulary contained in this unit of study?
http://atthechalkface.com/2013/07/29/holy-mesopotamia-batman-first-grade-ccss-vocabulary/
aside from the fact that the vocab seems a bit of a stretch for the average 1st-grader, some of the subject matter seems a bit outside the comprehension or experience of the average 1st-grader, and the apparent emphasis on christianity & religion seems inappropriate for a 1st-grade public school classroom in NYC.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Looks a bit of a stretch to me. I learned to read full books when I was 5 years old - Ballantyne's Coral Island was the first I think. I don't recall how or when we learned to spell correctly but may have been associated with practicing handwriting for hours and hours. Whatever - I still misspell. 
Neoma
(10,039 posts)6 was kindergarden.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)loli phabay
(5,580 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Oh. Wait. Actually, it is.
Lover Boy and I spend a lot of time watching his younger sister while their father is away on business. Last weekend she came over to the house with her laptop, as she usually does, but instead of working on school projects or poking around the internet she started playing a game called, Kerbal Space Program.
Kerbin is a fictitious blue-green world not unlike our own save for the facts it is only 600km in radius and it has 2 moons. Kerbin is inhabited by Kerbals, little green humanoids with large, curious eyes and an endearing stoicism in the face of near-incessant catastrophe. The object of the game is to get Kerbals off of Kerbin and into space.
To meet these objectives the player is provided with a library of parts from command modules to fuel tanks, engines, solar arrays, landing gear, etc. etc. etc. With these basic elements you can build rockets, satellites, space stations and even space planes.
It's not as easy as it looks, she explained, as her rocket climbed into the air. She went on to describe how she lost many rockets -- and no small number of Kerbals -- from designs that veered -off course out of control or simply exploded on the launch pad under their own weight. Simply achieving orbit is a feat in and of itself as you have to begin your gravity turn at the right altitiude, which is wholly dependent on your rate of ascent which in turn depends on the mass of your rocket and the power of your engines.
"Well of course. Everyone knows that," I said to my husband who gave me a bewildered shrug.
Her target today was Minmus, the second of Kerbin's two moons. This was an unmanned (unkerballed?) flight as she prefers to send probes ahead of the more deliberate missions. Having easily achieved orbit (?!?!?) she waited until the rocket circled around to periapsis, the lowest point of orbit (the converse being apoapsis) where she had set a maneuver node.
As she approached periapsis she aimed the nose of the rocket towards the point designated by her maneuver plot and when the prograde vector overlapped it she hit the main engine. Checking the map she watched as her projected course brought her into an encounter with the Mun's (the nearer moon of Kerbin) gravity.
Seconds ticked away as a green gauge next to the navigation ball bled away. This was the Delta V indicator, the amount of thrust to be applied to change the velocity and hence, the trajectory. Delta is apparently the mathematical symbol for "change" and V is for velocity. When the indicator hit 0.3 she shut down the engines.
Satisfied she switched from the map to the free camera mode which showed the rock leaving Kerbin orbit. It was simply beautiful to watch as the tiny, beautiful world grew smaller and a glorious universe unfolded. It may just be a game but my heart was seized by the silent splendor of it all.
She accelerated time as the trajectory required a 4 hour, 50 minute time until Mun encounter. Along the way, she explained she would be approaching the Mun from behind so as to gain acceleration and thus conserve fuel. If she were to approach from the front she would decelerate and that would jeopardize the mission.
She also switched to another mission, one that had landed successfully on the Mun. She showed how Jebediah Kermin, her personal favorite due to his happier nature, could walk around the in the Mun's much lower gravity.
Back to following the probe she waited for the Mun to capture the tiny machine in its sphere of influence. She quickly placed another maneuver node and fired the engines at the appropriate time for the prescribed duration. Again, the trajectory plot grew until it changed color indicating a projected encounter with Minmus. She switched back to camera mode as we watched the Mun recede off into the distance.
As we again waited for time to elapse she told me how she wanted to get a space station in orbit around each moon but, she lamented, docking was a skill she had yet to master even though she had watched numerous video tutorials. It seemed an odd confession considering the ease and confidence at which she commanded her current mission.
In time she approached Minmus. She rotated the probe to a retrograde position and fired her engine until the last of its fuel was depleted. She turned the probe prograde vector before releasing the spent rocket stage ensuring it drifted away from behind rather than being in the way ahead of her as she tried to decelerate -- a lesson she assured me she had learned the hard way. She returned the ship to its retrograde course and began burning her final engine to bring her orbit in around the Minmus.
It is a strange and uninviting world of teal blue ice oceans surrounded by menacingly huge white mountains of ice. Bit by bit she worked to lower her orbit. She wondered aloud whether she should attempt a soft landing.
"I think I'll try it!" she announced like one who had no government budget to be mindful of.
Continuing the retrograde burn she slowed the rocket until gravity took over. Then it was a matter of juggling engine burn while toggling the stabilizing system on and off. Her little fingers worked furiously to control thrust and position but -- I am sad to report -- there were too many unlearned variables. Altitude, the jutting terrain, limited fuel and unfamiliar gravity conspired to dash her ambitions and her rocket against the mountains of Minmus.
A cathartic "Darn it!" later and she was back in the Vehicle Assembly Bay with a handful of lessons learned, redesigning her satellite.
She then announced she wants to be an astronaut.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018412124
So, she's grasping the concepts of apoapsis, periapsis, thrust, vectoring and whatnot.
Meanwhile, I have a headache just re-reading it.
cali
(114,904 posts)Idiots. What the hay is all the religious shit about?
If I designed a first grade curriculum (not that I'm remotely qualified), it would involve a lot of reading to student and encouraging them to read aloud. It would involve real books not iPads or tablets. I'd choose books that children love- from Charlotte's Web and Mistress Masham's Repose to children's books that feature minorities and other cultures. Basic math skills such as counting, addition and subtraction. If I designed a first grade curriculum, it would feature time outside. If in a city, trips to the park. Outside time is important. If in the country in an amenable climate, I'd plant a little garden with them.
What I wouldn't do is have stupid outcomes that aren't appropriate to 6 and 7 year old kids. I'd want them to learn that school and learning can be fun. The outcomes I'd like to see are children who are interested in books and reading and can, well, read. Fun science stuff. There are lots of books that make science fun for kids. Nature. To care about science, an introduction to the natural world, be it outside the school room door or a park or growing things in the classroom
Jaysus I fucking hate the assholes who force this shit down the throats of teachers and kids.
from the letter section following the article you posted:
<snip>
This is just one “domain” of 10 in first grade? And 16 lessons that cover the following points? All taught in one month? Who are they kidding? Why Mesopotamia and then Egypt, and then Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam? That is so unnecessary. Here are the items 6 yr olds (I have one) are to be able to explain. My 9 yr old said, “no way!”
By the end of this domain, students will be able to:
Locate the area known as Mesopotamia on a world map or globe and identify it as part of Asia;
Explain the importance of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and the use of canals to support farming and the development of the city of Babylon;
Describe the city of Babylon and the Hanging Gardens;
Identify cuneiform as the system of writing used in Mesopotamia;
Explain why a written language is important to the development of a civilization;
Explain the significance of the Code of Hammurabi;
Explain why rules and laws are important to the development of a civilization;
Explain the ways in which a leader is important to the development of a civilization;
Explain the significance of gods/goddesses, ziggurats, temples, and priests in Mesopotamia;
Describe key components of a civilization;
<snip>
LWolf
(46,179 posts)and any curriculum I developed would certainly be using your ideas.
The items you listed are generally part of 6th grade history, in the states I've taught in.
cali
(114,904 posts)I'd call it "How to crush any incipient love of learning".
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)
erodriguez
(911 posts)Teachers whose kids do poorly will be fired.
I think it is obvious this is not about higher standards. its about removing veteran educators form the class in order to replace them with cheaper alternatives.
longship
(40,416 posts)NCLB == No Child Left Behind.
Actually, it's just Blame the Teacher, or more accurately, Blame the Teacher's Union.
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)National Consensus to Lay the Blame On Teachers
LWolf
(46,179 posts)It's also Obama's RTTT, which is like NCLB on steroids.
A very concise dissection of the actual agenda.
Nicely done.
Is this my signature line?
mainer
(12,554 posts)I have absolutely no objection to these words or themes being taught. Much of early civilization's monuments and burial practices revolve around religious beliefs and hopes for the afterlife. Why wouldn't you talk about tombs and pharaohs and cuneiform. I don't remember when I learned the word cuneiform, but it didn't hurt me any.
And I turned into an atheist.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)the first grade social studies unit.
i'd think you start with home and move outward.
mainer
(12,554 posts)before American history.
Frankly, my favorite part of history as a youngster was ancient history. Which kid doesn't like to hear about mummies?
cali
(114,904 posts)6 year old children? How about teaching them to read and going from there? First grade is when most kids learn the rudimentary skills of reading. Is it really important that they learn the words on that list? It takes a lot of context and time for those words to mean anything to most 6 year old kids when they're just learning to read. It's a stupid, meaningless goal.
mainer
(12,554 posts)and they need to learn that human history began somewhere else than on American soil. We Americans are too provincial as it is, and telling that that the US is the center of the universe is starting them off on the path to close-mindedness.
cali
(114,904 posts)and history can be used to further that, but frankly, first grade really is about learning to read and add and subtract. That's foundational. I'm all for interweaving disciplines as long as we're talking about real teaching and real learning, not the core curriculum being pushed down the throats of teachers.
matthews
(497 posts)I really, in my childish little head, loved to read about Dick, Jane, Spot, and the kitty (who's name escapes me now). I think it was because the stories were so benign, so mundane, so comforting in a way. They didn't reflect the reality of life for millions (including me) but they did reflect the 'American Dream', what we all 'could have' if we worked hard and played our cards right. And the style of writing was pretty laid back, until the dog went after the cat, that is. And we read lots of old fairy tales, Jack and the Beanstalk. Stuff like that. Enjoyable even if only for the escape. Fun and non-threatening. That's how I learned to read. I'm not saying to go back to the stereotypical old days of Dick and Jane. But first let a child know how much PLEASURE can be found in reading first. Let them know how much richer their lives will be if they develop a love and a knack for the written word. (I almost ALWAYS prefer the book to the movie. Reading keeps the mind agile, alive.
After a year or two, a kid will likely expand his/her reading list on their own. At 8 I read Poe's The Gold Bug and learned how to solve simple substitution codes and at 11 I read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer (my great-grandfather left the book laying around and the horror of the pictures was the hook). I loved to read. Nothing was off limits, from National Geographic (our guilty secret little sin) to the latest release from Marvel Comics, to books that dealt with a war that hadn't happened that long ago.
cali
(114,904 posts)the pleasure of reading is a big part in creating a reader. I agree that kids expand their reading lists on their own when they learn to read- even in this age of electronic entertainment.
Nothing was off limits to me as a young reader either- or at least nothing in the house and that was saying a lot. I remember reading "The Well of Loneliness" around 11 or 12 and it had an enormous impact on how I viewed gay folks.
matthews
(497 posts)serious a reading disability, real or self-imposed, can be.
My son takes after his father and I don't quite understand the technicalities, he has a hard time processing what he reads. He can read. He knows the words. He understands the meaning. Put it all together, he has problems. It's complicated his life immensely.
I also know a person who rarely reads. They're not ignorant, but they sure can make a conversation a job.
I have always been able to entertain myself. Always. Waiting for an appointment, riding a bus, not being able to sleep, these situations have never been a problem as long as I have a book. Eventually even falling asleep comes with the relaxation that reading can bring. EXCEPT when I'm at the end of a really good book. I've been known to be foolish in a few rare cases and stay up and finish the book and nap first chance I got.
Thank God (or who/whatever you hold responsible for this mess) for used book stores. I can spend hours in a really good one.
cali
(114,904 posts)He's smart, successful and well informed. Yes, he had a learning disability. He reads but he never reads for pleasure. I'm like you. I love to read.
The kitty's name was Puff. IIRC
matthews
(497 posts)When I was in first grade , we were still on the Dick and Jane books. See Spot run. This is too advanced.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)wouldn't learn about their own country until they were seniors. it's completely senseless, another example of subordinating the needs of the actual children to the needs of some curriculum designer. there is no real need to teach history 'in order'.
yes, kids like mummies. but not taught in the context of 'learning goals' like these:
Describe the city of Babylon and the Hanging Gardens;
Identify cuneiform as the system of writing used in Mesopotamia;
Explain why a written language is important to the development of a civilization;
Explain the significance of the Code of Hammurabi;
Explain why rules and laws are important to the development of a civilization;
Explain the ways in which a leader is important to the development of a civilization;
Explain the significance of gods/goddesses, ziggurats, temples, and priests in Mesopotamia;
Describe key components of a civilization;
cali
(114,904 posts)"Explain the significance of gods/goddesses, ziggurats, temples, and priests in Mesopotamia;
Describe key components of a civilization"
I almost put an rofl smilie in here, but I'm too pissed off at this nonsense to laugh about it.
I'd bet that 98% of American adults (yes, I'm totally guessing) couldn't do what these assholes are demanding of first graders.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)stupid and developmentally & experientially inappropriate.
cali
(114,904 posts)
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)sound like they are pushing an agenda - an acceptance of authority and a heavy dose of religion as necessary for the formation of societies. Yes, the ancient world used religion as a form of control and kids should know that, but first grade is not the time to do it.
Compare these Core standards with the UK's Key Stage 1 standards; it's very enlightening.
http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/curriculum/primary/b00199012/history/ks1
On edit: Key Stage 1 is the 5 to 7 age group
cali
(114,904 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)MindPilot
(12,693 posts)Explain why rules and laws are important to the development of a civilization
Explain the ways in which a leader is important to the development of a civilization
LWolf
(46,179 posts)For several reasons.
The first being a developmental reason. In CA, for the 2 decades I worked in public education there, the social studies frameworks went something like this:
K: Myself
1: My family
2: My neighborhood
3: My community
4. My state
5. My country
6: Ancient Civilizations
7: Middle Ages/Renaissance
8. U.S. History again
Starting with the self that the very young are focused on, and reaching out further as they grow and develop.
That's the general sequence in the state I currently teach in, as well.
Ancient civilizations - Middle Ages/Renaissance are important in middle school. Why? Because they lead up to the forming of the U.S. Constitution and government in 8th grade.
cali
(114,904 posts)It's fine to learn the word "cuneiform", but the totality of that idiot fucking soulless, mindless modality or whatever the assholes call it, is absurd and has shit to do with learning or fostering a love of language, learning. My son loved mummies at that age and we had some great books for the Met and the Museum of Natural History that were fun, so he did learn some of the words on that list, but that wasn't my goal. My goal was to foster his curiosity and to let his curiosity drive the process and I do believe that can be translated into a classroom but not through the rigid, unbelievably stupid common core dogshit- which as others have pointed out is all about "teacher effectiveness" and "teaching to the test".
mainer
(12,554 posts)I don't understand why everyone here is so against introducing these things to kids at a young age. I think they'd love a lot of this. One educator who commented on the site said kids weren't expected to spell these words, just to be introduced to the concepts.
cali
(114,904 posts)Read my post again. Obviously I'm not against teaching kids about mummies or other elements of ancient history. I am against scripted bullshit that isn't about learning. Kids need to learn how to read before being introduced to the Code of Hammurabi and being forced to memorize things that are meaningless to them. Let them learn about mummies and organically follow that interest with more information as their interests develop.
It's fine to learn the word "cuneiform", but the totality of that idiot fucking soulless, mindless modality or whatever the assholes call it, is absurd and has shit to do with learning or fostering a love of language, learning. My son loved mummies at that age and we had some great books for the Met and the Museum of Natural History that were fun, so he did learn some of the words on that list, but that wasn't my goal. My goal was to foster his curiosity and to let his curiosity drive the process and I do believe that can be translated into a classroom but not through the rigid, unbelievably stupid common core dogshit- which as others have pointed out is all about "teacher effectiveness" and "teaching to the test".
mainer
(12,554 posts)Ancient history need not be soulless or mindless. These are guidelines for subjects and vocabulary to be introduced to six- and seven- year-olds. It's the teacher's challenge to make it fascinating. These words aren't dry and soulless. These words are astonishingly rich -- ziggurat? Pyramid? Sphinx? I can just hear seven year olds going home and chanting "Ziggurat, Ziggurat, Ziggurat" for fun. Why would we think this would stop our kids from developing a love of language? These words bring so much texture and wonder to many children.
Maybe I'm just a little more open-minded to the power of knowledge.
My kids would have LOVED a unit on how to make a mummy. In fact, when I was a cub scout leader, we mummified a fish, and talked about why the Egyptians did it to their loved ones. The boys were enthralled.
cali
(114,904 posts)but that common core curriculum for first graders is. and that's what I said, dear- not that ancient history was soulless or that children shouldn't learn about mummies.
How much time do you think kids will have to build mummies if they have to parrot off the meaning of the Code of Hammurabi and dozens of other like questions? this is teaching to the test and will be used against teachers.
As for the power of knowledge, my son was interested in all kinds of things and I let myself be guided by that. By 7 he was fascinated by Sumerian dedicatory nails- don't ask. He was into Diderot's Encyclopedie when he was around 9. Whatever he was interested in was what I focused on, knowing that one curious question leads to another. Somehow I doubt that you are more open minded to the power of knowledge than I am. People who support this kind of teaching to the test crap are either not well informed or mistake it for actual learning.
I'm sure you're ever so much more intellectually advanced than I am but just in case you don't know what Diderot's Encyclopedie or Sumerian dedicatory nails are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diderot%27s_Encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_nail
As you're so into knowledge and all, could you stop putting words in my mouth? thanks.
mainer
(12,554 posts)Which of those three words, exactly, is so offensive?
Curriculum?
Common?
Core?
You said your child was ready for this knowledge by age seven. Why wouldn't other seven-year-olds?
I recently had lunch with a Classics scholar who was let loose in Florence at age 12, along with her seven-year-old sister, while their single mom worked. The girls spent days unsupervised at museums, soaking up art. The family returned to Florida a year later, to a classroom of provincial Americans who were offended by their photos of naked statues and paintings of bare-breasted women. The girls grew up to be amazingly accomplished women, because they were introduced early to concepts that American children don't even hear about until high school.
cali
(114,904 posts)and most kids aren't as fortunate as those two girls- or my son who had a grandfather with an amazing library (including an original set of the Encyclopedie and yes, Sumerian artifacts) And force feeding knowledge on a schedule to kids isn't related to actual learning. I'm all for educational goals, but this is about the teacher and supposed teacher "competency" and not about kids.
Pisces
(6,235 posts)
vaberella
(24,634 posts)There is of course a word list the students have to learn but it is up to the creativity of the teacher to bring that avenue of learning into the curriculum. Therefore the love of learning is fostered while remaining within the guidelines. I don't see anything inappropriate here cali.
Let's focus. The policymakers are creating this under the framework of the standardized test, which will hopefully be far more differentiated by 2014. But they also make it vague enough to give the teachers the chance to build the academic language through an engaging lesson.
My main concern actually in all of the changes academically is not the common core; as it is the danielson framework (which I like) is used to hurt teachers in the new evaluation format. Which is a plague on the teachers.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)And based on research 6 year olds can learn up to 3-5 new words a day. If the students are provided the right level of differentiation and avenue to use the words they then can learn them.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)vaberella
(24,634 posts)It just takes time and you need to make it fun. But they can be learned.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)the fact remains that the ideal possibility is not the reality on the ground.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)I notice that you seem to differentiate High School from Elementary. I am an ESL teacher at an ESL school, some of my students can't even read 1st grade level English. But I have to get them up to speed in order to be able to take standardized examinations so they can graduate on time.
Actually I would beg to differ. If the expectation is for students to have all those words memorized and known like their ABC's what the common core really pushing. Sure, I would agree with you. But the common core is providing a framework of what students should be hearing and learning about by the time they are taking the regents examination. I find if students are learning this in the first grade by the time they get to the 10th grade and are taking the regents examination in Global. They would be fully prepared and that is really the expectation here. Preparing them for 10th grade work by familiarizing the students with the language. Out of the entire word list the students would have heard, said it and related to it in some way. Does that mean they would have remembered all the words, probably not but they would have a background schema built as they move up in grades and that is what is important.
These students are not taking global regents in elementary school and I sincerely doubt it would show up in any ELA examinations. Students can learn this and no one can tell me differently. I have seen students who are SIFE (Students with Interrupted Formal Education) do well on Living Environment examinations because the teachers provided extensive labs and differentiated work. And that is the key...differentiating and scaffolding where one can in order for students to have a chance with the language.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)whether they are esl students -- developmentally, neurologically, and experientially.
you being a teacher should know that.
PS: I don't find any public "ESL high school" in the bronx. I don't know what you mean by "ESL school". You're saying that all the students in this public school are esl students?
vaberella
(24,634 posts)First off, the amount of words that are said students can learn yes...there is a difference. A 6 year old can't remember 2/3rds of the words a middle schooler or High school student can learn. However, in regards to reading and the capabilities. When I have a 15 year old who is a SIFE, many of these students can't read or write or speak the language. That puts them on a completely different scale academically speaking to a 6 year old native speaker.
Which means those SIFE kids would look at a Dr. Seuss book with boggled eyes. It would be over their heads. The point is, with proper steps, massive scaffolding and differentiation the students can learn much of the language ---luckily the country provides a good deal of immersion. As for 6 year olds being able to learn those words they can and the amount of words. Again with differentiation and scaffolding. Differentiation is when you provide different activities depending on student level to complete outcomes. Providing students with the avenues to learn these words and be engaged with them and learn their relationship with concrete ideas modeled with visual representation it is possible.
I think you are quick to underestimate student capabilities here.
As for "ESL" Schools. There are schools that are exclusive schools for newcomers. Every school in New York has an ESL teacher or an ESL department--this is mandated, unless they provide a Bilingual program and there are Bilingual program schools--we have one in Washington Heights. And some schools, such as the ones I work for are just independently made up of ESL teachers who may have specializations. They don't have ESL on their titles. But that is what they are. For instance in NYC there are schools with "International" in their title, majority of those schools are ESL schools. For instance Crotona International, Pan-American International, Claremont International etc. They're actually part of the same affiliation -- http://internationalsnps.org/international-high-schools/school-models.
Some schools have something like World Cultures. Or they are registered under DOE specific listings as ESL predominant school.
As for the public school above. It wasn't named so I don't know if it is predominantly made up of ELLs.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Last edited Thu Aug 1, 2013, 05:39 AM - Edit history (3)
your link goes to a charter school/education 'consultant' website. this is not a public school, it's a non-profit that got its start-up funding from the gates foundation & is still funded by donations & grants as well as tax money. it's some kind of public/private hybrid, and it's now expanding into california & VA. Not officially a charter school but a kissing cousin, for all that it's called a 'public' school.
the chairman of its board is a director at goldman sachs.
Education First lists 'the internationals' as one of its clients. Education First is led by a Gates Foundation alum, and its mission is to push Gates-style education deform. The Internationals is a grantee of NextGen Learning -- whose funding also comes from the Gates Foundation. etc etc etc
It's so richly endowed that it can give away $10K grants to support the teachers that it trains in its own training program, and there's a reason it's running its own training programs, & that reason is also more bill gates education deform.
you have more resources, lower class sizes, & more autonomy than the typical public school in nyc serving low-income populations & your students are not typical low income students.
there is a difference between elementary & HS students -- and the difference is not just how many 'words' they can learn (& i submit that pre-pubescent kids can learn more 'words' than HS kids on any day of the week. The problem with the 'words' in the CCSS lists is not that there are too many of them.)
http://internationalsnps.org/donate-now
vaberella
(24,634 posts)I believe I just realized I am speaking to someone who knows nothing about the topic but assumes they do. They are NOT charter schools. They are NYC Public Schools ---examples here: http://schools.nyc.gov/SchoolPortals/12/X388/default.htm They advertise on the DOE open market transfer = Charter schools do not have access to this transfer system.
In effect every single of one of the "international" schools are 100% NYC Public Schools. They have a funding network for the teachers PD during the summer and activities but they are Public Schools. A lot of schools have those donation systems. If you want, please call the schools and ask them are they charter schools or New York City Public Schools. Actually I would not be able to work at an international school if I was part of the program I am part of. It goes against my programs development. I am mandated to work in a Public School and several of teachers in my cohort work at International Schools without a problem. If they were charters those people would be removed from the program.
Most charter schools have a specific marker to them...they have "charter school" listed in their name and not "public school or just plain high school." Not to mention most of the charter schools I know have their own buildings and aren't placed within former Public School buildings ie turning them into Campus. Pan-American International High School is located on the James Monroe High School Campus and shares it's space with about 4 or so other schools DOE Public Schools.
Here is a listing of the charter schools in NYC:
http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/19D916B3-33E8-4E21-A25F-FDC5F68926D4/0/CSO3TeamList613DBNFY141PAGEColor.pdf Please check the schools listed on that site and this PDF. And call them if you wish.
You assume I work for an International school? I don't. But I know about them because I friends who work in them and I wouldn't mind working in them because of their known success with ELL's although some of them don't follow the layered curriculum format I actually like. Secondly, they follow New York State standards and if you go to the Common Core State Standards---ALL New York State Public Schools need to adhere to them. When I went on interviews to those schools they ALL asked me about my understanding of the CCSS. 45 States and 2 of 3 Common Wealths must adhere to the Common Core, it's not a choice. The rubric is a set guideline for literacy. I don't know where you are getting this 'leeway' thing from. I don't know what Charter schools have to do. They might not have to follow the CCSS, but even I think they are adopting it.
http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)director on them & they aren't interstate.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)in the states I've taught in. "Ancient Civilizations," including Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, and sometimes China and India, with Rome pushed into 7th.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Shouldn't first-graders be taught about the society around them and our country's history first???
cali
(114,904 posts)how about fostering curiosity and a love of learning?
Social studies in the first grade? Take them on a field trip to the fire department and the post office.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)
Arkansas Granny
(32,265 posts)ambitious for a 1st-grader. I don't recall studying ancient civilizations, or any history, at that early level. I would think that basic skills would be more appropriate for first graders.
LibertyLover
(4,788 posts)although I would have been in heaven had I had lessons in Mesopotamia and Egypt at the age of 6 because I was already interested in those civilizations - my mom was a world history teacher and I was used to seeing her text books and stuff. But for the average 6 year old - meh!
vaberella
(24,634 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)or at least to force feed it to them in this manner. I can think of dozens of words that involve complexities that 6 year old children don't have the context or developmental age to grasp. want to introduce them to such words, fine, but don't shove it down their throats in this way.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)It's through introducing the content the students are also introduced to the academic language associated with the content. When you are introducing students to Mesopotamia, you would show them things on early civilizations and the Tigris and Euphrates River and how Early civilizations lived. Students could work on project-based work where they have to identify what early civilizations needed, how men and women lived and so on and so forth. You could have them do a model of a family living by a river and students would play act it.
It is far from force fed. These are the guidelines of key words students should be ingesting and using as they learn the content----that happens in all forms of learning and all classrooms. I'm not sure why you are so against this format.
cali
(114,904 posts)and yes, it's force fed. read the required competencies. You know, with so many kids who go from grade to grade without being able to actually read, this is just pitifully sad.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)I don't think so. Ugh students in the 1st grade, if we are speaking about native speakers, should be able to read. Their level of reading is something else and that's why teachers need to introduce words like ones above so students can identify those words in higher level texts that they would be reading.
I definitely know many students go through grade to grade without being able to read. That falls on the backs of the teachers, parents, and administration. If a student is identified as not being able to read someone should have been willing to put themselves out there. I have stayed after school and come in on Saturdays to help my students who were not able to read and write.
But that is not something to be knocking the common core for.
cali
(114,904 posts)on entering the first grade The majority of kids may know how to pick out a few words, but they don't know how to read. First grade is when most kids learn to read and as I fervently hope you're aware, it takes a fair amount of practice and work for them to become proficient- let alone fluid readers with actual comprehension of what they're reading.
The best way for children to have a rich vocabulary is.... reading. They learn the meaning of words by the context in which the words are used.
As for common core, the more I've learned about it the less I like it. I particularly dislike the emphasis, in secondary education, on so-called informational texts.
I'm sorry Vermont which has good educational outcomes, has adopted common core for English and Math. Here's to hoping that they don't adopt it for social studies and history.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)I'm not saying they can read Maniac Magee, but they should be able to get through a Dr. Seuss level book. Again, students who are not able to read at that level, or even the Spot books or Clifford Books. Teachers should be finding ways to help them read. But that is only one aspect of learning. And reading is not the entire school day. They have roughly 5+ subjects they need to be taught in.
If I were running a school I would be more upset by the length of time students spend in school. If the brain in general cannot really study for more than 3 hours and retain that information. I find it boggling that students are spending up to 8 hours in a classroom.
You are right that reading is a way to improve vocabulary. However, we do have age appropriate books with those words. There are great picture books and picture dictionaries and even lessons by teachers that allow for student learning. I think you're looking at it Black and White. As a teacher, I always said the Common Core gives teachers room to be interesting, because they are stating expectations for the students.
I think that's important particularly in NYS since we all take the regents exam, be it public or private. Students do have to be prepared for that.
If there is an issue the issue should be more against the form of standardized tests that are given because although schools demand teachers to differentiation, the standardized exams are not. I would be pissed off at the new teacher evaluations which are supposedly under the guise of helping teachers but seem to be cutting us at the leg and really are the ones that hurt us and therefore hurt the children we are teaching.
The common core is miniscule and not that big of an issue compared to all these other things.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)That's what many of those vocab words point to.
How young children acquire vocabulary is a whole different conversation, which I will leave aside for now.
I'm wondering if Chris Cerrone has looked at the CCSS for middle school social studies. I have. I teach middle school social studies and language arts.
The CCSS contains specific ELA standards for 6th - 8th grade social studies, which WILL have a direct impact on the social studies classroom:
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RH/6-8
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)Makes me wonder what the science curriculum looks like.
Students will be able to
Explain the flaws in the "theory" of evolution
Explain how the global warming hoax makes AlGore rich
Explain the importance of prayer in modern medicine
Nay
(12,051 posts)distinctly remember our SECOND GRADE social studies being about cavemen, actually. I remember that each of us made a cave out of construction paper and made a little firepit, and peopled it with a cave family in little outfits made of animal skins we colored. In first grade I was in a Catholic school and we learned to read, write, and do arithmetic. The goal in 1st grade was to get us reading competently, learn to spell (spelling test every week), and learn to do arithmetic. I remember that the nuns complained to my mom that I wouldn't turn in a book report each week on a book I read that week; I loved to read, but hated reporting it. These 1st-grade book reports were very simple -- title, author, one sentence ("This book was about a frog who went to Paris." etc.) So, the emphasis was on reading, writing, arithmetic.
Mesopotamia and Egypt came in 3rd or 4th grade, IIRC. (It's been a LONG time.) My son went through school in the 80's and it was about the same then.
Now, what on earth could be the purpose of 'teaching' such advanced stuff as the above in 1st grade? 
In my uninformed and cynical view, it's to make your average kid hate school and do badly. Why? So we can privatize ALL schools cuz kidz aren't learnin.' If you wonder why something is happening in this godforsaken country, FOLLOW THE MONEY. Am I the only one who wonders why, all of a sudden, we don't teach basic stuff in first grade?? Why would we want to discourage children from learning by overwhelming them with advanced vocab like the above in first grade? Follow the money.
Montessori and other educators knew what to teach when -- after all, Scandinavian kids start school at age 7, and they are much better educated as a whole than American kids. Here, we seem to think that the earlier we start school and the more difficult we make it, the better off the kids will be. That's not true. Again, there's an agenda, and it isn't to raise well-educated children.
Addendum: I don't think the SUBJECT of Mesopotamia/Ancient Egypt is bad for first grade -- I think the vocab and concepts are too advanced for most 6-yr-olds.
cali
(114,904 posts)with this:
In my uninformed and cynical view, it's to make your average kid hate school and do badly.
I'd add to make teachers fail.
Nay
(12,051 posts)'overpaid' teachers, unions, and replacing them with cheap young teachers in for-profit 'schoolz.'
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)I see no problem with taeching kids about the world beyond their door. Her grandfather just spent the first part of the summer in china on a business trip and reinforced what she learned by sending pics and gifts of stuff that she learned. The classical education is sadly lacking in the US and we need to challenge our kids.
Robb
(39,665 posts)I've seen kids much younger than 6 get into pyramids and what-not, and be able to tell you what all the stuff is. It's a matter of whether the module engages the kids, or doesn't; the vocab is secondary.
If you think I'm nuts, go find a four-year-old and ask them about dinosaurs if you want to hear some absurdly long words get accurately used. Not just the dinosaur names, of which they know every goddamn one no matter how many syllables, but stuff like "archeology" and "paleontologist," thanks to kids' shows.
By six? Again, if it's engaging stuff, the vocab will come effortlessly. If not, it won't, of course. Mummies and tombs? I like their odds. 
mainer
(12,554 posts)They can say "stegosaurus" and "Tyrannosaurus Rex" no problem.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Its amazing some of the stuff my kids know from watching some of the shows.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)GreatCaesarsGhost
(8,621 posts)
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)but these type of words are best for 3rd or 4th graders to deal with. 1st grade is when you are still trying to learn to read sentences and paragraphs. Working on more sophisticated word usage comes in 3rd grade and up.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Take a hard look in the mirror, because you're a great example of why the U.S. measures near-last in most educational comparisons. It seems too "early" because it's more advanced than we're used to seeing in this country, but it's right in line with the kinds of things kids learn at that age in most countries.
I can tell you, from discussions with my wife's Canadian relatives, that their curriculum is generally a year or two ahead of ours...and their kids do just fine with it (and may explain why Canada consistently blows the U.S. out of the water when comparing educational systems).
It's only "too advanced" because somebody decided that it's "too advanced". The kids themselves are perfectly capable of learning this stuff.
cali
(114,904 posts)not only did my parents have an extensive library filled with books in several different languages, but we had a children's library with over a thousand books.
But first I learned how to read. That's what is vital to learn in first grade. If you can weave some ancient history in, excellent, but this dog crap is nothing but teaching to the test and it's rigid awful stuff that sets up students and teachers to fail.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)My wife is a kindergarten teacher. Most of her students can already read when they enter the classroom, and all of them can read by the time they leave. A first grader who cannot read on the first day is generally considered to be a remedial student who is FAR behind their peers academically.
My children, in the first grade, were already on introductory civics, history, mathematics, and were given reading books and were expected to deliver oral reports the very first week of school. By the second grade they were studying geometry and writing book reports on books that were a minimum of 100 pages in length (my son did his first on Charlottes Web). And this was in a minority-majority public school in a rather poor part of rural California, not some elite prep academy.
Kids can handle this stuff with little difficulty if they're started early and supported properly.
cali
(114,904 posts)how to read when they enter first grade. And when I say most children, I mean the majority. they should know letters and may know simple words they see around them, but most do not know how to read.
bully for your kids and bully for my son. I was reading Eliot and Yeats to him when he was a toddler. But that's not the advantage that most kids get, and it doesn't take into account the millions of children who aren't even remotely reading ready when they enter first grade.
My son also attended a very rural, poor school. Classroom sizes were tiny and all the kids got a lot of personal attention. I think that's a hugely important factor. I'm betting that the school you referenced also had a small teacher to student ratio. Many kids are packed into classrooms and it becomes as much about behavioral management as anything. I don't think you're taking into account the millions and millions of children in this country who are disadvantaged. Poverty is a big factor in whether or not kids will succeed.
You seem not to know the realities extant in this country regarding education; that, for instance, most states don't make kindergarten mandatory.
<snip>
Pat Wolfe, EdD, education consultant, former teacher, and author of Building the Reading Brain, says you can tell by kindergarten-age whether children are likely to have trouble with reading. "Can they hear rhyming words? Do they know that squiggles on a page stand for sounds when they talk?" These are key pre-reading skills that lay the foundation for reading.
Often children start reading in the first grade. During that school year, watch for these signs of reading difficulty:
confusing letters
connecting the wrong sounds with letters
skipping words, not remembering words, or frequently guessing at unknown words, rather than sounding them out
If your child is having trouble reading by the end of first grade, begin by talking with her teacher to find ways to resolve the problem.
Ages 4-5: learning pre-reading skills
Kids learn to:
substitute words in rhyming patterns
write some letters
pronounce simple words
develop vocabulary
Ages 6-10: learning to read
Kids learn to:
read simple books by mid-first grade and know about 100 common words
understand that letters represent sounds, which form words, by mid-first grade
enjoy a variety of types of stories and talk about characters, settings and events
remember the names and sounds of all letters and recognize upper- and lowercase by second grade
read independently and fluently by third grade
sound out unfamiliar words when reading
<snip>
roody
(10,849 posts)roody
(10,849 posts)and are not supported. School is their only academic environment.
Nay
(12,051 posts)that gives the curriculum for grades K-8 and, as several posters have discussed, the emphasis in first grade is on the community the child lives in: neighborhood, school, park, family and neighbor relationships, etc. IOW, children will be learning to read and write by dealing with social and geographical concepts they are already familiar with. This makes sense to me; learn the basics by reading about what you are already see about you every day. That way, the child can concentrate on the reading/writing process itself, and NOT on dealing with the absorption of unfamiliar, and often arbitrary, facts and words in addition to learning to read.
Those of us who were in school in the 50's and 60's had a very similar curriculum as Ontario. We read Dick and Jane books, too. Although Dick and Jane seems boring to adults, it's good reading practice for 6-yr-olds. Kids who don't get extensive practice with similar books end up reading like shit -- that's why you see so many people write 'convience' for 'convenience' and other such crap. They did not have enough graduated, age-appropriate reading and writing practice.
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/grade1.html
Xithras
(16,191 posts)I've only ever visited British Columbia, and even then haven't made it much past Vancouver. I just know that my wife is a teacher in California, and her cousin teaches high school in Canada, so discussions comparing the educational systems are a regular thing whenever we see them. Their curriculum was almost universally ahead of what we teach in the U.S.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education in Canada is a provincial responsibility and there are many variations between the provinces...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Canada
Nay
(12,051 posts)type curriculum. I am certainly no expert, but simple perusal of Ontario's first-grade objectives and general instructional guidelines seem more in line with what I learned in first grade in the 1950's, rather than the curriculum posted in the OP. I did not make the claim that all of Canada was the same, but I do assume that Ontario is somewhat representative and mainstream.
My overall point is that pushing developmentally inappropriate material at an early age has a purpose other than raising educational standards -- it is a way to systematically destroy the idea of public school by making it impossible for the school/teachers to succeed with average children. It is well-known how the average child learns, what the developmental steps are, etc. The question is why that knowledge is being ignored. What I'm seeing in the NY curriculum is, IMO, unrealistic for the majority of children; children are not adults. They do not have the maturity to grasp much of that NY material. You may get some of them to regurgitate it, but that's not learning.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)i have no doubt you're correct on ontario (& likely other provinces as well).
the poster's knowledge of education seems to have been gleaned from anti-education reports in the popular media.
Nay
(12,051 posts)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)that is one of the M$M myths. One that keeps getting used to bash teachers unions.
Here, for example is PIRLS international reading scores.
http://www.pirls.org/
1. Hong Kong 571
2. Russia 568
3. Finland 568
4. Singapore 567
5. Northern Ireland 558
6. USA 556
12. Canada 548
17. Germany 541
18. Israel 541
27. Australia 527
31. Norway 507
Xithras
(16,191 posts)The OECD scores put Canada at 5th and the US at 17th overall. If you want to limit it to math and sciences, our performance is abysmal. Even using the PIRLS numbers on reading, I have to ask you a simple question...how is it that Russian children, who learn in schools that operate under educational models that are considered antiquated in the U.S., that receive relatively little funding when compared to the rest of the first world, still manage to consistently outscore the U.S. on tests like that one? The difference is expectations.
I have nothing against teachers. I'm married to one, and taught the computer sciences as an adjunct at local colleges for a decade. Still, anyone who believes that the American educational system isn't dysfunctional either has an investment in the status quo, or isn't paying attention. I'm an ardent opponent of "teaching to the tests", but I do believe that education should be rigorous and thorough from Day 1.
mainer
(12,554 posts)as if the poor dears can't handle learning about ancient history until they've mastered "See Jane run." Talk about inducing boredom, "See Jane run" will immediately shut down the interest of any kid who wants to read more challenging stuff.
When I was growing up (okay, a long time ago, during the Sputnik era), California public schools put students on varying tracks depending on ability, to produce scientists for the space race. I was placed in the gifted track starting grade 3, which meant a whole host of stimulating challenges, mostly in regards to science and math.
cali
(114,904 posts)And as a kid during the same era in CA, my parents were so appalled at the Santa Monica school system that they enrolled us at John Thomas Dye, which was and still is a wonderful innovative school. I was lucky and it sounds like you were too, but all kids don't come from a middle class family with an emphasis on learning that prepares them for school. In fact, a huge number don't. Those early childhood years are so important when it comes to doing well in elementary school.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Just good enough seems to be the mantra instead of go to your limits. There is also a big cultural thing with kids in the US not having the same emphasis of education hammered into them.
cali
(114,904 posts)How can a child go to his/her limits educationally unless they know how to read proficiently? Interweaving history, social studies and other disciplines in with learning to read is great, but it shouldn't be some bullshit teach to the test. Teaching to the test- and that's all this is, doesn't benefit kids.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)loli phabay
(5,580 posts)When you petty spellcheck posters.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)loli phabay
(5,580 posts)But knock yourself out
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)that measure spelling, among other things.
but hey, whatever
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)If you dont think that kids are being shortchanged by the education system then you are part of the problem. Writing on du is a world away from completing a job application or writing a deposition or completing a thesis.
cali
(114,904 posts)grammar.
Writing on DU really isn't a world away from any of the writing exercises you list. Writing is writing whether it's more colloquial in nature or specific to a given task.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Anyone who fusses over their spelling on any online chatroom really needs to get a life. Ymmv, but the rules of grammar and spelling pretty much dont matter when your online unless its in a professional setting.
cali
(114,904 posts)I agree that fussing over spelling on DU is generally silly, but honestly when you're writing about education, take at least a small measure of care if you don't want someone to poke fun at you.
In any case, it's just sloppy to write poorly and not bother. It's not an effective way to frame thought.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)In the the picture who cares, except the dreaded grammer nazis and their cousin the spelling monitor.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)know, since now you claim there are 'zones' where ignorance doesn't matter
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Same as using slang and inappropriate language around my buddies, nobody cares. Mayby this board is the pinnacle of your life and you feel the need to police it well fine, knock yourself out. Me i am not fussed, it is not as if we live in North Korea and i need to bow down to your wants.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)do its own testing, it just lists rankings for the PISA test.
russian federation scored below the US on all measures, and below average, in this listing from 2009-2010. which is to be expected because of their high poverty levels since the breakup of the ussr.
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/46643496.pdf
and the US is nowhere near 'last'.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Many children are capable of learning more content and skills in younger years.
The key word there being "many."
Public education serves all. Not "many."
Brain research tells us that birth to age 4 is a time of rapid brain development, growing neural connections at a rate that will never happen again. Growing them, and pruning those that aren't used. That brain development is directly related to environmental factors: the more stimulation such as one-on-one interaction with others, talking, singing, and physical play, and telling stories and reading books, that occurs, the more neural connections. The more neural connections, the more the brain is prepared for academic learning.
Kindergarteners do not start on the same "starting line" when they enter school. The amount of brain stimulation that children receive during that critical period is usually directly related to parent SES. Children from homes without books, with limited vocabulary, do not grow as many connections. Children from homes that use electronic devices as babysitters, who don't get enough direct interaction, do not grow as many connections.
That's why not all kids are not "perfectly capable of learning this stuff."
That's why student demographics are a better predictor of how a school "scores" on student standardized tests than what actually happens in school. Students continue to grow those neural connections, but not at the same rate, and their peers with more enriched backgrounds are still outpacing them with brain development as well as learning.
I've taught in 2 states, in large and small districts, large and small schools, and widely different demographics. I've seen this reality every year. My own 2 children read before they started kindergarten, and their vocabulary still, in their 30s, extends well beyond most of their age peers. I know better to think that I could do the same job with 30 ks or 30 1st graders in a classroom as I did with them.
Ganja Ninja
(15,953 posts)Lesson 17
Ancient
Superstition
Imaginary
Bullshit
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Imaginary Bullshit"
Like politics, philosophy, economics and the arts-- which all reside exclusively within our imaginations.
However, I do realize that we often predicate our lives, our passions and even our careers on one bit of imaginary bullshit, whilst simultaneously deriding others.
NewThinkingChance40
(289 posts)Here in Ohio, and the curriculum is nuts. We have one child in first grade, one in kindergarten, and the first grader had to be an expert reader and speller by the end of kindergarten, as well as learning geography of the world and language arts learning verbs and adjectives. All of this, as far as I remember, used to be second grade and up. The first couple grades should be fun, but my daughter was stressed last year and hated doing school at times. We try our best to make it fun, but with everything they are expected to learn, it isn't easy to make it all fun.
Response to NewThinkingChance40 (Reply #53)
Name removed Message auto-removed
NewThinkingChance40
(289 posts)They have 4 tests a year to see where the kids are at. We had an issue because our oldest couldn't read or write when she started kindergarten last year, and they wanted to put her in special classes. We kept her in the regular class, and spent some extra time with her, and by the end of the year she had caught up to her peers. When I was little, the whole point of kindergarten was to learn letters and their sounds, numbers, colors, ect. Now they have to learn geography, sentence structure, and spelling. We learned from the experience though, and this year both girls are starting at level and we are ahead on our son(who is only 2, so thats not difficult )
Overall, I think it will be a better experience, we just have to get in sync.
Response to NewThinkingChance40 (Reply #195)
Name removed Message auto-removed
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Oh, and Egypt and Mesopatamia.
What was ancient China? Chopped liver?? How about the Americas and India and Southeast Asia?????
VERY Judeo-Christian-centric.
roody
(10,849 posts)the concept of yesterday or last week. This is going to be a hoot. I teach first.
cali
(114,904 posts)read in kindergarten and that they should be reading Homer in first grade. I kid, but only a little.
thanks for adding your perspective as a first grade teacher.
roody
(10,849 posts)grew up in a literacy rich environment. Many kids grow up in a home with no print and no academically rich conversation.
cali
(114,904 posts)I grew up in a literacy rich environment but I've known that most of my adult life. It's about not relating everything to your own experience.
roody
(10,849 posts)Kids learn something more easily when they can relate it to their own experience.
Maybe the supporters of super curriculum would volunteer in a poor school. Many children have never been read to outside of school.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)It was 1951, and my teacher was Miss Setzer. I even remember learning about Mesopotamia, Egypt, and all that stuff. It was my first introduction to cuneiform writing, which Miss Setzer explained as the first form of writing we know about. We looked at pictures of cuneiform writing on clay tablets, and spent a class hour with little wooden wedges and modeling clay. We learned to write numbers in cuneiform on those wedges. It was cool, since we were also learning to write numbers at the same time.
The next day, we built a pyramid in class out of blocks. It was pretty big for a bunch of first-graders. Then, we looked at pictures of pyramids in Egypt, the Nile River, and saw hieroglyphics for the first time. Miss Setzer also explained why civilization started along the banks of rivers and told us about the flooding that was the basis of Egyptian agricullture.
We also learned the term, "Cradle of Civilization," saw pictures of mummies of Pharaohs from ancient Egypt and saw a photo of a sarcophagus. From there, we later moved on to other parts of the world, and learned about Israel, Persia, and other places. We learned about the religions of those areas and how they all related to each other.
We got some information about ancient Greece during 1st grade, to, along with ancient Rome, and some of the other history of the world then. It was all part of a method of teaching history, starting at the beginning of recorded history. In Second grade, we moved on to Europe, and learned lots more things.
There doesn't seem to be much new in this curriculum. It sounds a lot like the curriculum in the grammar school I went to in the early 1950s. We progressed from the earliest recorded history year after year. In the fourth grade, we studied California history, learned the names of the native American tribes in California, visited one of the Missions and learned about the Spanish explorers, and so on. We even learned some very basic Spanish that same year, visited a Native American kitchen midden and searched for shells and a few kids found some arrow points at the midden. Again, it was taught sequentially and historically. That process continued through the curriculum all the way through high school. It was the standard curriculum in California at the time, with regard to history.
We learned those words, those concepts, and basic human history, starting in the first grade with the earliest historical civilizations. That's how they taught it. Looks like they're still doing the same thing.
mainer
(12,554 posts)It was a great time to be a student.
I think it all went downhill when we started worrying too much about children's self-esteem and making sure even mediocrity is praised.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)people are complaining about with this common core stuff in first grade are the things we were taught in 1st grade, too. We learned them in first grade, too. I have an excellent memory for stuff throughout those years. When I saw the word "cuneiform" in the OP, I immediately remembered being introduced to that in first grade. I remember kids laughing when the teacher had us repeat the word several times, and then making marks in clay that represented numbers. The word sounded funny to us, but we learned it. We were just then learning to write numbers on paper, and the connection was made very clearly between the numbers we were writing and numbers from way back at the beginnings of civilization around the Tigris and Euphrates river. We repeated those words aloud, too, and some of us, like me, never forgot them or how they related to the lessons we were learning.
The 1950's elementary school curriculum was all integrated between the subject matter areas. Learning about cuneiform writing at the same time we were learning to read and write made sense to me, and apparently to those who created the curriculum. Beyond that, we learned about the importance of grain farming in that part of the world, and then planted oat seeds in mason jars and watched them grow as part of the science curriculum. It all related to everything else we were learning, and stimulated our curiosity and eagerness to learn.
Once a week, my entire first grade class got marched up to the local library. Everyone had a library card, and the teacher helped us find books that related to what we were learning, and we checked them out for reading at home. I was an early reader, and could read before I even started school. That teacher, Miss Setzer, always directed me to books that were readable by me, but that would challenge my reading skills. 30 kids in that first grade class, and Miss Setzer knew each one and their capabilities.
Still, elementary schools in California had already divided students up by ability. Our school was just large enough to have three groups of 30 kids, so kids got grouped and kids with like abilities were all in the same class. When abilities changed, the groupings changed. That was maintained through the entire K-12 system in the town I lived in. Kids moved around between groups, as needed. They were still holding back some kids and sending them through the same grade again if necessary. A few kids got promoted by skipping a grade, too. That was offered to my parents, but they passed on it for some reason. It didn't matter. I learned on my own, regardless of what the class was doing, and my teachers knew that and facilitated it as they could.
The system actually worked quite well for everyone. It was a small town, and most of the kids I started out with were in my school class all the way through the system. Almost nobody dropped out and our HS graduating class was the same size as that first grade class. Three groups of 30. Plus a few extra kids from time to time. We all knew each other.
Was it a perfect system? No. Did it work? Yes. Was every teacher outstanding? No. Were most of the teachers good at their job? Yes. It was a good, workable system for a small citrus-growing town in California in the 1950s and 1960s.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)I actually like the common core. Despite the fact the common core does push for students to be prepared for standardized examinations. It is however vague enough to give us room to make the lesson engaging for the students. Sure there are some things they can tweak and definitely evaluate but overall I think it's functional and provides a streamlined set of guidelines to put all our students in the nation on the same page.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)(that was sarcasm. I see your viewpoint is being studiously ignored.)
vaberella
(24,634 posts)In all honesty I think the majority of the teachers I am with like the common core. It's stressful, because the new teacher evaluations is married to this rubric, but I think it's an important and necessary part to putting all of America's children on the same page, so to speak. Mainly because finally majority of the States will have to follow the same prerequisites across the board. More often than not many students are father behind than other students dependent on the area they are from.
The other benefit of the common core I find is that it doesn't regulate how this information is being distributed. What I mean is that there is no regulations to restrict the creativity, individuality, or approach of a teacher. It basically gives us free license to bring the content and the academic language the States deems required in our own way.
Therefore this idea that there is a script is utter nonsense. There is no script written out. For instance as an ESL teacher, I have allowed my students to draw answers for me. As long as I can make out what they mean it's acceptable. This is preferable for our pre-writing ELL's. And it's a differentiated format in order to have the students meet the requirement but also maintaining a platform for students to be able to express their knowledge of the content in any way or form. This is through our discretion.
So the weird anti crowd against the common core, I feel don't really grasp it's intention. Ultimately the common core is set up to build students capacity to standardized testing. Which unfortunately, we cannot get away from and determines a students grade level. Since it is here, and we have a good two years or so before the new differentiated examinations are, hopefully, rolled out. The state is only laying a rubric for us to follow ---but not dictating how to implement it.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)curriculum to judge that from.
The anti-crowd tends to romanticize a period of schooling that simply didn't exist.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)dumbing down of children need be encouraged.
cali
(114,904 posts)This is just one “domain” of 10 in first grade? And 16 lessons that cover the following points? All taught in one month? Who are they kidding? Why Mesopotamia and then Egypt, and then Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam? That is so unnecessary. Here are the items 6 yr olds (I have one) are to be able to explain. My 9 yr old said, “no way!”
By the end of this domain, students will be able to:
Locate the area known as Mesopotamia on a world map or globe and identify it as part of Asia;
Explain the importance of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and the use of canals to support farming and the development of the city of Babylon;
Describe the city of Babylon and the Hanging Gardens;
Identify cuneiform as the system of writing used in Mesopotamia;
Explain why a written language is important to the development of a civilization;
Explain the significance of the Code of Hammurabi;
Explain why rules and laws are important to the development of a civilization;
Explain the ways in which a leader is important to the development of a civilization;
Explain the significance of gods/goddesses, ziggurats, temples, and priests in Mesopotamia;
Describe key components of a civilization;
Identify Mesopotamia as the “Cradle of Civilization”;
Describe how a civilization evolves and changes over time;
<snip>
http://atthechalkface.com/2013/07/29/holy-mesopotamia-batman-first-grade-ccss-vocabulary/
Teach them to read. Teach them to love reading by letting them read what they want. Introduce them to books and stories that they'll love. Stories about Egypt and mummies are fine- if a kid is interested in that, but the important thing in the early elementary years is teaching them to read and to enjoy it. That's so vital it can't be overstated when it comes to later successes.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)prompting and appropriate testing. Then again, she goes to an excellent private school, where expectations are very high.
cali
(114,904 posts)and yes, it's a luxury. You do realize, that most kids don't have the advantages your child does, right?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)how academic standards should be lesser for children who come from families that "don't value learning."
Can you identify those families?
cali
(114,904 posts)and as I said, it's a luxury to value books and reading for people who are just trying to survive. see Maslow, dear.
And let me be clear: the common core requirements in the OP are horseshit and they're worse than that if the child doesn't know how to read. Most kids in this country learn to read in first grade. A good outcome at the end of that year would be a certain level of reading proficiency, not parroting off what the Code of Hammurbi means.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)of math, history, etc. I suspect your "learn to read, all else will follow" approach is pretty boring.
cali
(114,904 posts)and no, it's not boring. find out what they're interested in and turn them loose. you can weave anything into the learning process that you want but it shouldn't be force fed "information" that they have no context for. and forgive me for saying it but I doubt that your budding little genius can explain in a meaningful way how civilizations rise and fall. And why is it so important that a 6 year old do this?
what I'm really saying is that teaching should be tailored as much as possible to the individual child. When you have the requirements in the OP, that's impossible. Force feeding kids information such as that in the common core presented here isn't about learning.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I am betting you have no children.
cali
(114,904 posts)why not just ask
And that is exactly what I did with my kid. I let his interests guide me and used them as a teaching platform.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)doubt he/she was expected to learn far beyond his 'interests.'
cali
(114,904 posts)first to a wonderful tiny rural school where that is pretty much the way it worked- I think there were 7 kids in his first grade class and then later, starting in 4th grade to an innovative private school, then later back to public school. But wherever he was in school, we did a lot of extracurricular learning rooted in his interests. He had a lot of them and a lot of energy.
you really do have a sad habit of making assumptions. Not the hallmark of an effective life long learner.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I don't believe that.
cali
(114,904 posts)forced to regurgitate that information.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)
DonRedwood
(4,359 posts)Sure you didn't get a Catholic School's paperwork?
Rex
(65,616 posts)Otherwise, of COURSE there is going to be a lot of religious overtones...what, you think people sat around and played video games in 1000 B.C.? The course outline is somewhat correct historically, but I am rather disappointed that they focus on Western Culture almost exclusively.
THAT is my biggest concern.
cali
(114,904 posts)goddamn this is stupid. A large number of kids in this country read below age level in 4th and 8th grade when they're tested. A startling number are functionally illiterate. Don't waste time making them learn this stuff by rote and parrot it back.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Learning by rote is a horrible way to teach. The Socratic method worked for eons, teaching to a test is so incredibly stupid that it hurts my brain just thinking about.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)this is the same sequence that was used in the 1950s. First grade history covered the birth of civilization. Western civilization, because it's on the pathway to our civilization. We learned about cuneiform and that system of writing. Later in the same grade, we got to Ancient Rome. Oddly enough, Miss Setzer, my first-grade teacher in 1951, showed us how cuneiform numbers and Roman numerals related. She also showed us the relationship between Arabic numbers and the numbers we use today, during the time when we were learning about Persia and other parts of that region. Oddly enough, too, she showed us the standard method of tallying with vertical bars and the diagonal stroke for five. and showed us how it also related to those old number systems. That all got related to the first grade arithmetic lessons, the history lessons, and more.
We also learned about western-style agriculture during the same period as part of our science curriculum.
China, Africa, and the rest came later, in the fifth grade, and all of that got related to civilization in general. World history and global geography was a fifth grade subject in California curriculum in the 1950s. We learned things as they related to other things, always. Fifth grade was when we learned about gunpowder, a Chinese invention, ceramics, also from that part of the world, and other stuff.
First grade was for beginnings. Of civilization and written communication and number systems. That's what we learned, as we were learning to read, write, and do basic arithmetic. It was all related.
Rex
(65,616 posts)This teaching to 'pass a standardized test' method is beyond horrible. Another invention from NCLB.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)in the 1950s, at least in California. It wasn't done every year, but was done in some elementary school grades. I remember taking the tests. Our school used them to group students into the three categories used in that school. It didn't have anything to do with passing anything, though, if I remember correctly. They weren't used to "grade" teachers, either.
The schools used them to evaluate students' progress only, as far as I'm able to remember. We had one in the 3rd and 5th grades. I remember those. At some point, there was also a standardized IQ test, but I don't remember which grade. I saw the results of that test later, while in High School.
Parents could see the results of the tests, as I remember, because I remember a discussion of percentiles after the 5th grade test by my parents. When I asked for an explanation of percentile, my mother showed me the results and explained the term for me. I hadn't encountered that work or concept before.
Rex
(65,616 posts)'teach to the test standard' and ignore everything else. THAT is exactly what happened at the school I use to work for. That is going backward imo. It is also a reason (imo) that critical thinking skills are sorely lacking in students today.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)student evaluation, which led our very talented teachers to see them as individuals.
After the third grade, most of my teachers did something that surprised me a little. On a number of occasions, my elementary school teacher (we had the same teacher all day in elementary school) would ask me if I could help another student with something. Usually it was a math issue. That student and I would go to the back of the class, and I'd help the student look at the thing from another direction. Usually it worked, and the other kid got whatever was going on. That started a lot of tutoring stuff through the rest of my public school years.
I was lucky enough to grasp things as soon as they were presented, and spent a lot of time helping other kids get some stuff. I did that through high school, too, at several teachers' request. I was always somewhat bored in school, and the teachers often tried to find something for me to do that was challenging.
The point here is that the teachers in my small town school system were trying their best to deal with their 30 students individually, and they used whatever resources that were available, even if it was getting students to help each other in some cases. I suspect that school system in that small town had some very good administrators, who encouraged creativity in educating the students under their supervision. It was a very good public school system all around, really.
An example was the music program. The same band teacher and choral teacher handled kids from elementary through high school. Both were excellent, so kids who started playing in the band in 4th grade had continuity of instruction through high school. Same for the chorus kids. The result was some pretty good music education for those who participated. In a high school of 400, the band had 100 members. Remarkable, I think, and it was a good band, too. Sometimes a small school system can do pretty good things.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Many, MANY teachers simply say 'fuck the test' (in their minds) and teach their own curriculum that includes the keywords on the yearly test.
I was very lucky and lived in an affluent area that had great teachers and resources available to students. Also, I too remember my teachers having a much bigger hands on approach to my education and didn't live on daily worksheets to pass the time.
woodsprite
(12,582 posts)series of books called "The Kane Chronicles" (by Rick Riordan) deals with Egypt. I can see maybe 3rd graders being able to handle the vocab to that extent, but not 1st graders. Heck, my 13yo son (a struggling reader until 5th grade) would have a hard time spelling some of those words now, but for vocabulary/understanding he probably could have understood them in 2nd or 3rd grade.
Seventh grade was the first year my son had the standardized social studies test. Even though he scored high for his school, nobody in the whole school scored over a 390 for social studies. His SS teacher did not teach "to the test" (which I was happy with). Instead, he had his class rotating weekly between American History, Civics and Geography. The curriculum was fun and kept the kids engaged. But even the study handbook the teacher gave out to prep for the standardized test didn't cover any of the questions the students were actually asked on the test. I'd say scoring a 357 was probably pretty lucky.
In our house, we're gearing up for the struggle with Common Core Math. He's going into 8th grade, but he earned a place in the 10th grade Common Core math class. He did 9th grade last year, but they 'skipped' 8th grade math in the placement process. He knew the stuff on his home- and in-class work, but was getting low test grades. Having a tutor work with him to strengthen his test taking skills made the difference last year between low 50s-high 60s on math tests to a 96 on his cumulative final. Apparently he's a linear learner and the Common Core is not being taught that way in his school -- they bounce around in the book and may test on chapter 5 while they're studying chapter 8.
UGH!!! 3 wks and it all starts over again! 
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)I think our country should be on par with other countries when it comes to education. Six to seven year olds have the capacity to understand that list of words.
cali
(114,904 posts)more important than learning to read. Sorry, there's no way that both can be done effectively in most overcrowded, under resourced classrooms with kids with a gamut of skill levels.
and teachers should have much more input into their lesson planning than this allows.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)That's all of history then, but they have to learn it. In any event, the teacher provides the context. And yes it can work when a teacher properly provides differentiated work where in which students are engaged in using the language in the classroom and during the work time.
And teachers have 100% input. These are just guidelines of expectations but teachers are the ones introducing it and teachers have 100% control on how to introduce it in their lesson plans. It doesn't tell teachers what to do. The only time a teacher is a restricted is dependent on the model they are using.
cali
(114,904 posts)I'm not talking about context in the same regard as you are. I'm using it in regards to where they are developmentally and in terms of experience.
I've said it before in this thread, I'll say it again: I think it's great to weave other disciplines in with learning to read, but producing proficient readers should be the primary outcome of first grade. Everything else is gravy. And huge numbers of kids can't read proficiently in frickin' fourth grade let alone by the end of first.
I don't think it matters all that much if kids are exposed to all this great stuff if they can't read.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)If not, then you shouldn't make assumptions
Maybe we should ask the teachers if this is appropriate for a first grader.
cali
(114,904 posts)not appropriate. Common sense, some interest and knowledge about education in this country and being a parent should be quite enough to offer an informed opinion.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)"standards are too high."
It limits the understanding of "standards" to a list of isolated content and skills. That's the first dysfunction.
Then it supports the misuse of such "standards."
I've taught since before the "standards and accountability" movement stepped in to destroy public education. That movement assumes that we had no "standards" before they imposed their version on us.
Nothing could be further from the truth. We've always had "standards." And frankly, my "standards" are higher than those imposed from without. They are just different kinds of standards.
Standards that include things like expecting the best from each individual, but not expecting that each individual's best can be standardized.
Things like insisting on attention to detail, effort, etc..
Content and skills? They were in each state's frameworks. We taught them. We were "accountable" for giving students abundant opportunities to learn and support in doing so. They were accountable for using those opportunities to succeed.
It's a dysfunction of the system that insists that everything learned be disaggregated into isolated parts and assigned a "grade level." Students aren't standard. People aren't standard. There really is no list of "grade level" skills that accurately labels what any particular age or grade can, or should, be able to do. At best, any such list is going to be subject to a bell curve; some people will be ready for more, some won't be ready for what's there. THAT'S REALITY.
Good "standards" should be set high, and be goals, not mandates. Set it at the top; we'll all work hard to get there. Most won't, but everyone will get farther than they would have with so-called "low" standards. That's a win, whether they were mastered or not. But then, in that framework, you can't create failures. Everyone succeeds to some degree, and that would throw the whole blame and punish meme out on its ear. Since failure is required to advance the reformers agenda of privatization and profit, people must think that "standards" should be "higher."
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Not being able to keep up with the speed at which the school expected him to learn my son was starting to think there was something wrong with him, that he was stupid. I made sure to drive the point home that there was nothing wrong with him, there was something wrong with the way they were trying to teach him. I told him he simply learns differently and at a different pace than the way they are teaching him. I also told him that altough the way they are teaching him was wrong that did not mean he could just give up. I have always insisted that he try his best, to always put in his best effort and from that point don't worry about the rest. There are even times when homework simply does not get completed and as long as he has put in a strong effort and done as much as he can do then I don't care if the homework is complete or not. The privatization of our eduation system has completely changed what we expect our children to learn. Things like critical thinking, problem solving skills, creativity, perseverance, determination, and feeling pride in small accomplishments have all been abandoned. How can our kids feel a sense of accomplishment when they are always told that how they are performing could always be better? "How nice, but you can do better." That's the message we are giving our kids. How are they suppose to develop a sense of accomplishment and confidence in their abilities when that is what they are being told by these "standards"?
LWolf
(46,179 posts)a huge figure in current education research, has said in his book Classroom Assessment and Grading That Work, that current standards need 71% more instructional time than was available at the time he said it (2006.) That translates into extending school from k - grade 21 or 22 to earn a high school diploma.
And that's BEFORE the economic collapse and school budget cuts shortened the school year even more.
In other words, we have way more to teach than we can adequately fit into the year, and are driven by the tests to a ridiculous pace, and we STILL can't fit it all in.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ti7rrzmQM88C&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=marzano+grade+22+to+adequately+teach+all+standards&source=bl&ots=NN6mgNqsQj&sig=8tlSUm8nQda3BWg-eRL27B2hIhE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DpL5UfPfKseoiALS9oHIDA&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=marzano%20grade%2022%20to%20adequately%20teach%20all%20standards&f=false
yellowcanine
(36,792 posts)Dick and Jane walked along the banks of the canal. See Dick jump in the reservoir to rescue the tablets with the cuneiform records of the scribes.
Pisces
(6,235 posts)to the topic that will be revisited in 3rd and 5th grade. No it is not above their understanding. My child knows these words and
did an art project making a sarcophagus and a prayer rug. i don't see the problem.
I think you are mistaking vocabulary words with spelling words. Kids can understand the meaning of words in the
correct context.
cali
(114,904 posts)vaberella
(24,634 posts)Kids are supposed to be familiar with this but it is revisited throughout elementary, middle and in the 9th grade.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)looks like they're mostly 'global' in fact.
and that's just regents' tests, which aren't the only standardized tests nyc kids have to take.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)vaberella
(24,634 posts)There are standardized tests starting in middle school. As a NYC student I had to take them. They're state issued exams. But they are not the same thing as the regents level exams. Although my issue with these standardized tests is that students can have to repeat the grade. But again this is not affecting students in like 1st grade. Not to mention in the case of most standardized tests, from my knowledge of elementary school they have enacted portfolio based systems in order to circumvent the possibility of students failing and having to repeat the grade.
The examinations in 5th grade are nothing compared to the regents in High School and the questions on the fifth grade level are accurate for the grade. While I can say the 10th grade global can be a bit over the top.
Again, to go back to what the students can learn in the 1st grade. I believe they can learn those words in the first grade; again it's dependent on the resources the teacher provides and how often they teach into those words.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)The erosion of the arts in the New York City schools did not start in the last decade. Before 1975, all community school districts had art and music coordinators and there was an central arts office that provided guidance and support around curriculum.* When the fiscal crisis hit, 14,000 teachers lost their jobs and the first ones to go were arts teachers...
“Arts education, long dismissed as a frill, is disappearing from the lives of many students—especially poor urban students,” read a 1993 New York Times story, headlined “As Schools Trim Budgets, The Arts Lose Their Place.” It went on to say that “in New York City, a mecca for artists, two-thirds of public elementary schools have no art or music teachers.”
http://www.bkbureau.org/2013/06/07/amid-tests-and-tight-budgets-schools-find-room-for-arts/
vaberella
(24,634 posts)Ugh... We can be very creative and we are taught to teach with high-tech and low-tech ways in order to build student engagement.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)schedule to teach test prep, it actually does.
ugh yourself.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)Find it for me and show me. Because if there is a script, why am I spending 3 freakin' hours a day writing lesson plans. Why am I spending an additional 45 minutes every day, except Friday where it's 2-3 hours talking to my fellow teachers in tweaking lesson plans, creating stations and differentiating the work?
If there is a bloody script why the fuck am I even bothering to create examinations periodically every 2 weeks and translating them into various languages.
Until you're a teacher please, don't tell me what is scripted. Those are a list of expectations to help guide the teacher on the information necessary students needed to have learned by the end of the year. In some cases for a standardized exam and in some cases not. It seems you would actually rather believe commentators on an article rather than the teachers themselves who work first hand with this rubric and use it to guide their teaching.
If that is a script. I didn't know, since my understanding of a script is pre-written words that are mapped out. If you told me our classes were like the Wilson Reading Method or the Spalding System and the myriad of other scripted phonics lessons--that I understand. However, our classrooms are nothing like that under the CCSS.
At this point I feel like I'm having a circular conversation. Because you believe what you want. My experience is saying something completely different. I was able to teach multi-culturalism in every class I had and I made it a point that at least 3 times a week students were given a content based lesson with executive function skills. Common Core doesn't push these things but they are all aspects I find important in lessons that are integrated with CCSS demands and they are successful--depending on the way they are presented.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)You cant discuss enlightenment with someone whose only life reference is the google.
These are ancient and wise words to live by.
Pisces
(6,235 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)My kid made the sarcophagus out of an egg carton.
1monster
(11,045 posts)sixth grade, civics and geogrpahy in seventh grade, and American history in eigth grade.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)They are now on board. Florida is going to follow the same standards as NYC.
http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states
1monster
(11,045 posts)One day these "experts" and politicians who think they know more than teachers will learn the truth, perhaps. I'm not putting any mone on it though.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)The text exemplars are in Appendix B or C.
They've got The Grapes of Wrath at a ninth grade level and Robert Frost at the second grade level.
It's probably appropriate for the top fifty percent of students, but it is totally unrealistic for the bottom fifty percent of performers. Not all children have the same backgrounds, resources, capabilities, or motivation, and this one-size-fits-all paradigm, so pervasive currently, has far more to do with making it easier to sell corporate "programs" and demonizing teachers than it does with actually educating people.
There is some very good stuff in the new Common Core, but this isn't "rigor," it's just stupid.
bluedigger
(17,437 posts)As a working archaeologist with twenty years in, I have never, ever, needed to use the term ziggurat. Not professionally, and not conversationally. Not once. Ever. I may have seen it while playing Civilization, though. 
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Thanks to the stronghold games my son is reading everything he can about knights and teh times.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)I am done with this Common Core and Race to the Top crap. I will vote for politicians that support repealing Race to the Top and fully fund public education, but I will no longer sacrifice my child to the alter of public education, not as long as they are pushing this kind of crap. The schools I am looking into allow their teachers to customize lesson plans for students. Given that my son has autism, this is the kind of instruction he needs. He needs a school that will customize his curriculum for his needs, not the needs of politicians and businessmen. Public schools are suppose to customize curriculum for special education students, but because Race to the Top demands that schools increase performance in all demographics including special education public schools are pressured to push their special education students just as hard as their general education students. If and when the politicians decide the purpose of our public education is to actually educate our children then I will put my son back in public school. Until then my first priority is to look out for my child and to vote for politicians that will fund education and repeal Race to the Top.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)So she can be with har cousin. I blame toberlone
cali
(114,904 posts)
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)has a learning curve.
Her brother is half Arabic. My first husband is Muslim.
But, my second and current husband is of Jewish culture (doesn't practice, but you know what I mean).
I'm Catholic.
My best friend is Greek Orthodox.
Her brother's best friends, in addition to the "average white guys," are also Russian Orthodox, Indian, Greek, etc.
Her brother's name is of Egyptian heritage.
And my son has eyed careers in paleontology and archeology.
So, at least for my daughter's vocabulary, she would know most all these words, even if she can't quite read them all, yet.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)why?
valerief
(53,235 posts)Response to HiPointDem (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
haele
(15,399 posts)I would be able to read the words, and if they were presented in context, perhaps pick each of them out in a "find the vocabulary word" in a sentence quiz but - remember, context is still everything at that age, even if the kid is a genius. At six or seven, the children are just emerging from a psychological "world revolves around me" worldview that is base on experiences (and play), and though they may seem to appreciate the liberal arts and the world around them, their learning outside personal experience is still pretty much rote, and the understanding that comes there are other lives outside them and (perhaps) their immediate family is still not that clear.
Remembering what I was doing at five, six, seven...if I couldn't "play" through my reading, it was difficult to comprehend what was going on. I remember I read the actual book Black Beauty at the age five, and a couple hours a day where I had to entertain myself as my parents worked and my baby brother was napping. I had a neighbor mom/sitter who had made hand drawn paper dolls and horses and a chalkboard on easel; I would read two or three chapters, then act out the story with the dolls and the chalkboard. I also colored in ten or so line drawings (and some of the words) that were in the book (I still have the book, and did I ever color it up!). While I wasn't protected "babied" like many five or six year olds, I wasn't expected to comprehend read at the same level as a high school senior or college student. I was still learning through experience and context presentation.
Flash forward forty years, and I can't tell you the frustrating hours working with my then-14-year-old stepdaughter to drag her through middle school vocabulary lists that look the same as this, because her education was based "activity books" and "teaching the test" - standardizing and qualifying education as a science - rather than through learning experiences - where both static (the ubiquitous activity book) and kinetic (films, creative in class projects, play-acting) lessons appropriate for individual levels of maturity are presented within the age range, and the teacher has to know their subject instead of just regurgitating a text book lesson plan. Heck, Sunday School does a better job at age-appropriate "Bible Study" than most schools do with any sort of education, and it's expected that most Sunday School teachers use that mix of static and kinetic to teach.
Something like teaching young children about Mesopotamia by building a ziggarut or modeling early irrigation, making clay tablets and play-acting an active scene from the life of the average inhabitant of that culture at the same time there's a reading lesson and vocabulary presentation, instead of just giving them an activity coloring book and letting them loose on it to rise or sink by their capability and parent's involvement.
That's not touchy-feely, that's getting the child to learn the hows and whys of civilization rather than passing a test through rote memorization, then forgetting the lesson once the tests are done.
So from personal experience, as to the list above, while I would have been able to understand these words at the age of six, this would still be extremely difficult list if I were expected to just read, then independently spell these vocabulary on a test at the age of six or seven rather than experience the lesson and learn the vocabulary through that experience. Especially since reading is not the same as spelling.
Haele