Common Core teaches Gettysburg Address with no context or background. Unbelievable.

[madfloridian]

Last edited Sat Nov 23, 2013, 06:26 PM - Edit history (1)

From the Washington Post.

Common Core’s odd approach to teaching Gettysburg Address

Imagine learning about the Gettysburg Address without a mention of the Civil War, the Battle of Gettysburg, or why President Abraham Lincoln had traveled to Pennsylvania to make the speech. That’s the way a Common Core State Standards “exemplar for instruction” — from a company founded by three main Core authors — says it should be taught to ninth and 10th graders.

The unit — “A Close Reading of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address“ — is designed for students to do a “close reading” of the address “with text-dependent questions” — but without historical context. Teachers are given a detailed 29-page script of how to teach the unit, with the following explanation:

The idea here is to plunge students into an independent encounter with this short text. Refrain from giving background context or substantial instructional guidance at the outset. It may make sense to notify students that the short text is thought to be difficult and they are not expected to understand it fully on a first reading — that they can expect to struggle. Some students may be frustrated, but all students need practice in doing their best to stay with something they do not initially understand. This close reading approach forces students to rely exclusively on the text instead of privileging background knowledge, and levels the playing field for all students as they seek to comprehend Lincoln’s address.

Level what playing field? It was a speech given during a civil war in the United States. How does one "level the playing field"? Why not tell the truth and give proper background?

That makes no sense to me.

I consider myself fairly intelligent and educated, but I was not able to comprehend this paragraph explaining why they did not want to teach the background of the Gettysburg Address. I simply do not get it.

The standards and these criteria sharpen the focus on the close connection between comprehension of text and acquisition of knowledge. While the link between comprehension and knowledge in reading science and history texts is clear, the same principle applies to all reading. The criteria make plain that developing students’ prowess at drawing knowledge from the text itself is the point of reading; reading well means gaining the maximum insight or knowledge possible from each source. Student knowledge drawn from the text is demonstrated when the student uses evidence from the text to support a claim about the text. Hence evidence and knowledge link directly to the text.

[Adsos Letter]

1. I would think close reading excercises would require context

At least if one is trying to identify all of the symbolism/nuance, etc., of words or images used in a document.

[WinkyDink]

5. That, mon ami, is a gargantuan "if" clause.

[elehhhhna]

32. Next chapter: Mein Kampf

Hey! We don't need no stinking context.

[msanthrope]

52. No--"close reading" does NOT. That's the POINT. Did no one else learn this in grad school? nt

[IrishAyes]

55. If that's what's taught in grad school today, it doesn't necessarily validate it anyway.

[msanthrope]

61. Perhaps not. But students should still be aware of the New Critics, and the foundation of modern

criticism, no?

[IrishAyes]

64. Not until they learn something of value FIRST. If there's time for trash later, fine.

[msanthrope]

68. Hey--this is the 10th grade. If they haven't learned anything of substance by then, this is hardly

going to hurt them.

10th grade, I was reading Ulysses.

[eqfan592]

70. Trash? You certain you're not reading from the Texas State Republican Party platform? nt

[IrishAyes]

90. So if someone adamantly opposes you, it's okay to call them that vilest of names, a conservative?

THAT in itself sounds like GOP Rovian technique. Shame on you! I see no reason to accept your opinion on anything if you're capable of such uncouth tactics.

[eqfan592]

95. When somebody so vehimitly opposes a critical thinking exercise....

...the very first thing that comes to mind are those standards.

And I find it terribly amusing that you say you find my "tactics" uncouth immediately after using the tactics you are decrying yourself!

Wait, does this mean you don't accept your own opinion? Wow, that has to be terrible for you!

[lob1]

2. The very last paragraph looks like a Sarah Palin quote.

[madfloridian]

6. Sarah word salad.

And I think that teachers are not allowed to add much if anything to the lesson. Someone can correct me if I am wrong. It is sort of like teaching from a script.

Hope I am wrong.

[DirkGently]

46. Complete gibberish. History is ABOUT context.

[msanthrope]

54. But they aren't teaching 'history.' They are teaching a literary technique that

does not rely on 'context' as we would normally use it.

Here, they are not teaching the Gettysburg Address. They are teaching "close reading," a critical technique. Frankly, I cannot believe the level of ignorance displayed in the source article.

[WinkyDink]

3. Specific Contexts = Facts = The horror! THE HORROR!

[RC]

4. Everything we teach our kids in school needs to be taught in context. Math needs to be taught as

Applied Math. History in chronological order, with the current subject matter in context.
When teaching English, also teach the Latin, Spanish, French, etc. roots for those words.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. Nothing just appears from nowhere. There is a cause and reason for everything. Teach our kids that way. Teach our kids critical thinking.

This Common Core crap is nothing more than more dumbing down the coming generations. Memorization of a string of words without context means the kids learn basically nothing.

[madfloridian]

13. Agreed.

[Jackpine Radical]

36. I had a baseball coach for a math teacher in high school.

He "taught" us matrix algebra without context. It was all "multiply this row by that column." It was at that point that I decided I'd had it with math, mostly because I couldn't figure out why in hell I should multiply this row by that column. That experience, that convinced me I just didn't get math, and the resulting decision, changed the direction of my academic career.

I subsequently taught myself enough math to make it through a about 15 credits of college & graduate-level applied statistics, but at least I could figure out applications for the statistics, so I had some srt of organizing theme for my learning.

Then at some point years later I didn't have access to a computer lab & statistics software, and needed to do some factor analysis problems. I actually wrote a Maimum-Likelihood Estimator factor analysis program in an ancient dialect of basic for a CP/M machine, and had to learn matrix algebra to do it. Once I had a reason to learn it, it wasn't hard.

[RC]

40. Your's is an example of why Math has to be taught as applied math.

I taught applied math in a high school electronics class. One day, as I was writing a math problem on the board and explaining it as I went, I noticed the lights going on around the class room. I stopped and ask what was going on. It seems that most of the class had algebra that morning and they had the exact same problem. In that class, the math problems were just put out there, without any context. I'm sure I improve the algebra grades of several students that afternoon on their weekly algebra quiz.
Anyway, I called the teacher after class and she told me she had to teach it that way. She would have liked to teach applied math, but they would not let her teach it that way. Each problem had to stand alone, with little to no context. This was in the mid 90's.
So I do have some experience with what works and what does not.

[IrishAyes]

74. I hit the math brick wall with calculus. That is, until the school principal took it upon himself

to tutor me during study hall, and then it was fine. The very best math teacher I ever had, though, was Isaac Asimov. Not in classes but through his text books. That man could make the subject clear as glass and enjoyable besides. Same in college physics. That was the first and only class I ever repeated, because even though I learned to parrot enough to squeak by, I didn't understand it at all. The second time around I had a different, superior professor who knew how to teach. It made me feel almost anyone could learn anything under the right circumstances. And it gave me a lifelong love of learning. Rote memorization? That's for chimps.

[Posteritatis]

73. That sort of thing's why my math grades were always 20% lower than my physics ones

... Never mind that I was taking the classes at the same time and they used identical math...

[IrishAyes]

62. Perfect.

[eqfan592]

79. You understand that exercises such as this do in fact encourage critical thinking, right?

Nobody is saying the children should never learn about the speech inside its historical context, but an examination of the speech itself, outside of that context, can be a very interesting and useful exercise, especially in an english classroom.

So effectively, you're arguing for the dumbing down of the standards you feel are already too dumbed down.

[redgreenandblue]

144. Math is already way too much "applied math".

Math is abstraction. Pretending that it is not during education is the surest way to generate people who don't understand math. What you then get is a bunch of people entering college who have no idea how a formal proof works and who aren't able to comprehend that axioms can exist without describing an aspect of reality. Reducing math to "applied math" means dumbing it down.

[RC]

145. Abstract math is what they teach in school. That is why so many people do not understand it and are

turned off by mathematics, as per my example. They just do not know what it can be used for. When you understand a subject, any math involved it is far easier to work out. Otherwise you is just doing math problems in a vacuum to get the "correct" answer. One does not advance their understanding of the real world by doing abstract math, without first applying that math to the real world, i.e., Applied Math.

Applied mathematics is a branch of mathematics that concerns itself with mathematical methods that are typically used in science, engineering, business, and industry. Thus, "applied mathematics" is a mathematical science with specialized knowledge. The term "applied mathematics" also describes the professional specialty in which mathematicians work on practical problems; as a profession focused on practical problems, applied mathematics focuses on the formulation and study of mathematical models. In the past, practical applications have motivated the development of mathematical theories, which then became the subject of study in pure mathematics, where mathematics is developed primarily for its own sake. Thus, the activity of applied mathematics is vitally connected with research in pure mathematics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_mathematics

The Applied Mathematics test is one of three WorkKeys assessments used with the National Career Readiness Certificate program. This assessment measures the skill people use when they apply mathematical reasoning, critical thinking, and problem-solving techniques to work-related problems. The test questions require the examinee to set up and solve the types of problems and do the types of calculations that actually occur in the workplace.

This test is designed to be taken with a calculator. A formula sheet that includes all formulas required for the assessment is provided. While individuals may use calculators and conversion tables to help with the problems, they still need to use math skills to think them through.
http://www.act.org/workkeys/assess/math/

A career in applied mathematics isn't just about crunching numbers. It's a career that uses mathematics to solve problems in the environment of your choice.
http://www.siam.org/careers/thinking.php

Abstraction in mathematics is the process of extracting the underlying essence of a mathematical concept, removing any dependence on real world objects with which it might originally have been connected, and generalizing it so that it has wider applications or matching among other abstract descriptions of equivalent phenomena.[1][2][3] Two of the most highly abstract areas of modern mathematics are category theory and model theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_%28mathematics%29

[bhikkhu]

7. That's acutally an interesting way to go about it

one would have to read the words and try to understand, without the obvious prompts, what was going on in the mind of the speaker. This is what you could call a "higher order" of analysis. To represent within oneself the mind of the speaker, one has to adopt his position and try to recreate his internal perspective and history. I think that effort in itself (and it is a mental effort) would bring a whole new meaning to the words, and a much greater level of understanding to the occasion and the person.

In college I had a teacher who gave us a similar assignment regarding Frederick Douglass, and I have to say (from having little awareness of his life or work before) that it was a very memorable assignment, and an experience in itself.

[madfloridian]

8. I disagree.

Context is vital in such documents.

[bhikkhu]

9. Thinking is vital as well...

and the context is easy in comparison.

on edit - there are many times when I hear something and the context is absent. Often the easiest thing is to rush to judgement, while the more difficult thing is to consider the words or the action, consider the mental perspective of the person, model internally the mind of the actor, and imagine the conditions that might illuminate and explain that mind. Its an exercise that's invaluable to understanding people, and one that is hard to get the hang or, or understand the value of, if all the facts are pre-prepared and laid out in advance.

Its a good teaching method, I think, though of course no teaching method is wholly sufficient in itself. I suspect that a kid in school is exposed to more than just this one lesson.

[madfloridian]

11. Using context in no way affects thinking or learning.

Students can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[bhikkhu]

14. Yet this is asking them to think

and I don't believe that is unreasonable or lacking in value. As I said, the context is the easy part.

[madfloridian]

44. Using context will not affect their ability to think.

Or analyze. It just doesn't make sense.

[bhikkhu]

66. You said it made no sense to you

...so I'm just trying to answer in a way that explains how it makes sense. "Close reading" it the basic thing, not history. In my own experience, I mentioned that this was the approach used in a college class I had learning about Frederick Douglass; where we were given the text but not the context, and we had to approach the work solely by modelling the mind and the perspectives of the writer.

I have to say, I don't remember the teacher's name, and I don't even remember what class it was (something western philosophy related), and I can't recite a list of names and dates related to the life of Frederick Douglass, but I recall exactly what it felt like to really understand what he was thinking and writing and feeling, and how it felt almost like meeting the man himself. It was profound and memorable, and not something you could get from simple reading and memorizing. To this day if I see a picture of him its not just a face I know some facts about, its like a person I know.

Its "higher order thinking", or at least working toward it, and it has real value. If I were a teacher I would love to be able to try it in a classroom. And I think you can't have it both ways - you can't criticize testing for the rote memorization of facts, then also criticize the development of thinking skills that don't rely on rote memorization. At some point, there has to be some method you don't disparage.

[madfloridian]

101. OMG I taught thinking skills to my primary students all the time.

And they did not even realize it. It really bugs me to be talked to like I don't understand such skills. It really does.

You sound like you just discovered higher order thinking. God almighty, my friend, we all did that in teaching all the time.

It is nothing new. It was part of teaching.

The teachers I worked with took classes, tried all kinds of methods. How in the world can you really believe teachers don't already do that?

It is almost impossible to teach something like a famous speech and actually try to avoid contextual clues.

Geez I feel like I have entered an alternate universe here at DU where we teachers are/were actually thought of as clueless.

[eqfan592]

104. So because it is a difficult task, it must be condemned?

Yes, that makes perfect sense, and in no way represents a failure of critical thinking.

[bhikkhu]

117. I think teachers are very capable of making the lesson in the OP a powerful one

Though I imagine a very good teacher might still object, in principle or for personal reasons, to the guidelines of the common core lesson above. But objecting to guidelines is a different thing than saying "I simply do not get it". I get it, even as a student, and I gave you examples of how it works.

Perhaps you were being disingenuous for dramatic effect? Its a common enough approach, but the surprise you express that everyone doesn't play along sounds similarly disingenuous. At some point you might look in the mirror - is this a posture that prevents you from having an open mind, or a two-way conversation?

[madfloridian]

124. We have analyzed passages together for years.

There is nothing new under the sun except terminology.

[WinkyDink]

10. The last paragraph means: the test questions ought relate STRICTLY to the given text. Thus, a

teacher MAY NOT ask to what is Lincoln alluding with the words:

"Now we are engaged in a great civil war...."

The teacher can only ask:
"What type of war does Lincoln mention?"
"Is Lincoln referring to the past, present, or future?"

[madfloridian]

12. Which is insulting to both teacher and student intelligence. Limits open discussion.

It's like they are trying to ignore a part of history.

[riversedge]

35. Right, it is teaching students to look for evidence in the text to support

the claims by the author/writer. It is the 'close reading' --not what we think it says or what it should say.

[Volaris]

15. I would think that this MIGHT be an interesting assignment for an English/Writing class,

given the power and structure of the Prose in that speech...
but as a History assignment...?
No.
Not because what they're suggesting isn't an interesting mental exercise, but because the above posters are correct: NOTHING is valid without some level of contextual backdrop.

And I bet the people MOST in favor of this kind of lesson would scream their fool bloody heads off if you tried this with say, various passages from THE BIBLE.

[gollygee]

16. I read the article and it looks like it IS for an English class

not a history class.

[madfloridian]

20. It is for an English class.

And why would teachers be expected to avoid context and background even in an English class?

Makes no sense.

These are the words of an English teacher in an earlier article there, quoted in this piece.

Such pedagogy makes school wildly boring. Students are not asked to connect what they read yesterday to what they are reading today, or what they read in English to what they read in science.

The exemplar, in fact, forbids teachers from asking students if they have ever been to a funeral because such questions rely “on individual experience and opinion,” and answering them “will not move students closer to understanding the Gettysburg Address.”

(This is baffling, as if Lincoln delivered the speech in an intellectual vacuum; as if the speech wasn’t delivered at a funeral and meant to be heard in the context of a funeral; as if we must not think about memorials when we read words that memorialize. Rather, it is impossible to have any deep understanding of Lincoln’s speech without thinking about the context of the speech: a memorial service.)

[gollygee]

22. It sounds like they want them to draw their information from the text

and analyze based on the actual text rather than the context. If that's the case, then I imagine the teachers would bring the context into it after analyzing the text. It's an interesting way to read it in an English class. It would make no sense to me in a history class, but as an attempt to draw inferences from and analyze the text without outside references, I see the point of it.

[LWolf]

33. The CCSS

includes literacy standards for content areas, including history/social studies. They are part of English Language Arts standards, but expected to be taught in core social studies classes. As of now, the CCSS does not have content standards that specify what social studies or history content will be taught at each grade level; each state has to fall back on their "old" standards for that.

[Volaris]

26. That this IS for an English class is slightly more acceptable to me,

than if this were for a History class.

It's like saying,

"Here. Look at this piece of writing you've never seen before, read it, and just from the structure of the prose, tell me what you think the context MIGHT be..and there ARE right and wrong answers, students."

[madfloridian]

28. I think it says that context is to be avoided by teachers.

.

[HereSince1628]

34. It says initially...and a reason is given...to work for meaning from the text

Somewhere along the line students must gain the confidence to follow the meaning of words and not to allow context to form their opinion.

Frankly, I wish about 97 senators had done this with the USAPATRIOTACT, rather than passing it because the context was we had been attacked and needed to pass laws to "DO SOMETHING!"

Much of the criticism of this lesson is for reasons outside the purpose of the lesson. It's like criticizing an apple for lacking the quality traits of an orange.

[liberal_at_heart]

98. It doesn't make any sense to me. Teachers have been combining English with other subjects for

decades. My daughter is in a block English/Psychology class in college. To tell teachers they cannot talk about the context of the writing is absurd.

[eqfan592]

107. It's a critical thinking exercise!

Literally NOTHING says they can never talk about the context of the speech, but for the sake of a specific exercise the context is withheld.

[Tikki]

17. What grade is that presented in?

I must have been presented with that ADDRESS four or five times in different subjects over my school years.

Tikki

[gollygee]

19. I think it said 9th or 10th grade

I'm sure I'd read it a few times by then. Are kids not seeing this until that late? I'll have to ask my 6th grade daughter if she's read it.

[gollygee]

18. They're wanting students to analyze the writing based only on the writing

Not bringing context into it until after they've analyzed the writing. It isn't for a history class, according to the article. I think it's an interesting way to read it.

[madfloridian]

23. You don't think it restricts teacher and student input and discussion? I do.

Before I retired we were having to do scripted lessons. It really was quite stilted and boring, and it allowed for no creative thinking and conversation.

[gollygee]

24. I do think teachers should be able to use their own creativity

and decide how to teach based on their own instincts and knowledge of their class. I think it's an interesting idea as one idea of how to teach language analysis, but I am not a fan of stifling the creativity of teachers.

[Wounded Bear]

21. Reminds me....

of 'literal' interpretations of the Bible or the Constitution. Teach it this way.

More deconstructionism. It's a pathway to "This is what it means. Learn this."

That's not education. That is rote training of ideology.

[madfloridian]

27. Key word is "rote".

It is not education, it is not really learning. One can not omit that this speech was given at a memorial for fallen soldiers.

[eqfan592]

56. Actually, it is the exact opposite of that.

Examining something such as this outside of its historical context gives students the chance to examine the work without any pre-conceived notions about it.

It's a fascinating exercise for an english class in my opinion, so long as the history of the speech and surrounding events IS eventually taught.

This is that sort of higher order, outside of the box thinking that conservatives tend to hate, and I'm frankly surprised at the reaction here.

[IrishAyes]

82. Declaring something to be of a higher order does not necessarily make it so.

That's magical thinking. If you want to look down on us intellectually for understanding that, go right ahead. It's a hard fall from that high horse.

[eqfan592]

83. Lol, whatever.

If you can't see the value in bringing kids minds outside of the contextual box from time to time, then there's nothing we have to really talk about. Here, I found some reading material for you that seems right up your ally.

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

[IrishAyes]

94. You're more interested in insulting your opponents than defending your position. Very telling.

I've already wasted more than enough time with you. Too bad you're incapable of learning anything outside YOUR preconceived notions. It leaves you unfit to lecture others.

[eqfan592]

96. Given that you opened with an insult, i really feel you are in exactly zero position to lecture...

...me for my "insulting" you.

[madfloridian]

25. It feels strange to defend teaching Gettysburg Address in context.

It really does.

I do believe the reformers can shove anything at us now in education because the Democrats are doing it also.

It hastens the demise of in-depth learning.

[gollygee]

29. It's because of the lesson they're using it for

They're using it to teach language analysis without using outside context. If the context were included, then kids could analyze the text within that context, and therefore wouldn't have to analyze it only using the language. It doesn't look like they're opposed to kids learning the context of the Gettysburg Address, just that they want them to first analyze the text without any help from outside information about the speech for this particular English language lesson. How much can you infer just from the language, without knowing anything? And then you find out the context and find out how right you were about it - how much you were able to tell just from the language.

[LWolf]

30. "Odd" is one way of putting it.

What's "oddest" about the statements is this part:

instead of privileging background knowledge

Odd because we know that background knowledge is essential to comprehension. The goal is to increase the background knowledge of all, not take away the context that background knowledge gives and expect a "close reading" to generate appropriate comprehension.

And yes, that background knowledge is why some student do better than others, which is why we actually need to provide MORE to level the playing field.

This reminds me a bit of the current obsession with pre-testing; partly driven by those who are convinced that many students already "know" and a pre-test can exempt them from learning activities (which condition I've found to be almost non-existent in my decades in the classroom,) and partly because it's "data that will drive instruction," and "data" that will demonstrate growth when the post-test is administered. Because if we don't have the data, then they didn't learn anything.

It leads to real frustrations for students who are given tasks that they aren't prepared for so that they can "struggle." Many already expect to struggle, even with appropriate support.

Finally, to do a truly "distinguished" job of using evidence to support claims, background information is essential. Evidence taken out of context can be used to support just about any claim.

[madfloridian]

31. "background knowledge is essential to comprehension"

Yes, it is. Soon there will be nothing but scripted lessons, and we are well on the way now.

[RC]

42. Absolutely!

That context gives meaning and comprehension to the words. Do we want our kids to understand and build on the school lessons, or do we just want them to memorize a list of non related facts to pass a test, so the school gets more money the next semester?

[msanthrope]

51. But this lesson isn't teaching the GA...it's teaching a literary technique that the source, and the

OP seem blissfully unaware of.

I am stunned, frankly, at the WaPo article. It's rare to see such ignorance on display.

[eqfan592]

63. I'm with you.

And I'm just as stunned at the reactions here, to. Tho maybe I shouldn't be.

[msanthrope]

72. Actually, this thread is GREAT-and let me tell you why--you would not believe the number of teachers

on this thread who have made it apparent that they have no idea what "close reading" is.

[eqfan592]

76. lol, true.

I'll be honest in that this is really the first I've heard of anything like this, but the concept made sense to me right away. It's exercises like this we need more of, not less, in school. At least in my opinion. They get kids thinking for themselves some.

[msanthrope]

78. It's been going on for thousands of years---I was taught it was Talmudic-based. It's a

way of looking at source material, and it teaches kids how to think. How could it be wrong?

[eqfan592]

81. Exactly. I just think it's both amusing and sad that so many people here are denouncing this...

...while at the same time decrying how the standards fail to encourage critical thinking. Just baffles me.

[msanthrope]

84. It's an attack on Common Core that fails because of lack of erudition. So, it's pretty funny and

sad--adults wanting children to not learn a method of critical thinking.

[eqfan592]

85. The arguments being made here make me almost think some people here, deep down...

...agree with the Texas Republicans and their view of education.

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

Of course, I say "almost" as I have a feeling this is just a matter of people jumping to a conclusion, and instead of a willingness to admit that conclusion was wrong when more information was provided, they're just picking this hill to die on, effectively.

[msanthrope]

86. Read the Education Forum here...you'd be surprised how many "Progressives" would be in line with

that.

[liberal_at_heart]

100. thank you LWolf.

[Igel]

37. You have overlooked the context. And the content of the text.

1. It says "at the outset." It doesn't say "never."

This is a constructivist approach to the text. The kids build knowledge, they're not told what it means. If it's good writing, it's good writing even without the context.

It's an engage. "Here, let's see what you make of this." It's a way of raising questions. It draws attention to matters of style. It also requires that the kids develop inferencing skills that they sorely lack in many cases.

These are important considerations outside of English. Q.v. inf.

But if the kids never ask the text questions then they never really engage with it at more than a superficial level.



2. This is for an ELA class. Not a history class.

In my literature program close reading was an important skill. We'd approach the text cold. We'd know the author, and that might say something about the time it was written in. But we'd parse each word and syntagm looking for implications and inferences. Once adept at it, you develop a good sense as to when you don't know something. It's not infallible, but it was the second stage of close reading: You have your questions, you're ready to either be told the background to make sense out of everything or you're ready to head to the library to look up what you're missing. Think of it as building a kind of structure with gaps.

Third stage would be having the stuff filled in that we couldn't figure out, with the inevitable questions: Do you really need all this information to form an aesthetic judgment? What cues to your ignorance did you overlook?


3. Back to inferencing. At-risk and low-SES kids suck when it comes to reading non-fiction in their other classes. They've become adept at reading "relevant" literature and responding emotionally, taking sides that they support impressionistically, having their feeling valued as "authentic" and "relevant." This requires nothing more than getting the gist and then tracking down details to show you're right. This is a truly horrible approach to reading, and it shows in every other class that the kids take and in the quality of political and social discourse in this country for pretty much anybody under 40.

Then they get to texts that require not making the text fit their views but forcing themselves to understand in detail the argumentation and logic, to derive not only facts but the assumed facts, in history, in science, in math. They read a page in a dumbed down science textbook 3 or 4 times and still can't say what the main point is unless it's in a text box, boldfaced, and labelled as the "main point." Even then they can't show that they understand what that text-boxed text means, how to apply it, or even how the text arrives at it.

There's a real push to include non-fiction in ELA because of this "minor" problem. It hamstrings them when they get to college. It hamstrings them when they even try to read newspapers. It's not just that they're in a hurry to check a box and say they've gotten through the assignment, can they please have their good grade so they can go to more important trivia about who's talking to whom or the latest song by somebody that won't matter in 3 years. They really can't read, if we define "read" as more than "decoding" or even "finding validation."

[madfloridian]

38. No, I did not overlook any of that. I simply don't know how teaching the background....

Last edited Sat Nov 23, 2013, 08:53 PM - Edit history (1)

hurts in any way. It is beyond my comprehension as a teacher of more than 30 years how learning the background behind an historical speech can harm.

[msanthrope]

49. Because you aren't teaching the speech. You are teaching a technique. Valerie Strauss, your source

reveals a level of ignorance in this post that I find shocking.

[madfloridian]

102. Hell, misanthrope, I was only a teacher. Strauss is only a reporter. What do you expect?

We are the stupid people of the world. The Education Experts at DU are the ones who know best.

[eqfan592]

110. You do understand you're not the only teacher here, right?

And that others have come forward to speak in favor of teaching critical thinking skills and cold reading, right?

[madfloridian]

116. Let's not get insulting now.

What you guys call close reading, cold reading, all the terminology changes through the years. But the same things have gone on for years.

The reformers have won the battle to privatize public education. Silly me, I just keep posting stuff and getting bashed for it.

[eqfan592]

121. I'm no fan of privatization.

If you want to stand in opposition to the privatization of education, I'm with you 100%!!!! But opposition to critical thinking exercises such as this? Not such much.

[madfloridian]

127. Critical thinking is known by many names. Don't get hung up on terminology.

They change terminology on us all the time.

[msanthrope]

114. I expect, madfloridian, that you be able to identify "close reading" before you rail against it. nt

[madfloridian]

120. It sounds like analyzing a passage.

Pure and simple.

[msanthrope]

130. 120 posts, and that's what you've analyzed from the thread? All righty then! nt

[eqfan592]

67. Teaching the background first completely invalidates the exercise.

The previous poster did a fantastic job explaining how it works, and the reason why coming at the text cold is necessary for the exercise.

[sabrina 1]

39. You're obviously not an educator. And of course that is the problem with our new 'educational

system' which is nothing more than an escalation of Bush's NCLB, it was written by Businessmen, not Educators. But the US does not view education as a profession, which might explain why we are so far behind the rest of the world in this field, and falling further behind every day.

[madfloridian]

41. Thanks for jumping in, Sabrina.

I was feeling very alone here. Common Core is Bill Gates' baby from the get go...his millions made it.

It's a good thing I am not still in the classroom. I found it hard to use the scripted method, like all of my education and training and experience were totally wasted.

The reformers have done a good job of taking over with the help of both parties. Unfortunately.

[liberal_at_heart]

106. the democratic establishment will never go against a democratic administration about anything.

They were all for attacking No Child Left Behind, but Race to the Top and Common Core are just fine because it is done under a democratic administration. But don't worry. There are plenty of us out here fighting Common Core, and if the democrats don't want to listen then we will just find other candidates who will listen.

[eqfan592]

112. There are plenty of flaws to find in common core.

This particular issue, however, is not one of them.

[kestrel91316]

43. This is teaching the Gettysburg Address the same way fundies teach the bible.

No historical context, just a reading of the exact words, and presumably memorization. And interpretation to be provided by the teacher.

They are doing this so that when the bible is presented as literal truth, students won't think there is anything wrong with reading it completely without context.

[msanthrope]

50. No--it's not teaching the GA. It's teaching a literary technique, "close reading." The source's

lack of comprehension on this point is pretty shocking.

[IrishAyes]

45. Load of BS. That's how you graduate kids who can't find the US on a world map.

[msanthrope]

48. Well, it's how you teach "close reading" in Eng. Lit. It's not how you would teach History. The

source here, Valerie Strauss, seems to be shockingly ignorant of what she is reading.

[IrishAyes]

53. As a former lit major and the daughter of a lit professor,

I have issues with the 'close reading' technique. Omitting context in any discipline is a tragedy and a farce.

On edit, I should add that I don't give a rat's patootie how trendy a method might be. Look how well new math and whole language turned out!

[msanthrope]

57. Yes--but you identified that a technique was being taught. So far, neither the source, nor the OP

seem to understand what they are railing against.

Frankly, I'd tell them to take it up with Derrida, but I don't think that would be well-received.

[IrishAyes]

88. Anything I can understand, other people should be able to understand also. I don't set the bar

too high. Perhaps you're selling the others short.

The fact remains, however, that the technique you espouse is tragically flawed.

[msanthrope]

91. No--it's pretty apparent that the OP and the source had no idea what "close reading" is. And it's

not a technique I "espouse" so much as I can identify.

FYI--this technique is Talmudic-based, so while it may be "tragically flawed" I think it will outlive us both.

[kwassa]

103. In this Christian world it is known as Lectio Divina, a very old technique of reading the Bible.

http://www.contemplativemind.org/practices/tree/lectiodivina

In the Christian tradition contemplative reading is known as lectio divina (“divine reading,” in Latin). Through a process of close, contemplative reading, the simple words on the page become clearer and more meaningful. It brings greater understanding and connection, something easily missed by a superficial, quick reading.

In the third Century, the Christian scholar Origen saw that if you read in the right spirit, you would find the meaning “hidden from most people.” When St. Benedict compiled his rules for monasteries in the sixth century, he included reading as an important part of the monk’s day at a time when personal reading was still relatively rare. He recognized that this was a way of the monks’ being with scripture that called them deeply to study, ponder, listen, and pray. To this day, The Rule of St. Benedict is the most common and influential rule used by monasteries and monks, more than 1,400 years after its writing.

[msanthrope]

108. Indeed. Try doing it with the Vulgate. nt

[madfloridian]

113. Trendy methods come and go. Every year there are more and more of them.

They changed all the methods on us so often our heads would swim.

[msanthrope]

47. You didn't teach English, did you? I did, and this is exactly how you teach "close reading." Sweet

Jeebus....do you even know what close reading is?

How could you fail to understand that the technique, "close reading" is being taught here? And if you don't know what that technique is, then you really shouldn't be commenting on how literary critique is taught.

[Crabby Appleton]

58. I strongly agree. nt

[elleng]

59. Damn, I'm concerned,

have been for a while, my daughter is about to give birth.

We spent a fair amount of money on private schools for our daughters because the public schools in DC were clearly inadequate, and now, EVERYWHERE? By DECREE?

[msanthrope]

65. Don't be....the OP and the source have fundamentally misunderstood what they've read. nt

[burrowowl]

60. Common Core

is a crock to promote corporate profits with the bogus tests they sell.
It does not promote analytical thinking.

[CK_John]

69. Common Core is a teacher evaluation program designed to break tenure and cut teacher pay by 1/2.

Getting rid off over 30 teachers and bring in new grad with high student loans.

It has nothing to do with education.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

71. I actually understand where they are coming from. It didn't say don't EVER explain context

But that it would help young people's powers of critical reading and discernment. Of course, one would hope that general cultural knowledge imbued by parents and outside reading MIGHT give the upper hand to some young people.

I can't say I agree or disagree with this. If it is a focus on reading and comprehension, this approach makes sense. If this is part of a civics lesson (do they teach that anymore?) then it would be a bit more odd.

[msanthrope]

75. They aren't teaching the GA--they are teaching a literary technique. A literary technique of the

New Critics.

What's stunning on this thread is how many teachers failed to identify this.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

77. thanks. I figured it had to be something like this. people who jump to conclusions

and put out ridiculous controversy-generating headlines without getting at the true facts are like ACA opponents who slice and dice data to try telling ultra negative stories that just aren't there.

It is bullshit.

[msanthrope]

80. It's agenda-driven critique of the Obama administration that fails because it isn't erudite enough.

Which makes it funny on many levels.

[aikoaiko]

87. Don't be so anti-intellectual. Google "explication de texte"

Sometimes there is a time and place to do something different.

[msanthrope]

92. I told them to take it up with Derrida. No one got the reference. nt

[Android3.14]

89. "I consider myself fairly intelligent and educated"

First, I have little faith in Common Core. It's probably just another link in a chain of reforms that ultimately undergo a dumbing-down, or which the schools will replace quickly with a model that makes parents feel good about their kids, protects administrative salaries, and keeps the funding at as low of levels as possible. It's much cheaper to not teach kids. Plus ignorant people are easy to manipulate.
That given, I wonder if the CC model will actually work. It certainly can't be worse than the crap we have now.
Two, Phyllis Schlaffley and Glenn Beck hate Common Core.
Three, do you have any experience in teaching? If you did, you would recognize the technique. Frankly, I'm surpised the author of the article was unable to recognize it.
I'm sorry to say this, but I am reading a lot of criticism of Common Core from supposed progressives that doesn't make sense. As a former teacher and educator of teachers, providing material without context encourages investigation, questioning and the ah-ha moment of recognizing the context when it suddenly snaps into place with what a student learned about history from the history class down the hall from the English class. The Zen Buddhists use this technique when teaching students how to understand the meanings of koans.
The lesson doesn't withhold context for the entire lesson, at some point the students will draw enough clues that they will eventually recognize the context.
Under Bloom's taxonomy, this would fit under at least two cognitive levels.
http://tep.uoregon.edu/resources/assessment/multiplechoicequestions/blooms.html#synthesis
Also from Valerie Strauss examining critics of Common Core
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/01-1

[madfloridian]

105. Common Core is a replacement for the failed NCLB. Give it time. Failure will follow....because....

that is the goal of all the testing. I think we all know it by now.

[liberal_at_heart]

93. We are going to have an entire lost generation when it comes to education.

We think we are behind now. Trying to force kids to catch up like this while skipping so much is not going to catch us up to other countries. It will only put us further behind other countries. We will have lost an entire generation, and my kids are part of that generation. It makes me very sad.

[giftedgirl77]

97. The entire purpose of the lesson is to work on the

students ability to read about something & draw their own conclusions from the writings hence "close reading". They are not saying the teacher can't discuss the GA with them at all, however, in reality the focus is comprehension not history.

[Godhumor]

99. when I was a teacher, I loved using close reading with students

Even in social studies, my area, it was a great way to introduce new units...you get the kids thinking on their own about what something means and build off what they put forth.

And, frankly, it was a phenomenal tool for helping students develop the critical thinking skills they do need for document based question essays on the NY Regents tests.

It always surprises me to see teachers reject a new tool out of hand without making any attempt to understand it first.

[eqfan592]

109. THIS!

Thank you. Seriously, this is just yet another thread on this forum where the reaction is so baffling to me that I feel like banging my head against the wall in frustration.

[liberal_at_heart]

111. And as the parent of two children who have suffered under the Common Core I want to bang my head

against the wall. It's like people want to discard this entire generation so they can jump to the next, more intelligent, more evolved generation of student. It reminds me of movies where the government is cloning genetically modified super human soldiers. We are talking about children here, not robots.

[eqfan592]

115. You understand that one is capable of being in favor of using cold reading...

...and other critical thinking technique without being in favor of the complete common core standard, do you not?

You're trying to shift the argument completely from where it was, and are trying to assign a position to myself and others we never took in this thread.

[madfloridian]

118. Every year they throw new terms at us.

Just different ways of teaching that are no more effective than anything else.

The educators are seldom consulted, it is the legislators and politicians who have taken it over.

[msanthrope]

133. "Close reading" isn't new. Your argument would benefit if you explored what it is. nt

[madfloridian]

136. That is just what I said. We have done it for years.

It's just called various terms through the years.

So we agree?

[msanthrope]

138. No--it's pretty obvious you've never done it. It's not 'new' --it's derived

from Talmudic technique and other contemplatives. You seem to be ignorant of that history. You seem to be ignorant of modern critical theory, as well.

I don't think you ever taught at a grade level that would use "close reading."

[Godhumor]

119. close reading is not a tool Common Core can claim

People on this thread are attacking a truly great teaching technique as the proxy to a common core lesson plan.

What is worse, there are self-identified teachers who refuse to see that a is not equal to b.

[madfloridian]

122. Close reading definition

"Close reading describes, in literary criticism, the careful, sustained interpretation of a brief passage of text. Such a reading places great emphasis on the single particular over the general, paying close attention to individual words, syntax, and the order in which sentences and ideas unfold as they are read."

Just what I said above. It is analyzing a passage. Guess what? Teachers have been doing that for years.

All this "gotcha" madfloridian stuff is unnecessary, and it shows an ignorance of what education has been about before the reformers took over. Pre-Arne.

[eqfan592]

126. So are you in favor or opposed to the technique? nt

[madfloridian]

128. Analyzing passages? Great idea. Forgetting context? Not so great.

It's a futile thing to do. Unnecessary.

[Godhumor]

132. You simply don't get it, if that is your comment

No shame in it, if you never learned the tool and how to use it, but I would say your dismissal of its values without learning what it does...well, it is unfortunate.

[eqfan592]

135. Forgetting context in the big picture, I agree.

But setting aside context so one may analyze the text outside of the box of the historical context, I feel can be very valuable.

[kwassa]

123. What do they do with kids that have context? They have spoilers.

When I was that age, I knew a lot about the battle of Gettysburg, and had visited the battlefield. My great-grandfather had been in the battle. I had read Lincoln's address

[Godhumor]

129. Interpretation is specific to what is in the text itself

The students don't get to say "This is referencing this outside event" it is about breaking apart the passage itself and expressing what it in and of itself means.

For example, I used to do a close reading of the Declaration of Independence in US History and the students' interpretations of a phrase like "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" were just phenomenal in breadth and complexity. Their past knowledge of what the Declaration of Independence meant was irrelevant to the exercise.

[frazzled]

125. Because this is part of English Language Arts curriculum, not the history

curriculum. It's about how to analyze meanings of texts for comprehension. And if you go to the actual proposed draft of the unit (which is clearly marked DRAFT – Awaiting review and improvement per the Tri-State quality review rubric), there are suggestions for additional History/Social Studies activities. Teachers, of course, are free to teach these units in any way they wish.

I spent a number of years as a volunteer tutor for high school kids who had problems in precisely these areas. Most were non-native speakers, from a multitude of countries. That's the situation in most of our urban (and even suburban) public schools today, where upwards of 60 languages can be spoken in a district. When I look at the suggested activities, I see some useful strategies for getting students to suss out meanings of texts they are reading (and after understanding the meanings of words like "score" and "conceived" going on to add historical detail). Thus for instance, they have three successive sets of discussion topics for the first sentence of the address alone.

B What does conceived mean?

Have students do as much work as they can from the context to determine what is meant by conceived here. The sentence defines one key meaning of conceive: to bring forth something new. This is one way in which the nation is new; it did not exist before. [That’s enough to do with conceive for now. Lincoln uses this word in at least two ways and its meanings will be discussed later in much greater detail.


D What is he saying is significant about America? Is he saying that no one has been free or equal before? So what is new?

Answering this question will force students to pay attention to two things that Lincoln says – that this nation is “conceived in Liberty” and “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Students need to grasp the structure of the sentence: these two phrases modify and describe the “new nation.”

1. “conceived in liberty”: Lincoln says the country was “conceived in Liberty,” that is, the people who founded it freely chose to dedicate themselves to a claim – it was not forced upon them. They were able to think freely. During the making of the country our fathers were free to structure it however they wanted and they chose to dedicate it to what?
2. “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal”: what does it mean to be dedicated to a claim? One way to help students grasp the force of Lincoln’s words is to ask them to consider what would be different if the proposition changed – what if the nation were dedicated to the opposite, i.e., that some people are better than others?

When it goes on to the second sentence ("Now we are engaged in a great civil war), after discussing four-score and conceived and liberty and the claim that all men are created equal, it goes on to ask more discussion-based questions:

A. What impact does starting the sentence with “now” have on its meaning?

Probe students to clarify their understanding of the shift in time created by beginning the paragraph with “now”—that Lincoln is no longer speaking about 1776 but 1863.

C. What is the point including the phrase “or any nation so conceived and so dedicated” – what would the sentence mean without it?

Without the phrase, Lincoln would only be talking about the survival of a specific place, the nation founded in 1776 (“that nation”). With the phrase – “or any nation so conceived or dedicated” he says the question is not just the survival of that nation – but any nation built on the same principles. Lincoln says that what is at stake in this war is not just the freedom and quality in this country, but the possibility that you could build a country on these ideals. What is being tested is not just a specific place, but the viability of a set of ideals.

Okay, it goes on like this for a long time (and then supplementary History and Social Studies activities are suggested). You can read the entire proposed (and as yet unfinished, it seems) lesson at (a Word document):

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=common%20core%20gettysburg%20address&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDoQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.engageny.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fresource%2Fattachments%2Fhigh-school-exemplar-lincoln-gettysburg-address.doc&ei=iXeRUrwHp-XZBf7QgbgN&usg=AFQjCNEtiJn6IhdM8ivFj_RoOVOgrD4VhA&sig2=nQ0-47GVQP8Lu6eRzP4_0A&bvm=bv.56988011,d.b2I

If you have never worked with the broad swath of kids, both native and non-native English speakers who have trouble not reading but analyzing such texts, you may not appreciate the approach. Frankly, it's the kind of analysis that scholars themselves do in close readings of historical texts.

I think this article is being rather dismissive without understanding the curricular aims.

[madfloridian]

134. I have done this before at various grade levels. Most teachers have and do so.

But it does not have to be called close reading, the terminology has varied through the years.

The lack of context does not really change the passage meaning. And to have a level playing field it would have to be less known than GA.

It is showing a lack of understanding of what teachers have done for years, at various grade levels, to turn this into a gotcha post against me.

It shows a lack of awareness that teachers at all levels use various methods. Frankly I do not think you can take a memorial to dead soldiers and analyze it without knowledge of background.

[msanthrope]

137. No--it's pretty obvious from your comments that you have never done "close reading" and I am betting

you've never taught children above age 13.

It's a technique derived from Talmudic scholars, used for thousands of years by contemplatives of many religions. Tell us again how it's "new," or how you've done it.

[frazzled]

139. Huh?

I do not think you read either my post or the linked material. And it has nothing to do with what teachers have done. Some do, some don't. Additionally, the Common Core curriculum is broad and can be executed in many different ways by different teachers.

What is this "me" thing you are speaking of? I don't even know you, and I was not posting a "gotcha post" (whatever that is) against you or any other teacher. If you think so, you need to go back to school.

I hope your rude and ill-considered post is not an indication of your attitude in the classroom. My kids' public school teachers were great (well 95% were great and 5% were stinko) in a district that had precise and high curriculum guides. They went to school in Minnesota. Thank goodness they did not go to school in, say, Mississippi. I think many of the excellent teachers my kids had over the years would welcome these kinds of curriculum guidelines. And for states that have never had them, they are probably a vast improvement.

Let's not talk in generalities about what "teachers" have done for years. And let's certainly not attack posters who have a high regard for teachers and a deep concern for the challenges of urban students in this country.

I'm shocked at your response. So there. End of discussion.

[burnsei sensei]

131. Context is additive.

"Close reading describes, in literary criticism, the careful, sustained interpretation of a brief passage of text. Such a reading places great emphasis on the single particular over the general, paying close attention to individual words, syntax, and the order in which sentences and ideas unfold as they are read."

"Such a reading places great emphasis . . . "
It doesn't slam the door on context.
I've done many "close readings" in which I have brought historical context into my discussions of literary works.
I have yet to be graded down for it.
The point is that I added context to my close reading.

[Deep13]

141. History is all about context. nt

[burnsei sensei]

143. I agree with this. In fact, history is the study of contexts

that are dictated by social reality and other discourses in relation to time.

[emsimon33]

142. Common Core makes it easier for textbook companies

They do not have to worry about meeting all those state standards.

It has nothing to do with making better people, more productive and happier citizens. It is about greed and profits.

[MineralMan]

146. I understand the point of the exercise here. And it is a very useful exercise.

However, the Gettysburg Address is not a passage of text I would choose for that exercise in close reading. It is too familiar, or should be, to students of the age group expected to do that close reading.

I first heard and read Lincoln's speech in fifth grade. We learned it in the context of the Civil War, as a historical document. The teacher helped the students understand the words and the structure of that short speech, so we would understand what was said better. I got a gold star for memorizing and reciting it correctly.

I suspect that today's students, at any age, would encounter this speech and have some difficulty with its words and grammar. Lincoln chose his words carefully and used the English language in a very compact, yet complex way, to say what he had to say. In 2013, the word "score" means many things, but almost never twenty, to most people. And that's just the beginning of the speech. Lincoln's use of parallel structures in his sentences would go unnoticed by most, and most teachers would make corrections in the speech, because they fail to understand how the grammar in it works.

No, I wouldn't use the Gettysburg Address as an exercise in close reading. Instead, I'd pick a passage from some author, perhaps of the same period, for that exercise. Maybe Dickens, for example. A passage from his American Notes would serve nicely for the exercise. There, too, the student would discover words used in ways unfamiliar, and would find that parsing one of Dickens' complex sentences a challenge.

The exercise is useful, and should be done more often with our students. The choice of texts, however, could have been better. If the speech were not so familiar, it would serve nicely, though.

Here is a brief passage from American Notes for your close reading. I wish you all success in the exercise:

I SHALL never forget the one-fourth serious and three-fourths comical
astonishment, with which, on the morning of the third of January
eighteen-hundred-and-forty-two, I opened the door of, and put my head
into, a ‘state-room’ on board the Britannia steam-packet, twelve hundred
tons burthen per register, bound for Halifax and Boston, and carrying Her
Majesty’s mails.

That this state-room had been specially engaged for ‘Charles Dickens,
Esquire, and Lady,’ was rendered sufficiently clear even to my scared
intellect by a very small manuscript, announcing the fact, which was
pinned on a very flat quilt, covering a very thin mattress, spread like a
surgical plaster on a most inaccessible shelf. But that this was the
state-room concerning which Charles Dickens, Esquire, and Lady, had held
daily and nightly conferences for at least four months preceding: that
this could by any possibility be that small snug chamber of the
imagination, which Charles Dickens, Esquire, with the spirit of prophecy
strong upon him, had always foretold would contain at least one little
sofa, and which his lady, with a modest yet most magnificent sense of its
limited dimensions, had from the first opined would not hold more than
two enormous portmanteaus in some odd corner out of sight (portmanteaus
which could now no more be got in at the door, not to say stowed away,
than a giraffe could be persuaded or forced into a flower-pot): that this
utterly impracticable, thoroughly hopeless, and profoundly preposterous
box, had the remotest reference to, or connection with, those chaste and
pretty, not to say gorgeous little bowers, sketched by a masterly hand,
in the highly varnished lithographic plan hanging up in the agent’s
counting-house in the city of London: that this room of state, in short,
could be anything but a pleasant fiction and cheerful jest of the
captain’s, invented and put in practice for the better relish and
enjoyment of the real state-room presently to be disclosed:—these were
truths which I really could not, for the moment, bring my mind at all to
bear upon or comprehend. And I sat down upon a kind of horsehair slab,
or perch, of which there were two within; and looked, without any
expression of countenance whatever, at some friends who had come on board
with us, and who were crushing their faces into all manner of shapes by
endeavouring to squeeze them through the small doorway.