Reply to Common Core's epic fail: Special Education

Forum Index » Schools and Education General Discussion

Reply to "Common Core's epic fail: Special Education"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]"it's too much to expect young kids to think critically" - in other words, let's not expect too much thinking from our kids. The CC standards for K-2 for critical thinking is designed for kids in that age group. My 6 yr old DC can meet the standards designed for a 1st grader. Some of it is hard for DC, so we are working on it. But I think it's great that DC is learning to think critically earlier on than later.[/quote]

I have seen no complaints about expecting young kids to think critically.  I have seen complaints about expecting young kids to understand some math functions for which they are not ready.  There is a big difference there. 
[/quote]

It's also about thinking concretely as opposed to abstractly. Common Core push the demands for abstract thought down to ages where it's developmentally inappropriate. Young kids are concrete thinkers. [/quote]

As a teacher, I hear people say this a lot, and I just don't see it when I look at the Kindergarten standards.  If anything, I think the standards do a better job of keeping things concrete before moving to the abstract, at least relative to standards I've taught before. Here are some ways I see the Kindergarten standards as more concrete relative to what came before.  As a disclaimer, I've taught with the old DCPS and NCTM Kindergarten standards, and the MA based DC standards that replaced the old DCPS standards, and I've read the old MD standards, but have not taught them.  Here's what I see in the CC.

1)  They instruct that more than half of the time in a K class should be spent on concepts of number.  They talk a lot about the use of concrete objects in set, and on applying counting skills to various contexts and arrangements of objects, rather than pictures on a worksheet.  They specify that kids should be taught to match sets of objects as a comparison strategy.

2) They emphasize the use of small quantities that kids can master and wrap their minds around.  For example, they only ask for fluency with adding and subtracting within 5.  5 is a natural stopping place for little ones, as it's both about the upper limit of what a child can subitize (recognize without counting) and the number of fingers on one hand.  Any reference to numbers above 5, other than one standard related to rote counting, is clear that kids should be using objects or other concrete representations.

3) They stop the teaching of place value at 20, again allowing lots of very concrete work with just one set of 10.

4) They've taken out lots of what I'd consider rote learning, that kids struggled to make meaning of.  Counting by 2's and 5's, recognizing coins, working with clocks, less common shapes like trapezoids, all of these have disappeared from the Kindergarten standards.

I've spent a great deal of time with the K standards, they are the standards that I know best.  First grade is what I know second best.  So, I'm open the idea that there might be some kind of unacceptable abstract leap in the 2nd grade standards.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics