Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, I am a scientist, so is DH. I just think that fiction being a "model" of true life is crazy, why not just use real life? One Shakespeare play per year in HS should be adequate. The rest should be about history, industry, economics, medicine, law, finances and so on. These would make excellent topics for and "English" teacher to work with.
In the old days, they knew less about these topics and we did not include them in a classical education, but times have changed. A child can learn to be a great writer by reading history books instead of Greek Mythology.

BTW, we have tons of books in our house, but no fiction.

I am always amazed, in a bad way, when educated people put down fiction. How do you feel about art? What about music? If you don't believe in literature, there is no reason you should value those either.

You're doing your kids a major disservice by not having fiction in the house. On top of being educational (in terms of information and facts as well as empathy and the human condition), reading fiction is FUN!

It is not that I don't believe that fiction has a role. I just feel that other things have an even more important role. It takes seconds to look at a painting, and if you love it, you stare at it for 10 minutes. It takes a long time to read a book, with all that work the book should at least be educational.

There aren't enough facepalms in the universe to adequately respond to that.

+1

+2.

I always taught a bit of Euripides in my inner city classroom. Western Civ in NYC.

Well taught, the Greeks are AWESOME and very accessible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, now the teachers will have to prove they have the kids reading. More regulation and more paperwork--and probably more testing.

It's not rocket science, people!

I can show that I'm teaching reading in my English class b/c I've used their MapR schools and matched levels to outside readings, for example. Or, if we're all doing Romeo and Juliet, doing some background research in leveled groups means that those in the upper reading brackets will be analyzing articles written at a higher level.

It's
just
good
teaching!

Your lessons are evidence of purposeful planning.

my God, folks! - Stop commenting when you have no clue. Ask questions instead.

So which non-fiction books are you going to have the kids read? Remember they have to read more non fiction than fiction.

No, that's not the case in English. According to Common Core, teaching non-fiction also falls on the shoulders of the other content area teachers. So the 60% is aimed at science, math, social studies, health, art, etc.

Non-fiction is an essay. It's a speech. It's a journalism article written in 1945. I always use supplemental texts - including non-print (art, cartoons, music, videos) - as a way to provide background. Furthermore, most research resolves around journal articles, primary documents, etc. (non-fiction). Truman's speech on the bombing of Hiroshima is a brilliant piece to use to introduce argument, which, by the way, is not the same as persuasion.

Here's the problem. We receive our information through news sources that aren't well researched. So Suzie Boozie from the Midwest is getting her 10 minutes of fame by bashing the Common Core b/c she can't solve a math problem on a ditto that some lazy teacher xeroxed and distributed.

I'm a teacher in a large school system. I've also written curriculum frameworks based on the Common Core standards. So I am familiar with the ELA framework. I recognize that non-educators don't have the time to comb through the framework. Unfortunately, most people watch the news and believe everything that's broadcasted or written. Much of what's out there is inaccurate.

Thankfully, as educators, we're focusing on helping kids develop critical thinking skills. Sadly, however, I don't often see these skills in action in adults.

Educate yourself, folks - http://mdk12.org/instruction/commoncore/index.html

As a teacher, I'd rather deal with an educated group of parents than those who gravitate toward some slanted news source that airs stories written by poorly trained journalists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I learned more about history reading historical fiction than I ever learned from a history book.

I majored in 17th Century French History because of all the historical fiction I read in high school. I minored in Physics, so I still got a job

left and right-brained!

Anonymous wrote:David Brooks writes eloquently about this topic in today's New York Times. I don't often agree with him, but I did today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/02/opinion/brooks-love-story.html?ref=opinion

I think the ending is especially moving…

Brooks writes, "I’m old enough to remember when many people committed themselves to this sort of life and dreamed of this sort of communion — the whole Great Books/Big Ideas thing. I am not sure how many people believe in or aspire to this sort of a life today. I’m not sure how many schools prepare students for this kind of love."

There are many loves. Not just the love of literature.
Kids need a practical education first.
If they love literature, they can go of on their own, or join a club to get that.

David Brooks writes eloquently about this topic in today's New York Times. I don't often agree with him, but I did today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/02/opinion/brooks-love-story.html?ref=opinion

I think the ending is especially moving…

Brooks writes, "I’m old enough to remember when many people committed themselves to this sort of life and dreamed of this sort of communion — the whole Great Books/Big Ideas thing. I am not sure how many people believe in or aspire to this sort of a life today. I’m not sure how many schools prepare students for this kind of love."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, I am a scientist, so is DH. I just think that fiction being a "model" of true life is crazy, why not just use real life? One Shakespeare play per year in HS should be adequate. The rest should be about history, industry, economics, medicine, law, finances and so on. These would make excellent topics for and "English" teacher to work with.
In the old days, they knew less about these topics and we did not include them in a classical education, but times have changed. A child can learn to be a great writer by reading history books instead of Greek Mythology.

BTW, we have tons of books in our house, but no fiction.

I am always amazed, in a bad way, when educated people put down fiction. How do you feel about art? What about music? If you don't believe in literature, there is no reason you should value those either.

You're doing your kids a major disservice by not having fiction in the house. On top of being educational (in terms of information and facts as well as empathy and the human condition), reading fiction is FUN!

It is not that I don't believe that fiction has a role. I just feel that other things have an even more important role. It takes seconds to look at a painting, and if you love it, you stare at it for 10 minutes. It takes a long time to read a book, with all that work the book should at least be educational.

There aren't enough facepalms in the universe to adequately respond to that.

+1

Anonymous wrote:I learned more about history reading historical fiction than I ever learned from a history book.

I majored in 17th Century French History because of all the historical fiction I read in high school. I minored in Physics, so I still got a job

I learned more about history reading historical fiction than I ever learned from a history book.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, I am a scientist, so is DH. I just think that fiction being a "model" of true life is crazy, why not just use real life? One Shakespeare play per year in HS should be adequate. The rest should be about history, industry, economics, medicine, law, finances and so on. These would make excellent topics for and "English" teacher to work with.
In the old days, they knew less about these topics and we did not include them in a classical education, but times have changed. A child can learn to be a great writer by reading history books instead of Greek Mythology.

BTW, we have tons of books in our house, but no fiction.

I am always amazed, in a bad way, when educated people put down fiction. How do you feel about art? What about music? If you don't believe in literature, there is no reason you should value those either.

You're doing your kids a major disservice by not having fiction in the house. On top of being educational (in terms of information and facts as well as empathy and the human condition), reading fiction is FUN!

It is not that I don't believe that fiction has a role. I just feel that other things have an even more important role. It takes seconds to look at a painting, and if you love it, you stare at it for 10 minutes. It takes a long time to read a book, with all that work the book should at least be educational.

There aren't enough facepalms in the universe to adequately respond to that.

Anonymous wrote:OP here, I am a scientist, so is DH. I just think that fiction being a "model" of true life is crazy, why not just use real life? One Shakespeare play per year in HS should be adequate. The rest should be about history, industry, economics, medicine, law, finances and so on. These would make excellent topics for and "English" teacher to work with.
In the old days, they knew less about these topics and we did not include them in a classical education, but times have changed. A child can learn to be a great writer by reading history books instead of Greek Mythology.

BTW, we have tons of books in our house, but no fiction.

Good luck finding people who want to teach the "English" class you describe above. And there are different types of reading, just as there are different types of writing. Kids should be exposed to it all, but I also think since you and our husband are scientists you have a clear bias (as do most, one way or another). I am not surprised you felt that a classical education including traditional fiction texts is less valuable, but based on my career, interests and personality, I feel the exact opposite.

Anonymous wrote:
So, now the teachers will have to prove they have the kids reading. More regulation and more paperwork--and probably more testing.

It's not rocket science, people!

I can show that I'm teaching reading in my English class b/c I've used their MapR schools and matched levels to outside readings, for example. Or, if we're all doing Romeo and Juliet, doing some background research in leveled groups means that those in the upper reading brackets will be analyzing articles written at a higher level.

It's
just
good
teaching!

Your lessons are evidence of purposeful planning.

my God, folks! - Stop commenting when you have no clue. Ask questions instead.

So which non-fiction books are you going to have the kids read? Remember they have to read more non fiction than fiction.

Anonymous wrote:So, now the teachers will have to prove they have the kids reading. More regulation and more paperwork--and probably more testing.

It's not rocket science, people!

I can show that I'm teaching reading in my English class b/c I've used their MapR schools and matched levels to outside readings, for example. Or, if we're all doing Romeo and Juliet, doing some background research in leveled groups means that those in the upper reading brackets will be analyzing articles written at a higher level.

It's
just
good
teaching!

Your lessons are evidence of purposeful planning.

my God, folks! - Stop commenting when you have no clue. Ask questions instead.

Anonymous wrote:
It has to be 60/40--does that mean the English teacher has to stop the kids reading if the others aren't having them read enough? This is stupid.

No, it doesn't mean that.

But it is a standard and not a goal. A standard is supposed to be measured.

Anonymous wrote:It has to be 60/40--does that mean the English teacher has to stop the kids reading if the others aren't having them read enough? This is stupid.

No, it doesn't mean that.