What are the changes in Common Core about? Where is Education going? I have many thoughts on this and I’m putting them all together but had to share this video with you.
This was quite an eye opener for us. What do you think? Share your thoughts below in the comment section.
Also, this photo was taken by a friend of mine of her second grader’s textbook. She is now homeschooling and returned the book but has photos of other questionable stories in the book. I believe Aesop with his fables would NOT agree with this moral… at least not in this context…
Please comment below to discuss!
This is sort of worst case scenario talk, though. Sure, my child’s first grade class talks about social problems. But they are not talking about Syria, they are talking about things that are appropriate for first grade. Last year’s class wrote paragraph’s arguing for or against wearing Halloween costumes to school. Most of the arguments were against, and the strongest argument was that it would make children that couldn’t afford costumes feel left out. Those are real social problems for a first grader. And I have no problem with them discussing social problems in that way.
This is no different than when I was a kid. We wrote letters to our local county comissioners in support of a new park in the first grade. We wrote impassioned pleas to Herschel Walker to come visit our school (it worked! and I’m showing my age). There is real benefit in figuring out what a social problem is, figuring out how to cause change, and also writing letters in an appropriately passionate way to try to get your way. Just because we use some fancy common core language doesn’t mean that the concept isn’t a good one.
This is sort of worst case scenario talk, though. Sure, my child’s first grade class talks about social problems. But they are not talking about Syria, they are talking about things that are appropriate for first grade. Last year’s class wrote paragraph’s arguing for or against wearing Halloween costumes to school. Most of the arguments were against, and the strongest argument was that it would make children that couldn’t afford costumes feel left out. Those are real social problems for a first grader. And I have no problem with them discussing social problems in that way.
This is no different than when I was a kid. We wrote letters to our local county comissioners in support of a new park in the first grade. We wrote impassioned pleas to Herschel Walker to come visit our school (it worked! and I’m showing my age). There is real benefit in figuring out what a social problem is, figuring out how to cause change, and also writing letters in an appropriately passionate way to try to get your way. Just because we use some fancy common core language doesn’t mean that the concept isn’t a good one.
Yep. I’m with you. I saw that video a while ago and it made my stomach turn and my heart ache.
Yep. I’m with you. I saw that video a while ago and it made my stomach turn and my heart ache.
True, but for the instruction of language arts to be on the social aspect and not the grammar is completely off, in my opinion. Sure it can come up, but this is instructing the teachers to make that the goal, the purpose of language arts.
True, but for the instruction of language arts to be on the social aspect and not the grammar is completely off, in my opinion. Sure it can come up, but this is instructing the teachers to make that the goal, the purpose of language arts.
This is what you get by being public schooled your whole life. 😉 I honestly was taught almost every subject like this, every year. We never had any lessons of “this is a verb; this is a noun; this is persuasive language.” It was all interwoven into bigger stories and pictures. I didn’t get the list of facts approach until college, and I just assumed that it was a maturity issue. I guess that it’s maybe a different approach to learning? I honestly don’t know.
But I’m just saying that this is exactly how I was taught language arts (that’s what it was called back in the day) all through elementary school. In high school, it transitioned into a year of “Great Books,” then into 3 years of English. It was just all a mishmash of stuff all mixed together, not separated out by grammar or reading comprehension or spelling or whatever. It all went together, every unit, every year. In that vein, it looks familiar to me.
This is what you get by being public schooled your whole life. 😉 I honestly was taught almost every subject like this, every year. We never had any lessons of “this is a verb; this is a noun; this is persuasive language.” It was all interwoven into bigger stories and pictures. I didn’t get the list of facts approach until college, and I just assumed that it was a maturity issue. I guess that it’s maybe a different approach to learning? I honestly don’t know.
But I’m just saying that this is exactly how I was taught language arts (that’s what it was called back in the day) all through elementary school. In high school, it transitioned into a year of “Great Books,” then into 3 years of English. It was just all a mishmash of stuff all mixed together, not separated out by grammar or reading comprehension or spelling or whatever. It all went together, every unit, every year. In that vein, it looks familiar to me.
It seems like they are trying to teach our kids to deliberately manipulate. I think it is wrong. There is a place to teach about effective writing skills to large corporations and communities but grade school is about basics. Social problems should be left for the parents to teach and train. Uggg.
It seems like they are trying to teach our kids to deliberately manipulate. I think it is wrong. There is a place to teach about effective writing skills to large corporations and communities but grade school is about basics. Social problems should be left for the parents to teach and train. Uggg.
Does no one edit this “stuff?” As a writing teacher, I would not have approved the first paragraph of “Greedy Groundhog” without its undergoing major revisions. It managed to use six “being” verbs (were=2x; was=3x; had been-1x) in only three sentence. Writing in passive voice indicates a “tired” writer who will create “tired” readers. Overuse of being verbs will put the reader to sleep faster than the tryptophan in the school cafeteria’s turkey entree!
Unless one has the reputation and ability of Charles Dickens who used passive voice and comma splices to open A Tale of Two Cities, I believe children need to learn contemporary English conventions before branching into style.
“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
Does no one edit this “stuff?” As a writing teacher, I would not have approved the first paragraph of “Greedy Groundhog” without its undergoing major revisions. It managed to use six “being” verbs (were=2x; was=3x; had been-1x) in only three sentence. Writing in passive voice indicates a “tired” writer who will create “tired” readers. Overuse of being verbs will put the reader to sleep faster than the tryptophan in the school cafeteria’s turkey entree!
Unless one has the reputation and ability of Charles Dickens who used passive voice and comma splices to open A Tale of Two Cities, I believe children need to learn contemporary English conventions before branching into style.
“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.