BS: New curricula in US schools?

Subject: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 11:58 AM

"A new school curriculum which will affect 46 out of 50 states will make it compulsory for at least 70 per cent of books studied to be non-fiction, in an effort to ready pupils for the workplace."

Telegraph article containing the story.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 12:28 PM

A "student" should be given two years of high school.

If they have a reasonable aptitude for academics, they should go on to the second two years.

The rest should be transferred to trade schools where they learn carpentry, farm work, electronic asssembly, truck driving or other skills of their choice.

Both groups should be taught paractical skills including balancing a check book and filling out a Federal Tax form.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 12:46 PM

That's right, PeeDee - ship the proles off to be farm laborers at below minimum wage. You seem to be lodged in the 1870's, and one part of your anatomy seems also to be lodged in another part.

By the way, who determines what a "reasonable aptitude" is, and who does the analysis of the proles? The government you're constantly whining about?

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 12:51 PM

Whoever is suggesting this change ought to be taught the difference between a reference book and one that is written to be reac the whole way through.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 12:55 PM

In California, half the "students" cannot read a newpaper, at least not one in English.

In Nevada, over half the "students" drop out.

Exposing them to high literature is at least premature, perhaps pointless.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 01:11 PM

Please, PD, don't be such an ass. If their parents don't care if their children read or learn the kids won't. If the parents aren't involved in the children's education then, in my opinion, they're guilty of child neglect.

My family was poor, and from age 5 on I was fatherless because he was killed in a job site accident. But he read anything he could get his hands on and so did my mother. More, it was decided that all four of their children would graduate from college. We did, and two of us went on to earn graduate degrees. This was in the face of immense family pressure "not to get those kid's hopes up about college" and "let them get started at the Works."

Dude, I know quite a few kids who grew up in the same situation and who graduated from college and have made more than their share of marks in the world. And I know of others who were "college tracked" who ended up successful electricians and carpenters.

NO!!! Four years of high school and required graduation, with concentrations in history, math, chemistry, physics, biology, literature, and two year of a language other than English.

By the way, while Nevada has the lowest percentage of students completing high school, the figure for graduation is 61.9%. This means that "over half the "students" drop out" is at odds with the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 01:19 PM

As a lifelong teacher, I find this most interesting. The key point in the article is the Arkansa teacher's question about a well-rounded education versus teaching for a job. The film Dead Poets' Society dealt with this very ably. I can't imagine how one could 'teach' a list of plants or insulation standards. Teachers will come to resemble Mr Gradgrind. (Dickens' 'Hard Times') I do hope America won't go down the same road as the National Curriculum here in UK. I taught for many years (fortunately) with complete freedom to teach what I chose from a broad structure. Then the straitjacket was donned. I ended up with a class of delightful eight year-olds and was forced to present The Depression and The Abdication to them. We should rather have been having fun dressing up as Knights of Old or Victorian chimney sweeps. 'English' now consists of Literacy Hour, involving dipping into short texts and extracts, a practice I deplore. The Authorities need to decide exactly what it is they define as Education. Children aren't factory fodder.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 01:29 PM

No, Rapper, you stop being such an ass and learn something.

I doubt you have not been to a high school in Los Angeles County in recent years.

The main goal of "students" there is to survive.

Exposing them to J. D. Salinger is pointless when the teacher says "read this" and the students says "oh yeh, make me!".

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: sciencegeek
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 01:36 PM

where did they get this info from? I didn't see the normal types of crediting sources...

I will say that our biggest problem with education of late is the trend for indoctrination, than teaching kids to reason and think for themselves.

And don't get me started on multiple choice testing...

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 01:46 PM

"where did they get this info from? I didn't see the normal types of crediting sources..."

That's part of the reason I posted that article link. I'm trying to find out how much truth there is in it.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 01:58 PM

Consider that if PDQ considers Catcher in the Rye and To Kill a Mocking Bird "high literature" it may explain a lot about his lack of clear and rational thinking on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 02:07 PM

Another thread destined to prove that there are no grownups left on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 02:30 PM

"How to track high school graduation rates has been a contentious issue for years, with states using different methods to come up with a number. Balfanz cited that as a reason why the report does not include the names of the dropout factories. He said they will be included in a future report once all states are consistently reporting data.

States are now required to use the same method to compute graduation rates based on a Bush administration rule issued in 2008.

Nevada stood out for its low graduation rate of 56 percent, a decline of more than 15 percentage points from 2002 to 2009, the largest of any state, the report said...."



From here: http://www.lvrj.com/news/report-nevada-stands-out-for-low-graduation-rate-143288706.html



I believe the number is from dropout who left in a given year.

For youngsters who were enrolled at sometime in their four years of high school age, dropout rate is more than 50%.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 03:01 PM

If a child hears only rap, then rap will be either the choice to 'sing' or the child will refuse to sing at all.

If a child knows only Harlequin novels, say, that will be the child's reading material – or the child will refuse the written word.

If the only lifestyle known is multi-generational welfare, then welfare will be considered the norm.

Exposure to diversity is essential if there is to be progress. In anything.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 03:09 PM

Another thread destined to prove that there are no grownups left on Mudcat.

YOU certainly haven't posted anything to refute that statement, PeeDee.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 03:21 PM

I used the term High Literature to describe the book mentioned in the initial post.

For a couple of Mudcatters who are "thick as a brick"...

from here: http://greatliteraryworks.blogspot.com/2009/07/high-literature-vs-popular-literature.html


High Literature vs Popular Literature

Written by son of rambow on Monday, July 06, 2009

In "Popular Literature" class—when I was a student at American Studies Gadjah Mada University majoring 'American Literature and Culture'—my classmates and I used to have lively discussion on "dichotomy" of popular literature—often considered as low quality literature—versus high-brow literature. Why should this dichotomy exist? Who has privilege to decide which kind of literature is considered pop and which is high? And why should some people feel that they have that privilege?

Some literary critics said that when a work was produced only to follow what public wanted to read—just for fun or entertainment, no "deep meaning" under the surface of the story—then it would be categorized into "pop literature". In addition to that, people also said the work was only for commercial's need, because the writer needed money when writing. On the contrary, when a work was produced not only to follow public's needs, it was written more to fulfill the writer's ambition to communicate "something important" to readers, so that the work had "deep meaning", then the work could be categorized into "high-brow literature".

However, when talking about Jack London's works, who would say that his works do not have deep meaning whereas London himself said that he wrote them only formoney? Literary critics even classified London's works into high-brow literature.

Besides that, critics said that the parameter of high-brow literature was when one work deserved to be included into canon. The canon here usually refers to "big anthologies" such as Norton Anthology, Heath Anthology, etc. Again, I want to ask, who has privilege to select which works to be included into those anthologies?

{shortened-see link}

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 03:40 PM

Then again, people like Bobert consider Zap Comix and Fritz the Cat to be High Literature.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: gnu
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 04:04 PM

pdq... Date: 08 Dec 12 - 03:40 PM

That is a troll post. It's also obnoxious and shows your low level of civility and intelligence.

"No grownups?" I know of at least one that isn't. I'd say you should alologize, but spoiled children seldom do.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 04:07 PM

The article in the Telegraph is typical of English tabloid inaccuracy.

It refers to "Common Core Standards" adopted in Pennsylvania "and other states."
The organization (website linked below) claims adoption by all but five states. I have a notion that the school bureaucrats in each state are kneading the "standard" to suit their own ideas.

The "standards require" 50 percent non-fiction in grade schools by 2014 and growing to 70 percent in grade 12.

Jami Reese, a teacher at Somersat High, calls the "standards" exciting. The "standards require science teachers to read from scientific journals, newspapers, essays, etc." as well as from textbooks. (Gee- Jimmy Falwell enters the classroom).

Sounds like something drempt (dreamed) up by educators who lack any knowledge of science.

Read all about this stuff here-
http://www.corestandards.org/
Standards designed to be "robust and relevant to the real world."
Just another cowplop pancake some educators are trying to sell. The idea will crater after a mess is made of pre-university teaching.

(Don't them gits with a degree in edjicashun make you puke?)

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 04:07 PM

Another post by someone who has nothing to contribute.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: Bettynh
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 04:13 PM

Well, the Common Core Standards are here. There are no recommended books at all, just reasonable-sounding things like "a kindergarden graduate should be able to open a book, recognize that letters on a page represent words, and begin to name letters." Not exactly controversial.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 04:15 PM

My post was a "tie" with Q. Not aimed at him.

Obviously intended for one of several other posters who regularly violate the official policy against hateful personal attacks.

Perhaps the powers that be on Mudcat will just be honest and delete all rules about civility?

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 04:16 PM

Just hewing to the standards of the initiator of this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 04:33 PM

"To appropriately cite the Common Core State Standards, use the following:
Authors: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.
---------------
Publisher: National Governors Association Center for Besr Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, D. C."

Youall can download the standards Here:
http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards

Whoopee!

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 04:58 PM

School is a waste of time and money.
Give them shovels and wheelbarrows.
=(:-( D)

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 05:19 PM

Just hewing to the standards of the initiator of this thread.

Bruce initiated the thread, Q, and his standards are just fine.

Pee-Dee began his usual spoiled brat, 2-year-old pissing around in the SECOND slot.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 05:55 PM

> Who has privilege to decide which kind of literature is considered pop and which is high?

An all too familiar question.

Everybody has the privilege. If you're in a literature classroom, the teacher has the privilege because its his job. Until proven otherwise, it's reasonable to assume the teacher knows more about his subject than the student. The minute you're out, however, you can read and discuss whatever the hell you want.

Shakespeare, by the way, wrote for money. As did Jack London and most other famous literary names you could mention. (Emily Dickinson didn't want to. Jane Austen and Count Tolstoy didn't have to.)

"High" literature earned its reputation because enough readers found enough significance in it over a long enough time to make other people want to read it too. If you can find that kind of meaning in, say, "Forty Shades of Gray," go to it. No one will stop you. And maybe you can persuade others that it's really there.

But if you can't, I wouldn't advise writing a paper on it for a "literature" class.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 06:07 PM

People pontificating on education ought to be aware of the difference between tabloid and non-tabloid newspapers.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 06:18 PM

ARE there any non-tabloid papers these days?

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 07:24 PM

IMHO, tracking kids with less than stellar academic aptitudes into trade schools is anathema to the spirit of the US educational system. Kids should be allowed to take the trade school route if that's what they desire, but forcing them to do so is an entirely different matter. If it's patently obvious that a kid despises regular school, he should be encouraged to consider trade school, but some administrator deciding what direction a kid's education should take without considering the kid's desires is simply not how things are done in the US. If the kid wants to be a C student in regular school instead of learning to be a plumber, it's his right to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 07:35 PM

Actually, that is the plan I would suggest if decisions on schools were left to me.

BTW, both my parents were career school teachers.

Two years of high school as we have now, then an option to go to trade school if he/she wants.

Some kids have no intentions of learning so the teacher and the other students suffer.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 07:53 PM

They disrupt the class. Bully the teacher. Ruin everything for everybody.
And laugh about it.
=(:-( D)

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 07:57 PM

PS: Not every work of "high literature" can or will speak to every reader. In fact, probably only a minority of them will speak to any individual.

That doesn't make them any less great taken all together.

But the idea that every intelligent middle-schooler must/ ought to be swept up by "The Scarlet Letter" or "Silas Marner" is nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 08:04 PM

Yep, even if the teacher is reading to the kids.

It doesn't take more than a few pages of Deerslayer or Beowulf before out come the spitwads!

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 10:49 PM

Crock O Bull

What sort of "fiction" do California students find in:
mathematics
history
economics
science

Even if the remaining subject area....language arts (which includes speaking and writing and literature) read 100% fiction (and they DO NOT) students reading in grades aged 12 to 18 FAR exceeds 70%.

Typical Mudcat BS ... typical of the five trolls that live in the lower Mudcat outhouses.


California requirements excell those of 97% of the world...and their rigorous r FULL teaching credential (unlike states like Iowa) has universal acceptance in all 50

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: artbrooks
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 10:59 PM

I suspect that I shall wait until I read about this change in US instructional standards in something other than a link to a UK tabloid before I get upset about it.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 11:37 PM

http://www.ccsso.org/documents/2012/common_core_resources.pdf

Pages 14 and 15 at that site contain links that will likely clear this up (for me). Thank you for the info making it possible for me to find that site.

I found it difficult to believe the article as linked to in the opening post, so I asked here. That may have been a mistake, but that's as it is. Many thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 12:37 AM

Make children earn the right to go to school.
Don't just give it to them.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 05:09 AM

The original article linked may be typical journalism for the source, and isn't a whole lot different from many other sources.

It quite obviously "sensationalizes" the "news" by picking a single nit to pluck at, and unfortunately it completely distorts, mostly just by omission, the actuality.

The "new curriculum" is very little different from any other of the attempts to organize goals to be achieved in teaching. It recites a lot of "good things" that should happen, and perhaps will have some influence in providing more consistent performance across participating schools.

The "nit" picked out, that "factual" texts outnumber fiction and literature should be an expected result for anyone even vaguely familiar with the possible variations in what may be appropriately taught to the students.

In literature, as in most other established fields, there are well known selections that have been traditionally accepted as things "everybody should know," so the list of recommended texts, while fairly broad, is significantly shorter than the list of texts applicable to other things that may be taught, but with each of the "other" applicable to fewer students.

The cited example of "insulation codes" is perfectly appropriate for those who choose, or who are directed to, a particular "trade school" course of study, but very few students actually will need that one. Others who are learning different trades will require tin bending, mop swinging, coal dynamiting, pickandshoveling, and other "trade school" texts through Java programming and HTML5 (if it ever becomes a standard).

The very large list of "factual" resources is because there is a lot of variation in the more narrowly defined courses of study in the alternate classes provided for those who want or need them. There are a very large number of such courses possible, but with relatively few students taking each course. It is thus necessary, to provide guidance "if you teach this you should use this book" for highly diverse and fragmented fields - and hence a whole lot of different texts/materials appropriate to the diversities there.

There is NO DEMAND that every teacher, or every student, must use every text. Recommended texts are given as guidance for which texts/resources should be used for the particular classes for which they're appropriate. Since there are a lot of possibilities for what may be taught, there are a lot of source materials , but with many of the materials applicable only to a few. There is much more variety in the "trade oriented" courses than in the more generic "general eductation" curricula, with a need for many more texts/materials of limited use.

It's quite obvious that the reporter who produced the article was "trade school trained" in "media management" or something similar, which unfortunately is a very popular course for those who choose not to follow a path toward literacy - apparently much the same in the UK as in the US. In both places, they could probably use better texts ...

John

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 07:10 AM

I trained to be a teacher and spent some years substitute teaching in an economically well off school system.

2 different teaching assignments included reading a piece of literature and watching a film made on said piece, class discussion and written assignments of critical comparison of film to the written story.

Experience 1: Remedial English class of about twenty, 15 to 18 year olds also enrolled in the school system's trade school. I was warned by teacher friends it would be a difficult assignment because the students were not academically inclined and some were trouble makers. The students were a delight, engaged in the assignment and polite.

Experience 2: Advanced level English. Only a dozen 16-17 year olds. I was told I was fortunate as this class holds the cream of the school. They were lazy, socially impaired, spoiled rotten brats. They refused to do the work set by their own teacher, gossiped about and sniped at each other like dysfunctional siblings and gave me no end of grief.

If I had been given a technical manual to teach in those classes, I somehow doubt the outcome would be different, but how much less rich would the education be for those Remedial English students who were participating on every level?

Teachers need to be given the scope to be creative and make the material taught as interesting and accessible as possible. This was becoming increasingly more difficult in mid to late 1990s when I took my teacher degree and started teaching. Standards of Learning (SOLs as they were then called) and the budget of the school were major factors in how much or little a teacher could do.

BTW, it is not on to make a statement like Then again, people like Bobert consider Zap Comix and Fritz the Cat to be High Literature. and then whine about people not being civil. Do you own a mirror?

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 07:24 AM

I enjoyed Zap Comix, Fritz, Mr. Natural, The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers, etc. immensely as a young teen.
School bureaucracy caused me to lose interest in education.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: sciencegeek
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 08:58 AM

Virginia... before I went into state service, I got my teaching certification and did my student teaching in the more affluent high school where 16 year old kids drove expensive new cars to school, sold drugs to each and had little or no respect for anyone whose paycheck relegated them to the 99 percenters...

The teachers and administrators were merely servants or lackeys... talk about the sense of entitlement... yet, with two working parents... they were still latchkey kids... just with $$$.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 09:03 AM

A shovel and a wheelbarrow, geek.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: pdq
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 10:25 AM

My crack about Zap Comix and Bobert was humor. I'm sure he has no problem with it.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 11:38 AM

Virgina Tam -

The point that you seem to be missing is that there's nothing in the new curriculum that would ever require you to use a technical reference in a typical Advanced English Class. The tech manual cited - insulation standards - merely tells teachers presenting a class on building construction which reference on insulation is recommended when they teach that part of how to put a building together. Teachers of advanced English seldom teach nailing, wrenching, riviting, or welding, but other teachers who do teach those subjects also need guidance.

Conversely, there is nothing preventing you from using a technical document from the approved list if you included segment on writing technical English if there was a reason for including that particular skill in your English class (although that particular need would be rare?). Assuming that you weren't a skilled nail bender, it would be helpful to know what tech books would be most similar to what students, who at the same time or later might be in a trade-oriented course of study, would be likely to see again.

For some students, a course on "International English"¹ would be more useful than "Advanced English" but I've never seen it taught in a public school and it would be of value only to a very select few students.

¹ International English, in this context, is a specific vocabulary of a few hundred words, used (if one follows the regulations) in maintenance and operating manuals for (mostly military?) equipment that might be deployed among non-English speaking (and/or ESL) workers. It's very difficult to teach native English speakers to write it correctly but reasonably simple to teach almost anyone, in any language, to read it "adequately," or for someone to translate it to a local language. (Recollection is that there are/were separate specifications for a 200 word and for an 800 word vocabulary, although the "word sets" may vary from time to time.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 11:46 AM

My crack about Zap Comix and Bobert was humor.

I'll remind you of thet PeeDee next time you're whining on about someone being uncivil to poor little you.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 11:55 AM

The issue of curriculum & books is way more complex than that...

2 years ago in Texas

from that article...

"Because the Texas textbook market is so large, books assigned to the state's 4.7 million students often rocket to the top of the market, decreasing costs for other school districts and leading them to buy the same materials."

Many other articles on this... Google

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 12:22 PM

'"A new school curriculum which will affect 46 out of 50 states will make it compulsory for at least 70 per cent of books studied to be non-fiction, in an effort to ready pupils for the workplace."'

What I finally see is erroneous about that headline remark is this: at least 70% of the books used in schools since education became formalized have been non-fiction.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 01:26 PM

The influence of the huge Texas market on the quality of American schoolbooks has been notorious for over thirty years.

For example, Texans don't care much for science textbooks that accept evolution. They admire books that suggest that Washington and Jefferson held strong Christian beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: New curricula in US schools?
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Dec 12 - 02:24 PM

And that's just the tip of the iceberg of the collective censorship, suppressions, distortions and anti-intellectualism in general that have been foisted upon U.S. students by ignorant, football-worshipping fundagelical arseholes in Texas.

Should be no problem to look this up with a search or two- this abuse, as Lighter says, is hardly new.