dudejcb wrote: go get the bird wrote:
ohioboy wrote:Go get the bird, do you think the common core allows for incorrect answers?
As it's portrayed in the video, correctness' relevance is secondary to the explanation.
what video did you watch? It seemed pretty clear the correct answer is the most important thing, but that when a kid doesn't get the right answer, then you try to dig into his thought process to see where he went astray, and help him see the WAY.
Giving partial credit (for k-12 ) is, I believe, a means to provide some encouragement so those who don't "get it" right off the bat will, perhaps, be encouraged to stick with it and, heaven forbid, learn something rather than take up space. (Hate using the same word twice in a sentence. bad form)
Then again, giving them an F so they turn off to learning, and school in general, has worked so well up to this point, why not just keep doing it. Then when the dumb-asses get bored they can go out and shoot someone for kicks 'a la Oklahoma.
I watched the entire video posted by Ohio, not just the clip. Maybe you should do the same.
Let me ask you this- is it more important for a child's grade to reflect ability or their effort? How about a high schooler? What about an undergraduate? Masters program candidate? Doctoral candidate?
I'm not saying that common core is lacking merit, I'm saying that I think it's foolish to focus on effort, rather than results. The woman in the clip, and the other presenters for that matter, paints a picture that would give students a thumbs up for the actual answer and an actual grade for their reasoning ability, whether it's wrong or not. Aside from her intentions, the woman comes off as completely unprepared to talk about common core.
I spent the better part of almost two hours reading the common core website, as well as the South Dakota department of education site on our common core standards. I read about their changes in not only curriculum, but ideology as well. The common core track does focus on results, and is supposed to offer a more effective form of educating by reducing the amount a child must know, but increasing the complexities of the curriculum they do need to know. "Teach less, learn more"- one of the common core mottoes. They want to spend more time on less subjects.
My problem doesn't lie with the material, nor does it lie with the teachers (even if Ohio makes it easy). My biggest b!tch is the concept that would suggest that the method is more important than the outcome, or the overall feel of the aforementioned woman's video.
So here's my question, again. What's changed in the past 50 years that warrants these changes? What is causing this massive shift in the material we teach in math and English? Are students less capable of of learning in the slotted amount of time? Are our teachers less capable of properly educating? Do either of them actually give a chidt? I'd this common core just like hanging parts on a car and hoping one of them fixes the problem?