Digging Into Common Core

Here's the lineup for this year's policy series -- very Common Core, as you can see.  The first one is 10/27. Sign up at Catalyst starting 10/3.

Filed under: Events & Deadlines


Leave a comment
  • Our school has started teaching Singapore Math for third graders. Not sure what other grades have switched. As a parent I am relieved that I dont have to look at an Everyday math book or Math Trailblazers again. I have noticed in one week how much clearer Singapore Math is then the other two mentioned. I say 3 cheers for Common Core.

  • Common Core Social Studies standards are severely lacking. All seem to revolve around analyzing primary and secondary source documents. Very little is applicable to Economics, Psychology, or Geography.

    You'd think they would have covered these subjects before they rolled this out.

    I'm not surprised by yet another dithering, half-azzed attempt at standardizing the art of education.

  • In reply to Anonymous:

    Ahem...there are no Common Core Social Studies standards.

    Common Core is for mathematics and English Language Arts. The ELA includes standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science and Technical Subjects, but they are literacy--and not content area standards.

    According to ISBE, "The name chosen for the recently adopted common core is The New Illinois Learning Standards incorporating the Common Core. Illinois has in place educational standards for early childhood, fine arts, foreign language, physical development and health, science, social
    emotional, and social science. The recently adopted common core for English Language Arts and Math are now incorporated into the full set of Illinois Learning Standards."

    So, according to the state, the existing ILS for Social Science are still in place. (Of course, since social studies is not tested, they won't be taught.)

  • In reply to Danaidh:

    Common Core is meant to serve as the minimal standards - not an entire curriculum. This gives states,LEAs, and schools flexibility in their curriculums. There are no stand alone English standards; there are interdisciplinary literacy standards that address reading and writing, which is a step in the right direction rather than reading and writing across the curriculum strategies that we have seen so many of.

  • In reply to Anonymous:

    Not sure what your point is here. Curricula and standards are not synonymous. Curricula must be aligned to the standards so that students receive instruction on those things in which they will be assessed.

    In Illinois, the Common Core ELA standards are indeed stand-alone English Language Arts standards; and the Common Core mathematics standards are stand-alone mathematics standards.

    The Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science and Technical Subjects are standards for literacy "across the curriculum" in those subjects, but are not content-area standards for them. And that was what I meant to say in my post.

  • In reply to Danaidh:

    English has content standards as well and is not just reading and writing - a common misconception.

    Clearly, there is an understanding that standards and curriculum are not the same things, which is why two different words were used.

    Some people are trying to claim Common Core as a curriculum, which it is not. It is skills-based; the inference being that Common Core will not speak to content - that will be decision of the state and LEAs. The comment just pointed to the minimal nature of the Common Core standards.

    Illinois is indeed trying to act as if they are stand alone, but this is a misinterpretation of Common Core's goal - which is to be a common core for all course work hence the listing of the other subject areas for the interdisciplinary standards.

  • RSA Animate - Changing Education Paradigms on youtube--
    common core is meaningless if we do not reform the whole education system!

  • One can't put new wine in old wineskins! Agreed. Brizard's "Factory" model of public education is outdated.

  • fb_avatar


Leave a comment