Standards for any subject are most effective when used not to drive lesson planning on any given day, but rather the selection of a clear, teacher-friendly, coherently developed curriculum.
An interview with Paul Tough, author of How Children Succeed
Common Core has the potential to shift and drastically improve math instruction in American schools,
Complaints about close reading bother me less than its potential overuse, or the creeping notion that close reading is what all reading instruction should look like under Common Core. That would be bad for the standards, and even worse for reading achievement in the U.S.
In his column, Jay Mathews highlights a blog entry by Mike Petrilli about the weak, content-free curriculum being taught to his first grader in the Montgomery County, Md. public schools.
Opponents of the Common Core question the idea of improving literacy by introducing higher levels of textual complexity into the instructional mix.
The MCPS curriculum is weak when it comes to content in science and extremely weak in history.
The trickle downward of university curricular mischief into our schools and other institutions continues unabated, and it’s not a problem that the College Board alone can solve.
On Politico’s list of fifty “thinkers, doers and dreamers who really matter,” sharing the number eight spot are E.D. Hirsch and David Coleman, the principal author of the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts.
Any pedagogy, curriculum, approach, or technology has to be within the skills of ordinary teachers to implement well and effectively. If it takes a superstar teacher it’s a nonstarter.
Elizabeth Green’s story for Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, “Why Do Americans Stink at Math?” is a must-read. But for all the time Green spends documenting the ways Americans stink at math, she never mentions that we’ve gotten much better.
An alternative school in Boston offers flexibility in pacing, help when students need it, and the chance to continuously reengage on material even if you didn’t master it the first time around–in all, the flexibility, support, and hope that human beings, and particularly teenagers, crave.
A look at key curricular decisions that will be encountered as CCSS makes its way through the school system and the potential political controversies that this process may provoke.
We know for a fact that “balanced literacy” has had little effect on closing stubborn achievement gaps. So why is New York City Schools Chancellor Carmen Farina bringing it back?
Common Core supporters should be showcasing lessons that represent a sharp break with the skills-driven, all-texts-are-created-equal approach that has come to dominate too many classrooms.
Balanced literacy is neither “balanced” nor “literacy,” at least not in the sense that poor kids taught to read via this approach will end up literate.
Our elite universities, should they wish, could end epic oversharing, help student writing, and improve college readiness in one fell swoop.
Teachers are expected to be all things to (almost) all youngsters, but most acknowledge that, while technology and small classes surely help, they do not feel like they’re differentiating all that well.
New York’s small schools have produced powerful results for students—many of whom fall squarely within the cohort of the “underprepared.”
What should we do with these students while they are in high school? What education offerings would benefit them the most?
Abundant research supports content-oriented curricula in the “softer” subjects of English Language Arts and social studies/history.
Two giants of the blogosphere, Jonathan Chait of New York magazine and Ta-Nehisi Coates of the Atlantic, have been engaging in an epic debate this month over the concept of “the culture of poverty.”
Is exactly what we should be telling a lot of high school students.
Montgomery County, Md. will overhaul its struggling alternative school program using personalized, competency-based, and online components.
Complexities threaten implementation