Salinger and Harper to be replaced by Invasive Plant Inventory in US school curriculum

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by tport17
 


Really? Cause that isn't how it reads to me. To me, this basically says creative thought and expression isn't nearly as important as regurgitating technical details for college credits and workplace performance rates.
Source


Shared responsibility for students’ literacy development
The Standards insist that instruction in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language be a shared responsibility within the school. The K–5 standards include expectations for reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language applicable to a range of subjects, including but not limited to ELA. The grades 6–12 standards are divided into two sections, one for ELA and the other for history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. This division reflects the unique, time-honored place of ELA teachers in developing students’ literacy skills while at the same time recognizing that teachers in other areas must have a role in this development as well.
Part of the motivation behind the interdisciplinary approach to literacy promulgated by the Standards is extensive research establishing the need for college and career ready students to be proficient in reading complex informational text independently in a variety of content areas. Most of the required reading in college and workforce training programs is informational in structure and challenging in content; postsecondary education programs typically provide students with both a higher volume of such reading than is generally required in K–12 schools and comparatively little scaffolding.
The Standards are not alone in calling for a special emphasis on informational text. The 2009 reading framework of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) requires a high and increasing proportion of informational text on its assessment as students advance through the grades.





The Standards aim to align instruction with this framework so that many more students than at present can meet the requirements of college and career readiness. In K–5, the Standards follow NAEP’s lead in balancing the reading of literature with the reading of informational texts, including texts in history/ social studies, science, and technical subjects. In accord with NAEP’s growing emphasis on informational texts in the higher grades, the Standards demand that a significant amount of reading of informational texts take place in and outside the ELA classroom. Fulfilling the Standards for 6–12 ELA requires much greater attention to a specific category of informational text—literary nonfiction—than has been traditional. Because the ELA classroom must focus on literature (stories, drama, and poetry) as well as literary nonfiction, a great deal of informational reading in grades 6–12 must take place in other classes if the NAEP assessment framework is to be matched instructionally.1 To measure students’ growth toward college and career readiness, assessments aligned with the Standards should adhere to the distribution of texts across grades cited in the NAEP framework.
NAEP likewise outlines a distribution across the grades of the core purposes and types of student writing. The 2011 NAEP framework, like the Standards, cultivates the development of three mutually reinforcing writing capacities: writing to persuade, to explain, and to convey real or imagined experience. Evidence concerning the demands of college and career readiness gathered during development of the Standards concurs with NAEP’s shifting emphases: standards for grades 9–12 describe writing in all three forms, but, consistent with NAEP, the overwhelming focus of writing throughout high school should be on arguments and informative/explanatory texts.
edit on 29-1-2013 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)


However, to be fair. You are correct in some ways as i've seen a few references to fictional reading in the classroom (or at least the Bible and Shakespeare) and i doubt that every english teacher is gonna stop having kids read Salinger or Harper as the title of the thread suggests.
edit on 29-1-2013 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thorneblood
reply to post by tport17
 


Really? Cause that isn't how it reads to me. To me, this basically says creative thought and expression isn't nearly as important as regurgitating technical details for college credits and workplace performance rates.





Because the ELA classroom must focus on literature (stories, drama, and poetry) as well as literary nonfiction, a great deal of informational reading in grades 6–12 must take place in other classes...

edit on 29-1-2013 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)


Notice that the English/Language Arts classroom is described in your quote as having literature (stories, drama, and poetry).

I'm not sure how increasing students' abilities in the area of informational text is so frightening to some people.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Thorneblood
 


I guess I don't get your point. It basically says the same thing I already posted. There are an equal amount of standards for informational text and literature. The quote you posted states that the new standards push for all content areas to work together. So, while there will be some informational text reading in Language Arts classes, other content areas such as science and social studies will also be working with reading informational text.

The Language Arts classes will still be required to teach literature. Just as much as informational text, not more, not less, according to the specific standards found here.


In reality, what you quoted is true. In the real world people depend on reading informational text more than literature. Newspapers, college textbooks, manuals, directions, etc are all informational text. It isn't often you will need to read The Catcher in the Rye in order to get by in life.

That isn't to say literature isn't important, because it is. It fosters a love for reading, but it also reinforces critical thinking.

Either way, my point is, schools have not swapped out literature for informational texts.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
they have our schools...our kids are now to be taught UN curriculum
call me wrong
america lost...the un has won
they are hitting us from way too many angles
they have us so overwhelmed
i just want to cry
then to think once disarmed...agenda21 happens



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Probably because the full statement reads like this..




In accord with NAEP’s growing emphasis on informational texts in the higher grades, the Standards demand that a significant amount of reading of informational texts take place in and outside the ELA classroom. Fulfilling the Standards for 6–12 ELA requires much greater attention to a specific category of informational text—literary nonfiction—than has been traditional. Because the ELA classroom must focus on literature (stories, drama, and poetry) as well as literary nonfiction, a great deal of informational reading in grades 6–12 must take place in other classes if the NAEP assessment framework is to be matched instructionally.


While there isn't anything necessarily wrong with learning to read and understand information text, the notion seems to be that a greater portion of their future should be invested in reading those materials (to be a better worker bee) and less fictional material (which might just convince them to be a butterfly) but i suppose it's all subjective.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Hopefully, there will be no such things as "classrooms" in the near future. There won't even be schools. Already in my city, high school seniors are required to take at least one online course in order to graduate. These online courses will only multiply in the future. Unfortunately, they will be filled with the usual garbage that government schools teach in the brick and mortar locations. There are very few reasons to leave your house in order to learn a subject these days. My kids can learn more through the internet in two hours per day than they could sitting in a government school for the required six to seven. They can also learn faster. What I would like to see are more online, private, and accredited home-school options for parents. I want to be in control of what my child learns, not leave it to the government. In this day and age, the government is just interested in teaching your child facts. They do not teach your child how to learn on his or her own and they definitely don't teach them critical thinking. It's only about whatever they can do to make them good corporate citizens who believe everything the MSM tells them to believe.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
The entire point of the Public Education system is to create, maintain, and consistently produce a working class. They are morbidly afraid of an enlightened and intelligent populous who might collectively figure out one day that capitalism is a great system... if you have capital. The Romans figured out a long time ago that slavery only works if the slaves remain ignorant of their strength and their predicament.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thorneblood
Probably because the full statement reads like this..




In accord with NAEP’s growing emphasis on informational texts in the higher grades, the Standards demand that a significant amount of reading of informational texts take place in and outside the ELA classroom. Fulfilling the Standards for 6–12 ELA requires much greater attention to a specific category of informational text—literary nonfiction—than has been traditional. Because the ELA classroom must focus on literature (stories, drama, and poetry) as well as literary nonfiction, a great deal of informational reading in grades 6–12 must take place in other classes if the NAEP assessment framework is to be matched instructionally.


While there isn't anything necessarily wrong with learning to read and understand information text, the notion seems to be that a greater portion of their future should be invested in reading those materials (to be a better worker bee) and less fictional material (which might just convince them to be a butterfly) but i suppose it's all subjective.


My only experience is with Missouri, so teachers from other states may have a different view on this. In Missouri, the current standards basically don't include much about informational text. I just looked them over for high school and there are literally 5 standards that specifically address informational text. I could be wrong, but it seems like 2-3 years ago there were none. I remember last year when I printed out my 4th grade standards there was a new group for informational text that wasn't there the other 100 times I had viewed them.

I believe that even though schools have taught informational text, it hasn't necessarily been required. It definitely wasn't required in other content areas. The new standards have shown a greater emphasis on informational text just by adding it in to the requirements.

So, basically, even though kids read from their science book, it isn't currently a standard. With Common Core it is. In my understanding of reading all of this, nothing will really change much, other than what is already happening will now be considered required.

Does that make any kind of sense at all?

I'll also throw this out there. My school switched textbooks this year so they are all aligned with Common Core. Our reading textbooks are divided by units. Each unit has 3-4 fiction stories and 1 nonfiction. Which means the kids read a nonfiction text about once a month. This is no different than what they were doing last year with their non Common Core text books.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Thorneblood
 


if you dont think that the " invasive plant inventory " will teach children how to think - you are not thinking yourself



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   
As i am not a teacher, obviously, i feel i should ask this directly of the two who seem to be in this discussion.

Do you believe that you could not effectively teach the children in your class a topic through fiction?

And for the record, I have nothing against Non-fictional literature in general, i can think of a few great books in the area that would be useful in a classroom setting, "An Introduction to the Natures and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" for social sciences, "The Articles of Confederation" or "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience" for history.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by chrismarco
 


"Catcher in the Rue?" That is one of my favorites, right after "Murder in the Rye Morgue."

This could have an upside though. I mean, the public school curricula in this nation's schools could use more practical science and less emotionally-derived content.

Still, it is a shame. To cut classic literature. A decent school system would make room for both. It is disheartening.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


Here you go, hope your kids learn something then
Invasive Plant Inventory



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
No doubt Orwell and Huxley will be on that hit list as well. We read those in school as representations of the Evil Empire but now they strike too close to home.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
One could easily draw comparisons between "A Brave New World" and the popularity of HydroCodone and OxyCotin in American couldn't they?


And I still think Orwell would have shot himself if he had seen what the future really held....



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
I'm a teacher, and have to say that the Common Core is designed to INCREASE rigor in our schools.

The previous poster is correct: much of the emphasis on informational reading skills will come from the content areas, such as science and social studies. Literature analysis is expected at every grade level, and even the little ones will be expected to do textual analyses of fiction. Also, within the common core there is less emphasis on rote factual recall and more emphasis on critical thinking.

I'd have to say emphatically that all of the gloom and doom portrayed in this thread about the common core curriculum is being preached by people who are making wild assumptions, not based on fact.

Do a little reading about it (maybe actually READ the standards yourself!) and then discuss.



Do you really think that people on ATS use facts to help form their opinions? I think it is painfully obvious that is not the case. A shame since that was the original intent of the site.

I think these standards were needed. I also think they will end up reading most of the books mentioned as well. I read 1984 in grade school which was basically worthless for me. Had I read it later in high school or in college I think the message would have been much clearer, so I don't really get the issue if indeed some books are no longer read in elementary or middle school.

The other thing is that these authors all ended up writing these creative and insightful books without having the luxury of reading their own during their own school years, so the absence of a few to enforce more fact based learning is not the end of the world by any means.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   
This thread really provides a great example of the differences in learning styles doesn't it?

Half prefer raw imagination and the other half raw information as the primary component of learning how to deal with the world. Funny though that all the "Dreamers" are still remembered and most of the "Thinkers" are easily forgotten. Ah well, i guess some people will always prefer a story to a lecture.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
A move from literature to "informational texts" is simply a blunt admission that our schools no longer teach students how to think but only what to think.

Never mind that Orwell guy. Just memorize these figures.


Couldn't have said that any bettter



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thorneblood
As i am not a teacher, obviously, i feel i should ask this directly of the two who seem to be in this discussion.

Do you believe that you could not effectively teach the children in your class a topic through fiction?

And for the record, I have nothing against Non-fictional literature in general, i can think of a few great books in the area that would be useful in a classroom setting, "An Introduction to the Natures and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" for social sciences, "The Articles of Confederation" or "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience" for history.



Well, I'll be honest. Generally, kids hate nonfiction. I'm not a huge fan of teaching it, either. It doesn't mean it isn't a useful thing to learn.

Consider spiders. I want to teach the students about spiders. I would obviously choose to use nonfiction to teach about spiders, rather than Charlotte's Web. It really depends on what your topic is.

Another skill is fact and opinion (this one I teach like crazy). Nonfictional text is a great way to teach fact and opinion. It could be done with the right fictional book, but it is so much more cut and cry with a nonfiction book.

Main idea and details. Another skill that is much easier for students to understand if they are working with nonfiction. At least in early grades. It could be taught with fiction but fiction is so subjective I fear younger children would be lost in the mix of ideas. Not to say young children can't have varying ideas on literature, but it can get complicated with main idea and details. A lot of kids seem to struggle with this one.

Running low on other nonfiction specific skills, so I will end it there. Yes I could possibly teach all skills in fiction, but it wouldn't be the best thing for the students imo.

ETA:
I should add that students do learn about main idea and details with fictional stories, but they learn it with non fiction first. At least they do where I teach.
edit on 29-1-2013 by tport17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by workingforyou
 


Sure he could have, he could have said "Ignore that Huxley guy" cause he was the one who got it right.




“Two thousand pharmacologists and bio-chemists were subsidized. Six years later it was being produced commercially. The perfect drug. Euphoric, narcotic, pleasantly hallucinant. All the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects. Take a holiday from reality whenever you like, and come back without so much as a headache.”
-Aldous Huxley, Brave New World


Huxley feared a world in which pleasure would be used to control the masses, not pain. He was afraid that we would reach a point where the truth would be given freely and simply forgotten as the people drowned in a sea of sex, drugs and mass media.
edit on 29-1-2013 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by tport17
 


Nor would i think it would be, but as we see throughout our society there are simply many, many lessons that we learn from life and even from school that when given as pure facts simply don't make an impact on us.

Charlotte's Web and how it deals with the cycle of life and death in nature is a great example.

I guess it's simply comes down to this for me.

Most people don't remember reading 4th Grade Science by McGraw-Hill and thinking it changed their life, yet how many young children can remember reading any of the great novels they were forced to read in class and thinking (Maybe just in that one moment) that they could be alot more then anything they had dreamed of?

Is it important for children to have information and use logic? Absolutely. But i have always believed that the thing that really makes America great is our often astounding ability to simply dream and weave a beautiful story. We are, after all, a nation of creators and inventors.






top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join