4 ms·

Agreed with your sentiments, but Khan is financed by Bill "Common Core" Gates and in May partnered with the College Board (hard core CCSS folks) so look for KA

Agreed with your sentiments, but Khan is financed by Bill "Common Core" Gates and in May partnered with the College Board (hard core CCSS folks) so look for KA to get closer to CCSS, not further. Money talks and CCSS, as bad as it is pedagogically, has a surface plausibility that fools folks who have never taught. In this sense it is like the New Math of the Sixties, which tried to improve math learning by starting at the most fundamental concepts (eg, set theory in the first grade) when in fact those concepts were worked out over centuries by the brightest minds working on math. They confused the logical starting point with the pedagogical starting point. The good news is that these catastrophes are dumped even faster than they come into ascendance and CCSS is confirming that trend. We just need to remember this the next time academic geniuses decide we are doing it all wrong and -- instead of offering a little professional development -- decide to offer all new standards, textbooks, and standardized exams. I too have a soft spot in my heart for bold strokes, I just want them to come from folks who know what they are doing. The CCSS authors did not. ps. I do not think thesis says what you think it says.

jblad 12y ago
I'm wondering what your pedagogical objections are to the CCSS math standards. From my reading of the CCSS and supporting documents, it sure seems like the designers were research-informed. What did they get wrong, and what would you do differently? It really isn't a rehashing of New Math. They think very carefully about the pedagogical starting point, in fact. Please don't assume that people who think the CCSS are on balance a good thing are people who are inexperienced in the classroom. There is room to disagree about aspects of the CCSS, but the discussion will be more productive if our assertions are supported by evidence, rather than name-calling.
- kennytilton 12y ago
  (a) my analogy with the New Math was not meant to equate the two, only their conceptual cart before procedural horse qualities (which would also be my pedagogical concern); (b) don't get me wrong: I agree with the "deeper understanding" goal of CCSS, and it was how I taught. The concerns I expressed were with the whole program's implementation, (un)testing, and effectiveness with less than exceptional students -- more of a systems thing than pedagogy. In fact, CCSS would have been great as a professional development "surge", if you will. All this testing, book-rewriting, and saber-rattling over accountability -- well, the proponents get an "F" for change implementation.
  - jblad 12y ago
    When you are talking about the "program's implementation," are you talking about how the CCSS were developed? The authors were informed by the best existing state standards, teacher feedback, and public input, and they aimed for the standards to be research and evidence-based more than any other standards document I've read. Every change of standards must face the charge of "untested", though I think the authors of the Common Core mitigate this by basing their work on research and work that is tested. I am unfamiliar with any large-scale failures of the CCSS with struggling students, but I have seen struggler excel with an approach that emphasizes understanding. Of course, anecdotes are not data, and I'm open to hearing how the Common Core fails our weakest students. I don't think it is perfect, but I do think it is better than any of the alternatives I've taught with. If we're being honest, in many places in the US, the emphasis on misusing standardized test scores to shut down schools and fire teachers was well under way long before the CCSS. And to be clear, I don't think this makes any sense. But I don't think it's reasonable to pin this on the Common Core, it's just that it provides an enemy that people from around the country can hate on.
    - kennytilton 12y ago
      By "implementation" I mean everything that followed the authoring of CC. (But I do have a big problem with the few authors and absence of meaningful feedback from educators.) The thing is untested, mandated, used as a threat, and more untested. I also think the absence of feedback from real teachers was an act of arrogance and ignorance: teachers are actually pretty good at what they do, and the best teachers could have totally schooled the CC authors. They never really asked. CC reminds me of what Yeltsin said about Communism: "It was a beautiful dream."

jblad 12y ago

I'm wondering what your pedagogical objections are to the CCSS math standards. From my reading of the CCSS and supporting documents, it sure seems like the designers were research-informed. What did they get wrong, and what would you do differently? It really isn't a rehashing of New Math. They think very carefully about the pedagogical starting point, in fact. Please don't assume that people who think the CCSS are on balance a good thing are people who are inexperienced in the classroom. There is room to disagree about aspects of the CCSS, but the discussion will be more productive if our assertions are supported by evidence, rather than name-calling.

kennytilton 12y ago
(a) my analogy with the New Math was not meant to equate the two, only their conceptual cart before procedural horse qualities (which would also be my pedagogical concern); (b) don't get me wrong: I agree with the "deeper understanding" goal of CCSS, and it was how I taught. The concerns I expressed were with the whole program's implementation, (un)testing, and effectiveness with less than exceptional students -- more of a systems thing than pedagogy. In fact, CCSS would have been great as a professional development "surge", if you will. All this testing, book-rewriting, and saber-rattling over accountability -- well, the proponents get an "F" for change implementation.
- jblad 12y ago
  When you are talking about the "program's implementation," are you talking about how the CCSS were developed? The authors were informed by the best existing state standards, teacher feedback, and public input, and they aimed for the standards to be research and evidence-based more than any other standards document I've read. Every change of standards must face the charge of "untested", though I think the authors of the Common Core mitigate this by basing their work on research and work that is tested. I am unfamiliar with any large-scale failures of the CCSS with struggling students, but I have seen struggler excel with an approach that emphasizes understanding. Of course, anecdotes are not data, and I'm open to hearing how the Common Core fails our weakest students. I don't think it is perfect, but I do think it is better than any of the alternatives I've taught with. If we're being honest, in many places in the US, the emphasis on misusing standardized test scores to shut down schools and fire teachers was well under way long before the CCSS. And to be clear, I don't think this makes any sense. But I don't think it's reasonable to pin this on the Common Core, it's just that it provides an enemy that people from around the country can hate on.
  - kennytilton 12y ago
    By "implementation" I mean everything that followed the authoring of CC. (But I do have a big problem with the few authors and absence of meaningful feedback from educators.) The thing is untested, mandated, used as a threat, and more untested. I also think the absence of feedback from real teachers was an act of arrogance and ignorance: teachers are actually pretty good at what they do, and the best teachers could have totally schooled the CC authors. They never really asked. CC reminds me of what Yeltsin said about Communism: "It was a beautiful dream."