- @rpondiscio Now, Robert, ignoring #CommonCore (example one) is just rather obtuse. Common Core is a curricula standard and part of #edreform in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio also, there is the work Fordham has done on curriculum standards. Just because you may not like the proposed standards/curricula in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio and it doesn't fit w/Core Knowledge's playbook doesn't mean that curriculum has been ignored by the #edreform community. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio Please offer more than an ad hominem. in reply to rpondiscio #
- From @edreform: Fact-Checking Charter School Achievement #edreform #SchoolChoice #
- @rpondiscio If you don't have underlying standards, content is meaningless. This is the first rule in anything that involves content. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio You have to set up what children are supposed to learn in school, especially given that without the underlying standards… in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio you're not going to be able to structure a curricula that 1) actually provides kids what they need to learn 2) gives teachers in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio and parents a roadmap for what children should be learning, and 3) helps curriculum developers actually do their work. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio The reality is that, to a certain extent, if you have standards, you can then actually build curricula that works. Right now in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio (and I know Core Knowledge folks would argue otherwise), most curricula is rather useless, not rigorous and fails kids. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio I'm actually quite aware of the difference between standards and content, rules and content, and the like. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio So let's try dealing with each other as folks who have some base level of knowledge about ed. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio On the other hand, you want to put the cart before the horse. I say you need the cart and the horse. But from a policy in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio perspective, the horse has to come first. Unless one wants to completely eliminate public education and go to a completely in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio private-run system, you will have to have standards, then curricula. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio And I'd dare say that even in a fully private system, standards are going to dictate curricula. You have to have base rules. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @MrDs_Nabe But what good is curricula without standards? Again, you need both. But from a policy perspective, the latter comes first. in reply to MrDs_Nabe #
- @MrDs_Nabe And even in a private school, there are standards that guide the path of curricula. in reply to MrDs_Nabe #
- At Dropout Nation: Steve Peha: Still Waiting in D.C. #edreform #MichelleRhee #DCPS #
- @rpondiscio What you should be able to do is what you should also know. What you know is what you should be able to do. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio If you can't perform it, it generally means you don't know it. Especially in the academic context. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio What we disagree about is philosophical, not actual facts. So, as far as you are concerned, I'm conflating things when… in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio this isn't the case. Try looking past your biases. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio By the way: In what non-ed folks call the real world, knowing and performing are positively correlated. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio If you know an algebra equation, you should be able to perform it, if taught properly. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio Prove it. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio In what world are you living in? in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio That is like saying that a carpenter can actually build something, but not know how to build it. False on all levels. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio Now, if you're talking about knowing how to do something the right way, that can be different from having skills… in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio Example of that is in math. If that is what you are saying, then please be clear. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio But you cannot begin critical thinking until you have knowledge and skill. You need basics, and the ability to show them first in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio The problem when people talk about "critical thinking" is they seem to think you just need knowledge. It is forgotten that in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio skill is part of the knowledge base. The ability to do something is as important as the ability to know something. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio You focus on knowledge without skill. I say you need both. But if you cannot demonstrate the skill, the likelihood in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio that you know what you are doing is quite unlikely. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio That isn't so. You may know how to build a house, but not necessarily how to build a car. The engineering and scientific in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio principals underlying both, along with the skill sets, are quite different. Robert, please try a better example. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio By the way: In order to learn the skills in building a car, you must first know what a car does, how a car works, underlying in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio mechanics, scientific principals and the like. Especially if you want to achieve mastery. Any mechanic can tell you that. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio Actually, Robert, if I was less open-minded, I could say likewise. But I don't think you're speechifying. Neither am I, in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio We come from two different perspectives, ideologically in the education space. This means that we are dealing with in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio what is called a conflict of visions. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio Reading scores have been in the toilet for the past four decades per NAEP. In that time, we have gone from phonics to whole in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio language and back again. The problem isn't just practice. It's a systemic problem that involves how teachers are trained in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio the kind of curricula and standards we have, and how we deliver education. As well as the underlying biases against in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio racial and ethnic minorities that have been a part of education for quite some time (e.g. the underlying reasons why in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio the comprehensive high school model and ability tracking were developed, because of the belief that immigrants in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio and blacks were incapable of college prep-oriented learning). in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio You are right. I apologize. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio I do, however, think that because of your own ideological leanings, you think of skills and knowledge as two different things in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio when in the rest of the world outside of education, they aren't different things, they are part of the entire package called in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio knowledge. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio No, Twitter is a proper forum. It's that passionate people do get passionate. That's part of the nature of the game. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio No debate can occur without heat. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio I don't think so, you have emphasized the false division of knowledge and skill. Please feel free to re-read your remarks. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio And it is a false division. You can't have skill without knowledge and vice versa. You argue, essentially, that curriculum is in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio more important than standards. I say you need both, but you need standards first. You can always build content around standards in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio The Internet is one example of that. But you can't build a high-quality curricula without an underlying set of standards, what in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio kids should learn (what they should both know and be able to perform). in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio Well, Robert, let's try to be clear. I am straining to be clear on my end. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio Now, I will say this. We have spent a lot of time on standards, and not fully done the steps when it comes to developing in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio curricula to match. Part of the problem lies with folks who develop curricula; because they often disagree w/the standards in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio they refuse to develop curricula instead of getting to work on developing curricula. The in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio they refuse to develop curricula instead of getting to work on developing curricula. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio The other part of the problem lies with the political nature of how standards end up being handled by districts, schools in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio and teachers. The first two would rather game the system than do the work. The last group are barely well-trained just do do in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio reading and math instruction, much less, deal with standards. Again, this is a system problem, not a standards problem in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio Which goes back to the need to overhaul and reform the system. Ignoring systemic reform, as some of the Core Knowledge folks do in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio will mean that the standards won't work and the curricula won't work either. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio It's not just one elixir or another, as far too many on either side of the #edreform debate tend to think. It isn't just in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio curricula or teacher quality or school choice or standards or systemic reform. It is the whole enchilada. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio And again, Robert, you haven't stated clearly what you believe. I have. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio Where I stand on every issue is always clear. I don't just hope people "know" what I believe. That sort of logic wouldn't in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio stand, either in a Teachers College classroom or at a daily newspaper. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio I disagree. For one, you are talking about an #edreform "community" when there are different factions w/in it. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio The school choice folks would say the choice in what is worth learning should be done privately by parents. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio The standards folks make it quite clear what they think students should learn. in reply to rpondiscio #
- Instead of talking about one "community" that sort of exists, but not really, you should address the positions of each #edreform group. #
- @rpondiscio Your argument that edreformers aren't willing to make learning choices, for example, applies more to school choice folks and in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio Instead of talking about one "community" that sort of exists, but not really, you should address the positions of each #edreform in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio group. Your argument that edreformers aren't willing to make learning choices, for example, applies more to school choice folks in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio and system-oriented reformers than to the standards-and-accountability crowd. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio The latter doesn't address curricula because it isn't there focus. That's the nature of their specialization. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio The choice folks don't focus on curricula or standards because they don't generally believe that public education should in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio be focused on that. If anything, they want public education to fund learning options and leave curricula and standards to in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio the parents and schools. I disagree with this perspective (as you may, as well), but it is their perspective. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio By the way, the perspective of the choice crowd is also the perspective of many in ed who aren't in the reform camp, in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio I would dare say Fordham, since their standards perspective is far more prescriptive than any of the curriculum groups. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio But no one would ever explicitly call for a national curricula. That would be politically problematic. Last I checked in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio E.D. Hirsch and the rest of the Core Knowledge crowd hasn't explicitly called for one either. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio The school choice crowd would argue that choice doesn't just involve districts or charters (see private school vouchers) in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio But, in any case, I'm not saying that you are wrong. What I am saying is that this is what choice activists believe… in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio They argue that because the desires of parents and kids when it comes to education are so vast and trad. public school in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio systems cannot meet them because of the need for standardization (and, more often, the bureaucratic inability to even hold in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio up a standard of their own making), the curricula and standards question should be out of public hands. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio Again, I don't agree with the logic. But it is their perspective. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio I'm not saying that a national curricula is good or bad. I would say that you do have a problem (also a problem w/standards) of in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio getting folks to agree on what that curricula should look like, especially in political areas such as history (i.e. should Cesar in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio Chavez and the migrant worker movement be part of the curriculum). in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio You also have the issue of the curriculum being watered down. Again. Not against a common curricula. But I also live in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio in the real world. One would say that the standards are a forerunner (or a harbinger, depending on your perspective) of a common in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio curricula coming into place. Which makes sense. Once you have standards, you can then develop content that meets the standards. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio You may disagree with that approach. But politically (and from a systemic and common sense perspectives), is the best approach. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio But, ultimately, it isn't just one or the other. It's everything. You can enact national standards and national curricula in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio but it will be meaningless without improving teacher quality, bringing in higher-quality talent into education, in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio embracing innovative thinking and approaches, and addressing the structure of how education is provided to all children. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio You may say you believe this to be so. But when all you talk about is curricula, curricula, curricula and not teacher quality in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio teacher training, school leadership, parent power and the rest, one can't help but to think you're focused on just one piece. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio I didn't disagree with you on the need for broad knowledge. But ability to demonstrate skills is part of it. in reply to rpondiscio #
- RT @ChitownStu: When are ppl going to realize black & Latino culture IS WORLD culture? Has to be imbedded…into cult studies. #BlackEd #
- @rpondiscio I've read it. And your logical problem is that you don't think skills can be demonstrated. This is patently false. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio You can do what you want. That's your choice. But as I also tell those folks, don't talk about just that one when in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio the problem is broader than the area that is your particular hobbyhorse. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio I spend a lot of time on teacher quality. I also spend a lot of time on reading skills, parent engagement, systemic reform in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio That is because I realize it isn't just one, it is all. I can't discuss one aspect and ignore the rest. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio I tell this to you, to the school choice activists, the standards-and-accountability folks and every other #edreform group: Stop in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio thinking that your one solution will solve all. It will solve one. And without considering all the systemic issues… in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio it will solve none. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio Basically, I give you the same statement I give all. Most don't like what I have to say on this. But I'm not here for love. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio There are 1.3 million kids who will drop out before reaching senior year of high school. They are essentially condemned in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio to poverty and prison. Many of those kids look like me, skin color and socioeconomic background-wise. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio For me, this is as serious as a heart attack. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio You can wait for the others to talk about the other issues. Or you can do it. I don't choose to wait. Neither should you. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio Fair? in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio Now, Robert, I know plenty about what is involved in reading (including the need for background knowledge, along with decoding) in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio I will also say that reading tests, like all testing, has its flaws. Anything created by man is flawed naturally. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio What I disagree with is the idea that you can't test reading skills. You can. Can it be done in a way that can be used to in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio measure teacher quality? It can. Is it being done well now? The answer is certainly not. What we do now is better than what has in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio been done. But we need better tests. That said, there will always be some aspects of reading that could remain untestable. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio This doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue testing. Or that we can't use the tests to measure teacher quality. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio It is akin to folks saying that the emphasis on reading and math prevents teachers from teaching other subjects. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio Well, I am as annoyed with #edreformers on a number of issues (including parent power) as I am w/status quo on most issues. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio I would argue that we just haven't developed the tests to deal with verbal growth. It is possible to do it. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio Bad practices are a problem throughout K-12, not just urban districts. And they existed long before the modern in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio efforts at standardized testing. We just didn't have a lot of objective ways to measure the effects of bad practice. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio Testing isn't the problem. Bad practices, poor teacher training, focus on philosophy (which is what most pedagogy is) instead of in reply to rpondiscio #
- strong subject competency, high-quality teaching, is the problem. Testing is just the proverbial canary in the coal mine. #
- @rpondiscio You can end standardized testing tomorrow, and you'd still have systemic issues. Ignorance of effects, problems, doesn't in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio @rpondiscio mean the problem doesn't exist. It means that there is no objective data for recognition and identification… in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio Without data, you can't begin to address problems because you're just arguing about what you think, not what is. in reply to rpondiscio #
- @rpondiscio or what is likely. in reply to rpondiscio #
Powered by Twitter Tools
