1 answer
Arif
Student
Hamtramck, Michigan
1
Question
Asked
805 views
How can STEM support the implementation of the Common Core and NC Essential Standards?
I am interested in this field. #mechanical-engineering
Login to comment
1 answer
Spruce Cox
Retired Aerospace Engineer and Rocket Scientist
76
Answers
Updated
Spruce’s Answer
I know this is way more info than you were expecting, so let me summarize here. The following information comprises the Common Core (CC) and North Carolina (NC) essential standards for K–12 education for kids who are planning to go to college. My opinions of how people studying, working, or teaching STEM can support implementation of these standards is as follows:
a) The following Common Core standards reflect an understanding from the state level down to individual schools of the need to attract more students to study STEM disciplines and apply those skills and knowledge to save the world.
b) STEM college students and professionals can provide K-12 students with informational and motivational presentations, tours, and project ideas by visiting classrooms and schools and supporting students involved in after-hours projects by sharing their experiences.
c) In my opinion, to spend so much effort on Common Core standards was a shortsighted solution to American kids’ low grades. As usual the best solutions come from focusing on needs of the students, families, teachers. Common Core does not address any of these.
d) One of the key elements of the Common Core is a required method of teaching called “integrated learning” whereby all disciplines of study for a given period of time are focused on a common theme or topic. I think this integrated learning concept helps kids wrap their heads around real-life situations, but it does not provide enough emphasis on individual disciplines of study.
e) However if we assume integrated learning is given, then this is where advocates of STEM can help the most. I suggest that individuals knowledgeable in their areas of STEM studies can be a resource for teachers and school districts to help assure that the key elements of their areas of expertise are properly reflected in teaching materials.
This is a big topic of course and I don’t know what kind of answer you’re looking for, so I’ll come at it from this angle: my wife is a retired elementary school teacher and I am a retired engineer and we raised 3 kids through the public-school system in Washington State. I’ll lay out the facts of Common Core (CC) as I understand, and separately give you some of our opinions and experiences. I’ll also leave links that I found most helpful. The CC information I’ll discuss will be current for Washington State, but our personal experience was from years ago.
As near as I can tell all of these K–12 curricula are focused on kids going to college. I saw nothing about preparing kids who do not want to go to college the education and skills they will need to work in a technical field such as plumbing, aircraft mechanic, or rudimentary computer programming. The first attachment contains 2015 lessons learned by what appears to be a national foundation so I assume Washington State was one of several states that were evaluated. Since your question was about implementation, I focused there. All four of these lessons learned were about issues teachers had. I know from personally discussing this with a member of our local school board and a friend that teachers did not like being told from on high about a new way they’re supposed to do things and then getting very little support (professional development). This is especially true for more senior teachers who’d been doing the same grade level or subject for a long time and have all their lesson plans worked out and now would have to change - a lot of extra work. The others I’ve heard about but have no personal experience.
https://www.edutopia.org/blog/lessons-learned-common-core-implementation-andrew-miller (lessons learned)
The second attachment is an interesting table of demographic information. I include this although I don’t have any personal experience but because I have opinions about it that I’ll talk about later.
https://www.edutopia.org/practice/elementary-engineering-simple-machines-life-skills (demographics)
This next one gets closer to your question. On the chart in the attachment under STANDARDS AREA are the 12 areas of study for which there are CC’s at least in North Carolina (I didn’t try very hard to find Washington State CC’s). For science, they reference back to current standards which I did not try to find. For math, they will also use current standards and there is a link to them but it’s easy to miss so I just included it below. The last attachment leads you to standards by state.
http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/curriculum/(North Carolina K-12 standards)
http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/curriculum/mathematics/scos/(math only)
http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/(standards by state)
The next group of standards and are called NexGen, and it looks like I just got the one for science. These are standards that educators are headed towards eventually. Next is a 2012 national survey that shows that Americans want competitive science education, we don’t have it now, there’s broad support to improve it, but it happens to slowly or not at all. The last attachment talks about conceptual shifts in how science is taught.
http://www.nextgenscience.org/search-standards?page=2
http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/AttitudesTowardScienceEducation1pagerv6.pdf
http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/Appendix%20A%20-%204.11.13%20Conceptual%20Shifts%20in%20the%20Next%20Generation%20Science%20Standards.pdf
Here are our opinions of the common core concept, the standards adopted, the way it was rolled out, and how STEM topics are incorporated. Our primary sources of information that led to the formation of our opinions were my wife’s coworkers and friends, and our kids.
1) As I understand it the reason common core came about was the perception that American kids did not score as high as kids from other countries on tests of knowledge and understanding. The solution to adopt a common set of standards among the states was accepted. One of the main advantages people saw in the solution was that students who move between states won’t find themselves too far ahead or behind in their new schools. Another was that this system appeared to offer better tools to measure success.
2) In my opinion, this was a shortsighted solution to American kids’ low grades. There are lots of studies that show that two of the most crucial factors to turn student’s grades around are calm and safe classrooms, participating parents, and good teachers. Common core does not address any of these.
3) The key reason common core is having such a tough time for this lessons learned survey are the teachers. The teachers do have some legitimate problems with implementing CC. The main one I think is that this was a top down directive without much coordination, so the first lesson learned is that the teachers need to learn about this new system but they were not given enough time or resources to do so.
4) The fourth lesson learned is the teachers admitting that they needed more information about these standards and their solution is to designate a few teachers who understand and they would help the others. I think this is a good idea, but one of the reasons it was not adopted is that the teachers set aside to teach the teachers would not get career credit and would start to fall behind in their seniority-based evaluation and salary system.
5) The demographics data chart was interesting because of the high percentage of blacks, but then I looked up and saw that the school this was from is in Atlanta which make more sense. Still, the educational system would like to draw more Blacks and minorities into STEM subjects. This has been studied for years and one of the key findings is that women’s brains are wired different from men’s to the point that many women really don’t enjoy STEM topics. Unfortunately, this is not a politically correct answer, so people keep studying it.
6) At the bottom of the demographics chart, you’ll find that this same school is teaching engineering concepts to second graders. I think this is great if it is followed up with weekly, monthly, annually, and taught by a knowledgeable person. This is the first time I’ve ever seen a plan for teaching engineering anywhere but college.
7) Next link are the 12 areas where standards have been identified, at least for North Carolina. There’s math and science broken out but a few of the others may have some STEM matters included.
8) Somewhere is a reference to humans being holistic creatures in the context that you shouldn’t teach disparate concepts and expect the kid to function in life, the way kids have been taught up till now. This concept is manifested in “integrated learning”. For example, for a good portion of the school year a topic or theme is selected, and all the math, science, history, music, social studies to be presented that year are taught within the context of that topic. What my kids found was that learning things in an integrated manner is fine if you want to learn about that particular topic, but in terms of a specific discipline such as history or trigonometry the students were given only a little bit at a time which built on the little bit taught the previous year. And surprise, surprise - kids didn’t always remember little bits and pieces of tough subjects taught months ago so it slowed the classes down so everybody could catch up, so my kids and probably half or more of the class were bored to tears.
I know this is way more info than you were expecting, so let me summarize here. The following information comprises the Common Core (CC) and North Carolina (NC) essential standards for K–12 education for kids who are planning to go to college. My opinions of how people studying, working, or teaching STEM can support implementation of these standards is as follows:
a) The following Common Core standards reflect an understanding from the state level down to individual schools of the need to attract more students to study STEM disciplines and apply those skills and knowledge to save the world.
b) STEM college students and professionals can provide K-12 students with informational and motivational presentations, tours, and project ideas by visiting classrooms and schools and supporting students involved in after-hours projects by sharing their experiences.
c) In my opinion, to spend so much effort on Common Core standards was a shortsighted solution to American kids’ low grades. As usual the best solutions come from focusing on needs of the students, families, teachers. Common Core does not address any of these.
d) One of the key elements of the Common Core is a required method of teaching called “integrated learning” whereby all disciplines of study for a given period of time are focused on a common theme or topic. I think this integrated learning concept helps kids wrap their heads around real-life situations, but it does not provide enough emphasis on individual disciplines of study.
e) However if we assume integrated learning is given, then this is where advocates of STEM can help the most. I suggest that individuals knowledgeable in their areas of STEM studies can be a resource for teachers and school districts to help assure that the key elements of their areas of expertise are properly reflected in teaching materials.
This is a big topic of course and I don’t know what kind of answer you’re looking for, so I’ll come at it from this angle: my wife is a retired elementary school teacher and I am a retired engineer and we raised 3 kids through the public-school system in Washington State. I’ll lay out the facts of Common Core (CC) as I understand, and separately give you some of our opinions and experiences. I’ll also leave links that I found most helpful. The CC information I’ll discuss will be current for Washington State, but our personal experience was from years ago.
As near as I can tell all of these K–12 curricula are focused on kids going to college. I saw nothing about preparing kids who do not want to go to college the education and skills they will need to work in a technical field such as plumbing, aircraft mechanic, or rudimentary computer programming. The first attachment contains 2015 lessons learned by what appears to be a national foundation so I assume Washington State was one of several states that were evaluated. Since your question was about implementation, I focused there. All four of these lessons learned were about issues teachers had. I know from personally discussing this with a member of our local school board and a friend that teachers did not like being told from on high about a new way they’re supposed to do things and then getting very little support (professional development). This is especially true for more senior teachers who’d been doing the same grade level or subject for a long time and have all their lesson plans worked out and now would have to change - a lot of extra work. The others I’ve heard about but have no personal experience.
https://www.edutopia.org/blog/lessons-learned-common-core-implementation-andrew-miller (lessons learned)
The second attachment is an interesting table of demographic information. I include this although I don’t have any personal experience but because I have opinions about it that I’ll talk about later.
https://www.edutopia.org/practice/elementary-engineering-simple-machines-life-skills (demographics)
This next one gets closer to your question. On the chart in the attachment under STANDARDS AREA are the 12 areas of study for which there are CC’s at least in North Carolina (I didn’t try very hard to find Washington State CC’s). For science, they reference back to current standards which I did not try to find. For math, they will also use current standards and there is a link to them but it’s easy to miss so I just included it below. The last attachment leads you to standards by state.
http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/curriculum/(North Carolina K-12 standards)
http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/curriculum/mathematics/scos/(math only)
http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/(standards by state)
The next group of standards and are called NexGen, and it looks like I just got the one for science. These are standards that educators are headed towards eventually. Next is a 2012 national survey that shows that Americans want competitive science education, we don’t have it now, there’s broad support to improve it, but it happens to slowly or not at all. The last attachment talks about conceptual shifts in how science is taught.
http://www.nextgenscience.org/search-standards?page=2
http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/AttitudesTowardScienceEducation1pagerv6.pdf
http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/Appendix%20A%20-%204.11.13%20Conceptual%20Shifts%20in%20the%20Next%20Generation%20Science%20Standards.pdf
Here are our opinions of the common core concept, the standards adopted, the way it was rolled out, and how STEM topics are incorporated. Our primary sources of information that led to the formation of our opinions were my wife’s coworkers and friends, and our kids.
1) As I understand it the reason common core came about was the perception that American kids did not score as high as kids from other countries on tests of knowledge and understanding. The solution to adopt a common set of standards among the states was accepted. One of the main advantages people saw in the solution was that students who move between states won’t find themselves too far ahead or behind in their new schools. Another was that this system appeared to offer better tools to measure success.
2) In my opinion, this was a shortsighted solution to American kids’ low grades. There are lots of studies that show that two of the most crucial factors to turn student’s grades around are calm and safe classrooms, participating parents, and good teachers. Common core does not address any of these.
3) The key reason common core is having such a tough time for this lessons learned survey are the teachers. The teachers do have some legitimate problems with implementing CC. The main one I think is that this was a top down directive without much coordination, so the first lesson learned is that the teachers need to learn about this new system but they were not given enough time or resources to do so.
4) The fourth lesson learned is the teachers admitting that they needed more information about these standards and their solution is to designate a few teachers who understand and they would help the others. I think this is a good idea, but one of the reasons it was not adopted is that the teachers set aside to teach the teachers would not get career credit and would start to fall behind in their seniority-based evaluation and salary system.
5) The demographics data chart was interesting because of the high percentage of blacks, but then I looked up and saw that the school this was from is in Atlanta which make more sense. Still, the educational system would like to draw more Blacks and minorities into STEM subjects. This has been studied for years and one of the key findings is that women’s brains are wired different from men’s to the point that many women really don’t enjoy STEM topics. Unfortunately, this is not a politically correct answer, so people keep studying it.
6) At the bottom of the demographics chart, you’ll find that this same school is teaching engineering concepts to second graders. I think this is great if it is followed up with weekly, monthly, annually, and taught by a knowledgeable person. This is the first time I’ve ever seen a plan for teaching engineering anywhere but college.
7) Next link are the 12 areas where standards have been identified, at least for North Carolina. There’s math and science broken out but a few of the others may have some STEM matters included.
8) Somewhere is a reference to humans being holistic creatures in the context that you shouldn’t teach disparate concepts and expect the kid to function in life, the way kids have been taught up till now. This concept is manifested in “integrated learning”. For example, for a good portion of the school year a topic or theme is selected, and all the math, science, history, music, social studies to be presented that year are taught within the context of that topic. What my kids found was that learning things in an integrated manner is fine if you want to learn about that particular topic, but in terms of a specific discipline such as history or trigonometry the students were given only a little bit at a time which built on the little bit taught the previous year. And surprise, surprise - kids didn’t always remember little bits and pieces of tough subjects taught months ago so it slowed the classes down so everybody could catch up, so my kids and probably half or more of the class were bored to tears.
a) The following Common Core standards reflect an understanding from the state level down to individual schools of the need to attract more students to study STEM disciplines and apply those skills and knowledge to save the world.
b) STEM college students and professionals can provide K-12 students with informational and motivational presentations, tours, and project ideas by visiting classrooms and schools and supporting students involved in after-hours projects by sharing their experiences.
c) In my opinion, to spend so much effort on Common Core standards was a shortsighted solution to American kids’ low grades. As usual the best solutions come from focusing on needs of the students, families, teachers. Common Core does not address any of these.
d) One of the key elements of the Common Core is a required method of teaching called “integrated learning” whereby all disciplines of study for a given period of time are focused on a common theme or topic. I think this integrated learning concept helps kids wrap their heads around real-life situations, but it does not provide enough emphasis on individual disciplines of study.
e) However if we assume integrated learning is given, then this is where advocates of STEM can help the most. I suggest that individuals knowledgeable in their areas of STEM studies can be a resource for teachers and school districts to help assure that the key elements of their areas of expertise are properly reflected in teaching materials.
This is a big topic of course and I don’t know what kind of answer you’re looking for, so I’ll come at it from this angle: my wife is a retired elementary school teacher and I am a retired engineer and we raised 3 kids through the public-school system in Washington State. I’ll lay out the facts of Common Core (CC) as I understand, and separately give you some of our opinions and experiences. I’ll also leave links that I found most helpful. The CC information I’ll discuss will be current for Washington State, but our personal experience was from years ago.
As near as I can tell all of these K–12 curricula are focused on kids going to college. I saw nothing about preparing kids who do not want to go to college the education and skills they will need to work in a technical field such as plumbing, aircraft mechanic, or rudimentary computer programming. The first attachment contains 2015 lessons learned by what appears to be a national foundation so I assume Washington State was one of several states that were evaluated. Since your question was about implementation, I focused there. All four of these lessons learned were about issues teachers had. I know from personally discussing this with a member of our local school board and a friend that teachers did not like being told from on high about a new way they’re supposed to do things and then getting very little support (professional development). This is especially true for more senior teachers who’d been doing the same grade level or subject for a long time and have all their lesson plans worked out and now would have to change - a lot of extra work. The others I’ve heard about but have no personal experience.
https://www.edutopia.org/blog/lessons-learned-common-core-implementation-andrew-miller (lessons learned)
The second attachment is an interesting table of demographic information. I include this although I don’t have any personal experience but because I have opinions about it that I’ll talk about later.
https://www.edutopia.org/practice/elementary-engineering-simple-machines-life-skills (demographics)
This next one gets closer to your question. On the chart in the attachment under STANDARDS AREA are the 12 areas of study for which there are CC’s at least in North Carolina (I didn’t try very hard to find Washington State CC’s). For science, they reference back to current standards which I did not try to find. For math, they will also use current standards and there is a link to them but it’s easy to miss so I just included it below. The last attachment leads you to standards by state.
http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/curriculum/(North Carolina K-12 standards)
http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/curriculum/mathematics/scos/(math only)
http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/(standards by state)
The next group of standards and are called NexGen, and it looks like I just got the one for science. These are standards that educators are headed towards eventually. Next is a 2012 national survey that shows that Americans want competitive science education, we don’t have it now, there’s broad support to improve it, but it happens to slowly or not at all. The last attachment talks about conceptual shifts in how science is taught.
http://www.nextgenscience.org/search-standards?page=2
http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/AttitudesTowardScienceEducation1pagerv6.pdf
http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/Appendix%20A%20-%204.11.13%20Conceptual%20Shifts%20in%20the%20Next%20Generation%20Science%20Standards.pdf
Here are our opinions of the common core concept, the standards adopted, the way it was rolled out, and how STEM topics are incorporated. Our primary sources of information that led to the formation of our opinions were my wife’s coworkers and friends, and our kids.
1) As I understand it the reason common core came about was the perception that American kids did not score as high as kids from other countries on tests of knowledge and understanding. The solution to adopt a common set of standards among the states was accepted. One of the main advantages people saw in the solution was that students who move between states won’t find themselves too far ahead or behind in their new schools. Another was that this system appeared to offer better tools to measure success.
2) In my opinion, this was a shortsighted solution to American kids’ low grades. There are lots of studies that show that two of the most crucial factors to turn student’s grades around are calm and safe classrooms, participating parents, and good teachers. Common core does not address any of these.
3) The key reason common core is having such a tough time for this lessons learned survey are the teachers. The teachers do have some legitimate problems with implementing CC. The main one I think is that this was a top down directive without much coordination, so the first lesson learned is that the teachers need to learn about this new system but they were not given enough time or resources to do so.
4) The fourth lesson learned is the teachers admitting that they needed more information about these standards and their solution is to designate a few teachers who understand and they would help the others. I think this is a good idea, but one of the reasons it was not adopted is that the teachers set aside to teach the teachers would not get career credit and would start to fall behind in their seniority-based evaluation and salary system.
5) The demographics data chart was interesting because of the high percentage of blacks, but then I looked up and saw that the school this was from is in Atlanta which make more sense. Still, the educational system would like to draw more Blacks and minorities into STEM subjects. This has been studied for years and one of the key findings is that women’s brains are wired different from men’s to the point that many women really don’t enjoy STEM topics. Unfortunately, this is not a politically correct answer, so people keep studying it.
6) At the bottom of the demographics chart, you’ll find that this same school is teaching engineering concepts to second graders. I think this is great if it is followed up with weekly, monthly, annually, and taught by a knowledgeable person. This is the first time I’ve ever seen a plan for teaching engineering anywhere but college.
7) Next link are the 12 areas where standards have been identified, at least for North Carolina. There’s math and science broken out but a few of the others may have some STEM matters included.
8) Somewhere is a reference to humans being holistic creatures in the context that you shouldn’t teach disparate concepts and expect the kid to function in life, the way kids have been taught up till now. This concept is manifested in “integrated learning”. For example, for a good portion of the school year a topic or theme is selected, and all the math, science, history, music, social studies to be presented that year are taught within the context of that topic. What my kids found was that learning things in an integrated manner is fine if you want to learn about that particular topic, but in terms of a specific discipline such as history or trigonometry the students were given only a little bit at a time which built on the little bit taught the previous year. And surprise, surprise - kids didn’t always remember little bits and pieces of tough subjects taught months ago so it slowed the classes down so everybody could catch up, so my kids and probably half or more of the class were bored to tears.
I know this is way more info than you were expecting, so let me summarize here. The following information comprises the Common Core (CC) and North Carolina (NC) essential standards for K–12 education for kids who are planning to go to college. My opinions of how people studying, working, or teaching STEM can support implementation of these standards is as follows:
a) The following Common Core standards reflect an understanding from the state level down to individual schools of the need to attract more students to study STEM disciplines and apply those skills and knowledge to save the world.
b) STEM college students and professionals can provide K-12 students with informational and motivational presentations, tours, and project ideas by visiting classrooms and schools and supporting students involved in after-hours projects by sharing their experiences.
c) In my opinion, to spend so much effort on Common Core standards was a shortsighted solution to American kids’ low grades. As usual the best solutions come from focusing on needs of the students, families, teachers. Common Core does not address any of these.
d) One of the key elements of the Common Core is a required method of teaching called “integrated learning” whereby all disciplines of study for a given period of time are focused on a common theme or topic. I think this integrated learning concept helps kids wrap their heads around real-life situations, but it does not provide enough emphasis on individual disciplines of study.
e) However if we assume integrated learning is given, then this is where advocates of STEM can help the most. I suggest that individuals knowledgeable in their areas of STEM studies can be a resource for teachers and school districts to help assure that the key elements of their areas of expertise are properly reflected in teaching materials.
This is a big topic of course and I don’t know what kind of answer you’re looking for, so I’ll come at it from this angle: my wife is a retired elementary school teacher and I am a retired engineer and we raised 3 kids through the public-school system in Washington State. I’ll lay out the facts of Common Core (CC) as I understand, and separately give you some of our opinions and experiences. I’ll also leave links that I found most helpful. The CC information I’ll discuss will be current for Washington State, but our personal experience was from years ago.
As near as I can tell all of these K–12 curricula are focused on kids going to college. I saw nothing about preparing kids who do not want to go to college the education and skills they will need to work in a technical field such as plumbing, aircraft mechanic, or rudimentary computer programming. The first attachment contains 2015 lessons learned by what appears to be a national foundation so I assume Washington State was one of several states that were evaluated. Since your question was about implementation, I focused there. All four of these lessons learned were about issues teachers had. I know from personally discussing this with a member of our local school board and a friend that teachers did not like being told from on high about a new way they’re supposed to do things and then getting very little support (professional development). This is especially true for more senior teachers who’d been doing the same grade level or subject for a long time and have all their lesson plans worked out and now would have to change - a lot of extra work. The others I’ve heard about but have no personal experience.
https://www.edutopia.org/blog/lessons-learned-common-core-implementation-andrew-miller (lessons learned)
The second attachment is an interesting table of demographic information. I include this although I don’t have any personal experience but because I have opinions about it that I’ll talk about later.
https://www.edutopia.org/practice/elementary-engineering-simple-machines-life-skills (demographics)
This next one gets closer to your question. On the chart in the attachment under STANDARDS AREA are the 12 areas of study for which there are CC’s at least in North Carolina (I didn’t try very hard to find Washington State CC’s). For science, they reference back to current standards which I did not try to find. For math, they will also use current standards and there is a link to them but it’s easy to miss so I just included it below. The last attachment leads you to standards by state.
http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/curriculum/(North Carolina K-12 standards)
http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/curriculum/mathematics/scos/(math only)
http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/(standards by state)
The next group of standards and are called NexGen, and it looks like I just got the one for science. These are standards that educators are headed towards eventually. Next is a 2012 national survey that shows that Americans want competitive science education, we don’t have it now, there’s broad support to improve it, but it happens to slowly or not at all. The last attachment talks about conceptual shifts in how science is taught.
http://www.nextgenscience.org/search-standards?page=2
http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/AttitudesTowardScienceEducation1pagerv6.pdf
http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/Appendix%20A%20-%204.11.13%20Conceptual%20Shifts%20in%20the%20Next%20Generation%20Science%20Standards.pdf
Here are our opinions of the common core concept, the standards adopted, the way it was rolled out, and how STEM topics are incorporated. Our primary sources of information that led to the formation of our opinions were my wife’s coworkers and friends, and our kids.
1) As I understand it the reason common core came about was the perception that American kids did not score as high as kids from other countries on tests of knowledge and understanding. The solution to adopt a common set of standards among the states was accepted. One of the main advantages people saw in the solution was that students who move between states won’t find themselves too far ahead or behind in their new schools. Another was that this system appeared to offer better tools to measure success.
2) In my opinion, this was a shortsighted solution to American kids’ low grades. There are lots of studies that show that two of the most crucial factors to turn student’s grades around are calm and safe classrooms, participating parents, and good teachers. Common core does not address any of these.
3) The key reason common core is having such a tough time for this lessons learned survey are the teachers. The teachers do have some legitimate problems with implementing CC. The main one I think is that this was a top down directive without much coordination, so the first lesson learned is that the teachers need to learn about this new system but they were not given enough time or resources to do so.
4) The fourth lesson learned is the teachers admitting that they needed more information about these standards and their solution is to designate a few teachers who understand and they would help the others. I think this is a good idea, but one of the reasons it was not adopted is that the teachers set aside to teach the teachers would not get career credit and would start to fall behind in their seniority-based evaluation and salary system.
5) The demographics data chart was interesting because of the high percentage of blacks, but then I looked up and saw that the school this was from is in Atlanta which make more sense. Still, the educational system would like to draw more Blacks and minorities into STEM subjects. This has been studied for years and one of the key findings is that women’s brains are wired different from men’s to the point that many women really don’t enjoy STEM topics. Unfortunately, this is not a politically correct answer, so people keep studying it.
6) At the bottom of the demographics chart, you’ll find that this same school is teaching engineering concepts to second graders. I think this is great if it is followed up with weekly, monthly, annually, and taught by a knowledgeable person. This is the first time I’ve ever seen a plan for teaching engineering anywhere but college.
7) Next link are the 12 areas where standards have been identified, at least for North Carolina. There’s math and science broken out but a few of the others may have some STEM matters included.
8) Somewhere is a reference to humans being holistic creatures in the context that you shouldn’t teach disparate concepts and expect the kid to function in life, the way kids have been taught up till now. This concept is manifested in “integrated learning”. For example, for a good portion of the school year a topic or theme is selected, and all the math, science, history, music, social studies to be presented that year are taught within the context of that topic. What my kids found was that learning things in an integrated manner is fine if you want to learn about that particular topic, but in terms of a specific discipline such as history or trigonometry the students were given only a little bit at a time which built on the little bit taught the previous year. And surprise, surprise - kids didn’t always remember little bits and pieces of tough subjects taught months ago so it slowed the classes down so everybody could catch up, so my kids and probably half or more of the class were bored to tears.