Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Common Core teaches Gettysburg Address with no context or background. Unbelievable. [View all]
Last edited Sat Nov 23, 2013, 06:26 PM - Edit history (1)
From the Washington Post.
Common Cores odd approach to teaching Gettysburg Address
Imagine learning about the Gettysburg Address without a mention of the Civil War, the Battle of Gettysburg, or why President Abraham Lincoln had traveled to Pennsylvania to make the speech. Thats the way a Common Core State Standards exemplar for instruction from a company founded by three main Core authors says it should be taught to ninth and 10th graders.
The unit A Close Reading of Lincolns Gettysburg Address is designed for students to do a close reading of the address with text-dependent questions but without historical context. Teachers are given a detailed 29-page script of how to teach the unit, with the following explanation:
The idea here is to plunge students into an independent encounter with this short text. Refrain from giving background context or substantial instructional guidance at the outset. It may make sense to notify students that the short text is thought to be difficult and they are not expected to understand it fully on a first reading that they can expect to struggle. Some students may be frustrated, but all students need practice in doing their best to stay with something they do not initially understand. This close reading approach forces students to rely exclusively on the text instead of privileging background knowledge, and levels the playing field for all students as they seek to comprehend Lincolns address.
Level what playing field? It was a speech given during a civil war in the United States. How does one "level the playing field"? Why not tell the truth and give proper background?
That makes no sense to me.
I consider myself fairly intelligent and educated, but I was not able to comprehend this paragraph explaining why they did not want to teach the background of the Gettysburg Address. I simply do not get it.
The standards and these criteria sharpen the focus on the close connection between comprehension of text and acquisition of knowledge. While the link between comprehension and knowledge in reading science and history texts is clear, the same principle applies to all reading. The criteria make plain that developing students prowess at drawing knowledge from the text itself is the point of reading; reading well means gaining the maximum insight or knowledge possible from each source. Student knowledge drawn from the text is demonstrated when the student uses evidence from the text to support a claim about the text. Hence evidence and knowledge link directly to the text.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
146 replies, 16116 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (14)
ReplyReply to this post
146 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Common Core teaches Gettysburg Address with no context or background. Unbelievable. [View all]
madfloridian
Nov 2013
OP
No--"close reading" does NOT. That's the POINT. Did no one else learn this in grad school? nt
msanthrope
Nov 2013
#52
If that's what's taught in grad school today, it doesn't necessarily validate it anyway.
IrishAyes
Nov 2013
#55
Perhaps not. But students should still be aware of the New Critics, and the foundation of modern
msanthrope
Nov 2013
#61
Not until they learn something of value FIRST. If there's time for trash later, fine.
IrishAyes
Nov 2013
#64
Hey--this is the 10th grade. If they haven't learned anything of substance by then, this is hardly
msanthrope
Nov 2013
#68
Trash? You certain you're not reading from the Texas State Republican Party platform? nt
eqfan592
Nov 2013
#70
So if someone adamantly opposes you, it's okay to call them that vilest of names, a conservative?
IrishAyes
Nov 2013
#90
But they aren't teaching 'history.' They are teaching a literary technique that
msanthrope
Nov 2013
#54
Everything we teach our kids in school needs to be taught in context. Math needs to be taught as
RC
Nov 2013
#4
I hit the math brick wall with calculus. That is, until the school principal took it upon himself
IrishAyes
Nov 2013
#74
That sort of thing's why my math grades were always 20% lower than my physics ones
Posteritatis
Nov 2013
#73
You understand that exercises such as this do in fact encourage critical thinking, right?
eqfan592
Nov 2013
#79
Abstract math is what they teach in school. That is why so many people do not understand it and are
RC
Nov 2013
#145
I think teachers are very capable of making the lesson in the OP a powerful one
bhikkhu
Nov 2013
#117
The last paragraph means: the test questions ought relate STRICTLY to the given text. Thus, a
WinkyDink
Nov 2013
#10
Which is insulting to both teacher and student intelligence. Limits open discussion.
madfloridian
Nov 2013
#12
I would think that this MIGHT be an interesting assignment for an English/Writing class,
Volaris
Nov 2013
#15
It says initially...and a reason is given...to work for meaning from the text
HereSince1628
Nov 2013
#34
It doesn't make any sense to me. Teachers have been combining English with other subjects for
liberal_at_heart
Nov 2013
#98
You don't think it restricts teacher and student input and discussion? I do.
madfloridian
Nov 2013
#23
You're more interested in insulting your opponents than defending your position. Very telling.
IrishAyes
Nov 2013
#94
Given that you opened with an insult, i really feel you are in exactly zero position to lecture...
eqfan592
Nov 2013
#96
But this lesson isn't teaching the GA...it's teaching a literary technique that the source, and the
msanthrope
Nov 2013
#51
Actually, this thread is GREAT-and let me tell you why--you would not believe the number of teachers
msanthrope
Nov 2013
#72
It's been going on for thousands of years---I was taught it was Talmudic-based. It's a
msanthrope
Nov 2013
#78
Exactly. I just think it's both amusing and sad that so many people here are denouncing this...
eqfan592
Nov 2013
#81
It's an attack on Common Core that fails because of lack of erudition. So, it's pretty funny and
msanthrope
Nov 2013
#84
The arguments being made here make me almost think some people here, deep down...
eqfan592
Nov 2013
#85
Read the Education Forum here...you'd be surprised how many "Progressives" would be in line with
msanthrope
Nov 2013
#86
No, I did not overlook any of that. I simply don't know how teaching the background....
madfloridian
Nov 2013
#38
Because you aren't teaching the speech. You are teaching a technique. Valerie Strauss, your source
msanthrope
Nov 2013
#49
Hell, misanthrope, I was only a teacher. Strauss is only a reporter. What do you expect?
madfloridian
Nov 2013
#102
Critical thinking is known by many names. Don't get hung up on terminology.
madfloridian
Nov 2013
#127
I expect, madfloridian, that you be able to identify "close reading" before you rail against it. nt
msanthrope
Nov 2013
#114
120 posts, and that's what you've analyzed from the thread? All righty then! nt
msanthrope
Nov 2013
#130
You're obviously not an educator. And of course that is the problem with our new 'educational
sabrina 1
Nov 2013
#39
the democratic establishment will never go against a democratic administration about anything.
liberal_at_heart
Nov 2013
#106
This is teaching the Gettysburg Address the same way fundies teach the bible.
kestrel91316
Nov 2013
#43
No--it's not teaching the GA. It's teaching a literary technique, "close reading." The source's
msanthrope
Nov 2013
#50
Load of BS. That's how you graduate kids who can't find the US on a world map.
IrishAyes
Nov 2013
#45
Well, it's how you teach "close reading" in Eng. Lit. It's not how you would teach History. The
msanthrope
Nov 2013
#48
Yes--but you identified that a technique was being taught. So far, neither the source, nor the OP
msanthrope
Nov 2013
#57
Anything I can understand, other people should be able to understand also. I don't set the bar
IrishAyes
Nov 2013
#88
No--it's pretty apparent that the OP and the source had no idea what "close reading" is. And it's
msanthrope
Nov 2013
#91
In this Christian world it is known as Lectio Divina, a very old technique of reading the Bible.
kwassa
Nov 2013
#103
You didn't teach English, did you? I did, and this is exactly how you teach "close reading." Sweet
msanthrope
Nov 2013
#47
Don't be....the OP and the source have fundamentally misunderstood what they've read. nt
msanthrope
Nov 2013
#65
Common Core is a teacher evaluation program designed to break tenure and cut teacher pay by 1/2.
CK_John
Nov 2013
#69
I actually understand where they are coming from. It didn't say don't EVER explain context
Pretzel_Warrior
Nov 2013
#71
They aren't teaching the GA--they are teaching a literary technique. A literary technique of the
msanthrope
Nov 2013
#75
thanks. I figured it had to be something like this. people who jump to conclusions
Pretzel_Warrior
Nov 2013
#77
It's agenda-driven critique of the Obama administration that fails because it isn't erudite enough.
msanthrope
Nov 2013
#80
Common Core is a replacement for the failed NCLB. Give it time. Failure will follow....because....
madfloridian
Nov 2013
#105
We are going to have an entire lost generation when it comes to education.
liberal_at_heart
Nov 2013
#93
And as the parent of two children who have suffered under the Common Core I want to bang my head
liberal_at_heart
Nov 2013
#111
You understand that one is capable of being in favor of using cold reading...
eqfan592
Nov 2013
#115
"Close reading" isn't new. Your argument would benefit if you explored what it is. nt
msanthrope
Nov 2013
#133
No--it's pretty obvious you've never done it. It's not 'new' --it's derived
msanthrope
Nov 2013
#138
I have done this before at various grade levels. Most teachers have and do so.
madfloridian
Nov 2013
#134
No--it's pretty obvious from your comments that you have never done "close reading" and I am betting
msanthrope
Nov 2013
#137
I understand the point of the exercise here. And it is a very useful exercise.
MineralMan
Nov 2013
#146