General Discussion

madfloridian

(88,117 posts)

116. Let's not get insulting now.

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 12:02 AM

Nov 2013

What you guys call close reading, cold reading, all the terminology changes through the years. But the same things have gone on for years.

The reformers have won the battle to privatize public education. Silly me, I just keep posting stuff and getting bashed for it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

146 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Common Core teaches Gettysburg Address with no context or background. Unbelievable. [View all] madfloridian Nov 2013 OP

I would think close reading excercises would require context Adsos Letter Nov 2013 #1

That, mon ami, is a gargantuan "if" clause. WinkyDink Nov 2013 #5

Next chapter: Mein Kampf elehhhhna Nov 2013 #32

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

When somebody so vehimitly opposes a critical thinking exercise.... eqfan592 Nov 2013 #95

The very last paragraph looks like a Sarah Palin quote. lob1 Nov 2013 #2

Sarah word salad. madfloridian Nov 2013 #6

Complete gibberish. History is ABOUT context. DirkGently Nov 2013 #46

But they aren't teaching 'history.' They are teaching a literary technique that msanthrope Nov 2013 #54

Specific Contexts = Facts = The horror! THE HORROR! WinkyDink Nov 2013 #3

Everything we teach our kids in school needs to be taught in context. Math needs to be taught as RC Nov 2013 #4

Agreed. madfloridian Nov 2013 #13

I had a baseball coach for a math teacher in high school. Jackpine Radical Nov 2013 #36

Your's is an example of why Math has to be taught as applied math. RC Nov 2013 #40

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

Perfect. IrishAyes Nov 2013 #62

You understand that exercises such as this do in fact encourage critical thinking, right? eqfan592 Nov 2013 #79

Math is already way too much "applied math". redgreenandblue Nov 2013 #144

Abstract math is what they teach in school. That is why so many people do not understand it and are RC Nov 2013 #145

That's acutally an interesting way to go about it bhikkhu Nov 2013 #7

I disagree. madfloridian Nov 2013 #8

Thinking is vital as well... bhikkhu Nov 2013 #9

Using context in no way affects thinking or learning. madfloridian Nov 2013 #11

Yet this is asking them to think bhikkhu Nov 2013 #14

Using context will not affect their ability to think. madfloridian Nov 2013 #44

You said it made no sense to you bhikkhu Nov 2013 #66

OMG I taught thinking skills to my primary students all the time. madfloridian Nov 2013 #101

So because it is a difficult task, it must be condemned? eqfan592 Nov 2013 #104

I think teachers are very capable of making the lesson in the OP a powerful one bhikkhu Nov 2013 #117

We have analyzed passages together for years. madfloridian Nov 2013 #124

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

Right, it is teaching students to look for evidence in the text to support riversedge Nov 2013 #35

I would think that this MIGHT be an interesting assignment for an English/Writing class, Volaris Nov 2013 #15

I read the article and it looks like it IS for an English class gollygee Nov 2013 #16

It is for an English class. madfloridian Nov 2013 #20

It sounds like they want them to draw their information from the text gollygee Nov 2013 #22

The CCSS LWolf Nov 2013 #33

That this IS for an English class is slightly more acceptable to me, Volaris Nov 2013 #26

I think it says that context is to be avoided by teachers. madfloridian Nov 2013 #28

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

It's a critical thinking exercise! eqfan592 Nov 2013 #107

What grade is that presented in? Tikki Nov 2013 #17

I think it said 9th or 10th grade gollygee Nov 2013 #19

They're wanting students to analyze the writing based only on the writing gollygee Nov 2013 #18

You don't think it restricts teacher and student input and discussion? I do. madfloridian Nov 2013 #23

I do think teachers should be able to use their own creativity gollygee Nov 2013 #24

Reminds me.... Wounded Bear Nov 2013 #21

Key word is "rote". madfloridian Nov 2013 #27

Actually, it is the exact opposite of that. eqfan592 Nov 2013 #56

Declaring something to be of a higher order does not necessarily make it so. IrishAyes Nov 2013 #82

Lol, whatever. eqfan592 Nov 2013 #83

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

It feels strange to defend teaching Gettysburg Address in context. madfloridian Nov 2013 #25

It's because of the lesson they're using it for gollygee Nov 2013 #29

"Odd" is one way of putting it. LWolf Nov 2013 #30

"background knowledge is essential to comprehension" madfloridian Nov 2013 #31

Absolutely! RC Nov 2013 #42

But this lesson isn't teaching the GA...it's teaching a literary technique that the source, and the msanthrope Nov 2013 #51

I'm with you. eqfan592 Nov 2013 #63

Actually, this thread is GREAT-and let me tell you why--you would not believe the number of teachers msanthrope Nov 2013 #72

lol, true. eqfan592 Nov 2013 #76

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

thank you LWolf. liberal_at_heart Nov 2013 #100

You have overlooked the context. And the content of the text. Igel Nov 2013 #37

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

You do understand you're not the only teacher here, right? eqfan592 Nov 2013 #110

Let's not get insulting now. madfloridian Nov 2013 #116

I'm no fan of privatization. eqfan592 Nov 2013 #121

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

It sounds like analyzing a passage. madfloridian Nov 2013 #120

120 posts, and that's what you've analyzed from the thread? All righty then! nt msanthrope Nov 2013 #130

Teaching the background first completely invalidates the exercise. eqfan592 Nov 2013 #67

You're obviously not an educator. And of course that is the problem with our new 'educational sabrina 1 Nov 2013 #39

Thanks for jumping in, Sabrina. madfloridian Nov 2013 #41

the democratic establishment will never go against a democratic administration about anything. liberal_at_heart Nov 2013 #106

There are plenty of flaws to find in common core. eqfan592 Nov 2013 #112

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

As a former lit major and the daughter of a lit professor, IrishAyes Nov 2013 #53

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

Indeed. Try doing it with the Vulgate. nt msanthrope Nov 2013 #108

Trendy methods come and go. Every year there are more and more of them. madfloridian Nov 2013 #113

You didn't teach English, did you? I did, and this is exactly how you teach "close reading." Sweet msanthrope Nov 2013 #47

I strongly agree. nt Crabby Appleton Nov 2013 #58

Damn, I'm concerned, elleng Nov 2013 #59

Don't be....the OP and the source have fundamentally misunderstood what they've read. nt msanthrope Nov 2013 #65

Common Core burrowowl Nov 2013 #60

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

Don't be so anti-intellectual. Google "explication de texte" aikoaiko Nov 2013 #87

I told them to take it up with Derrida. No one got the reference. nt msanthrope Nov 2013 #92

"I consider myself fairly intelligent and educated" Android3.14 Nov 2013 #89

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

The entire purpose of the lesson is to work on the giftedgirl77 Nov 2013 #97

when I was a teacher, I loved using close reading with students Godhumor Nov 2013 #99

THIS! eqfan592 Nov 2013 #109

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

Every year they throw new terms at us. madfloridian Nov 2013 #118

"Close reading" isn't new. Your argument would benefit if you explored what it is. nt msanthrope Nov 2013 #133

That is just what I said. We have done it for years. madfloridian Nov 2013 #136

No--it's pretty obvious you've never done it. It's not 'new' --it's derived msanthrope Nov 2013 #138

close reading is not a tool Common Core can claim Godhumor Nov 2013 #119

Close reading definition madfloridian Nov 2013 #122

So are you in favor or opposed to the technique? nt eqfan592 Nov 2013 #126

Analyzing passages? Great idea. Forgetting context? Not so great. madfloridian Nov 2013 #128

You simply don't get it, if that is your comment Godhumor Nov 2013 #132

Forgetting context in the big picture, I agree. eqfan592 Nov 2013 #135

What do they do with kids that have context? They have spoilers. kwassa Nov 2013 #123

Interpretation is specific to what is in the text itself Godhumor Nov 2013 #129

Because this is part of English Language Arts curriculum, not the history frazzled Nov 2013 #125

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

Huh? frazzled Nov 2013 #139

Context is additive. burnsei sensei Nov 2013 #131

This message was self-deleted by its author RobinA Nov 2013 #140

History is all about context. nt Deep13 Nov 2013 #141

I agree with this. In fact, history is the study of contexts burnsei sensei Nov 2013 #143

Common Core makes it easier for textbook companies emsimon33 Nov 2013 #142

I understand the point of the exercise here. And it is a very useful exercise. MineralMan Nov 2013 #146