Monday, October 26, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
FCSS Urges CCSSO to Implement Social Studies Standards
October 26, 2009
Gene Wilhoit
Executive Director
Council of Chief State School Officers
One Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20001-1431
Dear Mr. Wilhoit,
The Florida Council for the Social Studies is a leading voice for curriculum development and assessment within the state of Florida. For several decades our members have been immersed in discussions with both state and national leaders regarding the vital need to promote high quality curriculum performance standards and assessment instruments related to our vital academic discipline. We firmly believe the primary reason of a public school system is development of responsible citizens who possess the knowledge, skills and dispositions to sustain our nation’s ability to meet future challenges. It is with this in mind that we strongly urge the CCSSO to consider the inclusion of social studies in your deliberations regarding the proposed establishment of common core standards for the nation’s public schools. Most state constitutions reference the basic purpose of public education as one to equip students with the requisite skills, knowledge and dispositions for effective citizenship. Unfortunately, numerous studies reveal the sad truth that – to the ultimate future detriment of our nation – current American educational leaders are not sustaining that civic mission.
At no time in the history of NAEP periodic assessments have any states ever been held accountable for how well they fulfill the civil and historical mission of their schools. Repeated attempts by FCSS in the last three Congresses to pass such reform legislation have failed. Moreover, continued research reveals the reduction in instructional time devoted to social studies – particularly at the elementary level. Unless we change course, leading economic forecasters, political pundits and even our former enemies are predicting the imminent collapse of our nation. Leading civic educators and historians have long argued that it is the commitment of our citizens to the cherished beliefs and core democratic values of our forefathers which serves as the adhesive glue which binds our nation together. Quite frankly, without needed changes in national priorities, it is possible these ominous predictions will bear fruit.
The lack of state accountability in the area of social studies has already led one Florida governor to temporarily eliminate American History and American Government as graduation requirements for all Florida high school students. Although this measure has since been overturned, it gives additional evidence to the charge that social studies education has been less than a priority in state and national educational initiatives.
The NCSS Common Core Standards for Social Studies may well serve as the frame for which national standards for social studies may be discussed and hopefully approved. These standards include critical thinking, problem solving and communication skills in the context of civic and historical literacy, economic/financial literacy, and global awareness. Students well versed in this content should have the requisite skills and dispositions to be effective citizens and productive members of the domestic and global workforce.
The future of America and our democratic institutions depend on effective social studies teachers who provide each new generation with knowledge of our history and government, skills to make informed decisions about complex public issues, attitudes that support democratic practices, and commitment to engage in civic life. With the development and adoption of Common Core Standards in Social Studies, our nation can achieve this goal.
Respectfully,
Kristine Scola
President, Florida Council for the Social Studies
Gene Wilhoit
Executive Director
Council of Chief State School Officers
One Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20001-1431
Dear Mr. Wilhoit,
The Florida Council for the Social Studies is a leading voice for curriculum development and assessment within the state of Florida. For several decades our members have been immersed in discussions with both state and national leaders regarding the vital need to promote high quality curriculum performance standards and assessment instruments related to our vital academic discipline. We firmly believe the primary reason of a public school system is development of responsible citizens who possess the knowledge, skills and dispositions to sustain our nation’s ability to meet future challenges. It is with this in mind that we strongly urge the CCSSO to consider the inclusion of social studies in your deliberations regarding the proposed establishment of common core standards for the nation’s public schools. Most state constitutions reference the basic purpose of public education as one to equip students with the requisite skills, knowledge and dispositions for effective citizenship. Unfortunately, numerous studies reveal the sad truth that – to the ultimate future detriment of our nation – current American educational leaders are not sustaining that civic mission.
At no time in the history of NAEP periodic assessments have any states ever been held accountable for how well they fulfill the civil and historical mission of their schools. Repeated attempts by FCSS in the last three Congresses to pass such reform legislation have failed. Moreover, continued research reveals the reduction in instructional time devoted to social studies – particularly at the elementary level. Unless we change course, leading economic forecasters, political pundits and even our former enemies are predicting the imminent collapse of our nation. Leading civic educators and historians have long argued that it is the commitment of our citizens to the cherished beliefs and core democratic values of our forefathers which serves as the adhesive glue which binds our nation together. Quite frankly, without needed changes in national priorities, it is possible these ominous predictions will bear fruit.
The lack of state accountability in the area of social studies has already led one Florida governor to temporarily eliminate American History and American Government as graduation requirements for all Florida high school students. Although this measure has since been overturned, it gives additional evidence to the charge that social studies education has been less than a priority in state and national educational initiatives.
The NCSS Common Core Standards for Social Studies may well serve as the frame for which national standards for social studies may be discussed and hopefully approved. These standards include critical thinking, problem solving and communication skills in the context of civic and historical literacy, economic/financial literacy, and global awareness. Students well versed in this content should have the requisite skills and dispositions to be effective citizens and productive members of the domestic and global workforce.
The future of America and our democratic institutions depend on effective social studies teachers who provide each new generation with knowledge of our history and government, skills to make informed decisions about complex public issues, attitudes that support democratic practices, and commitment to engage in civic life. With the development and adoption of Common Core Standards in Social Studies, our nation can achieve this goal.
Respectfully,
Kristine Scola
President, Florida Council for the Social Studies
Friday, October 9, 2009
Monday, October 5, 2009
Reading Is Not a Skill--And Why This Is a Problem for the Draft National Standards
Today's guest is Psychology Professor Daniel Willingham of the University of Virginia, who researches learning and the brain.
A draft of the voluntary national standards for reading was just released, and at first glance the 18 standards sound quite sensible: students should be able to determine what a text says, make inferences from it, discern the most important ideas, and so forth.
Many of the standards boil down to this notion: "The student will be able to comprehend the text.” For the others, comprehension is a prerequisite. The problem is that teachers and administrators are likely to read those 18 standards and to try to teach to them. But reading comprehension is not a “skill” that can be taught directly.
We tend to teach comprehension as a series of “reading strategies” that can be practiced and mastered. Unfortunately it really doesn’t work that way. The mainspring of comprehension is prior knowledge—the stuff readers already know that enables them to create understanding as they read.
Prior knowledge is vital to comprehension because writers omit information. For example, suppose you read “He just got a new puppy. His landlord is angry.” You easily understand the logical connection between those sentences because you know things about puppies (they aren’t housebroken), carpets (urine stains them) and landlords (they are protective of their property.)
The writer could have included all that information. The writer gambled that the reader would know about puppies, carpets and landlords. A writer who doesn’t assume some prior knowledge on the part of her readers will write very boring prose. What happens if the reader doesn’t have the prior knowledge the writer assumed she had? The reader will be confused and comprehension breaks down.
This is exactly what happens for millions of poor readers. They can “read” (they can sound out the words on the page) but they can’t consistently comprehend. They read it, but they don’t “get it.”
Remarkably, if you take kids who score poorly on a reading test and ask them to read on a topic they know something about (baseball, say, or dinosaurs) all of a sudden their comprehension is terrific—better than kids who score well on reading tests but who don’t know a lot about baseball or dinosaurs.
In other words, kids who score well on reading tests are not really kids with good “reading skills.”
The kids who score well on reading tests are ones who know a lot about the world—they have a lot of prior knowledge about a wide range of things--and so that whatever they are asked to read about on the test, they likely know something about it. (This is only true once kids have cracked the code of letters and sounds and can apply that translation fluently-- say, 5th grade and after.)
Can’t you teach kids how to reason about texts, and thereby wring the meaning out of it even if they don’t have the right prior knowledge?
To some extent, but it doesn’t seem to help as much as you might expect. For one thing, this sort of reasoning is difficult mental work. For another, it’s slow, and so it breaks up the flow of the story you’re reading, and the fun of the story is lost. Hoping that students without relevant prior knowledge will reason their way through a story is a recipe for creating a student who doesn’t like reading.
Oftentimes, knowledge gaps can’t be filled by a strategy. For example, suppose you read this: “The Obama administration will announce a new policy Wednesday making it much more difficult for the government to claim that it is protecting state secrets when it hides details of sensitive national security strategies such as rendition and warrantless eavesdropping, according to two senior Justice Department officials.”
In this instance, the writer assumed that the reader knew the definitions of “rendition,” “warrantless wiretaps,” what a state secret might be, and the significance of the announcement coming from the executive branch of the government, at the least.
If you know those things, comprehension is effortless. What strategy is going to lead you to correct guesses?
I didn’t pick that sentence randomly. It was the first sentence of the lead story of The Washington Post on the day I’m writing this post. If we want students to be able to read a serious newspaper, they need prior knowledge.
How do students get prior knowledge? It accumulates through years of exposure to newspapers, serious magazines, books, conversations with knowledgeable people. It should also come from a content-rich curriculum in school.
Oddly enough, the new national standards actually say that. The standards documents lists “have a strong content base” as one of the things that college-ready readers tend to have.
But the standards themselves don’t recommend that we ensure that students “have a strong content base” as a way to ensure that they are good readers! (A few months ago, I created a video called “Teaching Content Is Teaching Reading” that explains this. You can see it here on YouTube.
Instead, the standards document lists things that students ought to be able to do (summarize, find the main idea, etc.) that invite states, districts, and teachers to design curricula emphasizing practice in those skills.
The mistaken idea that reading is a skill—learn to crack the code, practice comprehension strategies and you can read anything—may be the single biggest factor holding back reading achievement in the country.
Students will not meet standards that way. The knowledge base problem must be solved.
By Valerie Strauss | September 28, 2009; 7:30 AM ET
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/daniel-willingham/willingham-reading-is-not-a-sk.html
A draft of the voluntary national standards for reading was just released, and at first glance the 18 standards sound quite sensible: students should be able to determine what a text says, make inferences from it, discern the most important ideas, and so forth.
Many of the standards boil down to this notion: "The student will be able to comprehend the text.” For the others, comprehension is a prerequisite. The problem is that teachers and administrators are likely to read those 18 standards and to try to teach to them. But reading comprehension is not a “skill” that can be taught directly.
We tend to teach comprehension as a series of “reading strategies” that can be practiced and mastered. Unfortunately it really doesn’t work that way. The mainspring of comprehension is prior knowledge—the stuff readers already know that enables them to create understanding as they read.
Prior knowledge is vital to comprehension because writers omit information. For example, suppose you read “He just got a new puppy. His landlord is angry.” You easily understand the logical connection between those sentences because you know things about puppies (they aren’t housebroken), carpets (urine stains them) and landlords (they are protective of their property.)
The writer could have included all that information. The writer gambled that the reader would know about puppies, carpets and landlords. A writer who doesn’t assume some prior knowledge on the part of her readers will write very boring prose. What happens if the reader doesn’t have the prior knowledge the writer assumed she had? The reader will be confused and comprehension breaks down.
This is exactly what happens for millions of poor readers. They can “read” (they can sound out the words on the page) but they can’t consistently comprehend. They read it, but they don’t “get it.”
Remarkably, if you take kids who score poorly on a reading test and ask them to read on a topic they know something about (baseball, say, or dinosaurs) all of a sudden their comprehension is terrific—better than kids who score well on reading tests but who don’t know a lot about baseball or dinosaurs.
In other words, kids who score well on reading tests are not really kids with good “reading skills.”
The kids who score well on reading tests are ones who know a lot about the world—they have a lot of prior knowledge about a wide range of things--and so that whatever they are asked to read about on the test, they likely know something about it. (This is only true once kids have cracked the code of letters and sounds and can apply that translation fluently-- say, 5th grade and after.)
Can’t you teach kids how to reason about texts, and thereby wring the meaning out of it even if they don’t have the right prior knowledge?
To some extent, but it doesn’t seem to help as much as you might expect. For one thing, this sort of reasoning is difficult mental work. For another, it’s slow, and so it breaks up the flow of the story you’re reading, and the fun of the story is lost. Hoping that students without relevant prior knowledge will reason their way through a story is a recipe for creating a student who doesn’t like reading.
Oftentimes, knowledge gaps can’t be filled by a strategy. For example, suppose you read this: “The Obama administration will announce a new policy Wednesday making it much more difficult for the government to claim that it is protecting state secrets when it hides details of sensitive national security strategies such as rendition and warrantless eavesdropping, according to two senior Justice Department officials.”
In this instance, the writer assumed that the reader knew the definitions of “rendition,” “warrantless wiretaps,” what a state secret might be, and the significance of the announcement coming from the executive branch of the government, at the least.
If you know those things, comprehension is effortless. What strategy is going to lead you to correct guesses?
I didn’t pick that sentence randomly. It was the first sentence of the lead story of The Washington Post on the day I’m writing this post. If we want students to be able to read a serious newspaper, they need prior knowledge.
How do students get prior knowledge? It accumulates through years of exposure to newspapers, serious magazines, books, conversations with knowledgeable people. It should also come from a content-rich curriculum in school.
Oddly enough, the new national standards actually say that. The standards documents lists “have a strong content base” as one of the things that college-ready readers tend to have.
But the standards themselves don’t recommend that we ensure that students “have a strong content base” as a way to ensure that they are good readers! (A few months ago, I created a video called “Teaching Content Is Teaching Reading” that explains this. You can see it here on YouTube.
Instead, the standards document lists things that students ought to be able to do (summarize, find the main idea, etc.) that invite states, districts, and teachers to design curricula emphasizing practice in those skills.
The mistaken idea that reading is a skill—learn to crack the code, practice comprehension strategies and you can read anything—may be the single biggest factor holding back reading achievement in the country.
Students will not meet standards that way. The knowledge base problem must be solved.
By Valerie Strauss | September 28, 2009; 7:30 AM ET
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/daniel-willingham/willingham-reading-is-not-a-sk.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
