So the looming beast in all of this is the Common Core
literacy standards. Let me be clear, I
think the language of the Common Core is another in a long wave of edu-speak
quick fix movements. As a teacher in
NYC, I’ve seen a lot of these already.
It’s not a paradigm so much as a product – a diversion of funds and
attention toward think tanks and privateering as a response to the a crisis
that is hardly ever discussed in anything even remotely resembling useful
ways. It’s a gift to the world of what Naomi Klein calls “disaster capital” in The Shock Doctrine. It’s a demand for
more workshops and seminars to discuss not exactly how one might help students
to become better educated, but something more along the lines of how we can
understand what these standards want us to do in order to ostensibly educate
students in the way we’re being asked to educate them. It’s a demand, as Diane Ravitch points out,
for schools to dump more money into edu-software and computer systems that
don’t reduce class sizes or provide individualized learning experiences. They provide data that can be further
analyzed for additional fees. So I’m not
writing about the Common Core because I think it’s actually always good pedagogy. I’m writing about it because it’s a material
reality for educators in the same way that state exams and standardized tests
are a material reality for our students.
Finding a way to appease (or fool) the beast while providing our kids
with genuine educational opportunities – the original point of this blog anyway
– is my focus.
I’m
leaving aside my doubts about their claim that the solitary focus on the text “levels
the playing field” as if socio-economic influences aren’t impacting the way
students interact with texts. Keep an
eye out for my comments coming up on the Common Core as a New New Criticism.
With
that said, there are some bullet points that directly relate to my project here
and should be emphasized to shore up working room when administrators and
school reviewers come around sniffing for proof of Common Core competency.
1) We need to correct the trend of giving
students simpler materials and “translated” materials so that they can access
texts.
That’s kind of the point
here. Students – not teachers – are translating
difficult texts so that they can access the texts themselves. If I want students to read Hegel, the judge’s
sentences in the Scottsboro trials, or Dave Zirin’s polemic on race and freespeech for athletes, it’s because I want them to read these texts, not just
receive their content.
2) Students need
to see access points to difficult texts, allowing them to move up in their
ability to deal with more complex vocabulary, syntax, structure, and overall
complexity.
Again, that's kind of the
point. If we assume that students can find
basic meaning in a text and then fill in details or just move on, then students
can tackle pretty much anything.
3) Students should
read and re-read texts to enhance understanding, but also to look at craft and
the way that authors lay out their arguments.
Again, that’s kind of the
point. In my lesson on “Masque of theRed Death,” readers were able to make sense of the text by pushing forward and
then revisiting things that didn’t make sense earlier. When students realized that “sharp pains, and
sudden dizziness, and then profuse bleeding at the pores” were symptoms, they
could go revisit pestilence and
conclude that it’s a disease, but – even better – they could recognize all the
foreshadowing that Poe laces through the early paragraphs.
So let's just get the kids reading. My annotation method works.
No comments:
Post a Comment