Okay,
regarding CCS, I've read two internet pages.
One was an article out of California about the implementation of the
program (apparently, CA doesn't have to make the switch to CCS because they are
going to lose some state funding anyway.
They elected not to tie teachers to their student's test scores. I have mixed feelings on that which I will
elaborate on later.). It was a very
well-written and thorough article and what I took from it was that the CCS
focus will be more on depth vs. breadth;
Meaning fewer topics may be discussed but the ones covered will go into
a lot of detail. I kind of like that and
it reminds me of the quote: "Jack
of all trades, master of none."
Okay, so which is better?
Frankly, I go with the latter.
From my understanding, in some other countries, children are groomed
toward careers in which they exhibit strengths and that they begin gravitating
toward those strengths naturally near a certain age. So, when gravitational interests start to
emerge their curricular path is laid out based on those gravitational
interests. Ultimately, I think about age
12/13 the children may no longer find themselves in the same classes as other
students their age. If everyone was
educated based on their strengths so many more of us would be successful. I am reminded of another quote by Albert Einstein,
"Everybody is a genius. But, if you judge a fish by its ability to
climb a tree it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."
Moving on,
the CCS basically teaches the kids there are multiple ways to arrive at an
answer. What's important, however, is
not how YOU got your answer (provided it's the right one) but that you
understand and can explain to others how you got your answer. It also teaches students to listen and try to
comprehend the paths others took to also get to the correct answer. I can't find anything wrong with that. Not only does it teach children to focus on
their abilities but it teaches them to be patient and understanding and
accepting. That's good business
practice! Which is a good lead into the
fact that CCS is based on international standards and is preparing students not
just for college or the work force, but for the global economy.
I have read,
and my mom has pointed out (I think this is her main argument) that the CCS
doesn't teach kids the basics or foundation for which learning occurs. I don't think that you need a foundation
because it's an ever-evolving step that can easily be integrated into the
teaching. No doubt, the CCS really make
the teachers work for their money. If I
were a teacher, I think I'd enjoy the challenge. The teacher's that pull off teaching the CCS
well and with great success measured by student's comprehension will be the
best and sought after, in my opinion.
This is a good thing.
One thing
I'm not sure if I like or not is the testing.
I believe it's computer based and adaptive. It reminds me of the NCLEX (test for
nurses). You get one right you get a
harder question. Get one wrong, you get
a slightly easier question. The more
questions you answer, right or wrong, generally indicates how well, or not how
well you're doing. The more, the poorer
you did - but it doesn't mean you'll fail.
The less you answer, means you got the majority right. So, I gather that the aim is to measure what
you know. Let's underline you. I think then, it's makes it nearly impossible
for one to fail and as such, teachers shouldn't be worried about their career
based on student's test scores. But, I
have a feeling I have assumed too little about the testing and how it reflects
on teachers. I admit I will have to look
further into that issue.
Now, there
are some drawbacks, admitted by websites I've visited - but they don't weigh
much with me. Mainly that CCS can't be
tailored to all the diversities of knowledge throughout this country. We have so many poorer students, generally
localized but found throughout every state, and many non-English speakers for
whom learning in English is generally more delayed and educational achievements
a little bit more difficult. You can't
expect everyone to learn at the same rate and pace, regardless of background. That is why I think, if it is true, that
determining a child's curricula based on gravitational interests is a better
way to go. But, with the CCS, once it's
developed here and has become less of a debatable issue, it will be easier to
instigate that step in the future. But,
that is me inserting my own ideas and speculation about furthering the CCS.
Another
thing I don't like is that the federal government has told schools that if you
don't adopt this program you will lose any funding from the federal
government. If the program is so good -
they could've presented it in a much better way rather than bullying the school
districts to accept. So, right off the
bat the government created opposition.
Too many people will not do their own research or form their opinions
based on such and will hear only how they're being forced to change or else -
and regardless of the positives the CCS offers, it will now be a battle of
wills.
I will admit
the transition will be hard. And, as our
school district has already implemented the CCS I have witnessed the
difficulty. Joshua came home crying uncontrollably
struggling to exclaim how much he hated math because it was so different from
last year - we're talking from 2nd grade to 3rd. I remember talking to his teacher about CCS
and I told her it sounds to me like about three years down the road it might
actually be a great thing.
So, I am for
the CCS and as I continue to learn more I will update my thinking behind the
program either for or against.
