It will tend to raise scores because they teach directly to the tests and at that point testing so abysmal anyways. But it is not good. It absolutely destroy’s kids’ relationships with schooling. The common core standards are good, but the modules they provide us to meet those standards are pretty shit. You have what are called Adopt and Adapt districts. Adapt districts are pretty much better across the board because teachers are given the modules but get to make their own lesson plans.
As far as the lecturing straight from the book, even if the book is good, let’s just say there’s a reason you don’t know what your teachers’ lesson plans used to look like. It’s pretty crude and has several well-studied pitfalls that further disadvantage a lot of the kids that most need intervention at the failing districts, particularly kids with high behaviors, authority problems, and learning disorders
Is this a good thing or no? I guess it depends how good the common core books are.
:thinking-about-it:
deleted by creator
It will tend to raise scores because they teach directly to the tests and at that point testing so abysmal anyways. But it is not good. It absolutely destroy’s kids’ relationships with schooling. The common core standards are good, but the modules they provide us to meet those standards are pretty shit. You have what are called Adopt and Adapt districts. Adapt districts are pretty much better across the board because teachers are given the modules but get to make their own lesson plans.
As far as the lecturing straight from the book, even if the book is good, let’s just say there’s a reason you don’t know what your teachers’ lesson plans used to look like. It’s pretty crude and has several well-studied pitfalls that further disadvantage a lot of the kids that most need intervention at the failing districts, particularly kids with high behaviors, authority problems, and learning disorders