Please post in the comments section below. Put your name at the heading for each entry.
a.) A response to the current reading (pp 55-63) please include page number and
quotes to make your references easier to follow, by 12/29/14.
b.) Respond to two CLC member reading submissions, by 1/5/14.
Ken Canfield
ReplyDeleteJust spit-balling here, but after covering the reading selection it seems about a mile wide and an inch deep. That’s sort of the point though. Kind of like a horoscope, if I were to flip the pages and blindly put my finger on any one section I could say, “Yeah that’s just what we do in my class, I can use that.” For instance;
“Ask and answer questions about unknown words and terms used in a narrative work of art. Ask and answer questions about words that suggest feelings or appeal to the senses. Describe how words are used to enhance the meaning in a work of art; paying attention to the use of literal and non-literal, Connotative or figurative language…” (Craft and Structure #4 page 56,).
Anyone utilizing any sort of narrative would have to go through these processes in general discussion of the material. Really? Is this whole PD about just saying, “Yeah we do that”, and reformatting our documentation to make it more evident? Derp!
I don’t imagine that every teacher of every subject would feel this way, for better or worse though, I think there’s something in there for anybody to play around with.
After reading this I’m torn between two units to develop for this spring. The latent English teacher in me really wants to go for it with an analysis and design project for Jean-Paul Sartre’s, No Exit; utilizing more sections from our reading selection than I’ll list here. The pragmatist wants to further develop the “what is art” unit for 8th grade theatre technology; leaning heavily on Craft and structure sections 5 and 6, page 59.
From Parker to Ken
DeleteYou point out the adaptability of his suggestions, although, I personally have a hard time with math, with the exception of the solar system spacing. Do you think our students have an advantage in having experienced the arts rotation in middle school. Does anyone note a disconnect between the arts and academics in the school. Is this a question of leadership -at any level- or is this a conundrum brought about by all the changes the system keeps going through, the latest being the common core?
So many questions, without the benefit of a question mark!
DeleteI really think this is a disconnect and disintegration of the faculty at SOTA. Though past leadership was strong, what was really strong about the school was the integrated mission of the faculty and their grassroots service to the students and to each other. For many, many reasons that is no longer the case.
DeleteI think that the arts rollovers suffer similarly They have the potential to be of great meaning to young students but now I feel they are little more than a spot to fill an hour of the kids day.
I think as testing becomes a push compartmentalization of the subjects is going to be the trend. The increasing consequences from testing is unfortunately going to turn more and more classrooms into drill and kill environments. The arts will find little place there and it will be tough to wedge it in there.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteParker blog post for part III: what exactly is common core?
This chapter manages first of all to explain the essence of the goals rooted in common core, how geographic and economic inequitably needed to be addressed. As the author states, this is a “laudable” and from my perspective both a political and social statement that comes about out of the ideals embodied in a US education system, sort of an umbrella every American should proclaim as an alienable right. Alas, we are fifty states, and as such, since the first thirteen colonies, there has been an endless struggle between federal and state goals. This is circumvented by allowing flexibility within the curriculum, while at the same time having a set of “competence (standard) students are expected to attain.” Teachers then teach the content to the standards, so in theory there should be many opportunities to integrate the arts into the curriculum, the instructor effectively deciding how and when, always mindful of the standard and the students. Taylor elucidates the goals of common core, but posits some interesting questions as to who ultimately is the goal maker? That brings to mind, the question, who writes history? Again, with the diversity within the US population, I have to wonder if there could ever be a consensus to this response. This internal fragmentation was subsumed by successful, educated elites, a veritable Ivy league who’s who, who were able to circumvent populist input; hence there was powerful social and economic group to facilitate the creation of the common core. This group has the financial incentive to have a population that is able to compete in a “more complex, conceptual and globalized” world. Moreover, this is a long-vision program that runs from kindergarten through college, eventually dumping (bad word choice- how about flowing) into a new and (sorry Lyndon) society. Taylor acknowledges that the K-12 part has really always been there, but now there should be no blip after high school. I am not saying that there is anything intrinsically malevolent in the system, but as educators we should be cognizant of our role in a larger game.
This is actually where I cheer at the idea of the integrating the arts within the common core. As Taylor notes, there is a “shared pedagogical language” and pairs them with the ELA anchor standards for reading and writing. He presents the incorporation of the arts not as a parlor trick, but as “habits of mind.” While he does not use the term “voice” when speaking of writing as an artistic form “in some way, shape or form,” that is the artistic goal I wish for my students to attain in their writing; this is the intersection where content is integrated, evaluated and synthesized with their core. They are no longer parroting an idea, but have created an original product: their voice.
Now I feel a need to apologize for my cynicism in the first paragraph, as I am viewing the creation of the common core and the natural integration of the arts as a bold, almost challenging, stroke by what I previously called elites. (Were they really enlightened individuals? Nah) To create- or at least pare and compile a hodgepodge of pre-existing standards- that will, if successful, challenge a status quo is a testament to the belief in the potential of the individual, that with an education that nurtures through rigor, empiricism, reason, reflection and creativity, has produced at the minimum a buffer against the social and environmental challenges of our time and a catalyst for the creativity required to quell the pervasive ignorance that continues to numb our world.