This article talks about a public hearing to be held in Yuma AZ about Common Core standards to clear things up in the public’s mind, etc etc.
Of interest is one of the last statements in the article:
“Summaries of the standards emphasized that standards are not curriculum. Sheppard said the public frequently confuses the terms.
“The curriculum is the material used to teach the standards,” he said. “The instructional practices is what is the craft of teaching. The very best curriculum out there can only take kids so far. It cannot substitute the instructional excellence. That’s why you have the instructional practices and strategies to support the curriculum, which teaches the standards. So it’s really that relationship between all three.”
Uh, what? What instructional practices? You mean the Standards for Mathematical Practice? Oh, so they ARE instructional practices and CC DOES dictate pedagogy. See, I thought CC DIDN’T do that. That’s what the website says and the people in charge of CC. Uh, speaking of people in charge of CC, where are they?
Pertinent to this discussion, Robert Craigen, a math professor at University of Manitoba, tells me “This notion that Curriculum = Instructional Resources seems a uniquely American idea. We don’t speak of the word Curriculum in that sense here in Canada at all. Curriculum is a document indicating what is to be taught. One picks resources based on curriculum, hopefully a resource which matches it well…”
2 thoughts on “But I thought… Dept”
Reblogged this on Site Title.
Yep, I’m annoyed by those who think the meaning of words is infinitely flexible. But I’m still not sure that’s the operational problem here. I think this is more of a vernacular one.