\doc\web\98\08\stanbase.txt As far as I know, CK teaches children core knowledge, then expects children to demonstrate what they learned. A child is not expected to alphabetize or write complete sentences until they have first mastered previous skills in an ordered sequence. Under the standards approach, the child is presented with a very high standard, such as being required to read 22 books per year (but not being told which books to read), and solve very difficult problems such as asking 4th graders to design a bike trailer with a parts list detailed down to cotter pins and a counter-sink drill bit and 3-view dimensioned drawing, solving for the number of bicycles given you have 33 wheels and 4 more bicycles than tricycles, or asking 1st graders to check off which parts of an internet frog dissection corrrespond to the circulatory system. A child should not be deprived of the experiece of learing linear algebra and calculus just because they have not first mastered memorizing the multiplication table or rote skills such as long division or spelling which are now obsolete because of technology. Under the standards approach, there will be no remedial and no gifted tracks, and all students will read and write and compute with levels of literacy comparable to the the best industrialized nations like Japan and Germany (never mind the fact that even those nations have wide ranges of ability). Hopefully, at least 1 student in the class will figure out how to solve the problem, and his/hers will be be set up as an "exemplar" that all students will be expected to meet. The fact that none of the students has actually been taught how to solve the problem insures that this is not a "rote learning" exercise. Another example can be found on Vermont's www.exemplars.com page, where students who have never been exposed to any instruction in statistics are graded based on whether they have the concepts of ratio, proportion, and that the quality of data increases with the size of the sample. Students who do not have any such concepts are graded as "falling below expected standards". Not surprisingly, performance based tests show much larger gaps between whites and minorities than multiple choice basic skills tests. Only 5% of blacks and Hispanics met "standard" in the 1st year of Washington's WASL test compared to 20% of whites, a 1 standard deviation difference is just as great as IQ test gaps. Such examples are said to be be based on international standards, yet comparisions with standards created by states which are "standards-based" show such skills are actually mentioned in grades 7 and 10. Under CK, all students are expected to perform to a high standard, but it is recognized that some will do better than others, and students should study at their own level. Under the standards approach, all MUST perform to the same high standard to get their "certificate of mastery" by age 16, or they will not be allowed to graduate or get a high paying job. The Standards-based approach is similar to the "Think" system of Professor Harold Hill, a scam artist in the muscial production "The Music Man". Simply think the minuet in G and it will magically come out of your lips. Similarly, if you simply set a very high goal, and set sufficient incentive and penalties, all students will pass because they have to, and if they don't all pass right away, just aim for "continuous improvement" until 95% of students pass 10 years from now. Nobody really know if this works, but we must try. The standards based approach can also be compared to the theories of Karl Marx who also believed that all should achieve and be compensated at exactly the same levels. But oddly, even Marxist regimes in Russia and China are not based on the theory of equal outcomes and standards of performance for all when both these nations, Japan and Germany track students based on differening levels of performance. The United States appears to be the only nation on the planet that is basing education reform on the assumption of setting one standard of performance for all. My family sent 7 kids to Stanford and MIT at the 99th percentile on the SAT on the basis of exactly the same curriculum of the other kids that attended the 50th percentile public schools we attended in Renton Washington during the 60s and 70s. It not who sets the highest standards, it's who has the highest level of mastery of the old standards that counts. It's one thing to expose 4th graders to 7th grade level content. It's another to make sure that 4th graders master 4th grade content to the extent that they'll get 99% correct instead of only 30% correct. Date sent: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 13:42:27 +0900 Send reply to: core-net@TUCC6.TUCC.Trinity.Edu From: "gh" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: What are the main differences between CK and Standards? Originally to: Multiple recipients of list > Dear Members, > > I registered to the list very recently, and I am not sure whether it is > appropriate to ask such questions on this place. But I want to know the > what are the main differences, if any, in the criteria for the selection > and organization of curriculum content between the Core Knowledge > approach and the Standards approach. If anyone would give short answers > or inform any related articles, it will be much appreciated. > > I am teaching on curriculum studies in a University in Korea, and one of > my research interests is the comparative study on curriculum content > organization. > > Thank you in advance. > Date sent: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 06:48:03 -0700 (PDT) Send reply to: core-net@TUCC6.TUCC.Trinity.Edu From: Keta Tom To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: What are the main differences between CK and Standards? Originally to: Multiple recipients of list The difference between the Core Knowledge curriculum and Oregon's Standards and Benchmarks is vast. Core Knowledge presents detailed content in a sequence. It does not repeat much year to year. Oregon's Standards and Benchmarks state general ideas, with a little bit of content once in a while. I have been working on a curriculum comparison for the last two months. It is 320 pages. I was ready to duplicate and present it to the administration when the state revised its social science standards, four months after publishing the older standards. If you are interested, it is cut and paste, we can arrange a way to get it to you. For example, a state fifth grade benchmark is "Describe cause-and-effect relationships, considering the influence of individuals and events." I aligned "Toward the Civil War[:] -Abolitionists: William Lloyd Garrison and 'The Liberator,' Frederick Douglass -Slave life and rebellions ....," the Civil War, Reconstruction, the Spanish conquistadors, European exploration, Renaissance, Reformation, England in the Golden Age, English Revolution, and Russian history and culture there. After all, one cannot describe any history if one does not know about it. In general the standards and benchmarks come off as platitudes and Core Knowledge has content. Keta Tom On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, gh wrote: > Dear Members, > > I registered to the list very recently, and I am not sure whether it is > appropriate to ask such questions on this place. But I want to know the > what are the main differences, if any, in the criteria for the selection > and organization of curriculum content between the Core Knowledge > approach and the Standards approach. If anyone would give short answers > or inform any related articles, it will be much appreciated. > > I am teaching on curriculum studies in a University in Korea, and one of > my research interests is the comparative study on curriculum content > organization. > > Thank you in advance. > Date sent: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 02:06:27 -0400 Send reply to: core-net@TUCC6.TUCC.Trinity.Edu From: High Expectations To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: What are the main differences between CK and Standards? Originally to: core-net@TUCC6.TUCC.Trinity.Edu Dear Gh, The content and specificity. First, the curriculum framework of Core is probably quite different from other standards based curricula in broad use. This is a philosophical destinction that is based upon research conducted by the program's founder. But the most striking difference lies in the level of detail at which the framework is disseminated. Rather than making vague and general statements, Core specifies in detail exactly what it is that students will be expected to know in each subject area and grade. In addition, the means of assessing mastery of each objective is laid out in advance. In this way, students, teachers, and parents know exactly what is expected of them at all times. Steven M. Urdegar, Program Evaluation, DCPS, Miami gh wrote: > Dear Members, > > I registered to the list very recently, and I am not sure whether it is > appropriate to ask such questions on this place. But I want to know the > what are the main differences, if any, in the criteria for the selection > and organization of curriculum content between the Core Knowledge > approach and the Standards approach. If anyone would give short answers > or inform any related articles, it will be much appreciated. > > I am teaching on curriculum studies in a University in Korea, and one of > my research interests is the comparative study on curriculum content > organization. > > Thank you in advance. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > Gyu Ho Hwang > Associate Professor > Ewha Womans University > > Gyu Ho Hwang > Associate Professor > Ewha Womans University 서울 서대문구 대현동 11-1 > 이화여자대학교 사범대학 교육학과 ;;;;;120-750; Work: 02-360-2661 > Fax: 02-360-2727 > Netscape Conference Address > Netscape Conference DLS Server > Home Page: http://mm.ewha.ac.kr/~gh > Additional Information: > Last Name Hwang > First Name Gyu Ho > Version 2.1 -- "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." - Thomas Gray