Collaborate & Discuss

1. October 11, 2011 | 7:52 pm

   CD33

   Why is this being called a unit? Or a common core unit? It is not a unit. Technically, one could call it that…but it is a two day lesson, somewhat useful explaining how to facilitate a close reading. An actual unit would be beneficial, perhaps more so if that is what teachers are being asked to replicate once per semester this school year in preparation for the new common core standards. How, for example, does this two day lesson relate to a bigger idea–the unit, its essential question, its cumulative assessment?

   • October 18, 2011 | 4:31 pm

     EngageNY

     Thank you for your question and comments about the Middle School Common Core ELA unit. The sample units are intended to be used within a school’s larger curriculum. Due to local school scheduling (some schools have single periods, others use block periods, etc.) and programs, it is best for schools to determine how this middle school exemplar can best fit within their larger curriculum. The term “unit” has not been specifically defined, but the Department is working on a glossary of key terms that can be shared with the field.

2. August 29, 2011 | 10:31 am

   JoAnn Ottman

   Good instruction is at the heart of what will be required to bring the Common Core to life. If we just focus on the what to teach and not pay attention to the how, we will not make any gains, perhaps even slip back. The beauty of the Common Core is that it answers lots of questions about the ‘what’ that have previously absorbed a lot of teacher time and energy. The key for staff developers will be to latch on to the time and energy that will be newly available to develop far deeper instructional skills than we have been able to do in the past.

3. August 10, 2011 | 10:21 pm

   nacook

   I can visualize this lesson being taught in an engaing, meaningful way if the teacher can facilitate lively discussions and promote student thinking by asking them to predict who “the people” and how this changed over time. The idea that the meaning of a simple phrase can change so significantly over time can be intriguing if delivered by a skilled educator.

   On the other hand, I can see this lesson delivered in a deadly, boring manner (the way social studies was taught in the 70′s when I was middle and high school). I can picture rows of students being instructed to read this text without setting up the intriguing idea of the meaning of words changing over time–without any instructions other than to read the text. I can then see the teacher reading the text while some students follow along but most daydream or write notes (now it would be texting) under their desks. After that, I can see the teacher asking questions while one or two students raise their hands and answer the teacher without any discussion between students. This “counts” as class discussion. After this, the teacher assigns the homework.

   In both scenarios, teachers would believe that they are delivering the exemplar lesson promoted by this website and their district. Do you see why I am afraid that learning might suffer? The content is here, but effective strategies are missing.

   I have this same fear about several of these exemplars. I would love to hear other
   responses from teachers and staff developers.

4. August 1, 2011 | 2:20 pm

   christine cutler

   Can teachers step outside of their content comfort zone to think in this deeper way?