n/m - Page 2

[rhiandmoi]

That's interesting that so many places are still wording their standards that way. That has gone out of style for probably 5 if not 10 years here. In this state the standards are written in very plain language and even give examples of what they mean. Sigh, just another reason why it would be nice to have a national standard.

[EviesMom]

When I worked last (summer 2010), we used standards for Texas, New York, and California. There are also some national standards, and they use the same types of language. http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards

They are less convoluted than they were 10 years ago, and less "moving in multiple planes," but they need to encompass a variety of possible activities that can all meet that standard, so they're just not going to be very explicit. Here are some examples from 2010 California (Sacramento I believe):

Describe the relationship between a series of historical events, scientific ideas or concepts, or steps in technical procedures in a text, using language that pertains to time, sequence, and cause/effect. (Third Grade, Language Arts)

Adapt speech to a variety of contexts and tasks, using formal English when appropriate to task and situation.  (Fifth Grade, Writing)

I think its easy to incorporate deeper learning into cookie baking with only a minute or two of discussion, explanation, or invitation to observe in a scientific way or to reflect or report on what you did when baking.

Edited by EviesMom - 3/9/11 at 10:05am

[Wild Iris]

Originally Posted by stik 

Making cookies is reading, following directions, and basic addition. 

Washing dishes is food safety.

If you want to work on fractions, grab an apple and slice it.

If you want to fill out the state-mandated forms so it sounds like your everyday life is extremely educational - make your everyday life extremely educational.  You have all the time in the world and the freedom to expose your child to the experiences and material that you think are most vital.  Why not find a way to actually teach your child about chemistry and fractions instead of faking it? 

I agree with stik about "faking it."  Unless you're making a concerted effort to explain the fractional elements of baking cookies such as doubling or reducing a recipe, or you are delving into the chemical reaction of baking soda and baking powder in your cookie recipe, then I do think you're faking it. The opportunities to use cooking as a teaching tool for both math and science abound, but to bake cookies without explanation is a bit fraudulent in my opinion.

[sapphire_chan]

Originally Posted by Wild Iris 

I agree with stik about "faking it."  Unless you're making a concerted effort to explain the fractional elements of baking cookies such as doubling or reducing a recipe, or you are delving into the chemical reaction of baking soda and baking powder in your cookie recipe, then I do think you're faking it. The opportunities to use cooking as a teaching tool for both math and science abound, but to bake cookies without explanation is a bit fraudulent in my opinion.

Except that allowing a child to observe phenomena without explanation is an important stage in letting them learn scientific thought. Observation, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion. Kids don't learn as well if you sit there telling them the conclusion while they're in the observation stage.
 

[Aeress]

The core standards discussion is another thread entirely, so I won't address them as such. As a homeschooler I don't follow my state standards, though I am aware of them, and when addressing other homeschooling families, I don't push them to follow state standards as part of their curriculum unless they would prefer to. (pardon the poor grammar, thoughts are slow today)

 One of the families in our community writes their IHIP as such: Anna will learn the times table for math, ride a horse for education etc. They have never had a problem getting their documentation approved. They have chosen to avoid most edu-speak, though they surely know how to, they didn't feel it was necessary. Personally, I like more details and write my IHIP and quarterly in edu-speak.

[moominmamma]

Originally Posted by rhiandmoi 

That's interesting that so many places are still wording their standards that way. That has gone out of style for probably 5 if not 10 years here. In this state the standards are written in very plain language and even give examples of what they mean. Sigh, just another reason why it would be nice to have a national standard.

I would abhor national standards: the factory approach to standardized education, writ large. I'm aware of my jurisdiction's standards, but I choose not to follow them to any significant extent. I love having that freedom -- it's the main reason we homeschool. Our innovative local public school extracts as much wiggle room out of governmental standards as is possible and they earn copious kudos from me for it. I think broad governmental standards in education are the enemy of individuality, creativity, innovation, responsiveness, empowerment, community identity and pride.

I live in Canada, and although there's a fair bit of education-ese in the prescribed learning outcomes, they also give plain-speak examples of what they mean and of how they might be demonstrated and evaluated. But I think EviesMom has hit the nail on the head: the expectations need to be written in general terms so that they can encompass various methods of accomplishing them. As funny as "moves through three-dimensional space in a variety of planes" sounds, it allows my kids to accomplish PE outcomes through aikido, rock-climbing and theatre sports, rather than necessarily by "jumping, sliding, crawling, bear-walking and running," as plain-speak might put it.

Miranda

Edited by moominmamma - 3/9/11 at 4:21pm

[Wild Iris]

Originally Posted by sapphire_chan 

Except that allowing a child to observe phenomena without explanation is an important stage in letting them learn scientific thought. Observation, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion. Kids don't learn as well if you sit there telling them the conclusion while they're in the observation stage.
 

I think you missed the point. I did not say any thing about drawing conclusions for a child.
 

[moominmamma]

Originally Posted by Wild Iris 

I think you missed the point. I did not say any thing about drawing conclusions for a child.
 

You did talk about "explaining things" which can easily rob the child of the opportunity to develop his own hypotheses, mull them over, observe more deeply, question, experiment and draw conclusions. I honestly think that the best early science education has precious little in the way of explanations. It's heavy on experiences with the way things work. Tonight I was "explaining" the business of wavelengths and nodes to a bunch of 8-to-17-year-old mostly unschooled string players. You should have seen them jumping up and down with glee as they shared how "I thought it must be something like that, because I noticed that when I play this note .... " and "It's just like with a slinky, when you hold one end and ..." and "Wait a second ... that must explain this other thing too!" The explanation I was giving had a context of years of observations and thinking about why certain things happen the way they do. 

Miranda