What do you think of potential Common Core impact on educational experiences for gifted students? Here are some links I have been looking at, one is from Common Core (including the appendices and specific curriculum) and one is a summary & analysis by a well-known advocacy group for homeschool rights in the USA.
http://www.corestandards.org/
https://www.hslda.org/commoncore/Analysis.aspx#FAQ

I would say that there are many valid criticisms of Common Core, but HSLDA seems to prefer the other kind.

Problem #1 with CC:
"Progressive educator John Dewey argued for standardized curriculum to prevent one student from becoming superior to others and envisioned a workforce filled with people of “politically and socially correct attitudes” who would respond to orders without question."

Problem #2 with CC:
"Relativism’s influence on the Common Core is evident in the open-ended and research-based assessment questions and the expansive new student tracking systems, ideas which have been strongly promoted by relativist Howard Gardner."

I actually saw Howard Gardner at one of his presentations a couple of months ago and asked him some questions on how passion, open source, and learning will/should figure in education. He didn't have much of a response. Well, he's a bit dated imo. You need passion or emotions to remain engaged and motivated in learning. This is a HUGE problem with education today.

Problem #3, #4, and more with CC:
Common Core was developed based on business and policy wonks. There's little in terms of digital citizenship or global citizenship. American exceptionalism still reigns. I'm a former history teacher/professor and I'm not saying that it's not worthwhile to learn about US History. What I am saying is that digital technology has changed the parameters in our worldview and this should be reflected in any school curriculum. At the moment, I am not convinced this is the case with CC.

Common Core was also developed with the fallacy that America needs to ensure everyone is college-ready or prepare everyone for a college education. This is foolish for many, many reasons.

"The Common Core standards require students to master a checklist of skills every year." That's dumb. That assumes every student is on the same trajectory and develops at the same rate as everyone else. This is totally false. What happens to the late bloomer who doesn't read by 2nd grade or what happens to the advanced learner who is reading college textbooks by 2nd grade?

"The final argument—standardization—hinges on the premise that one textbook, or just a few aligned with the Common Core, would be an improvement over the numerous and varied textbooks available today. " - Um, yea. Don't get me started on standardization or textbooks. How about those high school history textbooks that are written at a 5th grade level? Do they remain with CC or do they get finally ditched?

But like I said, there are many reasons why I don't think CC will be beneficial for most children.

That's a good example of the "other kind" of criticism. For starters, Common Core isn't a curriculum.

I would agree with Dude. Our state had grade level standards before, and those will be replaced by CC. Updating standards from time to time does not have to be a nefarious conspiracy. Some state standards had been set deliberately low to help the state meet NCLB benchmarks.

The superintendent in our district says that the new standards raise the bar, and projects that higher expectations for students due to CC will lead to better performance. At the same time, she is on the record as saying that raising the *baseline* for expectations does not mean leaving behind students who are already beyond the levels set by CC.

I think in some areas, CC will be applied with a generous dose of common sense, and the outcomes will be positive, and in other areas it will be used in ways it was probably not intended, i.e., to hold back advanced learners.

If they just changed the name to 'minimal core' then I would be fine with it because it would then be getting called what it is or at least should be. In some states, the standards were so low that this has forced them to get better while here in NJ it has been a disaster because it has lowered the standard.

If it was a declaration of the absolute minimum skills that a kid ought to have by the end of each grade then it would be marvelous because a lot of sub par schools would be exposed for short changing kids. I would support it as this 100% because it would then implicitly allow schools io strive for more than just the minimum.

The sad truth is that it is being touted as 'everything a kid should know by the end of each grade' which acts as a ceiling on what schools, let alone kids, end up achieving.

Can you hear that flushing sound?

Agreed.

And What MadeinUK said, too--

only that flushing sound that was referred to? I couldn't hear that over the noise of the giant SUCKING sound that my state's standards have been creating for the past decade.

Agree with all. HSLDA has their own agenda.

MA standards are/were higher than CC. Then again, MA doesn't mandate gifted education and it's got no intention of doing so either. That's two giant SUCKING sounds, possibly three! Do I have to mention what colleges/universities or private, exclusive boarding schools are located in this fine Commonwealth?

NCLB is really a re-hash of the furor from the Sputnik era and A Nation At Risk study which came out in '83 under Reagan. It seems we're stuck in a reactionary, political mode with education. Wonder when the wheels will ever change.

Dude,

I am confused by your assertion that Common Core isn't a curriculum, as this seems to be in conflict with statements on the website found at the link http://www.commoncore.org/, such as
- "The Common Core Curriculum Maps in ELA"
- "The Alexandria Plan... allows you to teach history again."
- Press Release "Louisiana... recommends Common Core Math Curriculum."
- The presence of a "curriculum" tab on their webpage located at the link http://commoncore.org/maps/history


What impacts are anticipated for gifted students?



"

The Common Core standards can be found at:
http://www.corestandards.org
The link you gave seems to be a different group creating curriculum aligned to the standards. But the standards do not dictate that this or any other particular curriculum must be used. It is only the standards that are being adopted at the state level - at least in my state, curriculum are selected by individual districts.

It's not a curriculum, it's a set of standards that can be used to guide curriculum development.

- A standard says "Any student in grade X should know math concepts A, B, and C."

The question of HOW the concepts are taught is not addressed in the standard. That's up to the curriculum. The developers of the curriculum merely need to know that their intended audience in grade X will be expected to learn those concepts. Beyond that, they have complete freedom of design.

A good analogy would be HTTP and web pages. HTTP is simply a set of standards that ensure web content providers to predictably and reliably communicate with web content consumers. Do all web pages look the same?

The press release from Louisiana says the following:


The curriculum is P-12, not Common Core.

The language does lend itself to confusion, because what we're really talking about here is Common Core State Standards. The P-12 curriculum was developed by an organization named Common Core. These things have similar names, but they are not the same thing.

I agree with some aspects of both sides of the Common Core argument. At first I thought CC made it sound like every child was going to be gifted by the time the standards were in place since education in general was going to be more "rigorous" (they really like that term I noticed). Then it seemed more like CC lowered the standards in order to allow all children to meet the goals. CC has taken a page from gifted education, in general, just in that CC does seem to go deeper and require higher-order thinking, but CC even mentions that they don't really have anything for those students that meet the standards prior to the set time they are supposed to. “The Standards do not define the nature of advanced work for students who meet the Standards prior to the end of high school” (English Language Arts Standards, p. 6).

However, I do think Common Core can be utilized well for gifted students IF a school district chooses to do so. I see no reason why a teacher can't just look at the standards for grade 4 (for instance) then assess the gifted student that has already met those standards and move on to the next column for grade 5 standards and so on. Will this happen - maybe, but it really shouldn't be that difficult!

Since most states are just now implementing CC it will take time to get everything up and going, so once again the gifted children will probably take a back seat to getting the majority of students with the program. Of course we will again hear about how difficult it is to differentiate within the classroom for 1 gifted student when the teacher has 19 other nongifted students.

I personally believe that for my children, implementation of CC, is going to mean more advocating this upcoming school year. I'm worried our school will tell us that the standards are more "rigorous" and in-depth, which should compensate for what our daughters need. Or they will tell us that they are too busy with all the changes they have to make to be able to differentiate within the classroom. I don't like thinking this way, but I'd be willing to bet money I'm right!

In our urban school district, we have a new superintendent. The fact that the new superintendent has a much different philosophy on education of gifted students than the previous two superintendents will have a much bigger impact on district practices for gifted students than the adoption of CC standards will.

Although I can see how an administrator could push through anti-gifted practices under the guise of CC.

amylou,

thank you, I've been looking at so many links in researching the Common Core, that I've gotten some of the links jumbled. I've backtracked through my link list and see that this where I first began to understand Common Core as having a specific curriculum component... there is a "placement" of certain academic content, for example "Grapes of Wrath", as shown at CCSS links including http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy and in the Appendices linked from that page.

To those who addressed the HSLDA, not the potential impact of Common Core on gifted students... yes the HSLDA does have their own agenda, they are well-known advocates for homeschool rights in the USA.

Is anyone else researching the Common Core? Have others read the standards? It appears this may be the framework within which any future educational advocacy for gifted kids may occur...? Are others trying to become familiar with it?

Clearly, their agenda goes way beyond "homeschool rights."


My personal opinion is that they have very little to do with gifted advocacy, because:

1) The standards represent a minimum level of expectations, and we're talking about kids who will, unless demotivated, naturally exceed expectations.

2) Standards don't impact the quality of education nearly as much as how they are implemented.

And if you're homeschooling, you're free to implement the standards however you like.

Absolutely! I want to know as much as possible about CC for the reasons I previously stated. If I need to advocate for my children, I want to know what I'm talking about and be able to confront any barrier the school may put up.

Each state and each district will pick curriculum based on the CCSS, so I'm also looking into what our district is going to use. Not only is our district implementing CC this upcoming year, but we are also going completely digital, so we are really jumping in with both feet.

If you haven't already you may want to look at what the NAGC and Parenting for High Potential have on their website regarding CC. I found that information useful. I also like this article - http://www.examiner.com/article/com...ot-obviate-the-need-for-gifted-education

Thanks for the links, 1frugalmom!

Well, adoption of Common Core has resulted in dismantling of the dedicated GT classroom for DS/DD during the coming year. However, GT math will remain in one classroom.

I am not particularly a CC hater, but I do think that the shift to a strong emphasis on nonfiction is a terrible idea. Reading fiction is important for developing empathy and thinking about other people's choices and situations; I personally believe that this is a crucial skill for citizenship.

My own kids are nonfiction gluttons, so the CC standards will let them slide through easier, but I really want them reading literature. There will have to be some afterschooling on this.

The new math standards are more "rigorous" for the part of kids who were not pushed through Algebra II before, and now will be. (And those parents are mighty concerned that their kids will flunk out of high school if they don't get there-- the worry is real for them). I am not sure they're any more rigorous for the kids who really need challenge.

I do think that our school system understands this problem and will try to differentiate, but have not been under CC long enough to get their feet under them yet. I am still hoping for more nuance in implementation.

I persist in asking the school district to treat the standards as a floor, not as a ceiling-- which is what standards ought to be. We shall see.

DeeDee

They sound a bit like our national standards though we have a national curriculum too (easy in a country with 4 million odd people). The problem is if you have a minimum standard you have to set it at a level that the vast majority can reasonably be achieved. A standard that can be achieved by 90% plus of students is unlikely to challenge those above the 99th percentile (or even the 80th to be fair). And for some reason the fact that it is the MINIMUM seems to be overlooked and instead it becomes the target.

I've heard that one casualty may be accelerating in math. Apparently the Common Core for math is that every year it builds on itself; it isn't in discrete topics anymore like Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, etc. So a gifted child can't accelerate through it.
With our local public school gifted program, my son will take Algebra I in 7th grade, Geometry in 8th grade, Algebra II in 9th, pre-calculus in 10th, then two years of Calculus. I'd hate to see that change.

Discrete math topics seems to be a US thing. While that is the system we are used to, many other countries don't focus on one math topic each year - they have a bit of each topic every year.

My kids did most of their elementary years in an immersion school that was based on a European school model. They did a wide variety of math topics each year, and they were clearly ahead of their public school peers when they switched to the local public school.

I think that there will still be discrete topics in middle/high school. The College Board wouldn't let the model change - too much money at stake with AP tests.

It is changing-- at least through Algebra II.

It's a more "integrated" math progression, which sounds fine until you dig into what curriculum modifications are being rolled out by the big curriculum/textbook houses as a result.

It's more spiraling pedagogy that goes over the same concepts relentlessly drilling them...

and frankly, there is VERY little supporting analytical coverage, which means that the same structural problems that exist for the low-end NOW are going to persist in it under Common Core.

This, by the way, is my DD's report on the basis of the Course 3 math students that she has been seeing in tutoring sessions over the past year. They have underlying gaps in understanding that are going unaddressed, and no amount of drilling on geometry theorems is going to help them understand those theorems without filling them in first.

I don't think the common core will make it impossible to accelerate. We've had no indication that our school district will stop accelerating students in the gifted program. Currently, in the highly gifted program which runs 3rd to 8th grade, students complete two years of high school math along with a high school level earth/environmental science course.