English Language Arts Common Core State Standards

This reading was really my first direct exposure to the Common Core State Standards. Prior to this reading, my exposure to them had been primarily if not exclusively the secondhand comments about them from other students in the education program. However, now that I have read through them a bit myself, I see now that they are not exactly the demon spawned restrictions to teacher's freedoms that I have heard them described as. The Common Core State Standards actually allow for a lot of freedom in the teacher's ability to teach a given subject. They merely seem to provide a list of the concepts which are the most important things for students to learn during the course of the year. It also impressed me that the Common Core State Standards for English included the importance of literacy and the ties between English and other subjects, such as Social Studies and science.  The common core does not do anything to consider curriculum, giving the teachers the freedom to design their lessons the way they see fit to provide the best instruction. They also force teachers to bring students to a standard, rather than allowing them to accept mediocre results.
However, the Common Core State Standards are not exactly one hundred percent perfect either. As pointed out by the article, creating a standardization is not the same as hold them to high standards. As needs may vary from classroom to classroom, it is difficult if not impossible to create a standard. Homogenization of instruction isn't necessarily a good thing when the same standards may not be applicable within different classrooms. The CCSS focuses entirely upon academic standards, rather than creativity and individuality. Where they succeed in ensuring that all students are held to the same standard, they fail in recognizing that each classroom is different and functions completely differently than any other classroom might.While it can be argued that all students should be held to the same standard, it can sometimes be difficult to do so under certain circumstances. For example, students of different levels of socioeconomic standard. A student from a wealthier background is much more likely to meet each standard than one from a poorer background. The CCSS fails to consider this and it is left to the individual teacher to provide the lower SES students with all of the extra resources they will need to succeed.

Discussion as a Way of Teaching, by Stephen Brookfield

This article detailed a number of different methods for improving ones teaching method. As a student who is well on his way into the education program, this could prove to be a rather useful tool for me. What I found to be particularly interesting about this article was that each of the discussed methods were very different from one another and some were even contradictory to others. It was established rather early in this article that the "ground rules" about discussion should be discussed early on in the classroom to establish what rules are going to be effective for that specific class. I think that this is a very important distinction to make because no two classrooms are going to function exactly alike and the same methods may not be effective in one class where they are in another.

1. The first method discussed within this article which I found to be particularly helpful was the discussion about ground rules. The author's idea to gather information about the students and their individual backgrounds in classroom discussion, what has been effective for them and what has not, is something that I think could come to a lot of use in my own classroom.
2. The Second activity which Brookfield presents the reader with which caught my eye was called the "Circle of Voices." I especially liked this method because it forces students to really listen to one another while providing a chance for discussion. It also provides students with a deeper understanding of each others ideas because they have to put their classmates words into their own, asking clarifying questions along the way or being corrected if they misunderstand what their classmates are saying.
3. Another thing which I found to be interesting and helpful to think about was Brookfield's list of the different types of conversational roles within a discussion. I personally have a deep interest in examining the many different kinds of people and the different ways in which people think, so this section was of particular interest to me. It is interesting to see the many different approaches to class discussion which Brookfield presents here, and I am sure that there are many other types as well which were not labeled here. My personal favorite is the Devil's Advocate, as they force people to think in ways they otherwise would not have considered.

 I personally find discussion to be one of the most useful tools in teaching as well as learning. It provides a place for every participants voice and way of thinking to be heard and examined, but more importantly a place for them to be challenged, defended, and rationalized. The methods and other information consolidated in this article by Brookfield will provide me with a helpful tool to improve discussion in my classroom and make it a better place for learning.