Now I do understand the importance of these standards. But I find it hard to believe that until about 14 years or so ago NJ didn't even have them. I guess we just wandered around interpreting national standards from each content area's national organization. No wonder why when I headed to college I was at such a disadvantage. At a NY state school all the kids from NY, that were college bound, had been studying Regent's courses. they had a set curricula for each high school subject and took a state wide standardized test. There I was from NJ missing all that basic knowledge that every NY student had been taught. Then as Freshman in college we all took introductory courses in the basics which followed the Regent's curriculum. No wonder I was in big trouble that whole first year of college.
My point is I still find these standards confusing and difficult to interpret but they are a very necessary starting point for all school districts to follow. In my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I have to agree. They are confusing. I am sort of glad that we were asked to analyze the CCCS. I would never have done it otherwise. Well, I'm sure at some point in my career I would have, but I was forced to do it. ANd I am glad.
You're right. It is a good start. We can map the curriculum out the way we want it, following UBD.
I think you actually found the point of the core content curriculum standards. They standardize and, I believe that if you looked from state to state, you would find many similarities designed to insure that we all have the same basic knowledge no matter where we are from. It sort of levels the playing field.
The Regent's have been around forever. I received a Regent's diploma in 1968, although I did not recieve an academic diploma from my high school and found that it was difficult to get into any CUNY or SUNY colleges...go figure!
Post a Comment