<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cored Out</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.eduwonk.com/2010/02/cored-out.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.eduwonk.com/2010/02/cored-out.html</link>
	<description>Education News, Analysis, and Commentary</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:00:28 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Robert Pondiscio</title>
		<link>http://www.eduwonk.com/2010/02/cored-out.html/comment-page-1#comment-149704</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Pondiscio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:22:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.eduwonk.com/?p=5390#comment-149704</guid>
		<description>A fair point...to a point.  Core Knowledge&#039;s main proposition is to point out that in the absence of a coherent, sequenced curriculum efforts to improve reading comprehension are doomed to fail.  Elementary school reading comprehension is still largely taught as a how-to skill--lots of reading strategy instruction; hit or miss &quot;content.&quot;  But it&#039;s familiarity with the content, not the reading strategy that creates comprehension (see Dan Willingham&#039;s You Tube video &quot;Teaching Content is Teaching Reading&quot; for more on this).  Language Arts standards are broad statements of goals (you can&#039;t teach the standards; you can only teach TO the standards).  Thus the Core Knowledge Sequence is the fuel needed to make the standards engine run.  

As for the Core Knowledge &quot;brand,&quot; there are already hundreds of schools using all or part of the Sequence that CK has no formal relationship with.  The ones that are implementing the curriculum with a high degree of fidelity and training by the Core Knowledge Foundation, are the so-called &quot;official&quot; Core Knowledge schools, a list of which are available on CK&#039;s website.   Thus the &quot;brand&quot; genie is not only out of the bottle, it&#039;s never been inside.  

Done right, the common core standards have the ability to be a significant step forward.  But in the absence of a rigorous curriculum, it won&#039;t -- it can&#039;t -- work. The standards writers cannot be in the business of writing a national curriculum.  Fortunately, they now don&#039;t have to be.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A fair point&#8230;to a point.  Core Knowledge&#8217;s main proposition is to point out that in the absence of a coherent, sequenced curriculum efforts to improve reading comprehension are doomed to fail.  Elementary school reading comprehension is still largely taught as a how-to skill&#8211;lots of reading strategy instruction; hit or miss &#8220;content.&#8221;  But it&#8217;s familiarity with the content, not the reading strategy that creates comprehension (see Dan Willingham&#8217;s You Tube video &#8220;Teaching Content is Teaching Reading&#8221; for more on this).  Language Arts standards are broad statements of goals (you can&#8217;t teach the standards; you can only teach TO the standards).  Thus the Core Knowledge Sequence is the fuel needed to make the standards engine run.  </p>
<p>As for the Core Knowledge &#8220;brand,&#8221; there are already hundreds of schools using all or part of the Sequence that CK has no formal relationship with.  The ones that are implementing the curriculum with a high degree of fidelity and training by the Core Knowledge Foundation, are the so-called &#8220;official&#8221; Core Knowledge schools, a list of which are available on CK&#8217;s website.   Thus the &#8220;brand&#8221; genie is not only out of the bottle, it&#8217;s never been inside.  </p>
<p>Done right, the common core standards have the ability to be a significant step forward.  But in the absence of a rigorous curriculum, it won&#8217;t &#8212; it can&#8217;t &#8212; work. The standards writers cannot be in the business of writing a national curriculum.  Fortunately, they now don&#8217;t have to be.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scrooge McDuck</title>
		<link>http://www.eduwonk.com/2010/02/cored-out.html/comment-page-1#comment-149629</link>
		<dc:creator>Scrooge McDuck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 15:09:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.eduwonk.com/?p=5390#comment-149629</guid>
		<description>&quot;Core Knowledge is a good curriculum but if it gets weakly implemented in a lot of places it’s going to erode the organization’s well-deserved reputation.&quot;

On the other hand, implementation of the CCSSI&#039;s poor math standards will result in poor curricula being made worse, and thus extending damage to students even further than that being done today.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Core Knowledge is a good curriculum but if it gets weakly implemented in a lot of places it’s going to erode the organization’s well-deserved reputation.&#8221;</p>
<p>On the other hand, implementation of the CCSSI&#8217;s poor math standards will result in poor curricula being made worse, and thus extending damage to students even further than that being done today.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

