Alan Singer: Teaching History the Pearson Way

[eridani]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-singer/teaching-history-the-pear_b_6877138.html

The curriculum package opens with essays for teachers that cover all the latest education buzzwords and establish Pearson's alliances and priorities. They include understanding by design, the importance of big ideas, how the package aligns with National Common Core Standards, correlates with national social studies standards, supports English Language Learners, promotes digital citizenship, prepares students for the 21st century, utilizes differentiated instruction, is geared for assessment, and supports "real" student learning. District purchase agents need to know that it is a one-stop-to-shop package that includes everything and everyone.

Pearson is so thoughtful that it provides teachers with activities, images, reading passages, and assessment questions, and just in case the teacher is an idiot and does not understand the material, they also provide the answers to student short-written questions. On page 223, students are asked to "Tell whether or not you would have approved of John Brown's raid." The Pearson provided "possible answer" is "I would not approve; slavery is wrong, but you still should not murder people."

One of the most curious Pearson statements appears at the end of every chapter in the teacher guide. Pearson recommends that in case there is "Not enough time for social studies" because of pressure to prepare students for the high-stakes Common Core English tests, teachers can use material from the package "during your reading block." I would expect the National Council for Social Studies to be howling and threatening to cut all ties with Pearson, but so far I have not even heard a quiet whimper, which may be because they depen

[Igel]

1. Any teachers group knows why Pearson is what it is.

Including why they need to give answers. You get certified in Social Studies in some states; you may not know much American history. (I'm certified for SS. American history is my weakest subtopic. And, no, I don't teach SS.)

In the case of 5th grade, which is what he has in his sights, you're often certified as a generalist. K-5, or some such spread. Meaning you are equally able to teach reading in kinder, science in 3rd grade, and social studies in 5th. That makes being an expert hard.

In high school SS is often the easiest certification and coaches often accumulate there. Not as much grading as English, not as much touchy-feely as art and music, not as much lab prep as science. Hence the need for answer keys. Even, sometimes, for obvious things. If anything else, it makes life easy *and* keeps teachers from making stupid mistakes. It also allows for the same or similar answers that are aligned to state standards.

Sadly, as long as we have state assessments that are the word of God when it comes to interpreting state standards, what Pearson does is important. Sickening, but important.

Having reading materials for a "reading block" is a damned good idea. I wish we had science stuff at my school for the kids who are pulled for remedial reading and writing. They can't read non-fiction. Novels, sure--"what do you think and why?" As opposed to non-fiction writing that is terse and fairly non-redundant, so when you finish a paragraph you'd better damned well know what it means before you push on to the next one. If you miss something in "To Kill a Mockingbird," you can intuit much of what must have happened, or construct some sort of mostly coherent meaning. Miss something in a chemistry book and you're often SOL for the rest of the chapter.

My point is that SS (like science) has to and properly does take a back seat, esp. in 5th grade. The kids need to read and be able to read. That's more important than history and science--and, in fact, if their reading is two years behind by 9th grade their history and science *will* suffer a great deal. Because they can't read. I teach science, and when it came time to prioritize subjects for intensive remediation, I put reading and writing at the top; then math; then science or SS. Since I live in TX and juniors have a standardized must-pass test, for juniors the ranking is clear: English, math, history, science. In 5th grade, I think more schools hit up English and math more than SS or history, and those two subjects are the core for all the other "core" subjects later.

All the Pearson crap is handy. It shortens prep time. Less work. Fewer tests to write from scratch. And this matters when you have email, meetings, ARDs, 504s, GT meetings, faculty meetings, PLCs, tech trainings, etc., etc. It also provides uniformity, so "all students get the same education." Instead of having the history expert teach her class history expertly while the English teacher who's teaching SS because the SS teacher is out on child leave shoddily. I've even seen principals who prefer absolute uniformity, because then grading is more uniform and fewer parents call to say, "My kid got a 70 because Mr. Igel's test was harder than Ms. Frosche's."

These days principals are every bit the political animal.

[eridani]

2. Right. A for-profit company that spies on its test takers.

What's their labor history material like?