I think it is good every once in a while to remind ourselves of the rules of logic (see great list above, for instance). I know that as I am reading some of the posts about CCSS, I wonder if somehow we have missed including LOGIC and reasoning as a skill. Kids need to know how to read something with faulty logic, to spot the truncated syllogisms (one of the favorite things I taught 8th graders all those years ago). Review the rules above and then read this post about CCSS: http://www.navigationnorth.com/the-what-not-how-or-why/ entitled Common Core State Standards…The What. Not The How or The Why: What the Common Core Are and Are Not. It begins logically enough. The WHAT are the standards, the HOW are the techniques needed to teach the standards, and the WHY are the reasons why these standards are included. But read a little further and watch as the logic begins to twist in on itself. It becomes so tortured that I am reminded of this book cover:
See how the pencil is almost unrecognizable (and if you have not read this book, correct this oversight immediately)? And so it is with this posting. It waffles back and forth about methods for teaching. Most insidiously, it suggests that these standards were a collaborative effort that included all sorts of folks. I am not sure I can even call that twisted logic; I know that requests to participate, to have a seat at the table, were rebuffed (in much the same way they were here in Texas when the ELAR curriculum was written without any input from literacy organizations at all). This author asserts that teachers are not being told how mastery of skills is to be assessed. Apparently, the TEST part has escaped this person's attention. And apparently, this person has not seen the mountainous volumes of PD handouts and books and materials that ARE mandating instructional methods.
There are more flaws, of course, but I wonder if perhaps we could use posts such as these to demonstrate to our students how NOT to construct a logical argument, how NOT to be persuasive? Hmmm, I might just have come up with a HOW that can address the WHAT and show that the WHY is not as strong a foundation as we are led to believe.