Journal Response to CCSS reading 

So far in my pedagogical training there has been very little reference to any practices aimed at meeting some sort of social justice. It has been isolated to here’s how you teach the kids like you. This lack has been fairly disappointing in some respects because a large part of why I decided to become an educator was the capacity to affect the future the profession provides. I have had a decent amount of exposure to the Standards themselves, mostly the reading standards for social studies, though I haven’t read anything like this chapter. Thus, it was a stimulating change to read.

After becoming acquainted with the logic of the literacy section of Common Core I have become rather enthusiastic about its objectives and design. What I like most about the CCSS is how they reflect the requirements of the scholarship I have been exposed to while at university.

The most intriguing idea I read in the chapter was that of emphasizing performance tasks over content knowledge in order to reduce a restrictive influence of cultural differences in a student’s success. I believe the composition lesson using online forums could be considered an example of this practice? I would like to see more examples of performance assignments that are specifically designed to avoid benefiting any one cultural background. I get the purpose of course, but I would like to know more about how to accomplish it.

I did have one pet peeve get scratched with this reading. I do not see the need that many writers have to reinvent the dictionary and attempt to create the most absurd names for concrete objects that already have a name. For instance, “passionate affinity spaces” is just asinine; to me it rings with a painful cringe in my ears. It is called a classroom; now simply tell me what qualities you think make a successful, welcoming, classroom. Renaming the “space” will not eliminate the influence of the dominant American culture, whatever it may be. Furthermore, the seven characteristics that constitute a PAS are just poorly written in my opinion (bullet 3 for example) and seem to try and mask themselves with obscure language. I whole heartedly advocate the practices expressed, but it appears to me the writers attempted to write around specific words in order to tone down a rather Progressive message.