Another banner addition to the UVA student symphony!
While this student entry (by Jnm6y) does not directly relate to school (aka learning environment) design, it certainly does speak to the underlying premise of learning and the academic process which would drive a design in the end. And while I would not consider myself in full agreement with every detail, I do have great respect for where it comes from. As a school planner, such an educator's statement would help me very quickly get a sense of the design decisions that would arise from a pedagogical expectation of this magnitude.
******
"America In Need of a National Curriculum"
Public schools in America today are not living up to the expectations of American families, who look to schooling as a way to improve the future of their family, their country, and the world. Most theorists and educators agree that improvements need to be made, but the theories on how to best create those improvements vary greatly. I have read and heard about the ideas of many theorists, and they all seem to present valid points and ideas, but they cannot all be correct in their opinions of how to improve our schools. My opinion of what schools should be like coincides best with E.D. Hirsch’s, a professor at UVA and founder of the Core Knowledge Foundation.
I agree with Hirsch’s opinion that the progressive education style that is often used in schools today has left many gaps in students’ knowledge. The curriculum of most public schools today is very unspecific and lacks any type of sequential order in what is taught in each grade. Students are taught different things in a different order all over the country, so we can never assume that students of a certain age or grade level have the same basic background knowledge as each other. Because of this, teachers in older grades have to spend time teaching and reviewing basic skills that students should have learned in earlier grades. I believe that a specific, national curriculum would benefit students greatly, and would also help in closing the achievement gap between American and other, more academically successful countries such as Japan and France who already use a national curriculum and proved how well it can work.
I understand why so many theorists are interested in teaching in a “progressive” way so that each child can pursue his or her own interests and explore education beyond the basics of English, Math, History, and Science. John Dewey encouraged teachers to teach to the whole child, and not just to the academic side of the child, which is a lovely idea, but I think academics still need to come first. If a specific, national curriculum were followed in the classroom, teachers could still add activities and lessons that cater to other interests of the students, but at least they would all be receiving a solid academic education first.
I do not believe that academics need to always be taught in a drill-and-practice style, but sometimes this is the best way. Not all students are motivated to learn, even when they are given the freedom to study what they would like and learn in a variety of ways. Although tests and papers might not be fun for them, they are sometimes necessary in order to prove that they are learning what is needed to continue on to the next grade. Hands-on and discovery learning can be used to keep students interest and help them learn in a variety of ways, but some type of assessment is often needed to assure that students have learned all of the vocabulary and concepts that were expected of them.
I truly believe that if America created a specific national curriculum that students and teachers were held accountable for, students would benefit greatly. Our public schools, as a whole, are currently struggling academically, and a national curriculum would help by holding students accountable for having a certain amount of background knowledge when moving on to the next grade. I think there are many great ideas about improving education, but until we all know exactly what concepts we want all of our students to know, the rest of the ideas supply little help in improving students’ academic achievement.
******
Your thoughts?
This is the 2nd time that Hirsch's core knowledge argument has been introduced here at "think:lab". Very interesting.
First and foremost, this student has a remarkable sense of educational history and did fair service to the 'progressive' theorists which have sparked much of today's learning styles (Dewey, et al). And he/she offered a very strong breakdown of the pros/cons -- especially in the "not every student is motivated to learn" moment.
I will, however -- and this is offered out of respect for a clearly well-read/researched voice -- offer a simple 2-step of ideas in response. One, every child is motivated to learn the second they enter school (4 or 5 years old on average) because it is inate to the human condition to learn (from utter survival to wonderous curiosity), but then something 'strange happens on the way to the forum' of academia. The admission that not every student is motivated to learn is undoubtedly true...and hard to resist. Especially in an industrial age manner of evaluating the link between learning and production. I offer, however, that school's original promise was about citizenship (stand up straight, learn to vote, good penmanship, etc.) and preparing the majority of students for an industrial age role (skill + action = automated outcome). Schools of the future? I think we're looking at something much more robust.
Two, we must imagine not what the schools of yesteryear needed, but what the learners of tomorrow will demand. In this day and age, our students still show up on their first day of school as unabashed leaners full of curiosity and wonder. Sadly, they still end up being run through the academic mill to the point where most students simply equate school with memorization and the opposite of curiosity or learning, and yet they are looking at a future that couldn't be further from the industrial model if we had dared to dream otherwise. And the skills that our students will need in the future will require far more than the core fundamentals of yesteryear's educational models if we dare believe they will be 'response-able' in the end. Both Japan and France were both brought up, but I'd quickly offer that France's system does not lead to gains in economic or entreprenurial outcomes in comparison to our own nation, and that Japan looks at the US as having a hothouse of creativity that they are trying to emulate in both academic and work settings. While there is much to learn from both, neither nation can compete with the success of our universities or the success of our businesses, and both look to the US for a sense of how to help inspire learners that can also be creators.
Finally, Dewey or Hirsch? Matters little.
NO matter what theorist you admire, I figure that it comes down to thinking. We can continue to fill their brains with core information, or we can begin to help them think. I'm not such a fan of progressive vs. core knowledge arguments. While it fuels conversation, ultimately learning doesn't distinguish between the two. In the future, its either going to be a matter of passivity or engagement when it comes to school. And only one will have much value at the end of the day.
o
Japan= size-377,835 sq km, pop.-127,463,611
France=size-547,030 sq km, pop.-60,876,136
U.S.= size-9,631,420 sq km, pop.-298,444,215
I don't believe that the comparison between the US and other countries holds for very long. Do the math. We want desperately to believe that the US is tops. We want to be the best, but the best banana does not compare to the best apple. We are not a country that is anything like another country in the world. There are subtleties to the operation of every country. We need to look at our own in comparison to no one. I have traveled outside the boundaries of our country and have seen first hand what education looks like elsewhere. It is not what we think of when we think of education. We want libraries, nurses, counselors, free and reduced lunch, small class sizes, special plans for students with disabilities, sports, clubs, band, choir and a bevy of other accoutrements. When I explain to people outside this country what we provide as a part of school, their mouths drop open. I sat in the middle of a communist country and explained how we take care of our students with two meals a day and a dentist once a month and you name it… it was surreal. And even though we are one nation, we have regional identities that allow for people to have different accents, experiences and beliefs. This is a strong point, not one of contention. I submit that the fact that we are able to live in this country and thrive is a testament to the strength of the diversity.
Regarding core knowledge…I have had first hand knowledge of what core knowledge looks like because the Arizona state Social Studies Standard has a lot of the philosophy wrapped into it. What is the one common story that we, as Americans, need to know? Whose history do we tell? From what perspective do you look into the faces of Native American students and say, isn’t Columbus wonderful? I teach Social Studies. I love the story of our country. I think that the strength of the nation is not on having a one story, but being able to live in one country even though we have many different stories.
The real problem as I see it, our students are having trouble thinking these days. Thinking, I tell you. History as it is taught in the average classroom bores students, not because history itself is boring, but because it is a story that is not being connected to who they are today. It is the great underwhelming of a nation, just listen for the yawns escaping the school doors of America daily. Cramming facts into the heads of our students does not accomplish what I see as the greater goal, having a ‘thinking’ population. I teach students how to look for bias, understand perspective, notice details… be their own historian. This is my goal. In the age of a ridiculous amount of ‘standards’ I am lost in what to do. There are roughly 140 performance objectives for 8th grade social studies in AZ. With that number, the depth to which I tell any story is cursory at best.
And here is the kicker… in a country that should never have had a federal education department (if you want a real social studies lesson, read the 10th amendment). The manner in which the federal government hands out mandates is cumbersome at best, unconstitutional at the worst. After hooking schools on the hand outs for free and reduced lunch and Title I, the feds then rolled up with a program like NCLB. This is an attempt to hold all students accountable… and it is a failure. When the feds figure out how to give AZ ($6,000) schools the same per student funding as NY ($13,000) then maybe we can start talking about consistent national standards. There are needs for particular parts of the country that are unique to the region. Assuming that all schools, towns, counties and states can be homogenized is almost like assuming that all people are alike… capable of becoming indoctrinated with America’s story. We owe something to our students that goes beyond a list of facts. We’ve got google. We’ve got wikipedia. We’ve got the means, but we have spent a ridiculous amount of time in American education teaching to the test. Thanks to the federal government this generation will be incredibly adept at one thing for sure… bubbling in standardized tests. We need to shake off the nostalgia of bygone eras where we can find unity and comfort in memorizing/scripting the one American ideal curriculum. We need leaders strong enough to look forward instead of back and find a path that leads this generation to realize its potential.
Posted by: Diana | November 13, 2006 at 11:42 PM