In Mathematics I have learned to multiply, divide, add,
subtract, and perform difficult equations and formulas to solve for textbook
problems such as slope-intercept, Pythagorean theorem, velocity of train and
when it will intersect with a second train. In Science courses I have learned
how to distinguish between hypothesis and theory, how to perform good
scientific research, the layers of the earth, the difference between igneous,
metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks, among many other scientific concepts. In
English courses I have studied the great works of Shakespeare, learned how to
draft complete sentences, how to write for a particular audience, and other
general mechanical and grammatical rules for writing. In Social Studies courses
I have learned the structure of our government, legislative, and, well, the other
branches. Let’s face it, social studies was never my best subject. In my years
of schooling I have mastered curriculum, or at least the designated curriculum
by state standards at the time. But what is curriculum? According to William H.
Schubert in Perspectives on Four Curriculum Traditions, “curriculum, at its
root, deals with the central question of what is worth knowing; therefore, it
deals with what is worth experiencing, doing, and being,” (p. 169, 1996).
If
curriculum, is “what is worth knowing” then who determines worthiness? A
scientist would argue for the worthiness of studying the layers of the earth,
while a mathematician may argue for the worthiness of studying slope-intercept
formula. Before we tackle the issue of who get’s to decide what is worth
knowing and studying, we must first focus on purpose.
According to the developers of Common Core
State Standards, we (teachers) are to be developing global citizens, and
preparing students for the modern demands of colleges and professional
workplaces. I view the idea of global citizenship as people that are able to
make informed and intellectual decisions, that they understand not only impact
their personal situation, but in a way impact a community as part of a global
system. We live in a world that is so quickly and easily connected by the click
of a mouse. Communication of ideas, thoughts, actions that were once isolated, is
now shared internationally within seconds. With this digital age, we need to be
able to think and live globally to fully take advantage of all of the resources
and set ourselves up to be able to compete with people from all over the world.
In education, we are now comparing ourselves to educational systems globally
now more that ever. Colleges are competing for status and rank globally. Many
companies compete internationally.
Common Core
State Standards (Common Core Mathematical Learning Initiative) were written, apparently, for a greater purpose of helping
students think analytically in the pursuit of learning. Yet, this analytical thinking is still derived
from and around the traditional standards for education such as slope-intercept
formula in mathematics. The plethora of higher-thinking standards is arguably
too great to truly accomplish its very purpose. Instead many teachers are
forced to skip topics, while they delve deep into certain areas, or skim the
surface of understanding for all of the listed standards. We are not only telling
students that they need to know slope-intercept formula, but now they need to master
it in that they can apply the concept in many different ways, and then be able
to justify and explain their method. Other than for use in future mathematic
classes, or if you are a math teacher, how often is slope-intercept formula
used?
The Social
Behaviorist and the Experientialist in Perspectives on Four Curriculum
Traditions share a thought, in that they both question what is important to
learn. While the Behaviorist argues the worthiness of what is to be learned
should be based upon the needs of the society, the Experientialist argues the
worthiness of what is to be learned is to be based upon natural inquiry and
experience. I believe both of these ideas can work together, educating based
upon what society needs and designing instruction to fit natural inquiry. But
this cannot be done without radical change in the education system.
Currently
our system is grounded on measurement and data. While those are important
variables (especially when one considers competing globally and how to determine
the effectiveness of instruction) they stifle creativity, designing
individualized instruction based upon need, and delivering instruction through
inquiry. John Dewey in The Child and the Curriculum states,
“Abandon the notion of
subject-matter as something fixed and ready-made in itself, outside the child’s
experience; cease thinking of the child’s experience as also something hard and
fast; see it as something fluent, embryonic, vital; and we realize that the
child and the curriculum are simply two limits which define a single process,”
(p. 109).
Perhaps worthiness of what is to be learned is calculated
upon experience. I am not suggesting for
students to not learn ideas such as slope-intercept formula. Rather they should
learn it through an applicable experience or inquiry, then, and only then, is
it a worthy topic. But that requires time and individualized instruction that
our current system just does not allow for. “What is worth knowing”, alternatively the
curriculum, should serve the purpose of providing students with skills
necessary to be a life-long learner, and to be able to discern educated
decisions personally and professionally. I do not disagree with Common Core, at
its heart. I want to prepare my students to compete internationally, and to be
well-informed global citizens. The purpose of curriculum is clear, however the
approach to achieve that purpose has room for improvement.
I have
since used my knowledge of slope-intercept formula, Pythagorean theorems, and
calculating velocity, directly, in my career as a math teacher. I cannot say
the same for knowing the layers of the earth, or how to write in the genre of
fiction or poetry, or my studies of Shakespeare. I will never be a critic of
theater, books, nor will I be an author. I do not plan on mining deep into the
earth for oil, nor do I plan on predicting weather patterns based upon my
understanding of systems of the earth and atmosphere. But I am grateful for my
basic understanding and opportunity to explore each topic during my time at
school. But most of all, I appreciate the skill sets I have gained for
performing good research, analyzing and comprehending topics, so in the event I
do decide to predict weather, I am capable.
Resources
"Although they need rich deep curricula, in some respects it doesn't matter what specific topics students study while they are in school. What they need is to learn how to learn and to develop a passion for learning so they will become lifelong learners."
