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."
“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.”
ReplyDeleteI think this is actually true in many respects. If the common core standards were taken with their goal of “developing global citizens, and preparing students for the modern demands of colleges and professional workplaces,” in mind, I’d say that’s a good thing. I agree that schools should develop global citizens who are prepared for the uncertainties that lie ahead of them. However, given the long list of standards that accompany the common core curriculum and the high stakes testing that goes along with it, much of the original goal is lost, as you pointed out, as teachers have to choose between going deep on some things and skipping others or skimming over everything. Both ways are far from ideal.
As “MathEdResearcher” points out, the specifics aren’t really as important as the byproduct- learning to learn and to think critically. William Ayers says “you can learn everything from anything,” and studies on integrated curriculum really back that. It is amazing how much content area it is possible to cover while following student interest and needs instead of a curriculum guide, and how much more meaningful the resulting learning will be for the students. I think if teachers think outside the box they will be able to find ways to make learning meaningful and still “cover” the mandated curriculum, they just won’t be able to use the curriculum as a guide, but rather a restriction at this point.
Ironically, with the implementation of our new World Language Essential Standards in North Carolina, we’ve been urged to use the standards as a starting point for our planning and stop trying to work them into what we want to do anyway. While the standards are pretty good, and instead of being entirely restrictive, they mention skills that students should have, they still don’t provide context, so I think teachers still have to start with the context (which should be directly influenced by the students who will be participating in the unit) and then think about what standards they can meet within that context.
You suggested that students learn concepts like slope-intercept formula through a meaningful experience, and in this way it would be worthwhile. I completely agree- random bits of knowledge with no connection to real life won’t be at all valuable for our students. The challenge, therefore, for educators is to find a way to create an experience for their students that will make concepts like slope-intercept formula real and meaningful and connected to their lives. And in doing this to consider what other skills or concepts will naturally connect to the one being studied to create a sort of natural progression and retain the relevance for the students. This isn’t something that can be done at a national level because every single group of students is different, so what will connect with their lives will vary (at least somewhat) in every situation.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I enjoyed reading your post, and especially enjoyed the article and comments you linked to.
You say you do not disagree with the Common Core State Standards. I can't say that I take a hard stance against them either. I do see the value in ensuring all students are provided with a high quality, rigorous education, that teachers know what they are expected to teach, and that society knows what's going on within the confines of each classroom. I do, however, feel that the CCSS do more harm than good. You provided an excellent resource on the problems associated with the Common Core; now here are two points I’d like to add to the list of 8 problems (and you can take it for what it's worth):
ReplyDelete9. The CCSS kill diversity of skills
Diversity among schools allows for a diversity of skills and talents. Currently, schools are not all the same, and therefore, students are not all the same. American schools produce students with a diversity of skills and talents. When you make all the schools the same and the entire curriculum the same, you produce students with the same skill set. How will students stand out as college or career prospects? How will our country stay competitive in the global market if everyone can do the same things and everyone can't do the same things?
10. The CCSS are the product of high-stakes standardized testing
We all know our reading, math, and science scores rank below a number of other educated, industrialized nations. What we fail to acknowledge is that there's actually no relationship between standardized test scores and economic prosperity. You know what we're good at? We're good at being innovative and creative. We're good leaders. We are good entrepreneurs. We are this way because we value electives classes. We value development of social skills like communication and collaboration. We value the development of a strong, healthy body. We could be more like China and require our students to study from sun up to sun down, focusing on only the "important" subjects. We could cut elective classes such as Spanish, health, or consumer science. We could eliminate sports, physical education, art, and music. And sadly, we are beginning to do just these things because we want to have high test scores and we want to compete with countries like China. What we don't realize is that the Chinese are trying to be more like us, because they generally produce students who lack communication and leadership skills, and who lack creativity. They produce a student population with high rates of depression and suicide. Surely, we do not want our students to suffer in the same way that many of the Chinese students do, but we do not realize the consequences of our actions. Emphasizing high-stakes testing and a one-size-fits-all curriculum is bound to produce these undesirable effects.
Hi Carole,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your work here! An excellent post, that produced a lot of very informed and insightful dialogue with Chris and Lisa!
I am very interested in the CCSS. And while I don't want to make them central to the course, I do love to talk with people about how their schools are approaching them. At first, I noticed a lot of people were excited by them, hoping that we would have a more holistic focus on fewer discrete items. But now I'm reading more posts like yours.
I think your interpretation of Dewey in light of the CCSS is right on! The big discourse on global citizenship is awesome. But I tend to agree with Chris that we are too worried about becoming like everyone else, rather than playing to our strengths! And there are many strengths in the traditional American school model!
You are so right to try to connect things like slope-intercept to experience. For Dewey, all knowledge arises out of experience, and rightfully returns there. Slope-intercept arose out of inquiry into something that happened to someone. Learning about slope-intercept hopefully allows us some degree of mastery over our environment, the ability to make it meaningful and functional. It should be a lens on the world, one that allows us to see something that we couldn't see before. That seeing--the enrichment of life as we go about our everyday living--is what curriculum is all about for me!
I find it insightful that you link social behaviorism and experientialism. They should be linked: because we are all joined, especially now in this global world that you so elegantly describe. Who I am and who the other is--that line is never clear, as hopefully I am always interacting with and learning from others. We are social beings, after all! In fact, that is my biggest critique of CCSS discourse--it's all about beating the rest of the world, competing with them, rather than learning from them. I actually don't think we have too much to learn from Chinese schools, but we sure have a lot we can learn from China (in terms of culture, lifestyle, and the like).
Math teachers are going to be at the forefront of helping us understand what a true 21st century eduction entails (no one listens to us social studies teachers!). It seems you are well on the way to being that person. Thanks!!
Kyle