Of all the various groups involved in curriculum design, teachers seem to be the least involved and least powerful. While there is a certain wonderful, twisted post-modern logic to that, by any other measure it seems sad and ironic. There is a discussion early in our textbook as to whether teachers are technicians or professionals. While I certainly agree that teachers should be treated and viewed as professionals, their lack of involvement in curriculum design gives question as to their actual status. Particularly in an essentialist, NCLB world, it would seem that their role is increasingly narrow and pre-defined. Thanks goodness that relative autonomy still exists when the classroom door is closed or all the joy would have been sucked from the job, at least for me.
It is easy to imagine a world where teachers set the curriculum and teachers teach. A good comparison would be the military, especially the USMC. There, every marine is first and foremost a rifleman (rifleperson?). The people who design the warfighting philosophy are marines in doctrine roles who might well be marines leading troops in combat a year later (see General David Petraeus, not a marine but a writer of doctrine and a warfighter). The ‘administrators’ are field grade and flag rank marines who’ve come through the ranks, holding fighting jobs along the way. To be sure, the government sets the objectives, but the professional soldiers create the doctrine, training and execution. There is no ‘administrator’ class or ‘doctrine writer’ class separate from those who do the fighting. While there are flaws in that model as well, it does illustrate a very different path that education might have taken in the US.
Tag Archives: Education
Controversies
What kinds of controversies exist in curriculum?
At the macro-level, curriculum is a highly political discussion.
For people motivated by gender, race or class identities, how often these groups are portrayed and how they are represented is a major focus of attention.
Of course, there is major social controversy over creationism versus evolutionism in school curriculums.
More subtly, the portrayal of American history and patriotism is a subject of conflict between traditionalists and post-modernists.
More conventionally, there is constant conflict over educational philosophies. Many philosophical battles have been lost. Perennialism is largely dead in American public schools. Post-modernism is largely in contention as a teaching philosophy (as opposed to a filter on what is acceptably included in curriculum) at the collegiate level and above. But a robust battle exists between essentialists and progressivists. The NCLB movement and other sources of pull towards ‘basics’ and tight compliance to standards represent the essentialist argument. Those forces calling for a diversified curriculum including arts, music, PE and a more general, student centered curriculum are the modern heirs of progressivism.
Unfortunately, controversy exists at a very basic level in curriculum as well. It would seem any academic area are with more than one representative group has competing ‘official’ views on what the standards should be and thus what curriculum should contain.
Last, but hardly least, is the 200-plus year old fight about which political entity should control curriculum. Ceeded in the 10th Amendment, the power to regulate education rests constitutionally with the states. But the federal government (see NCLB), the states and the local governments all are in continual strife over who controls education, especially curriculum.
Reference
Kauchak, P. & Eggen, P. (2005). Introduction to teaching: Becoming a professional (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Fail?
I particularly like the way you portray progressivist emphasis on helping the children gain the skills they need and assume that that will also satisfy the essentialist need to do well on the test. That is my bias too, to teach my students how to learn and how to reason while teaching core material. Apparently, like you, I am pulled by both camps. I feel that the core subjects are essential to success in life. At the same time, it’s far from clear to me that teaching narrowly to a test cements that core knowledge meaningfully.
However, as I consider these two philosophies, it occurs to me that some test results in some populations are so spectacularly poor that these differences of philosophy become largely irrelevant. In LA Unified School District, the percentage of elementary students scoring proficient or advanced on the CST (i.e. with ‘acceptable’ scores) falls generally between 30%-60%, depending on ELA or Math, grade and year of test) (California Department of Education, 2010). In most cases, over 50% of the students failed to meet ‘proficient’ or better. This is not in any way to belittle the importance of educational philosophy, both personal and system-wide. But it is a reminder of the breathtaking failure of some parts of the system in ways that seem to demand addressing at a more existential level as well.
Reference
California Department of Education. (2010). 2009 STAR Test Results. Retrieved on January 20, 2010 from http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2009/SearchPanel.asp?lstTestYear=2009&lstTestType=C&lstCounty=19&lstDistrict=64733-000&lstSchool=&lstGroup=1&lstSubGroup=1
Discipline, Part One
I am confused about behavior and consequences in school. Last year, the teacher used a colored card system where reaching red meant a trip to the principal’s office. After a while the principal told the teacher to stop sending him kids, similarly to your situation. This year, the kids are a bit older and the teacher uses a mostly positive system of discipline. Incidents are less. And this is a good lesson to me to learn to navigate ‘bad behavior’ and find a way to make it ‘good’. However my core instinct is to have a big metaphorical stick to create an environment where staying in between the lines is understood to be prudent. Perhaps this is the subject for a different course, but since it’s come up, I’m curious what recourse teachers really have. Throwing things at teachers seems like an unacceptable transgression and should require immediate and dire consequences. If a trip to the principal’s office is off the table, what is there? Likewise, I gather in many environments, a suspension is not such a bad penalty. The harder core kids would probably prefer that to school anyway. I just don’t know how I would establish an environment of discipline in that environment. The only tool I’d have would be love of learning or committment to the rewards of the education (reading, writing, HS diploma, etc). If that’s not of interest to the hard cases and if there’s no major negative incentive, what’s left?
Federal Control of Local?
It’s tricky for me. As it stands, public school systems seem to be a hybrid. Each district has some autonomy. The states get their nose in the districts’ affairs and finances, dictating much of what the districts do (or can do). And the Feds ‘big-foot’ everybody w/ regulations and financial incentives. It seems quite the mess to me.
My instinct is that the system would be better if it went to either extreme.
If the Feds ran national public schools there would be clear national standards. There would be (potentially) tremendous sources of funds, not limited by a state’s need to balance the budget. There would be the full weight of the nation on this essential function. On the other hand, the federal government just seems to destroy anything it gets its hands on. With centralized control, there’s be no public alternative or alternative model in the event the feds went astray. Like all things federal, done well it could be amazing. Done poorly, it’d be an unending nightmare.
I have it in my head that the original vision for schools was local; that each town or locality would fund and run their own school system, limited only by a few federal mandates on what must or must not be done. This of course creates the possibility or some pretty screwed up school systems, but also many more wonderful ones. From what I’ve seen the parents are quite involved in their children’s schools. The problem comes when there’s no real recourse for those parents. I see that even here. We are a smaller part of a two town school district and the benefits of a bigger system do not outweigh the costs, though not by enough to drive the town to separate. As a general rule, families could choose their schools by moving and schools would thus compete and to some extent be made better by that competition. Where it may break down is w/ low SES situations. The traditional view would have it that locational mobility is far more limited in these situations and thus low SES school systems would lack the resources to be effective. Possibly that is not true and possibly Title I funds would be applied more effectively in a system more narrowly responsive to the parents.
I think having the states be the dominant force in education is just bad. I’d like to see a world where schools are run and funded locally (w/ federal money to top off low SES districts). But that is a big bet on freedom of choice and in any event is highly unlikely to ever happen. Where we seem to be headed is ever growing federal intrusion into schooling. Unfortunately, it is being done is perhaps the least efficient way. Perhaps the solution is to embrace the inevitable and nationalize schooling. It’s pretty clear to me the current system, in CA anyway, is in need of a reboot.
SES
Would your role as a teacher change, based on the socio-economic status of the students and the community?
I think it would be considerably more challenging to work in low SES communities. The statistics in our text are daunting. High absenteeism, high drop out rates, challenging family situations, parents with little time, inclination or resource to support education, major distractions and pitfalls in the community. As I said in a previous post, it feels like teachers in those communities are standing beneath an avalanche.
The first thing a teacher would need is committment. It is no small thing, teaching in that environment. It would necessary to be clear on why the teacher went to work each day. It would have to about the kids. Not the parents. Not the school system. Not the salary. The kids. And even that would be tricky. I think such a teacher would have to be prepared to lose regularly. There’s no way even the best teacher could successfully support each child through the year. So such a teacher would have to be prepared to go beyond their capabilities for each child and still lose often. Very hard. On the other, this is perhaps the noblest fight. Fighting for children who nobody else is fighting for. If such a teacher could endure the challenge and the failures, they’d have every right to sleep soundly, knowing that angels would be on their shoulders each day, cheering.
It is true that there are elements of these challenges in communities of any SES. But the density would be so much higher.
Autonomy
In which kind of school – elementary, middle/junior high, or high school – do teachers have the most autonomy? The least autonomy? What implications does this have for you as a prospective teacher?
It seems to me that elementary school teachers have the most autonomy. Alone in the classroom, the playground and the lunchroom with their students day after day they are both isolated and autonomous. This suits me fine. When I worked in the corporate world I thrived in branch offices, far from authority, even far from my boss. Typically, I reported to somebody a 12 hour plane flight away and that was about the right distance. I knew that help was available and I was generally wise enough to seek it when necessary but day to day I was quite comfortable setting my own strategy. I can already see that my relationship to the core curriculum will be creative and somewhat unorthodox. But at the same time, I am extremely familiar with the concept that unorthodox only survives if it produces extraordinary orthodox results and remains in full communication.
I also am very excited by the prospect of spending a full school year with the same group of students, getting to know them in detail and helping each one proceed to the full measure of their ability. It seems to me that the relative independence, authority and autonomy of elementary school teachers supports that intention as well.
Focus?
It is fascinating to me that the impulse to more and more rigidly focus on a single, narrow vein of knowledge has such enormous traction. As you say, it doesn’t seem that NCLB is particularly helping testing outcomes. I believe I read that less art, music and PE hurt rather than help outcomes in ‘core’ subjects. And, again iirc, studies shown no or inverse correlations between amount of homework and results. On a different front, the money spent in schools is famously uncorrelated to outcomes. Yet we as a society continue to follow the strategy: ‘push on the string’ expecting different results.
Separately, after reading Chapter 4 of our text, I can’t help thinking that teachers are standing beneath an enormous social avalanche. It would seem the learning issues caused by the factors at work in low SES in our society are far beyond the capability of the educational system to ameliorate.
It makes one wonder when folks will stand up and yell “Stop!” but that doesn’t seem to be happening…
The History of Education
What pivotal historical influences do you think have most influenced today’s educational system? How? Why?
I agree with Sheri that NCLB is a huge influence on education today, but, for the sake of diversity, I’ll cite the common school movement as the foundation of today’s educational system in America. The common school movement established the principal that all children should have a certain kind of formal education and that the government had the responsibility and authority to act in that regard (Kauchak & Eggen, 2005). The nature and structure of our system today still reflects decisions and beliefs established then. Eduction is, by and large, public. It is controlled locally (by the municipalities and states) but with considerable interest and intervention from the federal government. It takes a certain European form, with core subjects, classes, bells and even the layout of classrooms reflecting the ideas of the 19th century.
For better or worse, something the size of the American educational system takes on a life of its own. Teachers have much invested in preserving the usefulness of the skills and experience they possess. Administrators are safest in a static system. Unions protect their own interests and, usually, the interests of the members. For parents, the public school system is the benchmark. The system makes it clear that children must conform to that system and parents seeking alternatives do so at great social risk. Politicians, of course, do what gets them elected and messing with teachers, administrators and parents is rarely a solid electoral strategy. Thus, changes when they happen generally come in the form of more money, more programs, and more demands for output. In the end, the only things that change are things that everybody can agree upon. Everybody will only agree when their individual needs are met. This is frequently not the change that meets the needs of the students.
To be fair, there is more to the current situation than the enormous inertia of a giant human system. There is also the breathtaking uncertainty of what exactly would be a superior system. Would a purely federal system be more efficient or perhaps one managed at the lowest political level, the municipality? Would more art work better, both as subject matter and as an approach to education? Or is more science (again in both meanings) the ticket for superior outcomes? Interestingly, the one thing that seems to have more or less universal agreement are the generalities of what should be taught. ELA, math and science, and a certain amount of civics/history, these are the core that seem beyond dispute. The rest (spirituality, physicality, artistic expression) are largely seen as optional at best, though significant elements of society value them highly. Likewise, there’s no significant pressure to revisit the military-industrial model of the school as established in the 19th century and still dominant today. The organization of students into classes, the rigidity of scheduling, teach/test cycles, classroom structure; all of these seem to be beyond debate in the mainstream.
Given the vast range of alternatives, known and unknown, it is impressive how powerfully the origins of American education echo today.
Reference
Kauchak, P. & Eggen, P. (2005). Introduction to teaching: Becoming a professional (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Personal Attributes
What personal attributes do you feel that teachers should possess to integrate both the art and the science of teaching?
Integrating art and science is one of the great challenges of Western Civilization. The world we have made is increasingly lopsided towards science. The guiding principal seems to be “More, better, faster”. Education continues to move towards science over art and is accelerating. The pressure is towards more time on ‘academics’, less time on the expressive arts (including physical activity and play). The pressure is on more time absorbing data, less time learning to creatively problem solve. Education is limiting towards the left-lobed bottleneck of teaching to tests. Thus the first quality a teacher needs to integrate art and science is an appreciation of the wholeness of knowledge.
Our society is reductionist. We don’t eat broccoli, we take pills with the specialized anti-oxidant properties of broccoli. We don’t drink orange juice, we take vitamin C powder to fight colds. We don’t feed our babies mother’s milk, we feed them ‘formula’. There is a strong and completely arrogant belief that everything can be made better by breaking it down into component parts and isolating the ‘important stuff’. Integrating art and science requires moving against this trend, towards wholeness. Thus, teachers seeking to integrate art and science in how they teach (and what they teach) must have or develop the ability to see the ‘whole’. The first whole to be seen is their objective: to fill their students with the love and desire for knowledge. They must start from there and build their days, weeks and year around the skeleton of joyful learning and the core knowledge appropriate for the class or age. The skeleton should be filled out with wholeness containing the essences of the core learning and the excitement and wonder to make that core learning take place in a context of whole knowledge and fun. This is no small thing. It takes the courage to believe children will absorb the core knowledge from the full mass. It takes the knowledge to find whole knowledge that excites the students. And it take skill to present that is such a way as to appeal to all the different kinds of learners and to tease out the core knowledge from the mass. Finally, it takes the energy to go beyond the curriculum, to create a context and world in which the curriculum can become a valuable, instructive element.
So to summarize, teachers need specific skills regarding teaching and learning, general knowledge of exciting ‘whole’ subjects, specific knowledge of the core curriculum, the energy to weave them together in a way that captivates the learners and transmits the required data, the courage to do this in the face of a reductionist system and the trust that this art of is an equal and essential partner with the science.
Education 2.0 