In reviewing the Core Content Standards from the NJ website, I found several useful pages. The standards are clearly written, and deal with the information students will learn or the tasks they will be able to perform. The greatest value of these standards is maintaining uniform instruction throughout the state. The value of publishing these standards on the Internet is in making parents, teachers, and students aware of the performance expectations for each class or grade level. All told, this page is effective, but certainly open for criticism. Allow me to indulge.
The block quote from A Nation at Risk seems out of place for an official government site. This quote sets an ominous, misrepresentative tone for the linked pages and the standards they address.
I do not agree with the placement of human development skills in the Career Education and Consumer, Family and Life Skills. If this sounds like a jumbled mess, it’s because it is. The classes In reality, these topics are addressed through home-economics, career counseling classes, that have a very frail identity or purpose unto themselves.
Among the standards that should be considered are self-esteem, interpersonal relationships, work ethic, and morals. I feel that these universal standards should be featured more prominently on the page. They should be considered with the same care given to discipline-specific content standards.
I also feel that consideration should be given to developing the worldview and self-identity of each student. We cordon our standards by classical disciplines, but there is little regard given to the idea that these disciplines make up the larger human experience. To its credit, the Introduction page states, “Although the standards have been organized into separate academic disciplines, this is not meant to imply that each standard can only be met through content-specific courses.” Yet this still does not explain the utility of meeting performance standards across disciplines. Further, it does recognize that there is value to establishing perspectives that transcend classical disciplinary divisions. The standards for math, science, language arts, and history are content-driven; even when these standards discuss student behaviors the language is rarely consistent across subjects. Students must be expected to fuse these disciplines into a larger, practical understanding of their world. From such a perspective, the value of content standards comes not in their substance, but in the ability for students to connect learning across disciplines or throughout time periods.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Sabretooth Curriculum
“He knew how to do things his community needed to have done, and he had the energy and will to go ahead and do them. By virtue of these characteristics he was an educated man.”
New-Fist recognizes that progress is defined by our ability to improve on each generation’s performance, not to repeat it. Such thinking leads us to more secular notions of self-determination. While this creates practical doers, it does somewhat reduce the awe and appreciation students might have for those who have come before. A balance is therefore necessary between investing in the present, understanding the past, and preparing for the future.
He establishes an objective goal, to have children better prepared for the challenges of adulthood than the current elders were. He then created the three specific objectives to reach that goal, fish-grabbing, horse-clubbing, and tiger-scaring. These objectives proved worthy in that when they were met children were more likely to survive. Educational goals and curricular standards prove to be functional when we can prove their use in society. It is because our society constantly changes that curriculum must continually evolve to remain relevant. We should teach our children contemporary skills, and moreso teach them to realize that their skills must continually improve/change to meet the demands of the time.
At the same time we should always respect opinions of those who feel threatened by progress. This threat is actually concern for future generations that while technologically adept, may be lacking in the perspective or appreciation of how things came to be. The Y2K scare came about because computer codes had been written atop one another for 50 years . As we approached the year 2000, there were very few computer techs familiar with the initial code used as the foundation for future operations. There was a great degree of unraveling needed and suddenly old skills became relevant again.
We must be trained to use practical skills for our times, but maintain perspective as to why these skills are now relevant.
New-Fist recognizes that progress is defined by our ability to improve on each generation’s performance, not to repeat it. Such thinking leads us to more secular notions of self-determination. While this creates practical doers, it does somewhat reduce the awe and appreciation students might have for those who have come before. A balance is therefore necessary between investing in the present, understanding the past, and preparing for the future.
He establishes an objective goal, to have children better prepared for the challenges of adulthood than the current elders were. He then created the three specific objectives to reach that goal, fish-grabbing, horse-clubbing, and tiger-scaring. These objectives proved worthy in that when they were met children were more likely to survive. Educational goals and curricular standards prove to be functional when we can prove their use in society. It is because our society constantly changes that curriculum must continually evolve to remain relevant. We should teach our children contemporary skills, and moreso teach them to realize that their skills must continually improve/change to meet the demands of the time.
At the same time we should always respect opinions of those who feel threatened by progress. This threat is actually concern for future generations that while technologically adept, may be lacking in the perspective or appreciation of how things came to be. The Y2K scare came about because computer codes had been written atop one another for 50 years . As we approached the year 2000, there were very few computer techs familiar with the initial code used as the foundation for future operations. There was a great degree of unraveling needed and suddenly old skills became relevant again.
We must be trained to use practical skills for our times, but maintain perspective as to why these skills are now relevant.
180
For kicks one year, a fellow teacher and I had once created a school-year calendar of excuses that children could not learn on a particular day. Distractions ranged from the Christmas holiday, Student Council elections, day after the Super Bowl, etc. I found the short film “180” to parallel the ideas found in that calendar.
Teachers know that education is about quality, not quantity. Time on-task is probably one of the prime indicators of student success in a particular classroom. “Days on task” should then be the measure we use when analyzing the effectiveness of the schedule. Schools have made great strides to improve instruction through professional development, new textbooks, new staff, even new subjects.
Through all of this reform, education clings to its standard schedule Though its primary function is outdated, Americans still like their summer break, Labor Day last hurrah, and return to school. Spiral curriculum and semester long overlaps have been designed into curricula in order to accommodate this large break. Just as so many measures have been created with students’ best interest in mind so too may have come the time for this concern to be evidence in our schedule.
Teachers know that education is about quality, not quantity. Time on-task is probably one of the prime indicators of student success in a particular classroom. “Days on task” should then be the measure we use when analyzing the effectiveness of the schedule. Schools have made great strides to improve instruction through professional development, new textbooks, new staff, even new subjects.
Through all of this reform, education clings to its standard schedule Though its primary function is outdated, Americans still like their summer break, Labor Day last hurrah, and return to school. Spiral curriculum and semester long overlaps have been designed into curricula in order to accommodate this large break. Just as so many measures have been created with students’ best interest in mind so too may have come the time for this concern to be evidence in our schedule.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Change in Education
American education carries with it the most ambitious agenda in the world. To educate everyone, to provide opportunity for a meritocratic society...these ideas are grounded in our national values but become difficult to manage at local levels. To quote John Dewey, "To find out what one is fitted to do, and to secure an opportunity to do it, is the key to happiness." Seeing that opportunity secured equally for all, that takes time. And preventing social imbalance sometimes means progressing more slowly as an institution.
It is because we must cater to all that education progresses so slowly. Public schools work with every student to develop the entire person. These student have countless differences and experiences along with countless motivations and goals. To focus on one type of student or one educational aim would be to compromise another. Because we believe in education of the masses all students must be able to succeed, all paths must be kept open.
Magnet and charter schools have grown in popularity in part because they are more efficient at meeting student needs. They create populations that are more homogeneous and are therefore able to streamline curriculum, materials, and staff to meet student needs. In some cases these schools have compromised the spectrum of learning somewhat to more directly match student interest. Public schools,
Add to this the dichotomy between progressives and conservatives. Is education a job training program, or the cultivation of cultural literacy? Such debate, and our democratic forum to do so, keeps education from progressing quickly. Yet it does ensure that public education will never wander too far from the intent of the public
It is because we must cater to all that education progresses so slowly. Public schools work with every student to develop the entire person. These student have countless differences and experiences along with countless motivations and goals. To focus on one type of student or one educational aim would be to compromise another. Because we believe in education of the masses all students must be able to succeed, all paths must be kept open.
Magnet and charter schools have grown in popularity in part because they are more efficient at meeting student needs. They create populations that are more homogeneous and are therefore able to streamline curriculum, materials, and staff to meet student needs. In some cases these schools have compromised the spectrum of learning somewhat to more directly match student interest. Public schools,
Add to this the dichotomy between progressives and conservatives. Is education a job training program, or the cultivation of cultural literacy? Such debate, and our democratic forum to do so, keeps education from progressing quickly. Yet it does ensure that public education will never wander too far from the intent of the public
Quieting the Mind
I was struck by the quote, "Parents and teachers tell kids 100 times to pay attention...But we never teach them how." I like the idea of trying to make students more efficient by making them self-aware. Children are impulsive by nature and if we can get them to consider their actions, or to be aware of their emotional state, then many of their costly decisions can be thwarted.
I have seen relaxation therapy done with students in an afterschool detention program. For the most part, it was effective. Students would still get themselves riled up afterwards, but they would at least learn effective management techniques for the future.
We should also note how technology can run counter to this aim. The fast-paced media society we live in compels students to move quickly, thoughtlessly. Relaxation and mindfulness techniques are all the more relevant, but perhaps only as a counter to the hyper-speed at which the rest of a child's life is paced. It is sound practice to look to improve the concentration of our students. We should look to optimize the learning environment and the mindset of our students.
We must at the same time recognize that every year we get a series of new students and the process must begin again. While we can improve procedures and implement new techniques, we cannot make students grow up any faster. Our success should not then be gauged based on the elimination of student distractions, but by gradual improvement in the grade level behaviors of students.
I have seen relaxation therapy done with students in an afterschool detention program. For the most part, it was effective. Students would still get themselves riled up afterwards, but they would at least learn effective management techniques for the future.
We should also note how technology can run counter to this aim. The fast-paced media society we live in compels students to move quickly, thoughtlessly. Relaxation and mindfulness techniques are all the more relevant, but perhaps only as a counter to the hyper-speed at which the rest of a child's life is paced. It is sound practice to look to improve the concentration of our students. We should look to optimize the learning environment and the mindset of our students.
We must at the same time recognize that every year we get a series of new students and the process must begin again. While we can improve procedures and implement new techniques, we cannot make students grow up any faster. Our success should not then be gauged based on the elimination of student distractions, but by gradual improvement in the grade level behaviors of students.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Prensky Challenge
Prensky's vision is all too radical for education. If I were to share this with colleagues, I would be chided. Prensky himself is probably regarded as a radical, someone without a realistic vision of what education is really like. These type of visionaries have nice ideas, but they don't understand the everyday challenges teachers encounter, they don't understand the friction educational ideas encounter in their journey from principle to practice. And it is because of his naive idealistm that his challenge should be considered.
Prensky is valuable in that he calls schools to "get different" not "get better" at what they do. He views education in terms of what could be; a visionary model. Prensky proposes innovation as a driving force, not popular acceptance. He lets that which most benefits students guide his thinking, not established curriculum. Most educators, administrators, etc. view schools as the management of status quo, with targeted improvement goals along the way. Such thinking leads staff to "act like teachers" instead of teaching kids to learn. This type of thinking is flawed in that it focuses on what education has been as opposed to dreaming what it could be. It leads to ever-diminishing returns and reduced staff motivation.
I really like the idea of students working together to achieve a common goal. The students recognize the task at hand, and are able to work each day with a tangible goal. I also like the idea of the technology-driven 2nd semester. Students will get real-world training; they will understand why it is valuable to learn to use technology. The one area of caution is in removing a natural incentive for work. We should not ignore the merit in a job well-done. Students who are too often driven to work by some reward will eventually find themselves unfulfilled, then unmotivated.
I would hope that Prensky's value might not be in changing education to meet his challenge, but by contributing insight and innovation to an all too stagnant national curricular agenda.
Prensky is valuable in that he calls schools to "get different" not "get better" at what they do. He views education in terms of what could be; a visionary model. Prensky proposes innovation as a driving force, not popular acceptance. He lets that which most benefits students guide his thinking, not established curriculum. Most educators, administrators, etc. view schools as the management of status quo, with targeted improvement goals along the way. Such thinking leads staff to "act like teachers" instead of teaching kids to learn. This type of thinking is flawed in that it focuses on what education has been as opposed to dreaming what it could be. It leads to ever-diminishing returns and reduced staff motivation.
I really like the idea of students working together to achieve a common goal. The students recognize the task at hand, and are able to work each day with a tangible goal. I also like the idea of the technology-driven 2nd semester. Students will get real-world training; they will understand why it is valuable to learn to use technology. The one area of caution is in removing a natural incentive for work. We should not ignore the merit in a job well-done. Students who are too often driven to work by some reward will eventually find themselves unfulfilled, then unmotivated.
I would hope that Prensky's value might not be in changing education to meet his challenge, but by contributing insight and innovation to an all too stagnant national curricular agenda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)