I do not envy politicians.
The people they serve have a lot of demands and a lot of blame to go
around. Everyone wants change, but they
don’t want it to change anything that affects them. I would gladly embrace the idea of national common
core standards if I thought they encompassed what I believed was a sound foundation
for development of open-minded, socially aware and introspective citizens. The problem of course is that we appear to be
a long ways away from that. More or less
I agree with the articles we’ve been reading: high-stakes accountability
testing and scripted literacy programs seem to be par for the course of what
lawmakers think will foster learning and improve student achievement. Alfie Kohn brought up a good point about
needing a workforce with a diversity of skills and knowledge, and I can see
where fears could arise from a more regimented organization of teaching. Depending on how you look at it, the common
core can look like a pathway to help guide teachers and students or a cage that
is too small for them to move in.
It’s difficult to say what kids will need a decade from now. I can understand the desire to simplify
things and make them universal, but I don’t think a set of national standards
could address all of the problems plaguing education today. Aside from the diversity of students, there
are thousands of teachers out there with as many styles of teaching. And I think that is part of what makes public
schooling so great. Not every teacher
may be your favorite, but I think that just feeds into the whole idea of the hidden
curriculum—learning to work with people and managers that you may disagree with
or who may have different expectations of you is good practice for the real
world. In an ideal school, this breeds a
wealth of interactions and experiences for students to develop intellectually,
analytically, and socially. But every
class…every student is at a different place in his or her education; if you’re
pushing the class towards a goal that is far away, that’s admirable, but if a
couple of kids fall off the train, you have to stop until they catch up.
Weak metaphors aside, I’m also reminded of the chapter of
Ravitch’s book where she talks about her favorite teacher. That teacher was strict and uncompromising,
but she set goals that made students feel accomplished through their work. That’s not to say that a core curriculum would
remove those moments from the classroom, but it does highlight what competent
teachers can do without the need for government intervention. Ideally a teacher will set goals that are challenging,
yet obtainable—incrementally growing student knowledge and confidence. I just can’t see any piece of legislation
with enough contingencies to anticipate all students’ needs. Most students don’t even know what they want
or where they want to go, and national standards seem like they’d rigidly
direct students on a path or outcome they might not want. People are rightfully calling out for the
same quality of education for everyone, but I don’t think that means having the
identical education for everyone.
Hi Joe, It looks like you provide two possible effects of the common core: "a pathway to guide teachers" or "a cage". Later it appears like you agree with the later when you state "national standards seem like they'd rigidly direct students on a path". I was wondering is you this that this applies to all national standards or just the common core? Additionally, I too would love to see all teachers keep high standards and be able to challenge students at the level they are at, but how do we ensure that our teacher core is diverse yet high quality?
ReplyDeleteThanks Will. In response to your first question, I go back and forth on national standards, depending on what mood I'm in or whatever I've just finished reading. I do think national standards could work as a foundation for teachers to build their pedagogy around and facilitate more equitable educational experiences, but I wonder if the necessarily slow process of bureaucracy would be equipped for the task. Then there are some days where I wonder if schools shouldn't just be held accountable to the parents and students they serve, although I realize that opens an untold number of further problems.
DeleteAs for ensuring quality teaching outside of national standards, I can't say I have the answer, but I have some ideas. I'd start with reexamining tenure requirements to be slightly more involved than just working for a set period of time. Perhaps all teachers in a school could collaborate on a set of joint goals and standards, in cooperation with administration and local government, to hold themselves accountable for the quality of their teaching? Also, maybe public schools could utilize teacher evaluations and comments for students to fill out, similar to the ones used for professors at the end of classes at Penn State.
How would you try to have the same quality of education for everyone without being identical - on a state or national level? (Sounds like one of those "easier said than done" moments...)
ReplyDeleteHi Aubree. You've definitely got me that what I proposed is waaay easier said then done; honestly at the time I just thought it sounded good. Similar to my response for Will, I can't say that I have a perfect solution, but I'll try to give an example.
DeleteIn my opinion, one of the casualties of "one size fits all" ways of teaching is writing. Most students are taught to write in five paragraphs with the main idea explicitly stated in the beginning and ending paragraphs. This format is a quick and easy shortcut to make sure everyone is held responsible to the same standard, but it is by no means how to go about creating good, engaging writing. In trying to make writing accessible to everyone, we've created a standard that oversimplifies it.
Now part of becoming a good writer is reading a lot and analyzing how authors manipulate words, tone, and structure to reach their audience. The problem is that it's hard to quantify what good writing is; Charles Dickens is good, Chuck Palahniuck is good, and Stephen King is good, but all in completely different ways. The sheer depth of available literature would be impossible to even sample over the course of a child's public schooling, and I feel that limiting every child to the exact same handful of titles would be a disservice to them and to culture. I know terms like "differentiation" and "relevance" get thrown around as buzz words a lot, but I think that students are more motivated more when texts and lessons are constructed more around their own developmental needs and interests as opposed to the opinions of a committee. Of course that could just be me projecting my own beliefs onto students, but I hope this has somewhat shown you what my thinking is.