Tag Archive for 'Curriculum'

What It Takes

Over at Eduwonk, Andy Rotherham posts a pair slides of 7th-grade writing assignments from two different middle schools in California, culled from a presentation by Ed Trust.  In the first, students are asked to submit a detailed character analysis of Anne Frank; the second asks students to write about “my best friend” or “a chore I hate.” The point is stark and obvious.  ”When you hear people talk about the expectations gap, this is the sort of thing they are talking about,” Rotherham writes. 

Would that it were so simple as “raising expectations.”  In the comments section, the smart and fiery John Thompson, an occasional contributor to this blog, describes a disappointing exercise at his Oklahoma City high school similar to the one posted by Eduwonk, and gets to the heart of the empty slogan that is “high expectations.” 

Had it been done as a wake-up call, and a first step towards raising standards, it would have been constructive. Had they asked why some teachers wrongly lowered standards too much, making class dull, it would have been a great professional development tool. Had they addressed the extreme classroom disruptions in neighborhood 7th grade classes that make it virtually impossible to do more than busywork, it would have been a contructive excercise….But our district leaders had the the same visceral response as you seem to be having, and mandated immediate and much much higher standards. Instantly, many core teachers were intimidated into teaching five years above the students reading level, and failure rates soared to 95% in some. The dropout rate exploded and the distrcit immediately abandoned the experiment.

“The reality is so shameful, when administrators/lobbyists with no relevant experience in the classroom come in contact with it, they have no idea how complex the problem is,” writes Thompson. ”Then when the consultants offer the simple and free solution of just “raise expectations,” the blame and shame game takes over, and the students are hurt even more.”

In my own comments on Eduwonk, I point out that curriculum is an undiscussed piece of the “high expectations” dodge.  To John’s point, students don’t just show up in middle school five years behind their higher-achieving peers.  You can’t feed kids a thin gruel of content-free, “self-directed” reading and writing for their entire academic career and then expect them to suddenly be able to write a nuanced character study of Anne Frank in the 7th grade.  You can’t ask kids to do “self-directed” writing about their family, their friends and their personal experiences throughout elementary school to the exclusion of nearly all else, then expect them to dazzle you with their insights into literature in middle school. 

The policy community, alas, continues to be nearly silent on curriculum, focusing instead on incentives, “teacher quality,” and other structual issues.  Read Eduwonk’s post and the responses.  May I humbly submit that the time has long since come to a) start looking at what students are actually being taught and, b) listening to teachers?

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

No Quick Fixes On Schools

Diane Ravitch applauds the Gates Foundation’s decision to shift the focus of its educational philanthropy, while reminding us that their effort to transform high schools into smaller learning communities is a cautionary tale of seeking a “magic bullet” solution. “We must give the Gates Foundation and its founders credit for their honest self-scrutiny,” Ravitch writes on Forbes.com.  ”Most proponents of education reform defend their ideas against all critics, regardless of what evaluations show.”

“The press for small schools, now taken up by almost every big-city district, has diverted our attention from the need to strengthen curriculum and instruction, beginning in elementary schools. Whether a school is small or large, the essential questions in education cannot be ignored: What should students learn? How should they be taught? Are classes too large, especially for struggling students? Are teachers well-prepared in the subjects they teach? Do teachers have the resources they need? Do students arrive in school ready to learn? Until we answer these questions, the size of schools is not a relevant issue.

It’s good news, Ravitch concludes, that Gates is pledging to devote its attention to what happens in the classroom. “The first thing it will learn is that there are no quick fixes. If it targets its dollars wisely, exercises a measure of humility, and continues to evaluate its efforts rigorously, it can make a positive difference,” she says.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

Test Curriculum, Not Standards

One of President-elect Barack Obama’s education ideas is to “improve the assessments used to track student progress.” But improving the tests may be tougher than he appreciates ”and the problem may be rooted in the state standards themselves,” says UVA cognitive scientist Dan Willingham.  ”Most people underestimate how hard it is to write good test items that are based on state standards.”  Writing at Britannica Blog, Willingham notes:

If you want to assess what students know and can do, it is only reasonable to list your expectations. Make the expectations too broad and they do not help students, teachers, and parents understand what is expected. Make them too narrow and you invite teachers to teach the list of expectations at the expense of everything else.

“I don’t see how these problems can be avoided unless you make the expectations more comprehensive,” concludes Willingham. That is, instead of writing a list of standards, specify the expectations for contents and skills in more detail—in short, base tests on a curriculum.  A curriculum would differ from a list of standards because it would include both the broad conceptual ideas and the specific content, and it would describe how the abstract concepts relate to the specific content.”

E.D. Hirsch, Jr. sounded a similar call early this year in a cover story in the American Educator, which argued that reading tests should contain passages about specific topics taught not just in literature, but in all other subjects taught in that grade.  It makes all the sense in the world, for the reasons Dan Willingham describes.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

“Universal Proficiency is Unattainable. Period”

The current economic climate make it unlikely that President-elect Obama can enact the full range of education intitiatives his campaign promised, but one pressing issue cannot be deferred, writes Diane Ravitch on Forbes.com.  The reauthorization and redesign of NCLB.  Six years after its bipartisan passage, she notes, we have nothing to show for it.

NCLB has turned every school into a test-preparation factory, focused solely on reading and mathematics. They are the only subjects that count in a school’s ranking, so teachers routinely reduce attention to history, science, foreign language, literature, geography, the arts and other non-tested subjects. With this narrowing of the curriculum, students may be getting dumbed down even if their scores go up. Do we really want a society where our fellow citizens know nothing of history, literature, science and the arts?

First, Ravitch says, the Obama administration should “eliminate the goal of universal proficiency by 2014, because it is unattainable. Period. No state or nation has ever achieved 100% proficiency.” 

Second, it should recognize that the federal government is best at providing accurate information, such as what children in each grade need to know to be abreast of international standards (that is known as the curriculum) and whether our children are meeting those standards (that is, testing); third, the administration should expect states and districts to fashion appropriate reforms and remedies for their schools.

Congress, Ravitch concludes, is not the right place to decide how to fix our schools. And more money isn’t the answer if we don’t have the right vision for improving education.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

21st Century B.C. Skills

Eduwonk Andy Rotherham gives voice today to something that has been irritating me for a while now–the careless and self-indulgent tossing about of the phrase “21st Century Skills” to describe the simple outcome of a sound, basic education.  Problem solving, critical thinking and cooperative learning have been with us in this country since we hunted in groups using spears with Clovis points.  As Andy puts it:

 We’re not the first society where those skills have been needed or valued.   What’s changed is the need —  for both equity and economic reasons — to give many more students a high quality education that allows them to develop these skills.   In other words it’s about broadening access to a good education rather than a radically different conception of what a good education is.   If dressing that up as 21st Century Skills helps sell an equity agenda, that’s great, otherwise we are flattering ourselves some about just how revolutionary the world we live in really is.

Amen.  The sooner we stop nattering on about “21st Century” skills the better, especially since the phrase tends to be code for devaluing the content-rich curriculum that makes critical thinking possible.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

Grammar Makes a Comeback

The government has released a draft curriculum that unequivocally calls for the explicit teaching of the basic structures of the English language. Grammar will return to the classroom along with punctuation, spelling, pronunciation, and phonics, for all students from the first years of school.

Oops, I left out a key word.  The Australian government.  The draft curriculum also retains the teaching of critical literacy, ”a model analysing gender, race and class in literature to expose inherent prejudices and agendas,” The Australian reports.  The critical literacy component had been hotly debated.

The draft addresses the debates, saying the “explicit teaching of decoding, spelling and other aspects of the basic codes of written English will be an important and routine aspect” of the curriculum. The draft says critical literacy is the analysis of texts in terms of “their potential philosophical, political or ideological assumptions and content”.

The principal author of the curriculum notes that critical literacy “should not occupy a big part of the curriculum, but it had a role in enabling students to protect themselves against propaganda and being manipulated.”

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

Father (and Mother) Knows Best

If you really want to reform education, Messrs. McCain and Obama, forget the unions, policy wonks and the business community, and heed the words of those who have skin in the game: parents.  Elizabeth Green of the New York Sun has a piece about a new group trying to inject parents’ point of view on ed reform into the campaign.

Leading the charge are two groups, Chicago-based Parents United for Responsible Education (PURE), and New York’s Class Size Matters.  “There’s a complete disconnect between what we’re being told by the politicians and the businesspeople about what we should want schools to do, and what parents want schools to do,” PURE’s executive director, Julie Woestehoff, tells the Sun. ”But frankly what parents want schools to do is better for their children. They know best.”

Naturally, there’s a manifesto in which PURE offers its own ed reform ideas. Titled “Common Sense Educational Reforms,” it differs sharply from both the “Broader Bolder” group’s and the Education Equality Project, led by Joel Klein and Al Sharpton.  The parents’ wish list includes increased parental involvement, lower class sizes, and a “rich, well-rounded curriculum.” 

Sounds good so far.  I’m all for giving parents the biggest, loudest megaphone on education issues.  They are, after all, the consumer.  On the other hand, the manifesto sounds suspiciously non-parental in its demand for kids to have ”project-based learning in a curriculum connected to their own lives and culture, with progress evaluated by high-quality, appropriate assessment tools that are primarily classroom-based.”  The group is also decidedly anti-charter schools, which will be a hard sell to parents whose kids have been spared from a life of educational neglect by charters.  

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

Exhilarating Drudgery

The Internet puts the world’s knowledge at the ends of our rapidly twitching fingers, yet the academic research skills of “average” students are poorer today than when they “had to trek to a library, sift through periodicals, muddle through card catalogs, and blow off dust from stacks of books, just to access potential material for a term paper,” observes ed.org columnist Ron Isaac, who wonders “What has replaced this exhilarating drudgery?”

Too often a student will go online, key in, say, “Shakespeare,” double click, and then muster the energy for one more click so that their ready-made dissertation will be printing while they split to check out YouTube or to surf some video channel. At the next commercial break they will scoop up their term paper from the tray, sandwich it between colored covers, and adorn it with some “photoshop” work and computer graphics. They may also type a preface to the teacher along the lines of “I hope you like this. Have a nice day!” and add the finishing touch of an “emoticon” smiley-face.

He’s painting with a broad brush, obviously, but Isaac raises a legitimate point with his observation that “everyone professes a passionate belief in the importance of teaching students critical thinking, but generally it’s left at that. The ability to think critically is not a secondary sexual characteristic that happens involuntarily. Nor does it materialize from the study of a non-existent curriculum. It is, rather, the product of many years of literal note-taking ( sometimes a lonely endeavor) and reflection.”

 

 

 

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

Literacy, Numeracy…Visuacy??

An Australian federal government report argues for visual education, or “visuacy”, to take its place alongside literacy and numeracy as a fundamental part of the country’s curriculum. The National Review of Visual Education calls for “a rethinking of arts education in schools to end the distinction between art and other images.”  

“In much the same way that one might conceptualise a continuum of texts in the context of the English classroom, one might similarly do so in relation to a continuum of images from the most banal to the most aesthetically complex and challenging,” the report says.  Translation?  The newspaper the Australian says: students should study Picasso alongside pictures of Elle Macpherson’s underwear as part of a recasting of visual arts education away from traditional forms to include images of all kinds.

[The report] cites the example of scrutinising the “conditions of value and meaning” in images as diverse as Macpherson’s bras and briefs on the back of a bus or on a billboard, a blood-strewn road safety advertisement on television, Picasso’s Guernica reproduced in the pages of a book of 20th century European art and the television transmission of a collapsing World Trade Center.

Australian Council of University Art and Design Schools chair Su Baker is already playing defense, arguing images are words in a visual language that have to be taught in the same way as English or any other language. “This report isn’t about dumbing down, it isn’t about trivialising things.  It’s about the breadth of visual imagery we are confronted with and engaging with in the world we live in, which is heavily saturated with images. It’s about teaching kids to navigate, interpret and control those images.” she tells the Australian.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

Cognitive Dissonance on NCLB

“I’ve always told people, I have the best job in the world,” writes Susan J. Hobart, a National Board Certified Teacher, in the current issue of The Progressive

Today, more often than not, I feel demoralized. While I still connect my lesson plans to students’ lives and work to make it real, this no longer is my sole focus. Today I have a new nickname: testbuster. Singing to the tune of “Ghostbusters,” I teach test-taking strategies similar to those taught in Stanley Kaplan prep courses for the SAT. I spend an inordinate amount of time showing students how to “bubble up,” the term for darkening those little circles that accompany multiple choice questions on standardized tests.

Yes, another one of those NCLB-is-destroying-education pieces written by a teacher.  I predict that by the time the sun goes down, a smart guy like Jay Greene will have a line-by-line rebuttal on his blog explaining why this teacher is all wet.  Why there’s no evidence that curriculum narrowing is occuring under NCLB.   I’m sure it’ll make perfect sense.  Heck, I’ll probably even agree with most of it.

Then I’ll remember my own 5th grade classroom, where I never had social studies textbooks–or time for social studies and science after our two hour ”literacy block” and 90-minute math workshop–but always had a fresh supply of shiny Kaplan test prep books every year.  Where my students rarely got art, music or gym.  Where we were trained by Teachers College to teach a unit on “test-taking as a genre” of literature.   I’ll also remember the school assemblies and pep rallies where we tried to get the kids excited about the tests and shared all our “positive energy.”  And I’ll remember one TFA corp member grad student, who was mandated to do two hours of test prep a day starting in September for the state tests in March. 

Did I just dream all that? 

I can do without the shrill rhetoric about the “assault on public education” and “one size fits all testing.”  Still, every time I hear a veteran teacher describing with sadness how the job they loved became a joyless grind I find myself thinking, “Yeah, me too. ”  How did this happen when testing, accountability and NCLB was what we were supposed to be doing all along anyway?  Was I simply caught up in one of the greatest cases of mass hysteria since the Salem Witch Trials?

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]