Part+4+18-21


 * Popham, W. James. Curriculum Matters **

Deanna: This article, focusing on the No Child Left Behind Act, was quite informational for me. School curriculum has been focused on teaching to tests for quite some time now because of the fact that test scores determine how “good” a school is and usually what kind of funding they get. There is so much that is covered on these tests that teachers are given the enormous task of trying to teach it all because the pressure falls on them. With teachers covering a lot of material in a short amount of time, students are actually hurt in this situation. They aren’t given enough time to really grasp and understand the material and teachers don’t have enough time to go back and try to teach it again because of the pressure to cover so much material. Instead, we need to focus on what is really important that our students know and make sure that those things are taught well and that students understand them before moving on. In the article, one of Popham’s main points was that we need to have brand new content standards that would focus on a more “instructionally beneficial set of unarguably significant curricular aims.” I think that this is the first step to students really succeeding and learning in schools – find what is most important and make sure they understand it.

Becca: While reading through this essay, I could not help but reflect back on the recent push for literacy in American school systems. As stated in the article, several schools and teachers structure instruction to "teach to the test" so that they might receive government and state funding for the school system. Still, these tests target a vast amount of information which becomes overwhelming and almost impossible to teach. Instead of focusing on a few crucial content standards, teachers try to cram in as much information as possible to "prepare" students for state administered tests. Therefore, I pose the question, by teaching a vast amount of information on a very basic level what are we teaching students? In a society that values and promotes literacy, we don't provide students with the tools to make them literate individuals. With literacy comes a //critical// understanding of content. Students needs to learn, analyze and interpret material. Unfortunetly, teaching to the test does not provide students with these opportunities. Therefore, I argue that NCLB's push for standardized testing and AYP compromises the literacy of students across the country.

Dustin: This article focused how the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has changed how teachers view curriculum. The author seems to show that NCLB has helped in that it has forced teachers to actually look at the the state required curriculum is for the classes that they are teaching. However, most of the article focuses on how NCLB has negatively impacted teaching. The author points out that most state-required curriculum are written as wish-lists of sorts, and thus have many different things that they wish students at that age would have mastered. This creates a wide range of expectations - too wide of a range to be taught in a semester or a year. It also forces teachers to not teach things they think will not be tested by NCLB tests which causes students to miss out on significant lessons. Overall, I agree with the author that there needs to be a change. I like the idea of just reexamining the current expectations, and consolidating them in ways so that it gives teachers enough time to really make sure their students are meeting expectations.

Alex: Essentially, this essay outlines the idea of curriculum development and how much attention is has gotten throughout the years. The author takes the reader through a span of years, beginning when he began teaching and curriculum was developed and present, but not paid attention to very much. All of this changed when NCLB legislation took over and the federal government began holding systems accountable of the curriculum that was in place. This was and is tested using standardized tests, which give the government the information they need to know in order to find out who gets funding. The essay also outlines a number of issues with NCLB. I think we are all fairly familiar with the law, what is requires and how it undermines much of what we know about good education, kids and how they learn. I think the author makes some solid criticisms of the legislation (like we needed to hear them). I do think, however, that I learned something by reading this and have a greater understanding about why NCLB makes what we do so difficult. Certainly, there is too much curriculum, the curriculum is vague and the incentives to improve (adequate yearly progress) are threat oriented—less than encouraging to say the least. Schools are threatened by NCLB sanctions and public embarrassment. These things don’t encourage people to work harder. The tests that measure how well the curriculum and been taught and learned are unpredictable. There are too many standards to know which ones will be tested or which ones will be left out. There is no way of knowing what the “most important” things for students to learn really are. Finally, because the results of the tests are so nondescript, teachers have no idea where they may have failed, which teaching strategies aren’t working, or how to improve what they are doing. I agree with the author’s solution—leaving standards the same, but honing in on and being explicit about which things will be tested. They must also make the results work for the teachers. Help us Government; don’t hit our knuckles with rulers because you’re inadequate.

Lauren: I'm happy to have finally read a clear explanation of NCLB! All I have heard in the past is "NCLB is horrible and it restricts our teaching." After reading this article, I understand why many teachers are resistant to this legislation, and am interested to find a way to resolve the current issues. I did not know that NCLB test questions were unkown to teachers and schools, creating a total crapshoot in the curriculum development for teachers. I would/will be very frustrated if I'm not sure the things I'm taking time to teach my students won't even be on the test I don't want them to take. Flipping though the state benchmarks, I have noticed there are way too many. I think all of these skills are important for students, but I agree with the author of the article that we need to redefine which are the most important and teach to those areas. With too many standrads, instruction becomes too general and we are only able to skim the surface of topics. We need more time, with fewer standards to focus on, which will allow the best instruction for our students.

Luke:

I believe that the second option, a coalesced content standards approach, is the more appropriate choice for realistic content standards. To begin with, most state standards already are headed under broader categories such as subjects, so it is not that big of a leap. It would not be too time consuming to figure out the overarching theme of 10 standards, especially since we can look at the history of the standards to see the evolution of their development and spinning out. I think that it would be foolish to toss aside decades of hard work and research to add a more concise second set of standards from a framework for NCLB assessment. The standards are not broken, so why fix them. The problems, in my opinion, are with the actual state tests and the enormous sea of current standards.

** Peddiwell, J. Abner. The Saber-Tooth Curriculum **

Deanna: Honestly, I was slightly confused with this article. I think what Peddiwell was saying is that school curriculum and state standards need to be re-evaluated from time to time. We cannot just sit back and teach the same things and the same ways for years and years. Material is constantly changing and being re-evaluated by historians and scholars and I think that we too need to re-evaluate what we, as teachers, do as well. State standards have changed and now with the additions of state-mandated tests we need to find a curriculum that achieves the goal of preparing students for the test and also about teaching them the most important parts of the subject and making sure they understand. Times are changing and we need to change our teaching styles and practices to fit in with the current times and to connect with our students so that meaningful and useful learning can take place. You can’t teach someone to catch a fish with their hands in the times of fishing nets – that knowledge would be “useless” and as a result, they won’t learn it because they don’t care.

Becca: This article proposed on overall metaphor between schools curriculum and learning in the per-historic era. Using the teachings from New-Fist, the article illustrates the development of curriculum, the teaching of curriculum, and finally the execution of the curriculum. The article also illustrates the purpose of these teachings and how they connect to life and survival. While the first half of the essay was clear to me, the second half became a bit unclear. I think the overall point that the article made was that sometimes curriculum needs to change to become more relevant. At the same time, that does not mean that old curriculum needs to be abolished, because value can be found in old ways as well. Instead, by combining the two and coming up with new relevant ideas that still teach the fundamentals, then students greatly benefit. The example given in the text was that new strategies need to be taught in response to environmental changes of the land. At the same time, some tribe members opposed this and argued that old ways taught strength and agility, which are still needed today. Therefore, I think the underlying argument of this article is that a successful curriculum does not solely depend on the old ways or the news ways, but is instead a combination of both schools of teaching.

Dustin: Like Deanna, I found myself struggling with this article. It was an obvious metaphor for educational curriculum, however I really felt as if I failed to connect with the metaphor. What I did take away from this extended metaphor was that it is important to understand that lessons aren't taught just for the sake of the lesson, instead it is important to see how the lesson is relevant in life. This means to me that a book such as //The Great Gatsby// isn't taught so students know the book, instead the book is taught so that students understand the themes of the story and how that may affect their own personal lives.

Alex: This essay is an allegory of education. It makes the point, essentially, that for education to work, to serve a society, to maintain the best interests of the people it serves, it must be adaptable. It must supplement society with the knowledge it needs to know. The school in the story didn’t want to teach the new techniques of survival—it already had enough curriculum to teach. But the question arises—what is the point? Why teach a dead art? Because it still develops rich thinking in a rich society. Should we, however, reject new knowledge because it doesn’t “fit in” or because we already have enough to teach? No. We must always adapt what and how we teach to suit the needs of the learner and the society that the learner will inherit. I also think that the allegory illustrates the controversy and dissonance that will always exist between camps of people, people with different philosophies and people with different beliefs. Even when the issue is something as simple as catching fish or clubbing horses over the head. We see it all of the time, different groups of educators, politicians and the like battling each other when they all probably want the same things—for schools to serve the society in the most appropriate and generally beneficial way.

Luke:

The age old tradition versus practicality debate. I enjoyed this story a lot because of its entertaining and simple way of making traditional studies seem impractical, but I did find it a bit too extreme, and therefore does not line up 100% with the current debate. When the glacier came, the skills taught before were useless, since there were no tigers to scare or horses to club. I do not believe any of the skills taught in a classical educational setting are as useless as that, since even cursive and spelling can benefit a person directly, albeit minor. I wish the story-teller would have changed this to where the skills were useful beyond a basic skill level just maybe not as effective as the new skills for survival. The speaker did a disservice. This is somewhat addressed in the end, when the most progressive person suggested the teaching of both methods. This should be the crux of the story, yet we learn that beyond speed and coordination, the old skills are useless. I am glad that that idea was suggested, but I believe that that should have been the entire plot of the story, and not a subplot. Combining the classical education with skills needed for the modern world is useful because we still have a need for the old skills.

** Finn, Chester E. Jr. Faulty Engineering **

Deanna: This article was interesting to me because it talked about teaching students morals and values. While I do think that educators should be positive role models and teach students acceptable behavior in society, the point made that we simply don’t see them enough outside the classroom to make this effective rings true. It is not our job alone to make teach these kids good morals, values and behaviors – parents, coaches, family and other adults also need to take part in this. It is also true that sometimes parent and educator views differ. In these situations, parents are more on the spot for teaching their children because they see them the most and kids are more often than not going to listen to what their parents say as opposed to their teachers. This is a tricky area and, as stated previously, it should not all fall on to educators because we just do not see the kids for a significant amount of time in their lives.

Becca "The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically... Intelligence plus character - that is the goal of true education."(Martin Luthur King Jr.) I think this one quotes sums up the essay by Finn beautifully. Finn argues that along with teaching curriculum and knowledge, schools also need to teach character and citizenship. While many counter-arguments are made in response to this, the reality remains that with education comes character. Although some people's idea of character and moral values schools still need to focus on character as well cognitive development. Today's students are tomorrows leaders. A bit cliche I know, but every chiche stems from the truth. Students success and the future of this society depend just as much on character as intellect. Students need to understand the importance of voting, volunteer work, and history. They need to develop as individuals and obtain core values like honesty, integrity, and service, and it is the schools' responsibility to teach these values. Therefore, the question remains, how can we make this happen? Well, Finn proposes and excellent idea, let all students have school of choice. This way if a family feels uncomfortable with the values that a school system teaches or how the district teaches it, they can simply find a different system that fits their needs better. This way schools focus on character development and we help students develop cognitively along with socially.

Dustin: This article focused on the idea of teaching students civics and some of the problems with it. The author points out that there is a lot of dissent among people about just what constitutes as proper civics. The author also points out that many people argue that the main focus of schools should be cognitive instead of on proper behavior and actions. Another problem with teaching civics that the author mentions is that students don't spend all of their time at schools. Overall I believe that it is important to teach civics in schools, however I do not think it should be the main focus of schools. There is so much that needs to be taught, I feel as if students simply have to be expected to display god behavior.

Alex:

“in a liberal democracy such as the United States, the proper ordering of…mechanisms is beset by paradox: if free citizens are to rule the state, does the state have a legitimate role in shaping their values and beliefs via its public schools?”

This question at the beginning of this essay intrigued me. We are citizens of a “free” society here in the United States—we are free to think, believe, choose etc., but how many of these values, these beliefs, are inculcated by the government that we supposedly control. I had never really thought about this issue in this particular manner. Certainly, throughout the process of my studying to become a teacher I have developed the belief that it is part of teacher’s job to teach students how to operate in a society, how to follow behavioral, social and linguistic norms. We are to teach students how to participate in a democratic society and how make informed decisions in the public sphere. These things sound good, don’t they? Digging below the rosy language of such objectives might reveal a bit of Orwellian theory in practice—a government indoctrinating a society to behave and believe how it wants it to. I don’t know if this is necessarily the case, but the author of this essay makes some serious points about a civic education, how limited our abilities really are in the face of weak pedagogy, a lack of political and moral consensus, lousy legislation, local/federal disconnect, and school’s relatively small role in a person’s life. The answer, if you can call it an answer, that I have mulled over has is rooted in critical thinking. I think, regardless of what a teacher believes, what a parent believes, what legislation says or what the political/social/moral climate is, we must teach our youth to think critically, think analytically, and to ask many, many questions. These types of skills develop independent thinkers. If there is one way I know for a person to survive, to succeed, and to wade through all of the nonsensical crap he/she will encounter in life, is to learn how to think critically.

Lauren While I can appreciate the questions brought up in this article regarding the government's place in creating civics classes for students, the author lost me in several places. I really like the points brought up regarding ambiguity in the curriculum regarding service learning. In the past, a service learning assignment would be straightfoward, but today there are hundreds of options (abortion clinic, church, etc.) The author asks here, "how can a democracy's public schools decide on their proper role in the lives and education of the young?" I have never thought of that before, but I think when we take many opions into account, we allow students the opportunities for exploration (ie service learning at an abortion clinic...what a cool opportunity). The article was thought provoking, but it lost a lot of its validity for me when the author writes, "there is a huge problem of young people whose lives are influenced mainly by gangs, street culture, hip hops, and the worst of movies and television." Hip-hop is the downfall of our students? Really? My attitude toward the entire article shifted when I read this, because I assume only an old, white, prejudiced male/female could have written such an ignorant comment. Also I don't like the end of the article where it states we need to recognize the adults students will become depends on "what happens to them when they are not in school." Yes...but that's a huge issue to raise at the end of the article without addressing it.

** Glasser, William. The Quality School Curriculum. **

Deanna: I enjoyed this article the most because it was about making kids understand WHY they are learning what they are learning. This is something that often gets overlooked or passed by when teachers explain things. Kids won’t care about what they are learning unless they know it is going to be useful for them and why/how it will be useful in their lives. This is one reason why we need to find out what makes our kids tick and what their interests are. I want to make sure that my students enjoy learning and to do so I think that I need to relate things to their lives and make it relevant so that they understand it better. Also, if a student can explain to you WHY it is important to have this knowledge, they will most likely be able to answer questions about that topic. Therefore, if we focus more on teaching students why it is important to know certain information they will also be more prepared for state tests, because they will not only have an interest in what they learned, but also they will understand what they learned.

Dustin: This was definitely my favorite article from the selection that we read. I'm a huge fan of making sure that curriculum really connects with students, and that the information being taught isn't just the type of "throwaway curriculum" that students don't care to learn. I really think this can make or break a classroom - whether a teacher can make the curriculum relevant to the students personal lives. Becca: I really enjoyed this article's focus on content relevance and the need for students to know why they need to learn material. Unfortunetly, much of the information taught in schools is simple "throw away" information that students must learn to simple pass a test or get a grade. After completing these tasks, students forget the information because it has little significance. Instead, teachers need to ask questions like when, how, and why. This makes students think critically about material and make sense of how it is useful in the world. At the same time, by asking these questions, teachers avoid testing students on "throw away information" which students will not remember anyway. The essay also suggests that quality schools ask students to demonstrate their acquisition of knowledge which helps them make deeper connections with the material being taught. They see it in th big picture of things rather than thinking "okay I need to memorize these times tables to pass the test." Lastly, the article makes the argument that students need to know why they are learning the information. How is learning this material going make students assets to society? I think that this is the most compelling argument because it focuses on purpose and meaning. Students need to know why they are learning something and how it will help them be successful adults. In reality, if there is no purpose, what is the point of learning? Therefore, as teachers we need to focus on these components and ask ourselves... Are we teaching "throw away" information? How are we asking out students to demonstrate knowledge? How is what I am teaching going to make my students successful members of society?  Lauren: Wow. This article thrills me. This article focuses on using coersion in the classroom (intimidating students to do well and forcing them to pass) which the author says ultimately leads to failure by way of throw away information. I am so intrigued by the thought of students and teachers evaluating tests that I'm almost forgetting everything else I've read. "Students who are dissatisfied with their own or the teacher's evaluation could continue to work on the test and improve...the idea is to constantly improve usable skills" -- this idea is insane to me...insanely good. The fact that we teach students things in units, test them, and if they do poorly we say "Oh well, you should have studied harder...we're moving on" is pretty perverse when I think about it. The message we send to students is if they don't understand something the first time (in a few weeks of instruction), no one will ever take the time to show them how to do it appropriately. When we focus on USABLE skills, I think our entire curriculum will change. The challenge, of course, is coming up with ways to monitor what was learned. We want students to be able to demonstrate their knowledge, but not just through multiple choice answers...I want my students to be able to connect the knowledge to their current and future lives.