Greetings, Group 3! I enjoyed all of this week's readings, especially Nel Noddings and Prakash & Waks. I did see a connection, however, between all of the readings, the Four Conceptions article and Schiro's Curriculum Theory in particular. The following are my thoughts on each reading.
I thought John brought-up an interesting question near the end of class on Thursday: can the ideologies be combined or blended? At the end of chapter 1, Schiro explains, “many educators exist whose behavior is a combination of the characteristics of more than one ideal type”. (p. 13) My inventory chart shows a strong tendency toward not only the Learner Centered position, but the Social Reconstruction position as well. That said, I agree with Dr. Beach’s response, that not all of the ideologies mix well. I see the Scholar Academic and the Social Efficiency positions as near polar opposites. Almost all of the dots on my inventory chart are at level three or four for Scholar Academic and Social Efficiency. I am interested to know, however, why one of my ratings is a “2” in Scholar Academic and why one is a “1”. Does anyone else see any anomalies?
I usually have a tough time with charts, but I found Table 1.1 on page 11 to be helpful. It confirmed some of my questions about the four ideologies. While reading through Schiro’s explanation of the Social Efficacy position, I though of B.F. Skinner and the behavioral-emphasis model, which I believe depends on behavior modification and reward systems in order to achieve the desired outcome. Posner and Joseph seem to confirm those correlations I was trying to make. Concerning the Learner Centered position, I immediately thought of theorists like J. Dewey, J. Bruner, and P. Freire, who I imagine strongly oppose the Scholar Academic view of education as, “a hierarchical community of people in search of truth within one part of the universe of knowledge”. (Schiro, p. 4)
Before reading the first chapter of Walker and Soltis’s Curriculum and Aims, I would have guessed that curriculum was merely a list of courses or a lesson plan written-out in great detail. The authors state, however, that, “there is more to the curriculum than its written version”. (p. 2) I agree that the term “curriculum” should include, “the purposes, content, activities, and organization of the educational program…”. (Walker and Soltis, p. 1) I believe that Nel Noddings would agree, as she speaks of stretching the curriculum to include the whole person, including domestic and spiritual education.
Walker and Soltis assert, “the curriculum is inherently a social creation, a collective design” and that those who design and implement curriculum, “have a moral and professional responsibility to consider and respond to the views and interests of all the interested parties”. (p. 6) Do you all agree with this statement? Are there some cases, perhaps in charter schools, where it is counter-beneficial to consider all viewpoints?
Noddings’ Education and Democracy in the 21st Century is, in a word, refreshing. The clarion call seems to be for cooperation over competition. In the preface, she states, “Cooperation and connection must displace competition and overspecialization”. I agree wholeheartedly with Noddings statement, and I agree that I should involve more quantitative activities in my Spanish grammar and literature classes (scary for me). However, might there need to be even greater specialization in some fields? Should dental hygiene and pre-med students be tested even more rigorously. I’m okay if my dentist doesn’t know where Tulsa is, I just need him or her to do an exceedingly excellent job at cleaning my teeth. On the other hand, I think political science majors should be well-versed in several fields, qualitative and quantitative. What do you think? Do you agree with Noddings?
It seems clear to me that Noddings has “had it” with the current national standards testing models. I agree with her suggestion for opportunity-to-learn standards as opposed to mere content standards tested by the ACT and SAT. In her appeal to a more democratic 21st century, she states, “When we consider opportunity-to-learn standards, we can agree that all students should have an opportunity to prepare for college”. (p. 5) Earlier in chapter one, she makes the rather bold statement, “our long-overdue rejection of racial and gender bias does not mean that there are no legitimate differences on which to base our expectations”. (p. 4) Do you agree with this statement? I agree because our society is becoming less and less homogenous, and I believe that different backgrounds and environments foster different strengths - both mentally and physically. I think that, in this first chapter, that Noddings is saying that it would be anti-democratic and a dis-service to students and communities to ignore these differences. Do you agree?
Concerning Prakash and Waks’ Four Conceptions of Excellence, I appreciate the varied explanation, first as a straightforward exposition of views of excellence, second in terms of their compatibility, third as inherently linked - the latter conceptions building on the former ones, and finally as viewed through a political lens. Please correct me if anyone see’s a different set-up.
Do you agree with a particular conception? I agree most with the second and third conceptions of excellence, disciplinary initiation (or rational) and self-actualization (personal). My reasoning is that it seems to support and ever-increasing heterogeneous and global society and potentially conflicting views (religious, ethnic, etc.) while still promoting what I see as rigorous assessment. I disagree with the excellence as proficiency (or technical) conception because I see achievement in STEM and high scores on standardized tests as only a part of a whole education. I see “extra-curricular” activities as vital to social development and relatability in a global, heterogeneous society. From what I’ve read of Nel Noddings, I see her as a proponent of the social responsibility (social) conception.
Under which conception do you think home-schooling best fits (if at all)? I’m thinking that home-schooling fits in with the self-actualization conception, but I’d like to hear other opinions. 
Well.... may I say Excellent Job Reginald!!!! I have to admit that where all the readings went together well this week I had been in fear that I was going to get the different authors, after your fabulous detailed thoughts and remarks I personally feel much more at ease.
ReplyDeleteTo talk a little more on the article, I too had Prakash and Walsh, I could clearly see the same representations that were apparent in Chapter 1 of the Schiro book. I too thought of John's remark and I think the article summed up nicely the thought of compatibility between conceptions. On page 90-91 Prakash and Walsh compare the 4 conceptions to political parties, and where one person can not fit in multiple parties... one cannot fit in multiple conceptions but ALL conceptions have the same overarching goal of "the pursuit of excellence." In looking deeper at the political party metaphor I think that overall someone who even may be a staunch whatever, will probably find one or more things they still either agree with or even like about the other party. I believe that this is true in the 4 conceptions or 4 curriculum ideologies of Schiro as well. I agree with Reginald's comment that before Schiro's reading I would probably have not had a good grasp on curriculum.... I thought I knew what curriculum was, however to me it was a book, or lesson, or something provided by the district. The way curriculum was describe by both Noddings and Schiro was a more complete encompassing of everything that was experienced by students whether purposeful or not. I think this blew away my own previous version of curriculum. To me as Schiro describe the different curriculum ideologies, I feel like before the reading I would have classified these as more learning styles? Maybe the beliefs of teachers as how students learn? I am very interested to keep reading to see how much more I truly need to learn about curriculum!
As far as Reginald's question about home-school, that is a hard one for me. Personally I feel so much of a students education is past the "math, science, reading, etc. lesson" and has to do with relationships and working in communities. I think that Noddings would be in agreement that homeschooling may not be a good representative of working cooperatively. On page 1 Noddings stated the 21st century is a time to reduce emphasis on competition and work on collaboration, dialogue, interdependence and creativity. I feel that if parents of homeschoolers are creative they may be able to bring some of these qualities to the education of their children, but overall these qualities almost naturally appear within a school and sometimes without the teacher planning on it happening. When looking at the conceptions I could see self-actualization and excellence as proficiency being able to happen in a home school setting. However there may be the standard of the instructor piece left out of the excellence as proficiency conception.
Alana, I think the study of curriculum will be a journey for all of us. I imagine my notions of curriculum will alter as the semester goes on and the readings continue.I struggle with what the overarching purpose and value of curriculum should be aside from the arena of content knowledge. Nodding asserts her vision and judgement for curriculum must encompass "what criteria of success is being considered" (pg 8). For me, I feel there isn't a clear target or understanding of what we need to have in place with our 21st century curriculum. What skills and abilities do our students need to be prepared for life outside school? Are we giving our students those requirements now to ensure success later? And in what context do we equate success?
DeleteI do know of a home-school co-op that offers a tremendous program for their students. Students have many project-based assignments, field trips, hands-on science experiments, and ties with their community to mentor and support varied subject interests within the co-op. I do believe this is not the norm, but the parents take an active role in creating authentic experiences and network with other home-school co-ops in their area/region that share the same purpose and vision of exploration and learning experiences within their communities and the world outside of school.
I read the Anyon Article, "Social Class & School Knowledge" (written in the 1980's). The article focuses on the difference in teacher instruction, attitude, and beliefs that occur when using the same materials/frameworks. The teachers are from various schools that represent low-income to very affluent within a close proximity to each other. There were low expectations and misguided assumptions of the students by the teachers from the low-income schools. The bar was set so low for attaining achievement, the students believed what was in essence being told to them by the teacher's demeaning comments and continuous modifications to simplify the curriculum. In contrast, the article highlights the schools that have more affluence as being focused on creating students not only with high level content knowledge to ensure a successful road to college, but most importantly, creating students that are thinkers and meaning-makers. The skills and abilities that were being given to the affluent students were life skills to enter the world outside of school, and prepare them with the abilities to engage in the world at any level of their choosing. The educators of the affluent students have a different understanding of what knowledge is, and what student knowledge should encompass, which primarily is centered on creating "thinkers". One can't help but think of the divide within our own state between schools in low-income areas and the more affluent areas. Where is the misconnect, and how can this still be our reality as we enter a new century?
Barbara,
DeleteThat is great to hear about the homeschooling co-op!! That is better than the homeschooling image I had in my mind... I am still astonished that in the state of Oklahoma you can homeschool at will with no degree at all, but it is exciting that there are programs available for those who wish to take that route.
I hope you enjoyed the Anyon article. I read one of her articles about hidden curriculum and I was just amazed and applaud at the same time that different socio economic back grounds were so evident in what material was being taught and in what way. I will say that growing up in the Dallas/Fort Worth area I went to a low income elementary and junior high.... After reading Anyon I have tried to go back and recall how the teachers taught me. I seem to recall having a lot of fun in class and doing many hands on group projects. I have little memory of worksheets... It seemed laid back and like I fit in. However when I was in high school we moved to Oklahoma to a fairly affluent neighborhood and high school. Things were different although possibly not better. I remember constantly hearing you will need this for college... We wrote tons of papers and the rigor was extremely high but very little hands on or group work. I felt like I was almost being punished... Now looking back after Anyon I wonder if subconsciously teachers from my earlier days were teaching more of getting along in a community, supporting one another, preparing us to work hard to get through tough times, but then in the affluent high school it was more independence, self reliance and your success. Has anyone else had any similarities to the "hidden curriculum" of Anyon? Also I do not think Noddings would be overly happy with my high school experience... It seemed competitive not cooperative!
Hi, all. Thanks, Barbara, for the teaser for the Anyon article. I was planning to read it just for the sake of knowing what it says, but know I'm super-interested. In the Spring 2016 semester, and as part of the class Understanding Different Cultures, we read most of Our Kids by Robert Putnam. I enjoyed the read, but, if I'm remembering correctly, I left it thinking that not enough emphasis was placed on different learning styles. I believe, at this point in my development, that environment greatly affects how a student prefers to learn. In Putnam's book, he gives wonderful accounts of socioeconomic upturn and downfall based on educational success. One particular account tells the story of a teenage girl who, despite having great success in school, chooses not to attend a highly distinguished high school. She, instead, decides to keep status quo and follow in the footsteps of her mother (who wanted better for her). A great education and even innate talent were not enough for her. I think that some environments can, perhaps, foster a fear of socioeconomic growth. So, I'd like to know: is fear part of the "hidden" curriculum in lower socioeconomic school districts? Should there be a course, or collective effort, to address and curb fear of the unknown for those students?
DeleteAlana, I also had the one-on-one, parent to child at the living room coffee table image in my mind concerning home-schooling. It wasn't until two years ago that I was made aware of large-scale home-schooling efforts like co-ops. I have taught several home-schooled students over the past few years, some advanced beyond their classmates, some struggling to avoid a nervous-breakdown. On both sides, I always notice a certain social awkwardness or anxiety, which has made, for me, many (but not all) home-schooled students easily identifiable. I agree concerning the importance of socialization as part of the curriculum. After all, I learned English on the playground, not from Mrs. Brousard, my wonderful third grade teacher.
DeleteI favored Schiro's Learner Centered ideology, but I also landed several 1s and 2s on the Social Reconstruction scale. I like to know wich ideology home school parents would favor. My first guess would be the Scholar Academic for the purpose of fortifying traditional ideas and views. However, I can imagine home school parents favoring the Learner Centered ideology based on Schiro's statement, "The goal of education is the growth of individuals, each in harmony with his or her own unique intellectual, social, emotional, and physical attributes". (p. 5) That said, I do not believe that more home schooling is the overarching solution, even for those who want to protect children from non-conservative influence. I think that students can better defend their values when the come in contact, and are forced to communicate, with those who have differing values.
Great post Reginald. You brought some areas that I often think about, and questions that I continually have regarding what are the purposes of education, and what schooling should look like. Regarding the Learner Centered position, I too thought of Dewey, Montessori Schools, and some charter schools in a few states (California comes to mind) where the high school is divided into different areas of interest (engineering, the arts, technology, etc…). There are no walls, just glass dividers between the areas. The students work with experts in their fields to guide and facilitate the students in inventing/creating projects for their semester grades, while still having teachers offer guidance and facilitate their learning of writing, communicating, psychology, and other subject areas that have been identified to be skills that are needed for life outside of school. Students are mentored in their field of study, and take classes on critical thinking and problem solving. The students are encouraged to challenge themselves, take risks with their creations/inventions, and then present their final projects at a school event at the end of the semester. This schooling environment is definitely in another camp from the Scholar Academic view of education, but is it a model that has merit for the 21st century?
ReplyDeleteUsing the context of your quote, “those in positions of official authority” are the ones who should have a moral and professional responsibility to respond to the views of interested parties, especially the educators that use and instruct the curriculum. I was on the state standards committee this past year for ELA. There was so much discussion on the standards, vertical alignment, and what grade level should be responsible for what content. My frustration throughout this process was I felt there wasn’t a clear vision or mission statement for what we wanted the outcomes to be for students graduating from our K-12 “factory”.
According to Walker and Soltis, curriculum depends on “what contexts they are thinking of---for example, preparation for future studies, for vocational competence, for citizenship, or as a means for attaining students’ full human potential” (pg 8). I agree not one curriculum (or hardly a set of state standards) can fulfill multiple contexts, but I do believe there needs to be a clear vision of what is expected from the outcomes of curriculum/standards besides the content. Is there an intention to foster higher-level thinking, to collaborate and learn to build on different perspectives, to sharpen specific skills, work towards knowledge of global communications while enhancing student abilities with technologies? What is the driving force behind school? What are the ultimate outcomes as a society that we want to attain?
Barbara,
DeleteThere is actually a new school starting up (private) in downtown OKC this fall and the students meet in the Devon Building... from what I have heard it sounds very similar to the California schools you are talking about above. I no there is no "tests" your receive a grade based off of a project or paper, I believe it is high school only right now but I could be wrong about that... It sounds amazing but it does sadden me that it is a private school. Don't our OKC public school kids and other districts deserve the same great opportunity? This leads me back to the Walker and Soltis text. On page 4 and 5 Walker and Soltis explain that some teachers want to be innovative, creative, and go beyond the "current curriculum" restrictions but often find that either not welcome in their district or are just told "no." I believe this is one reason we have such a great burnout rate in education. Walker and Soltis pg. 5 state "in pubic schools in the United States even the most experienced teachers have no generally recognized right, legal or moral, to control the curriculum of their own classrooms." I found this incredibly true in the school district I taught in, especially in the last couple of years I was there when the administration had changed. I always prided myself on the fact that we did not do pointless worksheets... we figured out geometry in any tangible way that was possible. My breaking point was when I was teaching a geometry class of juniors and seniors (one to two years behind) and out of 28 I had 17 IEP's.... so being that "experienced teacher" I knew that I had to do everything different with this class... so first week we went out side and got into groups and they had to go around and take pictures with their phones of different geometry vocab like vertical lines... if they didn't know what vertical lines were then they could look it up in the text book, dictionary, or on their phones. Everyone participated and were more than happy to do so.. they were required to email me all the pictures, I organized them for the next day and we talked about what were vertical lines and would everyone agree that the pictures were all of vertical lines etc... The class voted on the favorite and that was assigned to the group who took the picture... we continued until each group had two or three depending on how many members they had. Then each was responsible for making a poster (AT HOME) bring it back I blew up and printed the pictures they glued them on the posters and we hung them up for the whole year... not only did everyone in that class NEVER mess up on vocabulary all my other classes were impressed and loved the posters. Well I was called to the principal's office.... I was asked if I had allowed students to use a cell phone during class in a (no-tolerance) school. I said yes but we talked about protocol and rules and how when we came into the building they had to be put away. I was told this was unacceptable and the principal had been called by the superintendent (who happened to drive by) and wondered who would be letting students do this... and the principal added "especially the students in that class." Well that was my last year at that school (my choice)! Through all my years I had an overall 97% pass rate on the EOI, and with that class of 28, 27 of 28 passed 15 were advanced!
Barbara, the California school you describe, with the glass-wall dividers, sounds like an example of an ecological approach. I believe Noddings would call it a collaborative approach. Refering to your question, "is it a model that has merit for the 21st century?", I say yes. I see such an ecological approach as terrifying for students like was (stutter/anti-social/distrusting) and "awesome" for today's K-12 students seem to learn best when lecturing is minimal to zero and interaction is constant. My question is, will it work is lower socioeconomic districts? I would say no. I have read in a few articles, perhaps in Noddings and Walker & Soltis, that children in lower socioeconomic districts sincerely prefer the strict, traditional teacher-centered model - because it represents structure that they may not see at home.
DeleteReginald, I think that is the million dollar question...what will work in our lower socioeconomic districts. In Dr. Beach's theoretical class, I read the Power of Pedagogy. It had a chapter on a high school in Boston---called Fenway High School that was a charter school that was in one of the poorest neighborhoods. Each class (freshman, juniors, seniors) has a mission statement for the year that their studies and projects were based around..."What it means to live in a democracy", "What it means to be an active and participating citizen",,,those type of overarching statements. The students collaborated with their communities in areas of careers that they were interested in, and the community invested in the students. Teaching was purposeful reflecting what kind of citizen and areas of interest that would support their transition from school to the world. Students that came from poverty were mentored by both the school leaders and the community.
DeleteNodding addresses the same concept in regard to schools which she says should be centered around three domains, home occupation, and civic life. She also adds that if we currently continue in the direction we are going, "curriculum will become even more isolated from real life" (pg. 11). Should curriculum be focused around a set of content knowledge without ties to how that knowledge is applicable in the current world. I think all students in any socioeconomic group need to know that what they are learning and preparing for will be useful and a requirement to their success outside of school. I personally feel so many students don't see the usefulness of some of the content or instruction that they are receiving, and therefore, they lack both the motivation and engagement. Nodding asserts that we should require curriculum to include "collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity" (pg. 11). I think these 3 C's will inspire motivation, and motivation spurs engagement. I believe that can move the needle with lower socioeconomic school districts---like anything, it requires leadership and great teachers.
I hate to say that all through my teaching public school and especially the last year, I had the mind set I know I am doing a good job and if you think you can find someone better fire me (now that was just me mentally thinking that NEVER saying it). However I think so often in education we turn out AMAZING innovative teachers at the college level who are passionate and ready to take on and change the world, and then so often they get bogged down in all the standards and prescriptive ways districts tell you to teach, that their own personal flare and touch gets diminished. I hope for the sake of my kids and grandkids and future generations that innovative teachers are not diminished to the point of non-existence. Walker and Stoltis, state "Even when the reins of power are light, teachers can never afford to lost sight of the fact tat their authority in curriculum matters is limited by that of the school system." I find the statement true but do not feel like it is right. How do you feel concerning teachers rights in regards to curriculum?
ReplyDeleteLike you Alana, I feel master teachers know how to engage students using curriculum that spurs student thinking, meaning making, and reflection. When I first started teaching, the reading seriesI taught in 4th grade was "Open Court"---tons of components that were required within the set curriculum. I had just graduated and wanted to implement literature circles. I had to be observed by the principal several times while my students were doing literature circles so that she could see that students were constructing meaning, using comprehension strategies amongst their peers, and become confident readers that were learning to converse in literacy subject areas and creating book projects to reflect their learning. To reemphasize Nodding's comment regarding curriculum, it should include collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity.
DeleteIf only every teacher were so passionate about their work...
ReplyDeleteAn interesting note made by Walker and Soltis is that we teachers can have ambivalent feelings about curriculum work. Where are you in the range of engagement as described by Walker and Soltis on pages two and three? I have never proposed a curriculum change or addition, so I usually go with the suggestions handed-down from my department dean. I do, however, implement “unofficial curriculum changes” if my imagination is sparked. I think I’m a bit behind the curve, though, because I’ve been teaching the same subject area for about 10 years now. I suppose I’m frustrated because, often times, as stated by Walker and Soltis, “the official curriculum conflicts with...personal teaching style” (p. 3).
I only spent a short teaching middle school and high school, but I can recall a similar (not as intense, though) conflict or two between myself and administration for stepping "out-of-the-box" concerning curriculum and teaching methods. I'm going to play the other side, though, and say that teachers are society's best equipped for finding a way to push our "hidden curriculum" while appeasing the "higher-ups". I felt like running for office in state government after politicking in parent-teacher conferences. Parent-teacher conferences, now that's hard work!
HaHa.. agreed! I would say that teachers are pro implementers of "hidden curriculum". I would say in the spectrum I have almost been in each place at one time or another. My first job the principal said "well you will be teaching a new course Pre-AP Geometry, we have no curriculum, or pacing guide, use whatever book you want and write us up a plan we can use from now on." I was scared to death!!! I often think back to those poor 22 kids and just think if they could have only had me a year later they would have had it so much better! Most of that year was making sure they got the state minimum objectives, then letting the kids decide what projects to do, what they thought was important about using geometry, and how we should set up class procedures like homework. Some things I kept and as far as I know the school is still using it today, but I tweaked many things and just threw out others. Then I have been the one in charge of picking "the textbook" for all of the math department for 7 years... that was awful... I didn't like any of them. And then over the last year or so I was on the math standards committee for the new state standards. Each time I have to begin a new curriculum project I am always thoughtful of the "higher ups" whoever they may be. I am still intimidated. I am extremely lucky to be at such a great place now. At first I was always worried about what I was changing or what I was doing to go against the norm... by department chair once told me, "you will never know if it is great or horrible until you try... the worst that can happen is you have the insight to not do it again." I truly appreciate this comment and I have become much more comfortable teaching outside of the box.
ReplyDeleteWhere I have never been an administrator I do have understanding for them. I know that if something went majorly wrong (someone got hurt, left school grounds, etc.) during my activity ultimately my principal would have to answer to the superintendent who would have to answer to the board and parents. I get it, I just think that more administrators need to treat their teachers as the professionals they are.