Sept. 22-28 Social Efficiency

This week's readings were interesting. I did read the material in the order suggested by Dr. Beach and I feel that was a good choice. I will have to say I did not feel Noddings was a direct critique of Social Efficiency, instead I felt as her Vocational Education was almost a theory of its own.. not inline with social efficiency, but not in an opposition to it either, rather a different context altogether. Did anyone else feel this way or did I just not read into the "critique" enough?

Seeing as Dr. Beach did say Noddings chapter 8 was a critique of social efficiency, I will do my best to highlight the differences I see between the two chapters and ideas. As I began Schiro I had a hard time thinking of what the social efficiency ideology would look like when played out in education. I truly appreciated the example of Type to Learn. I kept going back to that example to try and fit the schema of social efficiency to. Social efficiency definitely looks at the behaviors and actions of the learners and insist that "learning consist of a change in behavior, learning takes place only a result of learners' practice of the behavior they are to learn" (Schiro, p. 62).  I didn't find Noddings addressing this subject, but rather she discussed the "big picture" top down teaching where when exposed to the bigger ideas than students could choose based off of talents and interests (p. 108-109). I believe based off of these ideas Noddings would not care for the "factory" approach of education describe by Schiro for social efficiency.

Another area I feel does align between Noddings description of  vocational education and social efficiency is Noddings idea that no grades be given during middle school, that this is a time for exploration (p. 114), verses Schiro's social efficiency description that everything is sequential and must be learned/completed at a level before progressing forward to the next task, it takes the successful completion of many individual smaller task to "learn" the larger task. It seems that social efficiency is concerned with creating a better society by "prescribing" the same education to all in little pieces of stimuli to response pieces. Where Noddings is looking to not prepare the individual for a mere routine job but one in which brings satisfaction (p. 103).

As I was reading through the social efficiency chapter even after the type to learn example I found it hard to see social efficiency in the school of today, but then as I kept reading I think I can see the social efficiency in a few ways besides the obvious accountability of teachers, schools and students. One way is by looking at the lower grades and looking at the standards often a child has to complete a standard a a given target before they can go onto something else. Such as reading they must take AR test at their reading level and until the benchmark test says they can read at a higher level these books are restricted. Where else do you see social efficiency playing out in today's schools?

Not that we are suppose to compare social efficiency to the scholar academic ideology I find it hard not to at least briefly discuss a couple of similarities and differences. One similarity is that students do not receive much choice but rather they learn what is prescribed for them to learn either by "scholars" or by "behavioral engineers."  I feel in both students are to progress as far as they are able to, both do not restrict education to certain individuals.  In scholar academic the learner is an empty vessel but in social efficiency they are active, and must do something to learn. Another difference is social efficiency address the "non-academic" ideas such as homemaking or even societal accountability, where scholar academic is only concerned in the academic disciplines. What other differences or similarities did you pick up on.

The Bobbit article was definitely a good example of the social efficiency ideology at play or dare I say an argument for social efficiency? It seems Bobbitt had a good realization of the concerns against social efficiency and tried to address such concerns and possibly debunk misbeliefs about the ideology. What did you think of the Bobbitt article?

Curriculum Theory, Week 3, Sept. 15 - 29

     Hello, everyone.  Let’s talk about the Scholar Academic ideology of curriculum, as presented and explained by M. S. Schiro, and then let’s discuss liberal arts education and the interesting things N. Noddings has to say about it.

    Without expressing my opinion of the ideology, I cannot say that I, after one reading, understand all that Schiro is telling us about the Scholar Academic approach to curriculum.  I have, nonetheless, noticed the following recurring themes and phrases that seem to characterize the ideology: hierarchical structure, enculturation, transmission of shared acculturated knowledge, the essence of the discipline, initiation into and imitation of the discipline, indoctrination of students, the disciplines as a vehicle for becoming fully human, cultural heritage, and cultural literacy, to name a few.  Are there other recurring themes that you noticed in chapter two? 

     Before jumping into the details of Schiro's explanations, I want to go ahead and link the Schiro reading with the Noddings reading by mentioning the 1893 Committee of Ten.  One of many recommendations that came out of its report was the standard high school curriculum that I was so familiar with, meaning a prescribed dose of English, history, mathematics, science, and foreign language.  Several of these disciplines are referred to in Noddings' discussion of liberal arts.  After reading other chapters in Noddings, and then Schiro’s explanation of the Scholar Academic ideology, I expected war between the two camps (Noddings vs. the scholar academic).  I read Noddings' take on liberal arts education, it’s heritage, how it is viewed and how it can be improved, and I cannot say that she is diametrically opposed to what Schiro has to say about the Scholar Academic ideology.  She notes that the liberal arts tradition of learning for learning’s sake is part of a legacy from classical Greece.  She also admits to having, “strong sympathy for the intellectual way” (p. 55).  As opposed to the scholar academic, Noddings does not equate intellectual ability with a person’s essence.  Rather, she asserts, “I can find little evidence that learning for its own sake has done much to improve the human condition” (p. 55).  What Noddings does view has valuable, though, is good teaching that speaks of the “immortal conversation”, those existential questions that seem to have disappeared from the liberal arts.  In reference to the stereotypical view of the liberal arts as snobbish and superior, Noddings asks the question,”In what does this superiority consist?”  Her answer, I believe is that “The great gift of the liberal arts has been to keep this [existential / immortal] conversation alive.  It is in this sense that it is better than other forms of education” (p. 57).

     Speaking of conversation, let’s start and I’ll stop monologuing.  Some points of interest for me include the teaching methods in the Scholar Academic ideology, as presented by Schiro, Noddings' recommendations for improving and “stretching the disciplines” across the liberal arts, and teacher vs. technical education.  I just want to ask a couple questions, though.  First, Is it possible to continue the immortal conversation, those existential questions (p. 57), today, in such a ethnically and religiously diverse democracy such as our own?  Second, I noticed that “fine arts” is included as part of core knowledge on the E.D. Hirsch-based website.  Why is fine arts included here and not in Schiro’s explanation of the Scholar Academic ideology?

Week 3 Curriculum Development and Practices

     As our readings have shifted from what to how, there is alot to think about in regard to the procedures and development of curriculum.  Reading The Tyler Rationale for making curriculum is reminiscent of the thousands of daily lesson plans that I have written which began with, “Students will be able to……., by demonstrating…..”.  The framework of The Tyler Rationale has stood the test of time because it is not a manual for curriculum construction, “but rather, is a way of viewing, analyzing, and interpreting” a school or educational institution’s program (W&S, pg. 57).  Tyler stipulates that developing a curriculum must be organized around four fundamental questions (W&S, pg. 58).  His focus is on the how of curriculum creation, and not the what of the curriculum. Do you agree with Tyler that these four questions should be fundamental in developing all curriculum, or do you envision another framework or different elements that should be included? Do you think that Tyler’s framework in some ways can limit an inexperienced or beginning teacher’s instructional practices into a more step-by-step guide, thus limiting some of the 21^st century domains that we know should be recognized such as, collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking? Do you believe as Tyler does that objectives must be stated in a way where they “specify precisely and unambiguously” what is supposed to be learned? (W&S, pg. 59)

In contrast to the rationalized concepts and theory of Tyler, Schwab employs a practical approach and argues curriculum does not require theory, but rather the focus of curriculum should be to create a moral community (W&S, pg. 62).  Eisner’s emphasis for curriculum creation is one where “problem-solving and expressive objectives lead to purpose” (W&S, pg. 62).  Should beliefs be the focus of curriculum planning rather than objectives?  Whose perspective of curriculum development do you see yourself aligning with, and why?

In regard to the emancipation theorists, such as Freire, do you believe that one of the aims of education should be to raise critical consciousness and provide procedures for implementation within curriculum? (W&S, pg. 66).  Apple argues that “knowledge is a form of cultural capital” (W&S, pg. 73), and urges curriculum planners to create awareness of both moral and political ideals.  Do you agree with Apple’s perspective or do you believe that moral and political views should be limited within schooling?

Nodding gives additional insight into learning objectives as she sites Hirsch’s aim and goal guides with his lesson on identifying rivers, which in turn is reflective of “cultural literacy” (N, pg. 41).  I believe the missing link for many teachers (myself included at times) is the lack of connectedness to a bigger concept.  Nodding calls it “ends-in view”, where the student needs to be conscious of the overarching goal that connects the learning to the big picture of the subject or content that is being taught.  The “Why are we studying this?” or “Why is this relevant to my understanding of the world?” Do you believe this is an important element that is missing in current curriculum? 

Nodding also discusses how curriculum in middle school and high school should not require all students to take the same core courses. Do you believe education should accommodate for individual differences and interests in middle school? Should students that have no interest or talent in pursuing higher level math courses, chemistry/physics courses, or foreign language classes be required to fulfill those subject requirements?

Last, but not least, is Nodding’s chapter on ecological cosmopolitanism. She discusses inclusion within curriculum of subject matter such as naturalists, ecology, and mindfulness toward the environment contributing to a universal curriculum. I must admit this took me back to my university schooling days in Berkeley back in the 1970’s.  Her explanation of how to implement the teaching of geography and biology that matters was engaging.  Her perspective on what educators need to do to create mindful critical thinkers within ecological cosmopolitanism was intriguing.  I’m curious what your thoughts were after reading this chapter?  Do you see a place for these types of topics in school curriculum?  I look forward to our “conversations” this week.  I’ll try not to monologue.

Week 2 Sept 2-Sept 8

In the readings this week I found the ideas of the Traditionalist vs. Progressiveness approach as described by Walker and Soltis interesting. I was trying to see what curriculum ideologies most highlighted the traditionalist approach and the progressiveness approach. It seems to me that the traditionalist approach can be seen in the scholar academic ideology and in the social efficiency ideology. And the progressiveness approach may be highlighted in the learner centered and social reconstruction ideologies. Did anyone else see the tendencies of traditionalist and progressiveness in the curriculum ideologies of Sciro?

Another main thought I picked up from the Walker and Soltis readings was how evolving the schooling/education process has been and still is. As I was reading I was reminded of a fellow wonderful veteran (40 years) teacher from when I taught public school. I was extremely discouraged by some new district ideas and policies and I asked him how he had done it for so long…. he said “it’s education, give it a year or two and it will change, some things you love and agree with others you don’t be it will change.” In my mind he wasn’t merely talking about a progressiveness approach to education but possibly almost a tug of war between the traditionalist and progressiveness ideas and how some win out over others at different points of time.

In reading the Walker and Soltis text and then Noddings I felt extremely passionate about the “general education” of all students. On page 32 of Walker and Soltis wrote on G.H. Bantock and how he felt “school culture meant the culture of the educated minority was extirpated.” I think Noddings would agree with this view. In more than one way Noddings stated in chapters 2 and 3 about the issue of sameness of curriculum and pedagogy, often creating unequalness and a way to order children. This seems to be a common theme that once we decide on an overall exact curriculum for all then possibly we are creating a greater barrier or ordering system for our students. I think that Noddings, Dewey, Plato, and Rousseau would agree that there are multiple intelligences of individuals and the whole society only being good at say math, would not be the best thing for society as a whole. Would you agree with this as well?

Moving to the Noddings book I really enjoyed her take on the focus of education to only prepare students for college, when possibly we should be looking beyond. Don’t get me wrong I believe that EVERY student should have equal opportunity to pursue any kind of future they want, and after reading Anyon and the “hidden curriculum” I am leary to make this statement, however I feel kids of all classes and race should be able to pursue any career path, whether it be teaching, mechanical engineering, or auto mechanic they like. I feel that overall the vocational track that students may choose to go in high school or after high school is often looked at as a “second” or “less” option. I know that I personally experience this from many avenues including my spouse who once stated “if you graduated with over a 4.0 why would you just cut hair… I didn’t know you were smart.” I also had this feeling when I taught high school, other kids would sometimes talk about the “vo-tech” kids… I always tried to make a point to state those kids were smart because they were going to have a way to make a living with a skill right out of college… then I would usually explain my own person history. For example I used my career as a cosmetologist to put myself through college debt free, and still use my skill once a week for extra spending money. My vocational career has suited me well! I think Noddings statement of vocational education was right on target “my enthusiasm for vocational education rests of two essential premises; first get to work in creating rich and relevant vocational programs, and second provide extensive counseling and mentoring services so students make intelligent choices” (pg. 35). Has anyone experienced any positive or negative examples of vocational education?

Overall from all the readings this week and as several of the authors and theorist stated one curriculum for the masses is difficult and may not be the right decision. I agree that students need to have choices and teachers do too! Education is not a one size fits all…. however in reading I find what I would have said my beliefs to be challenged in some ways… did you have similar feelings?