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?
Alana, thank you for giving us so much to think about with your post. Yes, I think it is a continual push and tug between the traditionalists and the progressives regarding education and the vision that each see as knowing what students need to learn and have knowledge of before graduating. As you said Dewey, Plato, and Rousseau believe in different intelligences, however, it is their perspective of those multiple intelligences that seem quite different.
ReplyDeleteFor Plato, the aim of education was “the just state” (pg. 14) A just state for Plato was creating a balance of the three main parts of humans that the Greeks believed make up the human being. For him by having those “parts” identified and having citizens educated in those areas would fulfill the needs of a just society. Where is the freedom in that just society? From as far back as 428-328 B.C.E. those in power determine pathways of knowledge in regard to education and schooling.
For Rousseau, the “prevailing social conventions mold and shape persons and keep them from being their true selves” (pg. 15). He reasoned one could only be their true and authentic self if they could be “freed from the influence of society in the crucial years of development”. Again, in history (18th century) society rules over one’s freedom to develop freely and naturally. It is interesting to ponder how one would really develop into being if only you had life experiences, wonderings, and your own abilities to navigate life without learning from adults and societies conventions and contexts. Man’s nature is such that I’m not convinced that “natural lessons” as posited by Rousseau’s writing of Emile would always apply.
It is Dewey and his conceptions of education and learning that fascinate me. He is quoted as saying; his ideal school is one that took the form of an “embryonic social community” (pg. 17). The aim of education sees to have always been to embed students to cooperate and work together and learn from each other, but the vision and understanding of what that means is so heavily reflected by our changing culture. Cooperating and working together in the early to mid 1900’s would be working together on an assembly line or adhering to management. Working together in the 1990’s was sharing ideas as cooperative learning was put into classrooms as a means for students to begin working together, but with added pressure to conform to standards and accountability. Now, collaboration and cooperating is more than sharing ideas, it is building on each other’s perspectives (within our communities and globally) to foster creativity and solve problems.
In regard to your comments on vocational education, I too, was always led to believe that vocational school was school for students that were not smart or driven enough to attend college. For those students that I have encountered, they are pursuing careers within trades and occupations based on their choice of what they believe they want to do and will be good at doing. Now, a college education that may give you knowledge in a subject area is no guarantee that you will graduate with the skills and abilities to enter that career as a successful individual with the acquired traits to successfully accomplish the tasks that are envisioned for that job.
I believe there is a misconnect in many fields of education between the curriculum, role of the teacher, the authenticity, and relevancy of what is being taught and how instruction is presented in many classrooms. I haven’t wrapped around a full understanding of what a Dewey vision of schooling would or could look like in modern times, but I’m working on a clearer understanding. Do you all have a clear vision of what the aims of schooling should be in a democracy at this point in the course? I do see connections to the traditionalists by learning from the past, but I see schooling as preparing students for life outside of school to be successful, fulfilled, and productive citizens within a democracy---I’m filling in what that means to me with each reading. What about you?
Barbara,
DeleteI love your straight to the point "aims of education" from the view points of Plato, Rousseau, and Dewey. At the beginning of Chapter 2 Walker and Soltis state, "envisioning desirable states for individuals and societies that seem approachable or achievable through education is what educational aims is all about" (pg 12). That in my opinion is a very broad and I feel non arguable definition... I think everyone would agree about wanting a "desirable state" its deciding what defines that "desirable state" where the disagreeing begins. From the readings and your analysis, I feel that Rousseau was for individual self, Plato was for society and Dewey was a mixture of the two aims? This pulls me to a question Reggie asked below, can one be a progressive-traditionalist? Would Dewey fit into this category? I feel the "top-down" instruction of Plato is more on the traditionalist side and then Rousseau would be more progressive, in the way of wanting the individual to be free from society's rules. Where I too am still figuring out Dewey I feel like he would be a blend, possibly by using information from society or treating the past with reverence but then also he definitely aligns himself with the young and their inquiry, and encourages action upon learners ideas.
I do see Schiro’s curriculum ideologies as loosely reflective of traditionalist vs. progressive de thought as presented in Walker and Soltis. I base my assessment on Schiro’s description of the aim of the scholar academic ideology as, “the extension of their disciplines by introducing young people into them” (p. 4). Terms like “disciplines” and “introducing” also bring to mind a more teacher-centered, instead of learner-centered view of knowledge. I imagine that Brent Davis (Inventions of Teaching: A Genealogy) would place the Schiro’s description as a branch of the empiricist approach to teaching, where the “know” train the “know-nots” in a top-down hierarchy. The progressive argument, on the other hand, seems to be the root of Schiro’s and learner centered and social reconstruction ideologies of curriculum. According to Walker & Soltis, “For progressives, freedom is more important than discipline or order, since only original exploration can discover the directions we should take toward a better future”. (p. 23) That said, I do see at least two different branches on the progressive tree, one more conservative that seeks to maximize individual while learning to relate to surrounding environments, and the more liberal social reconstructionism which seeks to change the surrounding environment(s). Schiro writes, “The aim of Social Reconstructionists is to rectify this situation by eliminating from their culture aspects that the consider undesirable, substituting in their place social values that they consider desirable” (p. 7).
ReplyDeleteThe “Freedom and Learning” case study in chapter eight in Walker & Soltis is, I believe, a warning. What a nightmare! I’ll go ahead and say it, “Yes, Mr. Mohammadi, you made a mistake by choosing Hillsdale Alternative High. It’s better to maintain your sanity and good reputation than to try to be a hero.” I agree disagree with Rousseau that we are innately good, because I believe that we are all influenced by someone before us (our beloved families) who has erred in some way or another. Referring back to Anyon’s thoughts on the hidden curriculum, it seems to me that some children, particularly those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, need and prefer a more regimented schooling structure. For a school like, let’s say, Heritage Hall in northeast OKC, I can imagine a successful Hillsdale Alternative High model. Parents pay exorbitant amounts of money for their children’s education, and they seem to be involved in their children’s homework. For a lower socioeconomic school or district, like Santa Fe South, I see the required uniforms and regular Saturday classes as a saving-grace. In short, I agree with G. H. Bantock’s assessment that, “no one curriculum could satisfy the needs of both children and the elite, literary culture and children of the popular culture” (Walker & Soltis, p. 33).
Can there be such a thing as a progressive-traditionalist? I can side with the traditionalists as presented in Walker & Soltis, perhaps because I was schooled in a more traditional teacher centered setting. Like a good traditionalist, I am suspicious of change - perhaps because I think of things as having worked-out well for me, academically (not necessarily socially or economically, though). On the other hand, I certainly see the need for a democratic approach to education and curriculum building, and I believe that Noddings is right on target when she argues, “there should be a balance between common learning and individualized units and topics that provide students with opportunities to exercise their special talents and interests on related work” (p. 31). I believe that Dewey’s aim was that of a balance between Plato’s classical model and Rousseau's progressive model, and I see Noddings as a proponent of such balance by recognizing the need for a more traditional approach in some situations and a more progressive approach in other situations. The English language, to take an example from Noddings, should have a required standard (in a U.S. democracy) because it is as much part of the mathematicians life as it is the journalist’s. I doubt, however, that a prolific novelist would lose any sleep over not going past College Algebra or Physics 1. I’d be glad to be proven wrong. Are there any other areas of knowledge, like English, that should be required for all in a U.S. democratic society?
ReplyDeleteConcerning vocational training, I like to use high school and college football and basketball as examples. For the athlete, it is a passion, and for the spectator it is entertainment. In the end, it is a lucrative vocation for even the "least-talented" pro. I have heard NFL football described as “the best reality TV show”. My question is, is it fair to require college football players to attend at least two years of college, and college basketball players to attend at least one year of college. On more than one occasion, I’ve heard a star athlete’s name called on the first day of class, only to never see them for the remainder of the semester. Should X basketball star have even been required to take Classic Mythology? I loved it - but, I had no professional athletic aspirations, either. On the other hand, is it democratic of X University to not hold the star athlete to the same standards of rigor as the budding physicist, linguist, journalist, teacher, or mathematician? After all, he/she will still need to know how to balance a budget and make it through a job interview after a short career in the pros.
Reginald & Barbara,
DeleteBoth your thoughts on non-traditional "college prep" careers were very interesting. As I have been thinking on it perhaps general education, and then the first 2-years of college, should be preparing students to be able to be democratic... and in saying that maybe it is not so much what they learn but that they learn a little of everything so that they can understand others? Like Dr. Beach said in class, it is really not so much for us to agree or disagree with each theorist and perspectives of other educators but we should be able to converse with them and basically hold our own. I think schooling in a democratic society should mirror this only possibly on a wider but perhaps more shallow scale. Where it may not be important for every student to know about quantum physics, or how to solve a 6th degree function, or how to write a novel, or to recall every history fact with date, it is very important for students to know not only that these things exists, further education can help you become an expert too. And even if you don't want to be an expert, then there are basics we must all know if we want to participate in society, to become independent. We need to know how to read and write, we need to know how to budget and pay bills, we need to understand basic science principles and know what from the past brought us to where we are today, and most importantly we need to help our students be able to "find" information they do not know... and not just from "Suri." For example I do not know anything about fixing a car, but I do know enough that when I take the car into the shop I can follow an explanation of how an engine works. And if not and I don't want to be taken advantage of then maybe I do a little research before I go into the shop. Noddings said, "we should think about a healthy balance of diversity and unity. The direction in the 21st century should be toward global unity" (pg.14). Now the question of the day is what is the "healthy balance"?
Alana, that is the million dollar question isn't it? What is a healthy balance? Your comment brings to mind what the rationale is for the curriculum that is put into place within our own district pertaining to grade levels within school. Elementary students have computer lab, P.E.,music, library, and counseling pull outs (not to mention reading lab and speech). Are all those for the benefit of giving a healthy balance for the students, or time for the teachers to have some plan time during the school day. I'm not debating the issue of plan time, but looking at the curriculum frameworks of our district through the lens of this class is beginning to make me wonder how all these pull-outs came to be. Whose perspective are we looking at when we see these "classes" for students--some by law, but many are made by people that perhaps should not be the ultimate decision makers.
DeleteWhat is a healthy balance? At the heart of the matter, it seems, is the question, “What is knowledge?” The answer depends on each society’s situation, and our situation in the United States is complex and evolving. What may be healthy for community may be toxic for another. I would say that knowing how to operate a firearm is more vital for some areas than others. I would want even a preteen to be able to defend against an unexpected bear attack (say, in rural northwestern parts of the United States).
ReplyDeleteI want to try-my-hand at the following scary question: What is the role of theory? If theory is what I now believe it to be, a framework of ideas, unproven principles, proposed practices that are evolving, dynamic and global, then I think that the role of theory is to reflect and maintain awareness of an ever evolving society. I don’t mean evolution as in the primate/human evolution debate - far from it. I’m referring more to the idea that change in one aspect of society affects another. For example, some practices in society, like picking cotton, held a more prominent role in society than it does today, thanks to the cotton gin and subsequent technology from the industrial revolution. For curriculum, I think that theory calls attention to a need for education to reflect societal needs and changes in the classroom. I imagine that the popularity of the cotton gin and interchangeable parts sparked a demand for instruction in physics and math. For today, 2016, I can understand a need to include curriculum concerning sexual matters at an earlier age. I cannot recall any sex-education in a formal school setting - the new AIDS awareness campaign was still new during my grade school years. Neither did I have any formal education in the way of credit cards and their pitfalls. I have rarely been so passionate, however, as when I set aside three weeks to warn a class of high school juniors, “You’ll start getting mail from Visa, Discover, and MasterCard soon, if you haven’t already.” Most importantly, I believe theory, and the expression of different theories, to be a key part of a democratic society, one in which differing views are a least worthy of being heard.
The United States has evolved demographically, and in fast order. When I was a child, black Americans were the most populous majority. I can remember what seemed to be an overnight shift to Hispanic Americans becoming the most populous majority. I’ve even heard talk of white Americans becoming the most populous majority, after a Hispanic majority. I think that an increased interest and heightened enrollment in Spanish language courses is a reflection of evolving society. I agree with Walker & Soltis, who say, “ Curriculum theory...reaches far down into our personal, social, and cultural depths”. (p. 24) If personal lives and entire cultures are affected, I think it becomes part of history and noteworthy in curriculum.
Concerning equality, I agree with Nel Noddings, who argues, “not all children are academically inclined and that a detailed universal curriculum will magnify differences and aggravate inequality”. (p. 32) I believe Noddings to be ahead of the curve here, noting that there is no panacea for fixing our schools. Could it be a greater display of democracy, and perhaps more just, to honestly steer students toward their talents interests than to push them to be proficient in the same subjects? I think it would be more democratic to allow students to follow their interests (with wisdom from teachers, parents, counselors).
Reggie, I see what you mean about the two branches of the progressive tree. Walker and Soltis (pg. 23) state for progressives only original exploration can discover the directions we should take toward a better future. It seems the interpretation of the progressive’s ideology doesn’t give much credence to “wisdom” of the past. I think there can be a melding of the traditionalist and the progressive in regard to situating curriculum. I don’t know if any conceptualization of a curriculum should be aligned with only one perspective on how learning and knowledge must take place. Personally, I align with many of the beliefs of the progressives in regard to ensuring that individuals think for themselves, and not allow the “prevailing views” of those in power to sway one’s thinking, but I do believe that traditionalists may offer processes in learning and the attainment of knowledge that may not be solely dispensed as wisdom.
DeleteWalker and Soltis state that traditionalists study the academic disciplines and it provides training for the mind; I suppose that can be interpreted different ways. I know that my critical thinking has been elevated, and my mind has certainly undergone training in many ways due to the guidance of academic professors. I understand the interpretation could be that knowledge is fed by traditionalists, but I think Walker and Soltis might offer another understanding, when they state that Traditionalists give both “rationality and mastery of the main forms of human knowledge” which they see as essential in solving our problems. Again, there can be a multitude of interpretations on what main forms of human knowledge may mean.
When we learn how to think deeper, and challenge ourselves in ways of knowing through the guidance of our academic professors, isn’t that a training of the mind that is being given to us to further our growth to become better thinkers with more awareness? Isn’t there value in that guidance? Could many of us attain that level of thinking and awareness without the guidance of those more experienced in ways of knowing?