I've had a tab open since July, an interview of Robert Pondiscio by Chris Herhalt looking at one particular chapter of the Hoover Institute's retrospective on the modern reform movement, which dates that movement to A Nation at Risk. That's one of the many bad signs about the tome, and there's plenty to disagree with, but I think curriculum is worth discussing.
I have trouble reading articles like this one because the sheer stupidity on display by the Eduformers harts just to think about. Consider "If you need four million of anybody doing anything, a number that large means a normal distribution of human talent."
Duh! And this is why curriculum decisions are made collectively, so that all boards, committees, etc. have a distribution of abilities. Plus the topic tends to select those who are interesting in curriculum so I think that the collective effort involves a better distribution of talent than just random.
Would this asshole apply his thinking to policemen? Or CEOs? Or Business owners? To some extent "competition" (what modern business are trying to eliminate) selects the poorer performers out, but it wasn't that long ago that a study of corporate CEOs showed a sizable percentage to be illiterate, getting by by having underlings "summarize" things for them, etc. Obviously the competition level in schools is lower, but peer pressure is still operative, and by and large parents are satisfied with their kid's teachers. Somehow it is only right wing critics who are complaining. Gee, I wonder if it has anything to do with fucking politics?
I apologize for my rant and that I couldn't finish reading your peace, the stupid just hurts to read.
The part people miss: teaching is an art as well as a science.
Teachers are, on some level, performers, and we REALLY REALLY LIKE to be successful at that. So we're resistant to throwing out things we know work (like a comedian would hate to throw out jokes that are killing), and we are extremely wary of adopting curriculum we don't think will make us better. We're also big fans of ideas we think will help us improve: if a scripted curriculum seemed fun to teach, we'd be all over it (look at how much money Teachers Pay Teachers makes FROM OUR OWN POCKETS, just by providing teachers with "check out this little script for a classroom play!" or "here's a neat little idea for Fractions my students enjoy!")
Teachers are perfectly happy using someone else's work (as painters can choose their influences and references). But to be satisfied, we need creative choice (they're not copying the art; they're referring to it). A certain amount of constraint of creative choice can bring about creativity (painters take commissions!), but teachers are ALREADY constrained by time, money, class makeup, materials, co-workers, general vertical scope and sequence, and so many more pieces. To constrain us more is to reduce it to paint-by-number. A beginner artist might benefit greatly from paint-by-number, especially if people's lives were depending on them producing a decent painting. But an experienced artist is going to produce something much, much better if you give them some breathing room!
I taught for 40 years in two countries and experienced many curricular changes over the years. Not much different if I were to compare, with the exception of technology. While common core was greatly flawed I do feel that a base curriculum from which states can tailor their specific needs is a good method. One positive from CC was that teachers across the country could share resources that were relevant to all.
Sadly, politics and corporate powers will make good education decisions almost impossible.
I have trouble reading articles like this one because the sheer stupidity on display by the Eduformers harts just to think about. Consider "If you need four million of anybody doing anything, a number that large means a normal distribution of human talent."
Duh! And this is why curriculum decisions are made collectively, so that all boards, committees, etc. have a distribution of abilities. Plus the topic tends to select those who are interesting in curriculum so I think that the collective effort involves a better distribution of talent than just random.
Would this asshole apply his thinking to policemen? Or CEOs? Or Business owners? To some extent "competition" (what modern business are trying to eliminate) selects the poorer performers out, but it wasn't that long ago that a study of corporate CEOs showed a sizable percentage to be illiterate, getting by by having underlings "summarize" things for them, etc. Obviously the competition level in schools is lower, but peer pressure is still operative, and by and large parents are satisfied with their kid's teachers. Somehow it is only right wing critics who are complaining. Gee, I wonder if it has anything to do with fucking politics?
I apologize for my rant and that I couldn't finish reading your peace, the stupid just hurts to read.
The part people miss: teaching is an art as well as a science.
Teachers are, on some level, performers, and we REALLY REALLY LIKE to be successful at that. So we're resistant to throwing out things we know work (like a comedian would hate to throw out jokes that are killing), and we are extremely wary of adopting curriculum we don't think will make us better. We're also big fans of ideas we think will help us improve: if a scripted curriculum seemed fun to teach, we'd be all over it (look at how much money Teachers Pay Teachers makes FROM OUR OWN POCKETS, just by providing teachers with "check out this little script for a classroom play!" or "here's a neat little idea for Fractions my students enjoy!")
Teachers are perfectly happy using someone else's work (as painters can choose their influences and references). But to be satisfied, we need creative choice (they're not copying the art; they're referring to it). A certain amount of constraint of creative choice can bring about creativity (painters take commissions!), but teachers are ALREADY constrained by time, money, class makeup, materials, co-workers, general vertical scope and sequence, and so many more pieces. To constrain us more is to reduce it to paint-by-number. A beginner artist might benefit greatly from paint-by-number, especially if people's lives were depending on them producing a decent painting. But an experienced artist is going to produce something much, much better if you give them some breathing room!
I taught for 40 years in two countries and experienced many curricular changes over the years. Not much different if I were to compare, with the exception of technology. While common core was greatly flawed I do feel that a base curriculum from which states can tailor their specific needs is a good method. One positive from CC was that teachers across the country could share resources that were relevant to all.
Sadly, politics and corporate powers will make good education decisions almost impossible.