Wednesday, March, 13, 13 § 4 Comments
Ravitch, in case you don’t know, is a high-profile education historian, one of those national policy figures to whom the New York Times and CNN turn when they want an opinion. When she was Assistant Secretary in the US Department of Education in the 1980’s, she advocated heavily for a standardized national curriculum.
But in this blog post, she shoots the idea down.
She writes passionately against the adoption of the national “Common Core Curriculum,” a list of the skills and facts, in reading and math, that US kids should master during each grade, from Kindergarten to 12th. So we know what we’re talking about, here’s a few of the items from this list, pertinent to the 10th grade English classes I used to teach. As you read, I encourage you to “delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in the text, assessing whether the reasoning is sound and the evidence is relevant and sufficient; and recognize when irrelevant evidence is introduced.” (According the Core Curriculum, you’ve known how to do that since 8th grade):
Integration of Knowledge and Ideas
- CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.9-10.7 Analyze the representation of a subject or a key scene in two different artistic mediums, including what is emphasized or absent in each treatment (e.g., Auden’s “Musée des Beaux Arts” and Breughel’s Landscape with the Fall of Icarus).
- CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.9-10.9 Analyze how an author draws on and transforms source material in a specific work (e.g., how Shakespeare treats a theme or topic from Ovid or the Bible or how a later author draws on a play by Shakespeare).
They’re not that bad, actually, if you can make it through the jargon. I can even see how I’d teach translate these two standards into classroom action: one day I’d show Picasso’s Guernica and a Rodin sculpture, and lead a lively class discussion on what’s there and what’s missing. Then we could read The Sound and the Fury, and I’d show them the line from MacBeth that gave Faulkner his title. Have the kids write a little essay showing what they learned and ELA 9-10.7 and ELA 9-10.9 are done. So what’s the problem?
According to Ravitch, the problem is that the standards are untested, were not developed by teachers (but by “experts” funded by corporations), have been unfairly foisted on states, and expect such a sudden leap in what kids do and know, they’ll generate unfairly high rates of failure. Her arguments are consistent with those of her 2012 book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System, in which she blasts what she calls the “corporate reform agenda,” and its heavy focus on test results to assess how well kids learn and how well teachers teach. (See my review, on our Literature and Film page of this blog.)
Though Ravitch’s arguments are sound, and I believe true, she stops short of pointing out the real problem with this type of standardized curriculum. No, it’s not that the experts are fascist adults, deciding what kids should learn. Contrary to what they think over at the “do-what-you-like” Sudbury school in Massachusetts, I believe adults have an obligation to give children guidance, to expose them to skills and knowledge and perspectives that will let them discover their talents and participate in a larger culture. The problem with the national curriculum is that it’s completely absurd.
To think that every child in the US will learn the same things at the same age is a fantasy, a theory that could only be hatched by people who’ve no experience with real teaching, no idea how complex and unpredictable and wonderful a process learning really can be.
Here’s what it’ll look like, when I deliver my Core Curriculum class: I come in with my lesson plans, my Guernica Powerpoint and my interactive group-based activity, my brilliant ten minute lecture. The kids come in with their curiosity, their hunger (for learning and for food), their family problems, their beliefs about Picasso, their beliefs about war and horses and Spain, their hatred or love or disinterest toward school, toward me, toward the desk in which they must sit. The bell rings. I begin teaching. Maybe 80% of them listen, on a good day. And of that 80%, maybe I happen to explain the idea and structure the activity in a way that appropriately challenges all those currently held beliefs–on a good day, again, maybe I hit 80% of them. Under the best of conditions, then, I’ve got 60% of them learning ELA 9-10.7–the same percent, by the way, that graduates from high school in Santa Fe.
Proponents of the Common Core will say that’s an instructional problem, not a content problem. Which is how you end up with districts adopting scripted curricula–actual words and sentences–that teachers must deliver to their students, to ensure that the standards are being taught. Another terrible idea: if 80% of my students pay attention to a brilliant lecture on Guernica, I’ll be lucky to get 20% to listen to a scripted speech from some textbook. I doubt I’d be able to pay much attention myself. (See here for one Washington DC teacher’s critique of the way the Core Curriculum would have him teach the Gettysburg address.)
The bottom line is the Core Curriculum is a bad idea because it’s a pipe dream. You can’t standardize what kids learn and what teachers teach because real teaching and learning–the stuff that happens in real classrooms, with real people, is by its nature unpredictable. It takes both teacher and learner in directions they did not foresee when the learning began. It begins with the teacher’s individual passion and experience and knowledge, and then sparks something different in each student. Real teaching and learning is a hodge-podge endeavor, more like a summer swimming pool than an assembly line. Often the most teachable moments happen sheerly by luck, and often the students don’t realize what they’ve learned until long after the tests have been taken, the last bells rung.
This isn’t to say parents and policymakers shouldn’t have any say what gets taught. But at the end of the day, it’s the teachers who decide what gets taught, and it’s the students who decide what gets learned, and often, both happen on a subconscious level. Yes, teachers should have curricula for their classes, schools and districts should invite public opinion on what is taught, should bring teachers together so they know what’s going on in the classrooms around them. They can even talk about the Core Curriculum, as a guide.
But the federal government, and the state governments who are chasing its grant money, are going to be disappointed–again–by the results of the Core Curriculum because it fails to recognize–again–that the only path to more effective schools lies through the teachers. If you want good, dynamic classrooms where kids will be turned on as learners and develop a set of ethics towards others and the world (the only core curriculum we really need, in the end), you’ve got to foster good, dynamic teachers with a set of ethics toward others and the world. Which is not that complicated, really. Slow, yes. Costly, maybe. But Finland pulled it off, and great schools in the US are pulling it off. They’re empowering and supporting their teachers, giving them time to meet and plan and reflect. They’re not giving them lists and scripts.
Those government experts can still help out. We need people to take notes when our teachers meet, present them research on child development and brain science, help mark papers, maybe sub now and then, so teachers can observe each other’s classes. The government experts can be trained to help ensure that our children and teachers are being treated with respect, that our schools are free of racism, sexism, homophobia and other expressions of violence that make learning impossible and life miserable for young citizens.
But we don’t need experts writing up dream lists of what kids should learn, when. Maybe in a few generations, when our schools are a bit more on track, when students and teachers aren’t dropping out by the minute, we can start thinking about comparing what they’re teaching over in Vermont to what we’re teaching in New Mexico. For now, let’s stay focused on something we might be able to achieve: inspiring and supporting real teaching and learning in our schools.
-Seth Biderman | March 13, 2013
Thursday, February, 14, 13 § 6 Comments
A visionary center in Northern New Mexico where education’s not about chasing urban jobs–it’s about thriving at home.
Thursday, November, 29, 12 § 1 Comment
This post is the first in a three-part description of a national movement in adult education that successfully replaced the “sit-down-and-listen” model with a more dynamic, more humanistic learning approach. By guest contributor Paul Biderman, J.D.
Part 1: A new approach to learning.
Apart from any random molecules of enlightenment that may have drifted my way during my seven years of board service for a Santa Fe charter school, and whatever modest contribution I may have made to the presence of relentlessly inquisitive minds in two sons, I assert no claim to expertise in pedagogy.
In 1991, however, I was hired to start and run a new center dedicated to the education of the judges and staff of all New Mexico state, local and tribal courts. I believe that some of the adult education principles I learned during my fourteen years running the New Mexico Judicial Education Center [JEC] may be adaptable to K-12 students. What may be even more applicable are my observations of and participation in the successful dissemination of this model among judicial educators nationwide, dramatically changing the culture of this profession. « Read the rest of this entry »
Wednesday, September, 26, 12 § 1 Comment
Guest contributor Nanda Currant is an artist and filmmaker with an extensive background in education and art therapy. She recently produced Conditions to Flourish: Reflections from Former Homeschoolers, which can be previewed here. [Full bio].
I have been thinking quite a bit about leadership. We have lived by a model of hierarchy for a long time. We have assumed that our schools, communities and nation must be run the way we think a dog pack runs, that there must be an Alfa and Omega, a dominant figure on top, leading the way.
But this may be a faulty way of thinking about leadership, and not only for society, but even for dogs. Recently I read Your Dog is Your Mirror by Kevin Behan. Ostensibly about dog training, the book presents a new way of thinking about “packs,” and about learning. Behan speaks about energy and how it moves in a pack, and how the heart of the animal has more to do with the hunt than does the hierarchy or supposed Alpha leaders. « Read the rest of this entry »
Thursday, September, 13, 12 § 1 Comment
Guest contributor Tony Gerlicz has 35 years experience as a teacher and leader in schools across the world. He founded Monte del Sol Charter School in Santa Fe, NM Find his full bio here.
I recently co-facilitated a workshop called “Innovative Leadership” for 38 independent school leaders in Silicon Valley arguably the epicenter of innovation in the US if not the world. The speakers we brought in described how failure and resilience are constant companions to innovation. A venture capitalist told us he looks for a “failure resume” from clients to gauge their seriousness of intent and capacity for learning.
We asked the educators how resonant these ideas of failure and innovation were in their schools. Of the 38 school leaders, one or two raised a hand.
Historically, people do not think of education when they think “innovation.” They think of a plethora of other industries. « Read the rest of this entry »
Wednesday, August, 1, 12 § Leave a comment
From Ashland, Oregon, a school for and by homeschool families, where learning stays in the hands of its most important stakeholders: the children.