The dichotomy between what we “have to teach” and “need to teach” is beginning to show up in your blogs so I’ll send you to the post from last year.
See “Reconciling Teaching and Learning”.
As teachers struggle to find tools, techniques, content, and curriculum that can engage students, they’re being caught between the Scylla and Carybdis of politicians and administrators. The result is a mandated curriculum that alienates kids to the point where they actively reject what it is you’re trying to teach them.
The challenge here is figuring out how to satisfy the politicians and the administrators without hurting the kids. One of you made a comment about how difficult it was to convince students that they need the higher order skills when they look around and see the factory jobs. The problem, of course, is one of perspective. Kids have none, and the politicians’ perspective is focused on re-election — a focus that requires the politician to appeal to the lowest common denominator n the population. Whatever they say, an informed populace is not in the best interests of those being elected. It tends to make the sheeple a little more difficult to control when they start thinking for themselves.
What better way to harness the rebelliousness of youth than show them how being educated makes them more difficult to control?
Of course, that’s a two-edged sword. Once you start teaching them to think for themselves, they may well reject what you’re trying to teach them.
Oh. Wait …
September 5th, 2007 at 11:15 AM
You posed the question “How do we cope?” I guess there are several ways to answer this. First, one could continue to teach The Test, despite what he or she fundamentally believes the student should learn. Second, one may decide to teach what he or she feels that 21st century students should learn and experience, and completely neglect The Test. Third, the teacher tries to coexist in the tension of the two. This is probably close to where I am now… This doesn’t mean that I don’t feel responsible for initiating any real reform in education, it only means that I’m not currently in a position to set the world on fire with my philosophy of education. I’ll cover the concepts that I am required, but I will put a spin on it in such a way that students are exposed to many other things in the process. For example, I am required to teach Julius Caesar at the 10th grade level, and to assess them based on their analysis of the play. Traditionally, this would dictate an objective test. Instead, I require my students script, act out, film and edit a courtroom drama where Brutus and Cassius are tried for the murder. By doing so, I walk away from the unit feeling like… I won, so to speak. Content- check. Meaningful experience to students and real learning- check. I’m hoping all of this rambling made sense.
September 5th, 2007 at 5:33 PM
I think that scope falls under the “Everything is Miscellanious” I read sometime this week. I feel that all of it is tied in together. Scope and curriculum are the key factors that have changed over the last couple of years. The scope is no longer the same since the students are no longer living in the “slow” times like when we were kids. I spoke of George Michael’s today and not one student knew who that was. (boy do I feel old, that wasa just an extra comment to show my age). I feel that since we have changed the curriculum to be a “cookie cutter” type then we have really limited our scope. I have some classes that need one thing, but because of the curriculum I must teach them something else to stay on target because they have to know it for the TEST. I get so tired of teaching to a test and decided to teach to the students. If we focus on understanding the basics, the rest will come and then we can elaborate more on it once each student decides what scope they are goning to use. I hope I have the correct idea about scope. To me, it is the way a studet’s mind works to create channels for absorbing the information. Sometimes the scopes need help in order for the students to understand what the teacher is saying. This to me is enhanced by the likes of the students. If they like the subject they are more apt to understand without having to alter their scope of what I am saying, but another students may have difficulty because they hate that subject. I do believe if you can train yourself to like a subject you will do better in it and retain it longer. That is one reason I picked this as my masters. I hope I have not rambled to where you can’t understand my point.
My point is that the scope would be easier to work with if we could alter our curriculum to what is relavent to each individual class.