In reading for Current Trends and Issues in Education I stumbled on two opposing theories on curriculum. 1) The Paideia school which is supported by Mortimer Adler. 2) is complete school choice by students--meaning to go or not to go, where, how, how much, how fast, etc.
Perhaps, I'll post my reflections on the various theories upon completion of my assignment, but for now I want to reflect on a common theme. The divergence is found in ideas about core knowledge, but the similarities are that learning should be active: that student discovery is the key to education.
The idea discussed below was spurred after reading the selection by John Holt a proponent of the natural right to decide what enters our minds--in fact he calls compulsory education authoritarian, anti-democratic and a violation of civil rights.
Anyway, I'm wondering if establishing a democratic-republic within my Civics classroom would be advantageous. They could elect representatives from the class who would determine the course of the day/week/unit/etc. If they choose to do nothing, then we do nothing--of course they will still be required to master the content to be assessed and graded. Perhaps a class constitution could/should be written before hand. I of course would be the Executive--but an override provision would be written into the Constitution. I wonder if factions would develop? Or would the struggle be between Legislative and Executive. The Supreme Court could be made up of the other Civics teachers on the hall. Each side could prepare an argument should a constitutional crisis occur...
How would the content of the class be delivered? Is it enough for the representatives to choose method or should they be able to decide angles and perspectives of content as well? Maybe at the beginning of the course I would offer them options (ie lecture/notes, performance, discussion/debate, etc) and then allow them to branch out on their own as they gain trust and confidence in our experiment.
What about assessment? Should that be democratic as well? I have to make sure that they are learning the content--the state doesn't give me much latitude in that area.
I like. It would take constant refining and retooling just like our own government.
To be continued...
dt
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
very interesting concept. don't know if it would work but i like the thinking ... keep exploring it. have you asked your student what they think?
Sounds like a Utopian paradise, until you get called into the boss' office to explain why only 10% of your class is "proficient" on the EOC. The structure of the educational bureaucracy is like a big communist government. You have the central planning committee (Congress), then you have the state planning committee (state leg. and state BOE), and all of their orders and directives are filtered down to the local planning committee (Cleveland County BOE). These orders go out to the local party bosses (principals) who instruct the local party workers (teachers) to follow the orders blindly no matter how idiotic they are. The local party committees and bosses even convince themselves that state and central committees are acting in their best interest for the most part. There are occasions where we make noise when we are unhappy (new calendar and NCLB), but are things really any different? Regardless of the "power" of the NCAE and other teacher's organizations we still have NCLB. We're still moving towards an entire generation of kids who have no high school diploma, no skills of any kind, and we're not doing anything about it. The central planners haven't come up with a solution for that yet, or maybe thinking 10 years into the future is asking too much. I recently watched a special on the disaster at Chernobyl and I was amazed at how this horrible disaster was really caused by a gigantic disconnect between the central planners and those who operated the plant. Those in charge wanted certain things done and they wanted them done now. They wanted this huge nuclear reactor on-line to show off to the world and they had no idea how dangerous rushing that process could be. The plant operators didn't want to slow the process with their concerns about safety, they didn't want their bosses upset, so they moved closer and closer to the largest nuclear disaster in the world. Even as the disaster was happening, the people in the reactor's control room didn't want to call those in charge because they wanted them to think they could handle the catastrophe. Had the employees of the power plant been upfront with those in charge would it have made a difference? Do you think the Soviets would have fired those engineers and hired new ones who would say "of course we can get this nuclear reactor on-line immediately"? Those in charge are too interested in a dog-and-pony show to be concerned with actual results. Congress, Bush, anyone associated with implementing this testing program are too interested with the appearance of rigor and not actual learning. The media says American schools suck, so let's throw a bunch of hard tests at the kids and let's hold teachers "accountable." That will fix the problem and more importantly it will pacify people for the time being. Meanwhile, they are slowly but surely pushing us towards a disaster. The results of this meltdown could last longer than radiation coating the towns surrounding Chernobyl and affect many more lives. There has to be an alternative for those kids who simply aren't going to make it through "new and improved" high schools. And the worst thing is we keep upping the ante every year. This freshmen class has to be "proficient" in their EOC courses and now they have to complete a graduation project. I teach three classes of freshmen totaling up to approximately 75 kids. I bet 25 don't make it to the end and it could easily be a much larger figure than that. What do we do with those people? What are we going to do in this global competitive market with a bunch of people who don't know how to work, have never worked hard at anything, and don't have any desire whatsoever to do any work? What job or service will they be able to fill? There are only so many McDonald's and Wal-Marts. It could be 20 years before the crisis begins, but what if it's 10 or 5? I suppose it's a lot like global warming. You have so many people saying so many different things and no one wants to really get down heart of the matter and start fixing the problem. Meanwhile we're full steam ahead right into ... who knows? I hope you can make sense of all my analogies or metaphors, whatever. I ain't no English major. Point is, you're just a pawn in the game. You better pull the party line and keep your nose clean or you'll end up like all those teachers in Char-Meck who are getting fired.
Post a Comment