Cycle Four: How Should Curriculum Be Created?
I apologize upfront for the, perhaps, arrogant-sounding rant that is about to ensue, but since reading the Shorto article this cycle, I found myself wanting to shout from my front porch, “Leave the teaching to the teachers!”
In the years since I earned my teaching certificate, one that I and all of my professional peers earned after our years of preparation, I have often been left wondering why it is that so many with no training nor background of any kind in education feel as though they have a better understanding of not only what kids should be learning but how it should be taught.
Yes, all members of our society are entitled to have and voice their opinions. Yes, the opinions of all should be considered. Yet, that being said, doesn’t it make good sense to put perhaps a bit more stock in the voices of those who have dedicated their careers to the study of education? Sure, I may call my mother when my children are sick to see if she has any useful advice, but would I take her advice over the recommendations of their pediatrician, unlikely. My mother did a wonderful job (at least I think) raising her family. She is a wealth of knowledge and a great support, but she did not study medicine at length. She has not been a practitioner of medicine or accrued countless hours of professional development on the latest advancements in children’s health. Her opinion has merit, but when it really matters, I want my children’s’ doctor making the medical calls. Some would claim this comparison is an over simplification, but to me it parallels the way the input of teachers in large-scale curriculum and educational policy decisions is frequently treated. We are the experts who have studied, and as is the case with those of us who are in this course, continue to study the art and science of teaching. We are the ones who are practicing in the field every day. Why then is our perspective not valued as much or often as I feel it should be?
My opinion in this matter is why, the Shorto article elicited more of a visceral response from me than the Tyler chapters though they interesting and engaging. It was gut-wrenching to read in the Shorto article how the abuse of power (at least in my opinion) of a few had such an impact on so many young students and teachers in and out of the state where the reforms were imposed. My issue is not with the religious beliefs of some of the Texas board members. I certainly feel they are entitled to their views and have the right to practice their religious beliefs in their homes and places of worship, but the blatant disregard for the knowledge, experience, and let’s not forget time, effort, and dedication, of the teams of educators who planned and developed the curricular standards is maddening to me.
Although the actions of the Texas board members are an extreme example, I think it can safely be said that the same thing is occuring to lesser degrees in states, districts and/or buildings across the country. Those in charge often push through their own agenda without truly taking into account the voices of the teachers who are actually in the trenches. The voices of a few do sometimes overpower the voices of many, and we who choose to make a difference in the classroom, are left drowning in the wake of their decisions.
So when asked how curriculum should be created, I say it should begin with the work of those who are professionals in their field. It should begin with those who will put to use the decisions that are made. It should begin with teachers.
This is how the Common Core Sate Standards for Mathematics and English Language Arts, or CCSS, were developed. These standards were created in partnership with organizations such as the National Education Association (NEA), National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and are the basis for curriculum development in forty-five states (Texas is not one of the forty-five.) which have recently adopted them voluntarily. During their development, teachers were given opportunities to provide direct feedback on the standards. The standards call for a common set of skills and knowledge for each grade level, K-12, to be taught in all the states which elected to use them. The Common Core or CCSS are more demanding than the previous standards of several states and seek to build depth of understanding in students in ways that are relevant to the real world. I also believe that the standards are in keeping with Tyler’s principles of organization, continuity, sequence, and integration in that concepts and strands are repeated in the different grade levels with each grade exploring them more deeply. Additionally, the concepts in one content area are integrated into other subject areas.
In my district, we are currently working to align our curriculum to the Common Core with a focus this year on Mathematics alignment and a focus next year on Language Arts. One of the things I have noted in our work and experiences with the Math Common Core this year is that it is organized, and to my understanding, intended to be taught in a particular order within each grade. This order within each grade also capitalizes on Tyler’s principles of sequencing and continuity. For example, teachers should begin mathematics instruction in the strand of Numbers and Operations in Algebraic Thinking as it is a foundation unit upon which skills in all other units will be based. The strands after that also build upon one another advancing to more complex tasks/skills but always building upon what was expected in the previous strand. As I understand it, students are also expected to achieve grade-appropriate mastery of the skills in each strand before moving to the next. This is a large departure from the spiraling curriculum format of the Everyday Mathematics Program which was our main curriculum resource prior to our work with the Core this year, and I much prefer it. While I always enjoyed the alternate methods for problem solving promoted through EDM, I was always bothered by the spiraling structure as often times new, more complex concepts were introduced before mastery of the foundational skills of those newer concepts were mastered. A wonderful resource for lessons to teach the Common Core Mathematics Standards is located at these links: K-5 Units and 6-8 Units. Unpacking the Standards is a great resource to help make sense of the language of some of the standards and provides easy to understand examples and illustrations of Core concepts.
In my eyes, after teacher input, the next important consideration to curriculum development is alignment between objectives and goals, instruction and instructional materials, and assessment. These three items make up the three points on the curriculum triangle which, I believe, is a wonderful model for teachers and curriculum coordinators to use when creating curriculum. The curriculum triangle also connects to Tyler’s ideas about curriculum design and the need to consider assessment in curriculum development. Using the triangle recognizes that all three areas play a very important role in curriculum. It also underscores how important it is that each area is considered when planning for the others. For example, when selecting instructional methods, teachers should consider how well they align with the goals and objectives in a given subject as well as how well they will prepare students for connected assessments. In relation, when designing an assessment, one must be sure it is assessing the important objectives and is in line with what was presented during instruction. Finally, when a teacher examines his key objectives he will need to consider how they will be assessed and the best methods for instructional delivery. If you are interested in learning more about the curriculum triangle you can visit the links below:
Dear Maria,
ReplyDeleteI would like to start this comment by totally agreeing with you about leaving teaching to teachers! Too often politics come into play in educational choices, much to the bane of our students. Not to mention how annoying it is when someone without any education background makes sweeping decisions that effects our profession with the assumption “there isn’t much to it! Anyone can be a teacher”. I could not agree more with your doctor comparison, because years of training in one’s profession should count for more than it seems to. I too had a strong response to this week’s article, as I simply got more and more infuriated as I read it. I too saw it as an abuse of elect power and began to consider what happens in our school boards, since I had never considered attending any public meetings school boards might hold.
As I considered your question: “Why then is our perspective not valued as much or often as I feel it should be?” I was reminded of an activity we did this week in one of my TE classes. We held a debate about why teachers should be paid more and it brought to life how, in my mind, how the lack of prestige of the teaching profession leads to so many issues within our education system. One of them, in my opinion, is what leads to our voices and experience being discounted in the public and within the education system itself. I recommend reading this NYT article about this: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/opinion/13kristof.html?_r=0.
In regards to how curriculum should be created I agree with your statement that it should begin with actual teachers! I have been very critical of the CCS because I feel they have many failings, but I never realized they were developed with teacher input. That was very interesting to hear, and I also feel they match Tyler’s principles. However, I fear that the CCS are leading us to “teach for the test” and deepen discrepancies between urban and suburban districts. Nevertheless, they provide us with a great starting point when we develop our own class curriculum. Much like you suggest I see assessments and objectives as closely aligned targets to hit when planning our units and lesson plans. I think we should, however, be critical of the instructional materials we are provided with, since they were not planned while keeping in mind with our particular students and our particular community. I think these materials are great guiding points, but if we simply adopt them as is then we will miss the chance to teach lessons that may bring passionate debates and creative endeavors that activities tailored to our particular students can bring (as I see it). I feel that Tyler hints at this idea when he suggested that we research our students.
As an ESL (soon to be :) teacher, I think assessments can be vital to our instruction processes. This is why it is so difficult to see how many assessments ignore the needs and abilities of ESL students. If they do not offer a fair measure of our students then they are worthless, which is a great failing since these are pillars of curriculum design.
It was a pleasure reading your post!
Thank you,
Adva
From Susie, part 1:
ReplyDeleteMaria,
I couldn’t agree with you more. I had heard about the Texas Board of Education years ago, and I was incensed at the time. Reading about it in greater detail, now, upset me yet again. It would be bad enough if the fallout from the ignorant, Christian-right board members affected only those in Texas, but the fact that Texas drives the text book industry for the rest of the nation is an outrage.
You also mention that the voices of the few can often be powerful. This is so true. I sometimes feel like the viewpoints of people, such as the Texas Board of Education members, are almost funny they are so ridiculous. However, then I realize there is no humor to be found in a society where much of the population is too ignorant or lazy to put up a fight.
Sadly, Michigan is not immune from people outside of education making decisions that negatively affect our schools. Our governor and legislators think they have all the answers. In fact, my state representative, an auctioneer by trade, has voted against public schools 100% of the time. I have been told that he is a proud graduate of a six-week auctioneering course, and I believe that, other than his high school diploma, that is the only education he has. And yet, he feels that he is qualified to pass judgment on our schools. Government officials have so drastically cut state funding for public schools that teachers have been laid off, programs have been cut, and class sizes have grown, all to the detriment of our students. Just this week, I read that Lansing Public Schools could be forced to cut art, music, and physical education programs at the elementary level. What a sad time for education.
From Susie, part 2:
ReplyDeleteIn reading others’ blog posts, I was surprised by some of the support for Salman Khan’s TED talk. I agreed that there was some merit to his ideas, but I also felt it was just one more example of non-educators thinking they have the answer to education. The flipped classroom seems to be a good idea for some, but if students don’t do their homework, they will most likely not tune into their computers for a nightly lesson… that is, assuming they even have internet access at home. In addition, I have been disappointed in Bill Gates (who appears at the end of the video). While he has impressed me with his humanitarian involvement, his criticism of public schools and his ideas for solutions to what he perceives to be the problems, have left me cold. The film he produced, Waiting for Superman, gives a skewed impression of public schools. It suggests that charter schools are the answer, even though studies have shown that charter schools, in general, do not outperform public schools.
You also mention the Common Core Standards. I, like you, have been pleased with the idea of common standards across states. However, I have heard of respected educators who have expressed criticism of the Common Core. A January, 2013, Washington Post article states that:
When the standards were first revealed in March 2010, many early childhood educators and researchers were shocked. “The people who wrote these standards do not appear to have any background in child development or early childhood education,” wrote Stephanie Feeney of the University of Hawaii, chair of the Advocacy Committee of the National Association of Early Childhood Teacher Educators.
The promoters of the standards claim they are based in research. They are not. There is no convincing research, for example, showing that certain skills or bits of knowledge (such as counting to 100 or being able to read a certain number of words) if mastered in kindergarten will lead to later success in school. Two recent studies show that direct instruction can actually limit young children’s learning. At best, the standards reflect guesswork, not cognitive or developmental science.
It was disturbing to me that even some parts of the Common Core were created by people who are not experts in the grade level upon which they were focused. So, I am in agreement with you that education would be better served if those who are making the decisions are those who are the most qualified to do so.
I enjoyed your post. Thank you.
Susie Shanahan Phillips
Hi Maria,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post--it definitely got some good discussion going.
I, too, think your analogy to doctors and health is helpful. Doctors aren't always right, and teachers neither. In both cases, it's almost like a little bit of Wizard of Oz. Why do we have so many malpractice lawsuits? Why are parents so quick to criticize teachers? It's almost like we have forgotten that these people are human. To err is human. But those errors don't discount the training and insight gained by these people for so long. So we pull the curtain back and we are disappointed to realize that teachers and doctors and lawyers are smart but flawed human beings.
I say: Let's get real!
I cautiously support the CCSS as a helpful framework for ensuring some consistency in scope and sequence issues. But beyond that, I think the whole question of learning experiences--the heart of the curriculum--needs to be worked out. The problem with the CCSS is that it is a framework that tricks some people into thinking it's a curriculum. Personally, I still see the need for the type of school-by-school, district-by-district curriculum development work that Tyler envisions. In that sense, I see moves toward PLCs as very important for the future of American curriculum.
Thanks again for a really strong post!
Kyle