It seems as though politicians are rallying around the notion of national standards and there are few individuals voicing an opinion and raising questions about the effectiveness of such measures. I, on the other hand, am beginning to wonder if the entire country realizes that standards as they are currently envisioned limit the amount of learning and engagement that occurs in schools. Realize that I am not against the country having national standards. I just want the standards to be written around critical thinking skills and cognitive development so that we can begin to offer students highly specialized courses that engage them and provide them with the skills necessary to be successful in the future.
Standards were supposed to create even playing fields for all students simply by requiring that all leave school with a certain core of content knowledge. Eventually, the country will realize that content knowledge can be achieved by teaching students to be lifelong learners and that learning the important concepts and ideas in each content area does not have to occur within the confines of a particular course or classroom. If a student wants to learn Shakespeare, he or she can go home, read Shakespeare, and follow along with any number of discussion groups online that provide a full perspective as well as more insight than any one teacher can offer. If a student is fascinated with the evolution of technology, he/she can watch any number of videos, read any number of books, and then jump on Twitter and share ideas via a blog. By the way, the amount of feedback (positive and negative) that a student would get in writing that blog would be more vast and specific than what any one teacher could ever offer. I always come back to one question when I think about standards: why is it important to learn “x”?
Before you run to the comment box and tell me how important it is to read Shakespeare in school please hear me out. What I am saying is that these new national standards should not be written to emphasize specific content in different disciplines. The standards should be written to emphasize higher-order thinking skills and cognitive abilities. Think about how liberating this type of standardization becomes for districts across the country. Students would still take English in tenth grade, but they would have a “menu” to choose from that would be highly specialized and appeal to their interests. In fact, students could take any English courses they wanted with no regard for grade or age other than the parameters set by their school. In other words, the new model would be aligned closer to how college courses and their scope and sequence evolve rather than the one-size-fits-all mentality that we currently use. If you are interested in Greek Literature why not take a specific course in that subject?
Since I started teaching, I have always wanted to run a course titled, “Current Global Issues”. My belief is that I can teach kids the necessary critical thinking skills that SHOULD be the foundation and purpose of education regardless of the content of the course. These types of highly specialized class can be offered in half-year segments so that students have an opportunity to take another humanities course in the second half of the year and transfer their critical thinking skills across disciplines. In addition, it opens up opportunities for us to offer courses that are becoming even more relevant like “Technology Literacy” and “Global Economics”.
What we all need to understand is that national standards can be liberating and beneficial to education and cognitive development. The problem is that they can’t be written the way that most politicians envision them. They must be grounded in critical thinking skills and cognitive development from memorization to synthesis and everywhere in between. With these new standards, districts would then have to answer the requests of their students and offer highly specialized courses that peak interest and provide skills necessary for future student success.
What’s your favorite topic in your content area? Wouldn’t you want to teach a semester of that?
Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.
Yes, I absolutely agree that critical thinking and cognitive development should be the goal of any national standards program today. I think a major hold up will be on the assessment part. Seems like we’d need to develop critical thinking assessment tools that are specific to all subjects, and this will take a long time to develop properly (and to everyone’s satisfaction).
Last week, there was an interesting Edweek chat on national standards with voices from both sides http://www.edweek.org/ew/events/chats/2010/01/26/index.html. Alfie Kohn (the “against” side) sure asked a lot of good, hard questions and made me further think that this process will take a long time to get right (if ever).
Thanks again for another interesting post!
Randall’s mention of the Alfie Kohn vs. Gene Wilhoit throw-down is a good one. Nothing about this endeavor to create “voluntary” common core standards should be taken at face value. As with all policy decisions, this one comes packed to the rafters with assumptions and principles, most of which are not directly stated because they are unpalatable to most teachers and parents. They include, basically, the notion that the primary directive of US public school is to fuel the continued growth of the US economy through the supplying of workers compliant and adequate to the “human capital” needs of business.
In the early 1990s, the National Council of Teachers of English thought it could “harness” the standards movement to leverage its own progressive, pro-student version of English on a nation’s teachers and school systems that had thus far resisted it. Some of us argued vociferously at that time that they could not do so because the standards movement was not neutral. It could AND DID resist any efforts to broaden its focus.
Aaron,
I have never read an article so well put! I have been having difficulties with this American desire to make every child have the exact same educational experiences. We don’t allow for those special teachers to teach to their strengths, but confine them to content areas and materials with no leeway in creative expression or following a tangent that may be student originated. To me it feels more like leveling the playing field rather than raising the bar. What, in the end, are we modeling for our children? That individuality and creativity is not to be fostered? To make it in this world, you must be like everyone else? Standard? What happened to striving for superior?
I haven’t taught in my own classroom for 15 years, Math and German at the high school level. If I could teach an elective course for a semester at that level, I would want to teach a “global awareness” course: learning about various world cultures and the global impact of technology (with a stint in Second Life so they could truly feel the impact!) I’m actually considering it for my thesis at my local high school.
Keep up the great thoughts! I really enjoy reading your insights!
Rebecca
Hi Aaron,
So many good points you make. I was reminded of visiting universities with my college bound daughter a few years back. We visited the English Department at UC Berkeley, at that time “ranked” the best in the nation according to a number of polls/pundits. We noticed an amazingly diverse and niche-oriented course catalog. When the office staff were explaining to us the course requirements, they said that every semester different courses are offered, based upon the ongoing passions of the professors at that given moment in time. If you missed a course, you were unlikely to get another opportunity to take it.
This made for exciting venues for English majors, but a bit of difficulty for the people in charge of figuring out graduation requirements and such. The course officer explained it was a welcome headache, since it made the department a vital and interesting place to work and learn. I wonder if the pundits and pollsters understood that no “core standards” existed in the department they were ranking top in the country?
Bonita
Randall,
Thanks for the comment and link. I absolutely love Kohn’s argument, but I fear that much of it falls on deaf ears. I don’t think it is possible for us to eliminate the notion of standards or assessment simply because too many non-educators believe in that path. What I think we can do is mold them to accomplish things that are critical to student success. This is the rationale for my shift in focus from content to critical thinking. Most parents wouldn’t argue that learning to think is more important than knowing the battles of the Civil War.
Thanks for your continued support. It is ALWAYS respected and much appreciated!
Bonita,
“Swirling the waters” is my speciality. I enjoy being the voice of dissent and asking more questions than providing answers. It’s exactly your example of UC-Berkeley that keeps me optimistic that education can be altered to meet the needs of today’s students. Thanks for engaging in the discussion, and giving me much more to think about and argue for.
Always appreciated!
Rebecca,
Thank you for your kind words and discussion points. Individuality is important when dealing with any human in any context. The ability for people to think critically and synthesize ideas is only developed through a level of comfort. Perhaps the same comfort teachers feel in creating their own lessons and having autonomy in the classroom needs to be passed down to thes tudents as well. Your words keep me thinking more and more about developing critical thinkers.
Much appreciated, and always necessary! Thanks!