How should curriculum be created?

Well, I know how curriculum should not be created – by non-educators who think they have all the answers to “fix” our “broken” public school system. As I watched the TED video (Salman Khan. (2011, March). Let's Use Video to Reinvent Education), I found myself becoming increasingly annoyed. There was some merit to Kahn’s ideas; for instance, I did agree with his assertion that, in a classroom, we sometimes move ahead even though the students may be at varying degrees of understanding. In fact, I am going through a situation like that in my class right now; I am teaching argument writing, and as I was teaching the lesson today, I noticed that several of the students seemed to be staring blankly with their eyes glossed over. However, I try to work individually with students who seem to have problems with understanding the lesson, and I try not to move on until I am satisfied that most of the students have grasped the concept. I still think, however, that those same students might still fall through the cracks if left to fend for themselves on the computer program.

As Khan continued speaking, many questions popped into my head. The idea of the flipped classroom seems to fit well with math, but I question how it would work for English. And, even with math, there is no guarantee that most of the students would watch the lesson at home. Some of our math teachers tried the flipped classroom last year, and, while they were intrigued by the method, found that they had the same problems that they had had before. If students do not watch the lesson the night before, teachers still end up having to re-teach the lesson.

Khan boasted about the success he was having in Los Altos, California. However, he failed to acknowledge that Los Altos students would naturally be pointed toward success regardless of whether they used his program. Los Altos is an affluent community. A quick check on Wikipedia shows that it is the 24^th most expensive zip code in the nation with median home prices of 2.5 million dollars. This is in sharp contrast with my district where not every student has the support at home to ensure homework is completed, let alone internet access.

Khan talks about the “one size fits all lecture in the classroom.” This shows how much he does not know about teaching. Good teachers know that lectures are not, in most cases, the best method for teaching a lesson because students are generally not engaged with this type of teaching. Although Khan thinks he has a superior way of teaching, he has earned some criticism. Silicon Valley’s MercuryNews reports that some educators have poked fun at his mathematical reasoning.

The final straw for me with the TED talk was when Bill Gates walked out on the stage beaming about this “revolutionary” teaching method. There is no question that Gates is an innovator and one of the world’s richest and most powerful businessmen. However, Gates is not an educator. His arrogance in thinking that he has all the answers about education is appalling and unsettling. I have to wonder when he says, “It’s amazing. I think you just got a glimpse of the future of education!” to what extent he intends to have TED videos take over in the classroom.

The article, “How Christian Were the Founders?” further points out the shocking lengths to which some non-educators will go to transform public schools into vessels for their radical message. Christian activists sitting on the Texas Board of Education pushed their right-wing agenda in the classroom, going so far as to influence text books publishers into changing the wording and historical figures in their books. Dentist, Don McLeroy, felt that his fundamentalist ways were the only way to teach public school students. Getting Jesus into the curriculum was one of his, and the other Christian activists on the board, many agenda items. The activists felt that there should be no separation between church and state and even went so far as to assert that our founding fathers never meant for it to be. Eventually, McLeroy lost his seat on the board, but many of the Christian right remain.

Cynthia Dunbar, assistant law professor and Texas board of education member, published a book, in 2008, titled One Nation Under God. In it she states that, “We as a nation were intended by God to be a light set on a hill to serve as a beacon of hope and Christian charity to a lost and dying world.” Her words are shockingly arrogant. This way of thinking, that the USA is God’s favored nation, is not uncommon and is sickening to me. While there are many wonderful things about the United States, we have also committed many errors and, indeed, atrocities. As a teacher, I will make sure that I teach with a philosophy that our country is one of many, and that we are not necessarily the best, most righteous, or always correct.

We are living in a time where legislators, business people, and fanatics with their own agendas think that they have all the answers to the perfect education. Sadly, such people have already had a negative effect on public education. I can only hope that the pendulum will swing back in the other direction, and soon, so that trained teaching professionals will once again be considered the experts in education and curriculum.

Cycle Three: Should the curriculum address controversial issues?

The curriculum should definitely address controversial issues. Teachers do not have to spell out the answers or their opinions, but it is important for students to think and address questions surrounding important issues. After all, as educators, we need to help prepare our young people to become adults who will be able to weigh both sides of an issue and make educated and thoughtful conclusions.

Stephen Thornton’s chapter, Silence on Gays and Lesbians in Social Studies Curriculum, discusses the importance of including “gay history and issues” in K-12 social studies instruction. One reason Thornton provides for this addition to the curriculum is that adults who have not attended college are more prone to be prejudiced against gay people; therefore, what is learned in K-12 education becomes that much more important.  However, although the book, written in 2009, seems current, I contend that society has changed even since then.

I live in a county where only 13 percent of the residents have earned a bachelor’s degree. The majority of my students are considered at-risk. While the number of students in our building on free or reduced lunches has gone up steadily over the past several years, the attitudes concerning homosexuality seemed to have softened during that time. In the fall, as part of a building-wide election unit, my students studied the two presidential candidates’ stances on numerous issues. They were to then write an argument paper where they chose three of the issues to support their claim of which candidate would make the best president. I was astounded at the number of students who chose gay rights as an important issue. Even though most of my students do not have highly educated parents, many of them supported Obama because of his more liberal stance on gay rights. Some even mentioned having homosexual or lesbian relatives as a reason for their opinions. I couldn’t help but take note of what I considered to be a rapid change in society’s, and indeed, my conservative county’s, acceptance of gays and lesbians. I know there is still much prejudice, but my students, even in the recent past, did not seem to be as knowledgeable or as comfortable with the idea of alternative lifestyles until recently. I can’t help but think the media’s portrayal of homosexuality as a common and acceptable occurrence has desensitized much of the population, even those who are not college-educated.

Even with changing attitudes toward homosexuality, I understand that including lessons about gays and lesbians in our curriculum could cause controversy. The segment of society that would object, typically the religious right, tends to be very vocal about such issues. Even if they are in the minority, they can cause a lot of trouble for school districts. School boards and administrators can also pressure teachers to stay away from what they might consider touchy subjects. In fact, our neighboring school district, Corunna Public Schools, recently dealt with a well publicized case on this very issue. In 2009, Corunna High Schools diversity club displayed a showcase in honor of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender History Month. The school board became involved, and the showcase was removed. The ACLU then objected and the showcase was allowed, but the teacher who headed the club ultimately lost her job. Early this month, the teacher filed a lawsuit alleging that her rights had been violated. If her allegations are true, she certainly paid the price for trying to raise awareness in her school.

Thornton’s article made me think about ways to incorporate gay and lesbian rights into my English curriculum. However, the happenings in Corunna are a reminder that I would have to be very careful about how the issue is presented. I am already in the midst of planning a unit on social injustice. I had planned to bring in literature about the Holocaust, about the ongoing plight of Native Americans, and the Japanese internment camps during World War II. This article gave me the idea of incorporating the book, suggested in the article, called Reading Jack. The book is about a boy dealing with his father being gay. It appears to be appropriate for middle school students, so that makes it appealing to me. I also plan to gather materials and ideas from the magazine, Teaching Tolerance, and its website.

I loved the readings this week because they sparked ideas for me to use in my classroom.  The issues are timely and would work well with the philosophies of International Baccalaureate and inquiry-based learning. Getting students to think about and discuss controversial issues is one way to prepare them for adulthood.

Cycle Two - What Should Schools Teach? How Should They Be Held Accountable?

I read with interest, anger, and eventually, some semblance of agreement, chapter  5 of E. D. Hirsch, Jr.’s Cultural Literacy and the Schools. I found Hirsch’s negative opinion of public schools to be off-putting, but I suffered my way through the chapter and was struck, both negatively and positively, by many of his observations.

Hirsch believes that, in order to be successful readers, students must first have a base of knowledge that they should learn in early elementary school. He argues that the current emphasis of arming students with reading skills is the wrong approach to guarantee successful comprehension. He writes that, “Every text, even the most elementary, implies information that it takes for granted and doesn’t explain. Knowing such information is the decisive skill of reading” (112).  While I agree that prior knowledge is an asset to understanding, I disagree that it is the most important aspect of reading for meaning. I teach eighth grade, and we arm our students with the various skills necessary to comprehend informational text. These skills have helped our students to approach a reading assignment with an organized plan of attack. Because of this, students are more confident and successful when reading an article or text book assignment in any class. I have even benefitted by acquiring new strategies for reading informational text, so I know firsthand how much more comfortable I feel by having a plan to tackle challenging reading assignments.

The author goes on to take issue with the “self-selection” method where students choose their own reading materials. Our curriculum director is certainly a proponent of students selecting their own texts, so we are trying to move away from large literature units where all students read the same book. While I can see why a student might be more engaged by choosing a book that appeals to his or her interests, I have also resisted changing over to 100% books of their choosing. I have settled on a mix, with students picking their own books for their daily reading, interspersed with a whole class study of a novel. Our school, like many other schools across the nation, has embraced Nancie Atwell’s ReadingWorkshop approach which promotes student choice of books. However, I do see a benefit of exposing students to critically acclaimed or classic books which they might otherwise not choose for themselves. In fact, in discussions about this very point with my curriculum director or colleagues, I have asked the question, “How could a person possibly survive in life without reading To Kill a Mockingbird?” Perhaps I was exaggerating a bit to get my point across, but not by much. So, I guess, even though Hirsch sounds rather elitist and narrow with his emphasis on Shakespeare and the like, I do agree that there are certain works of literature that students should be exposed to.

Hirsch is a traditionalist who is not shy about sharing his criticism of public schools. He believes private schools are superior to public schools. He also supports vouchers and charter schools. One’s social standing or background, Hirsch believes, has nothing to do with one’s success in school. However, he doesn’t acknowledge the fact that parents of private school children tend to be more supportive at home. I teach in a school where 70% of the students receive free or reduced lunch. I know that many, many of my students go home to absent, uninvolved, or disinterested parents. Certainly, this has to be a factor in a student’s motivation and success. Hirsch quotes Diane Ravitch to support his opinions on this very topic. It is interesting to me that since this book was written in 1988, Diane Ravitch has broken ties with this way of thinking. In 2010, Ravitch, a former proponent of No Child Left Behind, and the Assistant Secretary of Education, published her book entitled, The Death and Life of the Great American School System, How Testing andChoice are Undermining Education. In the book, she supports educators over politicians and businessmen in making decisions about education, believes that charter schools should not compete with public schools, and believes in a common national curriculum.

Although Ravitch has admitted her mistakes from the past, Hirsch has held steadfast. He is critical of Ravitch’s book in The NewYork Review of Books. Hirsch is not without his own critics, however, as in the blog by English professor, Joel Shatzky, in the Huffington Post.

Cycle One - What is Curriculum? What is its Purpose?

What is Curriculum? What is its Purpose?

            In reading the various articles and book excerpts, I was struck by how new curriculum theories may not actually be new at all.  John Dewey asserted, in 1902, that in order to have meaning, lessons should connect with the child’s personal life and experiences.  Such real world applications are exactly what are now being emphasized in our district.

            This way of teaching is in sharp contrast to the way I was taught while attending public school in the 1960s and 70s. Our instruction was based on textbooks and memorization. The teachers fed us information, and there was very little collaboration with fellow students. We were not taught problem-solving and thinking skills, but were made to fill in the blanks on worksheets. Sadly, many teachers still teach that way, because, I assume, it is what they know, and it keeps the students busy.
            I teach in an International Baccalaureate (IB) district. The IB way of teaching revolves around unit questions designed to encourage children to think. It is the hope that students will learn to see things from a global perspective and become “inquiring, knowledgeable, and caring young people” as well as “lifelong learners who understand that other people, with their differences, can also be right” (IBO.org). Through IB training, I have learned a way of teaching that fits very nicely into Dewey’s philosophy that real world connections are essential for successful learning.

            William Schubert’s article, Perspectives on Four Curriculum Traditions, gives in depth descriptions of four different theories of curriculum. The first, Intellectual Traditionalist, emphasizes a liberal arts curriculum and teaching the great works in all the subjects. Although I understand the argument that all but the top, college-bound students may not relate to the great works, I also believe in exposing students to beautiful or historic things they otherwise would not learn about. In fact, I was raised this way. My parents dragged me to museum after museum to see art, as well as historical and scientific displays. Even though I was sometimes detached and not as interested as I felt I should be, I am so thankful now that I had these experiences. I teach in a school where 70% of the students qualify for free and reduced lunches. Most of those children would never be exposed to the great works if not for school. While I don’t believe the Intellectual Traditionalist is the best curriculum theory, I also see its benefits as part of a child’s overall education and I what I would consider important to a child becoming a well-rounded and knowledgeable adult.

            Although I agree with the Social Behaviorist’s complaint about textbooks being ineffective and no better than textbooks of the past, I take issue with its emphasis on teaching what students need to know to become a “successful” person. My question is, whose definition of success are we supposed to use? Is success defined as high income? Happiness? High social status? This criteria seems to be too subjective to be valid.

            The Experientialist and Critical Reconstructionist theories seem to align the most closely with Dewey. They suggest that students learn best when their interests and concerns are met by the curriculum. It is true that my at-risk students may often be much more concerned with the problems they are experiencing at home than with academics at school, so I do need to keep that in mind when I plan and deliver my lessons; if the curriculum seems meaningful to their lives, they will be much more likely to buy into what the lesson has to offer.          

In his speech, Ken Robinson asserts that school curricula are putting too much emphasis on university entrance and not enough emphasis on creativity. He states that “We’re educating children out of their creative capacities.” Certainly, that is an issue, but I think the problem is not as easily fixed as he might think. Politics have played a huge part in stripping funds from schools. The core subjects are pushed because a school’s standardized test scores are vital to its survival. I think most educators would agree with Robinson’s concern, but, unfortunately, politicians, most of whom have never taught, have schools’ hands tied. On another note, Robinson said that public schools do not teach students to dance. He is wrong because our high school does offer dance class as an elective for our students!

Sharon Otterman’s article, A Struggle to Educate the Severely Disabled, made me think. While I can understand parents’ despair and need for hope when faced with educating a child such as Donovan, I was also struck by how little progress the school was able to make with him. I thought again of the unrealistic demands combined with the financial constraints imposed by politicians on public schools. When I think of all the programs being cut, while at the same time, the inordinate amount of money that must be invested into programs for the severely disabled,  I have to wonder if it is all worth it. If schools are forced to invest so much time and money into such students, adequate funding needs to be provided.

Resources:     
Standardized Tests Hurt Kids and Public Schools: Teachers, Parents Take a Stand Against Corporate-Backed Test Regime.
 This article discusses how various organizations are encouraging parents to have their children opt out of taking standardizeds tests as a way to use civil disobedience to protest state standardized testing. The groups feel that the pressure for schools to produce high scores on such tests is taking the richness out of public schools' curricula.
 Making Connections, Strategy Guide
Put out by the National Council of Teachers of English, readwritethink.org is a website full of  engaging lesson plans and other resources.





 



 

 

My name is Susie Shanahan Phillips.

I live in Owosso, Michigan. I grew up in this small town but spent ten years living in Long Beach, California, followed by eight years in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, prior to moving home over ten years ago.

This is my fourteenth year of teaching. I spent my first three years teaching sixth grade, all subjects, in Mecosta and Mt. Pleasant, Michigan. For ten years, I taught seventh-grade English. This year, I am teaching eighth-grade English, and I love it! I am also continuing in my role as English department chair. We are an International Baccalaureate school, and I have thoroughly enjoyed teaching with the IB philosophy.

I have been married for 28 years and have two daughters, ages 23 and 20. (Sorry, but both of my daughters chose to attend that other university in Ann Arbor!) Since I had young children when I began teaching, I have never had the time to finish my master's degree. Now, I have decided to spend some time and money on myself and will complete my master's by the end of summer, 2013.