Readings for 11/10/16

Hello again!

I have to admit, I enjoyed the Shiro reading more this week than probably any other week. The "plays" and tables did a great job pulling everything together in my opinion!

I think the most reasonable place to start is with the Curriculum Life History (starting on page 244 of Shiro). I'm curious, first and foremost, what yours looks like but also if you have changed your views, why? This idea of changing ideologies over time is fascinating to me.

Associated with the above question is your positionality toward the relationship among the ideologies. What is it? Does it change like ideological beliefs (if so why)?

Lastly (for now maybe), Noddings starts her final chapter with a discussion of Common Core. Understanding that this question is intimately tied to ideological beliefs, is there a need for/room for/utility in a national curriculum? Either way, with respect to the issues that we've discussed in this class, why?

Thoughts friends?

Readings for 11/3/16 (Noddings)

Welcome, everyone, to Blog Group 1!

The three readings I chose were:  A Richer, Broader View of Education  (2015); Is Teaching a Practice (2003); and Learning from Our Students (2004).

Here were some thoughts that I had while reading it:

• As we have discussed before in class, Noddings puts a great deal of emphasis on student choice (e.g. "...provide the guidance students need to make wise choices among them," (p 236, 2015)).  Are the kinds of choices she talks about possible?
• Noddings (again in 2015) states, "we should ask what each child can do and how we might help him or her to find an opportunity to do it," (p 236).  How does this jive with the "spirit" of accountability?  I guess what I'm asking here is - how do we accommodate students this way in spite of accountability?
• A good question raised by Is Teaching a Practice, I thought, was:  Does teaching imply learning?  Noddings seems to imply a two-way relationship between them in Learning from Our Students, but I wonder if the case can be made that is is not a two-way relationship?
• What do you think Noddings was speaking of when she says, "many of a teacher's acts do not have learning as the intention"? (p 243, 2003).
• On page 246, Noddings (2003) states that, "It is not the subjects themselves that induce critical thinking, but the ways in which they are taught and learned."  What do you think a Scholar Academic might say to that?

That's enough to get you started, I'd wager - and also, who was major jealous of Noddings' time to read for pleasure as listed on page 158 of Learning from Our Students?  I totally wrote in my margin:  #lifegoals.

Happy Monday from Philadelphia!

Readings for 10/20/16

Welcome to the blog, Reggie!  We're glad to have you this week.  On to the blog!

One thought I've been chewing on this weekend is where Dewey says, "For a certain type of mind algebra and geometry are their own justification. They appeal to such students for the intellectual satisfaction they supply, and as preparation for the play of the intellect in further studies. But for another type of mind these studies are dead and meaningless until surrounded with a context of obvious bearings" (1906, p. 116).  From these statements I can almost imagine Noddings saying nearly the exact same thing.  It reminds me a lot of her ideas of stretching the disciplines from within.  What do you think?  Do you think Dewey's writing is as relevant today as it was more than 100 years ago?  How so?

Another thought that struck me in the readings was the notion of having three choices that education can make.  There's the choice of dwelling on the past, followed by looking towards an idealistic future.  Dewey then seems to make a switch in these types of thinking when he says that "we can strive through our schools to make pupils vividly and deeply aware of the kind of social order in which they are living"(1934, p. 99).  If we look further, though, he talks about changing the order from within rather than dismantling the social order and starting fresh.  It seems like it would be a major undertaking to reconstruct everything, so it seems reasonable to change things from within if you do not agree with the way things have been done in the past.  Dewey speaks to the dangers associated with a new movement replacing the old. That "in rejecting the aims and methods of that which it would supplant, it may develop its principles negatively rather than positively and constructively" (1986, p. 244).  So what do you think?  If you buy into Dewey's notions of changing things from within how could you go about doing this in a way that is both positive and constructive? What problems could you foresee happening if the pendulum did swing and our schools become more learner-centered?

Last one, I promise.  In a democracy, Dewey says that everyone in the schools, "from the first-grade teacher to the principle of the high school, must have some share in the exercise of educational power" (1903, p. 196).  Looking at where our schools are today, do you think this happens?  Do you feel like the future democracy will become endangered if everyone in the school system isn't having a say?  Should everyone have a say in what happens?  What about students?  Where do their voices come into play when  there are decisions to make about curriculum?

I feel really philosophical after reading Dewey all weekend.  Hopefully these will get us started.  I'm looking forward to hearing what you think about this week's readings!  See you on the blog. 

Readings for 10/13/16

Ok.  Here goes nothing.

First, some questions (Schiro/Noddings):

• In Schiro, on page 154, when discussing curriculum at the Highlander Folk School, it is stated that, "This means that workshop participants are required to have had firsthand encounters with labor problems so that they can both contribute to the discussion from their own experienced perspectives and understand the experiences of others."  Does that mean that we must have firsthand experience with the problems with society (listed on page 151) in order to understand them?
• The two educational methods that are discussed - group discussion and experience - seem, to me, anyway, to be learner-centered.  Do you agree or disagree/why?
• As I ponder this, I may be talking myself out of it.  What I think, maybe, is that it seems constructivist... not necessarily learner-centered.
• On page 171, Schiro says, "To accomplish what they believe is best for society, Social Reconstructionists use whatever means they require, that society will tolerate, and that their visions will support," (emphasis mine).  This seems to be the tricky part here... what society may tolerate in, say.... Pennsylvania is probably different than what society might tolerate in Oklahoma.  Does that matter?
• Are the Learner Centered and Social Reconstructionist ideologies mutually exclusive as it seems to imply on page 174?
• I thought that the examples of Patriotism, Race & Multiculturalism, Military Service, and Political Education were interesting choices for Noddings to demonstrate her point about critical thinking and citizenship education.  Are there other examples that you can think of?
• Spoiler alert:  I particularly liked her outlook on military service.
• Noddings states on page 137 that, "Some students should be urged to keep trying for excellence; others should be assured that there are different talents to be developed."  My question here is - how do you know which is which?  How can you be certain that you are not discouraging a student based on some other aspect of themselves instead of their ability?

Apple:

• Apple, I think, is a great example of a Social Reconstructionist.  He outlines very clearly his concerns with a national curriculum with a great question - "who will benefit and who will lose as a result?"  Who do you think are the winners and losers in adopting a national curriculum?  Spoiler alert:  Apple is anti-national curriculum.
• I was ASTONISHED to realize that Apple's work was printed in 1993 because it rings SO TRUE today.  He seems to paint a conservative versus liberal picture, that I wonder (perhaps due to my own political leanings) if was very accurate of what came after.
• "...while the proponents of a national curriculum may see it as a means to create social cohesion and to give all of us the capacity to improve our schools by measuring them against "objective" criteria, the effects will be the opposite," (Apple p 231).  Is this your understanding of what happened leading up to, during, and after NCLB with ESSA?

Whew.  Sorry to be so longwinded.  I'm looking forward to hearing [reading] your questions from Bernstein!

Readings for 10/3/16

After reading through Schiro, Dewey and Noddings this week, there are several questions that come to mind. Feel free to respond in any order you like!

The first is the same question that we try to tackle each week, but I think it is worth answering again.  Who in the Learner Center ideology decides what should be taught in school?  Schiro (2013) says that it is the learner's interests that determine the course of the curriculum with the careful observation, facilitation, and creation of a environment conducive to learning.  Is there a larger aim beyond the learner's perspective that determines what is taught in schools? Is there someone out there who makes decisions about the curriculum?

Schiro will say that the LC ideology sees people as "naturally good, curious about their world, and desirous of constructively interacting with their world" (2012, p. 115). While those that adhere to the LC ideology would agree that this is true, what it wasn't?  What if you have a "bad apple" of a student or group of students?  Do they get to have the same opportunities as a group of students in another classroom?  Would they be considered behind in the curriculum? 

As I was reading this week, I felt like I could see a lot of areas where the Learner Centered ideology is in stark contrast with the Scholar Academic and Social Efficiency Ideologies.  But on what issues do you think they would agree?  

Lastly, Noddings touches on the topics of educating for home life and educating the whole child in this weeks readings. If we look at the landscape of our schools where we work, I can't help but notice that the learner center ideology for curriculum is largely snuffed out by other concerns.  Since we live and work in a education system that believes strongly in things like standards, STEM education, "prescribed penalties" and policies, how does the learner centered teacher function in the current world of education? There were many examples from Schiro that highlighted really interesting units of study for the elementary classroom (Pond Water), but what could this look like our secondary classrooms? How do we stretch the discipline from within, as Noddings suggests, without ruffling too many feathers?

This is probably a good start!

Readings for 9/29/16

I am still trying to wrap my head around the Social Efficiency Ideology, but had a few questions that have stuck with me:

• I feel like this is a regular question on our blog, but who decides what should be taught in school? In the SE ideology, if schooling is a way to train young people in the skills they need for adulthood, who decides what that adulthood looks like? In mathematics, ideally would a child stop learning new concepts at around grade 5 and proceed to spend their time in secondary school further automatizing their skills? What does the affordability and proliferation of calculators do to this? Similar questions could be made of grammar or spelling and word processors.
• It seems to me that the SE Ideology should be very accommodating of vocational training, after all what better way to meeting the goal of providing young people the things they need to be successful as adults than to give them a vocation? Similarly, what value do the arts hold to SE followers?
• The idea of a programmed curriculum sets forth the notion that learning is a controlled and sequenced set of learning experiences that provide students a behavior to learn. My knee-jerk question is: do these experiences include environmental concerns or are they somehow more prepackaged than that?
• There is a line in the Schiro text, pg 69, that made me wonder if the SE Ideology sees all children as progressing or even developing at the same rate: "Thus, education of a 6-year-old is to prepare for that of the 7-year-old, the education of the 7-year-old for that of the 8-year-old, and so on until maturity is reached." A secondary question that arises from this same sentence has to do with the length of schooling. This sentence seems to imply that schooling is completed "when maturity is reached". Is this 18 years of age? Maturity of skills sufficient to be an adult? This also leaves me with questions of the warehousing of students, but I don't think they will be productive to our conversation (as they are likely too value laden to be beneficial to this discussion)

There's a good number of questions in those four bullets! Hopefully that'll give our discussion a good kickstart.

Readings for 9/22/16

Scholar Academic ideology.  I'm trying really hard not to ask - do you agree or disagree? :-)

As I was reading, I thought of these questions, and I'm curious to know how you would respond to them - and also what questions you had!

• On page 25, Schiro writes, "In assuming that there is a loose equivalence between the world of the intellect, the world of knowledge, and the academic disciplines, Scholar Academics also accept the belief that the contents of these three areas are identical."  That seems to be quite a leap in logic.  Does this seem to be rooted in a positivist view of the world, do you think?  Why or why not?
• If knowledge is separated into these autonomous disciplines, how are there not infinitely many of them?  Couldn't everything be thought of as its own discipline?
• How would schools be organized under this ideology?  
• Describing the cycle of education in the SA ideology, Schiro says, "it involves dropping out of the discipline when one can no longer function as a constructive member of the discipline" (p 30).  Who decides what is "constructive?"  Then later, on page 37, "...all children were to have equal access to an excellent education."  Are these statements contradictory?
• On page 47, it is stated that, "Although Scholar Academics profess an interest in the writings on learning theory produced by philosophers and social scientists, they tend to ignore such writings..." Then why be interested in them at all?
• This outlook on learning theory seems to be contradictory to the idea that "all students" should receive education in the academic disciplines.  If we're ignoring how students best learn and focusing solely on the "nature of knowledge" in each discipline, aren't we leaving some out on purpose?  Is it because they would be seen as not having a "knack" for that discipline?

I think that's enough to start with :-)