I found the striking difference in the way Schiro spoke about the ideologies and the way Noddings approached them very interesting. Specifically, when Schiro says that the pull between the four named ideologies has "led to an ideological war in the U.S," and that "those who have not committed to one ideology feel constantly torn between rival viewpoints," (p 9) and conversely, Noddings urges us to "put labels and ideologies aside and try to learn from one another," (p ix).
I do think that learning more about viewpoints that are different from our own only help us become a stronger society, so I understand the idea behind Schiro's book - which he emphasizes is this growth opportunity. Related to this is the description of "conceptions of education" in Prakash & Waks, who argue that some conceptions/ideologies are logically incompatible and make a case for the adoption of the "social responsibility" conception - which sounds a lot like Schiro's Social Reconstruction Ideology.
Here are some questions I had while reading to get our discussion going:
- If, indeed, the four ideologies "cause difficulty for newcomers to the field [of education], who are usually unaware of them," (Schiro, 2) WHY AREN'T WE EXPOSING NEW TEACHERS TO THEM? Sorry to yell, but really... What is the benefit of keeping new teachers in the dark about their own beliefs about education? Wouldn't the greater benefit be from helping teachers craft these beliefs in order to support their classroom decisions?!
- Speaking of Schiro's ideological war, I wonder if there are "ideological" wars going on in other fields (like medicine, science, etc) - or if this is something unique-ish to education since everyone is an "expert"?
- It struck me as curious that Schiro claims that "people often behave differently when working within these different areas of discourse, just as teachers often relate differently to their own children and to their students," (10). If I'm a constructivist in the classroom, aren't I also a constructivist with my own children? If I believe in a certain curriculum "ideology" why wouldn't I support that view in other aspects of my life?
- What's that Max & Sophie? Got a question? CONSTRUCT YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE, CHILDREN. :-)
- How do we pragmatically move between these ideologies? Until there is general agreement, it seems impossible to move our school system forward in the US. I'm not sure it's so simple as Noddings claims, that we will compromise and learn from one another, since there are literal (and figurative) incompatibilities between ideas. Seems like the main disagreement stems from the purpose of schooling. What is it to you?
- As the (a) person in my district who has "the authority to make curriculum decisions" (Walker & Soltis, 4), how should that be done? I'm curious to know your perspective, as I already know my answer to this question.
Feel free to posit other questions and get our discussion going! GO TEAM MATH!
Melissa,
ReplyDeleteThanks for yelling in your first question that you posted! I think it was warranted and I couldn't agree with you more. As I've been exposed to more educational viewpoints, philosophies and instructional strategies through my work in graduate school, teaching experience and professional experiences, I'm also wondering why we aren't exposing our new teachers to these ideas? I think these are great ideas for all of us to be thinking about. I understand that pre-service teachers have little to no teaching experiences, so their philosophies may be purely theoretical, but I believe it would be very valuable for new teachers to play around with ideas, let them marinate, try different ideas, and practice. Doctors and others in medicine call their work “practice.” I think the implications here are that you continue to grow in your field of expertise. While still a professional and working at a high level you have the freedom to explore different views. I sometimes wonder if we are afraid of corrupting them or funneling them into thinking one ideology is better than the other? I'm also curious if those of us in higher education really do believe in what we preach to our undergrads and what we model in our professional development seminars. Do you think that we are afraid they will all gravitate to one particular ideology or way of thinking that doesn’t sit well with us?
I think you bring up some really valid questions and I'm looking forward to exploring them with you both
Cacey,
ReplyDeleteIn some way, I think it's required of us to help them uncover their ideological identities. Of course, we present the research and evidence of the ideology we stand by - I think it's safe to say our college leans one way particularly. As a learner-centered constructivist, I say we should let them explore the ideologies and let them come to their own conclusions. To me it is nearly unethical to keep pre-service teachers in the dark about this.
Melissa,
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more. I think it's totally fine to adhere to one ideology, but we need to be sure to let students decide for themselves, explore the ideologies, and make a decision based on multiple perspectives.
I've been thinking a lot about what you said about believing one ideology as an educator and seeing that ideology unfold in other/all aspects of your life. It's like an ideological integrity! I think if we are truly learner-centered, then that ideology and way of thinking would continue to show up in all aspects of our life in one way or another. Have you and Devon seen that to be true in your parenting?
As I think about this more, I'll have to see how my ideology shows up in other aspects of my life. I'll keep you posted!
I think it's something we do deliberately in parenting (among other things).
DeleteI think the primary issue between Schiro and Noddings' discussion of "ideologies" is that Schiro is discussing the state of things as they have been while Noddings is discussing them as they should be. I feel like through the first chapter of both of these books, that's the big difference. There are parts of the Noddings reading where I was wanting to pick up the old Obama campaign slogan of "Yes We Can!" All this being said, I as a whole I think the general tone of the readings are very interesting.
ReplyDeleteTo get to your questions, the more I think about it (and I know my background is a bit different--never having worked in K-12), I am kind of glad that I didn't get exposure to curriculum ideologies until very recently. I wonder how much my practice would have been swayed by what I thought to be the "right" way versus what I truly believe to be the best for me and my students (i.e. I wonder how much more of a scholar-academic I would have tried to be if I had words and structure to put with it beyond my own experiences as a student). By not having those notions in my mind, I was (perhaps--who knows) liberated to question my own beliefs and values in a non-dogmatic manner. I am not necessarily trying to even remotely imply that every new teacher is prepared to reflect on their practice and its effects like I was, but for me I wonder if having that structure at the outset would have hampered my development into the teacher I am today.
As for your third question, in my mind there seems to be a divide between parenting and teaching, although as I type this I realize how silly that is! As a parent I don't immediately, consciously think of what I am doing as teaching (it certainly is though). Some days it feels more like survival. Others it is a grand experiment. I wonder if this is also the case for other educator/parents?
Devon, that's an interesting perspective since you're coming to education in a roundabout way. Are you saying that if you had been exposed to ideologies before you began teaching that you may have started with a different one? Or just that you would have felt pressured to do it the way you had experienced instead of being "liberated to question [your] own beliefs?" I find that interesting.
DeleteI think that had I been exposed to the ideologies prior to teaching, then I would have likely said that I was in the "Scholar-Academic" camp and would have treated the different ideologies more like a partition rather than a continuum (I'm happy for mathy people). This exclusive treatment would have made it harder for me to shift to what I truly believe now (learner centered with a social justice slant). In fact, my fear is that I would have never moved from that belief (that of disjoint ideologies) and perhaps would still be scholar-academic. I don't know. There is just something very powerful in presenting ideas formally (with names and tenets and such).
DeleteThat is a good point.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo, I've been thinking a little more about one of the questions you posted: "Wouldn't the greater benefit be from helping teachers craft these beliefs in order to support their classroom decisions?!" We've been talking a lot about Schiro and Noddings, but I think Walker and Soltis bring up a good point in the first chapter of their book that could potentially give some insight to your question.
ReplyDeleteThey say, "Establishing your own routines for reflecting on your teaching effectiveness can make thinking about curriculum an integral part of your daily life as a teacher" (Walker & Soltis, 4). I think that reflection is an important component to any profession, but I believe it is vital to the teacher. Just like those who are in the field of medicine keep up on the latest research and best practices, I think teachers will find it crucial to reflect upon their practice and examine their teaching through a reflectively critical eye. That being said, I think that if we do a good job of giving our pre-service teachers ample time to reflect and good models on which to base their reflection, then as they enter the classroom where they'll be teaching a curriculum, they can effectively reflect on how they are teaching the curriculum.
I appreciated what you said, Devon, about being "swayed by what I thought to be the 'right' way versus what I truly believe to be the best for me and my students." Maybe by encouraging teachers to prioritize time for reflection could allow more teachers to be "liberated" to call their beliefs on curriculum into question. I still think it important for teachers to know what the ideologies are, but I also know that beliefs can take a long time to form. Maybe this idea of intentional reflection could offer a balance between potentially swaying teachers to believe that one ideology is better than another when they haven't had time to explore what they are like as a teacher.
The more we have this discussion, the more I think that you've hit the nail on the head; reflection is essential. This ties in with your previous comment on professionals such as doctors and lawyers calling what they do "practice," which fundamentally implies an effort to improve (one should hope). I would say that reflecting on practice is a very powerful way for any teacher to improve.
DeleteThank you for your insight!
As I was reading the Anyon article on how different schools that serve wide ranges of socioeconomic classes view knowledge, I've been wondering how these different views of knowledge correlate to the varying curriculum ideologies. I know it's getting late in the week, so maybe we can chat about it next time. I have a suspicion that these themes are going to follow us for a while!
ReplyDelete