- 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.
Good Morning, Blog Group 1!
ReplyDeleteI'm going to try to tackle the first set of questions, so here goes.
From reading Schiro and Bobbit, the SE ideology seems to be a response to the "old education" and is centered around action and behavior. SE ideologists will say that it is society that determines the objectives that should be taught in schools and/or society will "specify the product of the schools" (Schrio, 2013, p. 67). With this in mind, the behavioral engineer would be the one within the ideology who decides what the societal needs are and will create a curriculum that is designed to fulfill those needs. I've never met a behavioral engineer, but I'd assume that these are the folks who determine what and how the curriculum should be taught. For example, the creators of Type to Learn, state legislators, and curriculum writers that adhere to this ideology.
When talking about who decides what adulthood looks like, the SE ideology will say that whiles the curriculum is molding the adult inside the child, the most important component isn't of means or ends, but the effectiveness and efficiency of preparing the learner to fill a need in society. So, I suppose that adulthood matters less in terms of a specific age or what it looks like, but whether or not the learning is capable of effectively carrying out tasks needed to make society better.
I think one of the dangers of this, which Noddings points out, is limiting student choice and requiring students to stick with a particular track that may or may not find interesting later in life. Your question regarding automizing one's skills is a concern that Dewey and Noddings have with the SE ideology as well. If the task is mundane or uninteresting to an individual, then how do we create an education that values undervalued work? If the skills for a particular vocation is automatized, then where does one find fulfillment in their work?
Whose "society?" On a broad, national level? A local, neighborhood level?
ReplyDeleteYes. I think the SE ideology will say it is society as a whole, but I really don't know. That's a good question to think about!
DeleteI can see arguments "the society" is both national and local. At the end of the day, if the behavioral engineer is the one making the curriculum decisions, then the answer seems to lie in what that individual believes.
DeleteAfter taking some time to look at your second question about vocational education, I agree that the SE ideology would/could/should be very accommodating. While the ideology may be accommodating, I'm not sure if it always plays out this way in reality. SE views the learner as "raw material," clay waiting to be molded by the curriculum. Learning for the learner happens by doing and practicing in order to be molded into the potential, productive adult inside them. So, what happens to the learner when they aren't being efficient? Who defines efficiency?
ReplyDeleteIn order for vocational education to thrive, we need to ensure that these students receive a quality education. As Noddings' points out, students "should be able to choose a vocational program with pride" (2013, p. 109). Vocational programs have the potential to showcase the unique gifts and talents of our students, but unfortunately we seem to have tracked them into an un-GT category.
I kept wondering that, too - "who defines efficiency?"
DeleteAlso, another question of mine is, in the Social Efficiency ideology, who decides the student's "track?" If we're helping them into an appropriate track for their life (i.e. one where they could be a successful, productive citizen), how and who decides which one that is? [did that make sense?] Noddings definitely agrees that the student should be able to choose that, but I'm not sure it came out in the SE reading.
I don't think it did either. The SE reading from Schiro seemed suggest that the behavioral engineer would be the person or entity that decides the objectives, which could imply that they are essentially determining the track the student goes into.
DeleteI guess I never really gave "efficiency" much thought. I mean it seems straightforward to assess the number of skills that a student has automatized and compare it to the desired number (based on those taught perhaps), which gives a straightforward "efficiency" percentage.
DeleteThe question of determining the person's "track" is a more difficult question to wrap my head around. I wonder if it comes from an of examining the behaviors that a student has shown the most proficiency at acquiring and guiding them to develop those strengths insomuch as society has need of individuals with those strengths?
I should probably finish my thought before hitting submit...
DeleteIf my assumption about how tracking is done, then I agree with Cacey that the implication is that the behavioral engineer is ultimately making that decision.
As far as your third question goes, I'd say that they are probably more pre-packaged. I'd assume that if there are environmental needs in the society, say pollution for example, then there might be a place in the curriculum to make a push for students to study environmental issues. However, environmental issues sometimes seem to be politically charged. The SE ideology doesn't seem to place for issues concerning the environment, politics, philosophy, etc. The strange part is that many in politics favor this ideology, but maybe that is because of the efficiency aspect and measurability of the curriculum.
ReplyDeleteI want to take a stab at your last question, but I'll take your advice and steer clear of it for now. Maybe it'll come up in class tomorrow evening!
ReplyDelete