New Jersey C.C.C.S.

After perusing the social studies content standards for the first time in quite a while, I am left feeling the same sentiment that I had the last time: when did the school year get extended to 270 school days? Honestly, when I am supposed to find the time to cover New Jersey's role in World War II or the Civil War? Or make time to have students analyze how American colonial experiences caused change in the economic institutions of Africa? Most of the things that are mentioned in the content standars are covered in most social studies classrooms, to one degree or another. I may not spend too much time, if any, discussing the Paterson Silk Strike. However, this is not to say that I do not think it is important. I have always believed that the content in the social studies classroom is only the vehicle by which students arrive at their ultimate goal: critical thought. If it keeps their attention and stirs up their emotions, then I think it is useful. If I spend three days on John Brown and only one on Abraham Lincoln, sue me.

I try very hard to not be a cynical critic of curriculum content standards. They have a place and it is important. I do think that the CCCS are effective in providing teachers with a framework to follow. If so inclined, a teacher would use them to guide their units and dictate the subjects of each day's lesson. The problem is that they would probably get only halfways through them by June. The content standards, in my view, have almost a built-in recognition that no one will actually attempt to cover them all. Implicit in the quantity of standards is the suggestion that you should do the best you can to cover what you can. In this way, most teachers if not pressured to will not refer to the standards at all.

The best way that teaching a social studies curriculum was ever described to me was to view it like a barbed wire fence. The wiring is thin, but continuous. However, to suspend the wire, ever now and then, a thick, sturdy post must be laid into the ground. The posts are the things that a teacher chooses to zero in on because they recognize the opportunity for critical thought, discussion, analysis, etc. I see many or most of the content standards as being effective suggestions for those posts. However, it would be difficult to set the barbed wire to those standards.

Saber Tooth Curriculum

Ok, I understand the message of the saber tooth story. However, I cannot help but feel that its lesson brings us nowhere closer to the truth. What are the fish grabbing, horse clubbing, sabretooth tiger scaring lessons that we still teach in schools today? Is the ability to perform basic arithmatic an obsolete with the invention of the calculator? Has spellcheck made it unnessary to teach spelling and punctuation. Are my social studies unimportant because my students can simply google anything that they woudl ever need to know about the War of 1812 or the Red Scare? It's a nice story, although it says in 10,000 words what could be just as clearly stated in a succinct 1,000. However, because it is a clever way of looking at the challenge of curriculum and it is written well, we can be lulled into thinking that the analogy it creates perfectly fits the parameters of our dilemma. I would say that it does not. If there are no more horses, then clubbing horses is an obsolete skill. The sabertooth proponent argued that there was still value in teaching the fundamentals of that skill to children. The problem with this is that there are few examples of things being taught in our schools today that are, to the same degree, out of date. It is ironic that the author creates a comparison between today and the time of early man, when things were much simpler. Neanderthals were preoccupied with one thing: survival. Their individual survival and the survival of their species was the only thing they needed to worry about. Our lives are slightly more compicated. When a man is staring down into the muddy water, looking at the fish that he must grab, there are only two stakeholders: him and the fish. Either he eats and the fish dies or he doesn't eat and the fish lives. Our schools today contend with a fare more complex set of stakeholders: students with ever increasing needs and problems, teachers, parents, administrators, taxpayers, school staff, etc. I would love to put my finger on a piece of curriculum, big and small, and declare it dead. The problem is that I doubt I could get everyone, or maybe anyone, to agree with me. We can and should modify what we teach to adapt to the 21st century. It is impractical and unrealistic to spur changes of the magnitude described in this reading.


simpler

180 School Days

Isn't it funny how 180 school days can be shaved down so quickly to 67? Before I even begin to account for pep rallys or fire drills, I already know that I will see my students only 135 out of the 180 days because of our rotating block schedule. Of course, all teachers realize most of the things shared in that brief presentation. At the same time, it does open your eyes to have all of the distractions, delays, and interuptions coupled together at once. I would submit that we should hesitate before becoming too disgusted with the reality of instruction time. Many of the things mentioned in the video DID have some value. I am not so naive or idealistic as to think that my students learn, develop, or mature only through the curriculum that I teach. Rather, I firmly believe that the vast majority of what students learn in high school, both in and out of the classroom, occurs outside of the explicitly stated curriculum. For instance, we do not account for the essential need that students learn to socialize and interact with eachother in an informal setting. Sure, we all create cooperative learning activities. However, young men and women also need to be placed in situations that, while supervised or structured, allow for a more informal interaction with peers. This is why I am such a strong proponent of extracurricular activities as a critical part of any healthy school.

Quieting the Mind

I must admit that as I began to read this article, I could almost feel my eyes starting to roll. Perhaps I have become oversensitive to what the one teacher called “Cloud Nine-groovy-hippie-liberals bringing ‘enlightenment’ to inner city schools”. As I continued to read, however, I started to see how this practice does have some merit and potential to do a lot of good for our students. The line that really struck me was that “parents and teachers tell kids 100 times a day to pay attention, but we never teach them how.” What a great point! I had never thought about it in those terms. It is akin to studying for tests and taking notes, things that we emphasize to our students but do not enough time to show them how.

At the very least, quieting the mind is an attempt to address what we all agree is an ever-increasing problem in our classrooms. Students are often overstimulated and unable to cope with their emotions.

I foresee and opportunity through physical education and health courses to incorporate this practice into high schools. Students today certainly need something to help them deal with their complicated lives. The 21st century teenager has a lot of luxuries that we might not have had in decades past. However, with those luxuries come a multitude of new problems, stresses, and anxieties.

Change

Educators are slow to change because they choose to focus on the full half of the glass. There are many wonderful things happening in classrooms in every school. It is the progressive who focuses on what can be done better or what needs improvement. Most educators, for fear of liability or just plain laziness, take a "if it ain't broke..." attitude to their classroom/school/district. Most change is not brought on through individuals. Rather, it takes a shift in the opinions and demands of the public at large to bring on sizable change. In education, the public is composed of people is composed of people who were taught a certain, traditional way. They know no other way of doing things and I am sure also have a sense of nostalgia when they see their children doing the things they remember doing in school. It is a "catch 22". Better education would empower taxpayers to demand more innovation and progress from schools, but without better education they will never know any better.

The Prensky Challenge

I couldn't disagree more with the entire premise of the Prensky Challenge. I almost find the article idealistic and controversial to the point that I question whether he was even serious in writing it, or rather just attempting to promote a healthy dialogue.

The reason that students do not achieve at a higher level (by whatever measure you choose to use) can be summarized in a single word: apathy. While this is certainly not a 21st century development, student apathy has increased due to technology, economics, and the media. Students feel empowered by outlets such as YouTube, cell phones, MySpace, and blogging to feel a false sense of maturity, safety, and wisdom. They have it all figured it out. And if they run into trouble along the way, they can always seek help through our advanced information and communication systems. What could they possibly have to learn in a classroom? What skills do they not already possess, that can't be downloaded or googled, that will help them in the future?

By the way, what ever happened to hard work being its own reward? Are times so desparate that we need to resort to these measures in order to motivate students? I certainly hope the answer is no. I doubt we are so enlightened as to feel confident in the premise that our underachieving students only lack the extrinsic motivation to succeed. Have we forgotten that children, by their very nature, become quickly accustomed to such rewards, accomodations, and concessions. Before long, they have a funny way of morphing into entitlements, things that they deserve, and not because they earned them. Then where will we be?

Part of growing up is learning to complete a task to the best of one's ability, whether you like it or not. Not everything that we as adults do is because there will be a positive reward at its conclusion. Rather, I would submit that many of the things we work for are rooted in a fear of losing something. I could give a child a new toy every time he puts his old toys away, but what lesson has he learned then?