i think i might love diane ravitch. as i was reading the text, i felt fully engaged. in my annotations, i hardly ever felt compelled to question her argument. specifically, i felt drawn to her description of a well-educated person: "knowledge and skills are both important, as is learning to think, debate, and question. a well-educated person has a well-furnished mind, shaped by reading and thinking about history, science, literature, the arts, and politics. the well-educated person has learned to how explain ideas and listen respectfully to others" (ravitch 16). i think if we used those ideas to guide our curriculum standards, and assessments, we would be on the right track. i was surprised reminded of the destructive role of media-enhanced attacks on policy (17) and how often politics get in the way of real progress: what would our education system look like had the clinton administration not backed away from its vision of national standards? what if there was no such thing as political suicide?
i was intrigued by the idea that so many liberals had come to claim such a republican, business-minded education plan, and i was surprised that i -- like ravitch -- admired the goals and wording put forth in a nation at risk. i liked that it was succinct and designed with high expectations, though i did feel the actual subject-specific standards were not as precise as ravitch touted them as being. they still felt a bit vague to me, but i also don't know if i'd want it any other way: i wouldn't want bureaucratic --- even education-minded ones --- telling me precisely what to teach. the instinctive part of me thinks explicit standards take the joy, challenge, and creativity out of teaching. i'm also aware that it's not helpful for students to learn the same things every year because there is no explicit expectation of what will be taught at each grade level --- or even worse, what won't be taught, living gaps students may never even be aware of: "i think we are always burdened...by the past we don't remember" (pinar 45). teachers are responsible for leading students to discover the past: all perspectives of it, without gaps due to poor curriculum mapping -- or standards.
i felt empassioned by ravitch's focus on vision before assessment to avoid producing "mountains of data, not educated citizens" (ravitch 29). vision is HUGE for me. i think the most interesting groups of people -- from governements to families -- have visions for what they expect and dream their people will be. then you work toward that vision. and then you assess the work. not the other way around, a la NCLB.
i wanted to hear more about ravitch's call to improve elementary and middle schools, as they were left out of ANAR. as a midde school teacher, i don't want middle school to remain the place where we expect our students to learn what a verb is, what a fraction is, how many countries there are in africa -- at the expense of critical and creative thinking and dialogue. i wonder what ravitch's idea of middle school 'rigor' might look like?
all this questioning leads me to my sober reflections while reading john dewey: it's true that "rejection of the philosophy and practice of traditional education sets a new type of difficult educational problem" -- and so it goes. every time i read dewey i am reminded that there is always work to be done. that the road is, perhaps, without destination.
i also felt that dewey shared ravitch's ideas in some ways. i think that dewey would agree ravitch that not all experiences are rich. perhaps dewey would have also agreed that our nation needs some kind of standards or shared plan -- to avoid experiences that are "mis-educative": "just because traditional education was a matter of routine which the plans and programs were handed down from the past, it does not follow that progressive education is a matter of planless improvisation" (dewey 28). i think dewey would argue for standards that might lead teachers' attitudes and classroom environments, not simply the items that need to be taught. teachers need to be expected not only to teach specific objectives (if we're going to argue that), but also they need to be expected to nurture curiosity, to use positive language, to inspire, to make learning feel natural and exciting? ah, but these qualities are both so difficult to teach and to expect...or are they? i'd like to see a case for teaching teachers affect. and i'd like to think dewey would, too. after all, "everything depends on the quality of the experience which is had" (27).
when i go back to teaching next year, i will keep dewey's requirements for experience in mind and ask myself: is this fun for the student, are they immediately interested in what i'm saying, did i 'catch' them --- AND is what i'm saying going to stick, is it important for their life, as "every experience lives on in further experiences" (27).
finally, i think dewey gets it exactly right when he says: "revolt against the kind of organization characteristic of the traditional school constitutes a demand for a kind of organization based upon ideas" (29). i think this is the hope for our future: a public school system which lives and breathes ideas, and an organic system of organizing and assessing those ideas that comes only second to the ideas themselves.
THAT would be bliss :)
No comments:
Post a Comment