When I was in junior high, I still to this day have a vivid memory of an incident in my sixth grade English class. A classmate of mine was arguing with the teacher about the vocabulary assignment for the day. The assignment consisted of taking a list of vocabulary words, looking them up in the dictionary, and then writing a sentence using the word you just looked up. A fairly simply task. My classmate, was doing as such until the teacher came over and told him he had to start over as he wasn’t doing the assignment the “right” way. He was taking the vocabulary words and merely writing sentences without taking into account the definition of the word, which he was supposed to be learning by looking them up in the dictionary. Ultimately, he ended up writing sentences such as, ‘The word luminous is a word in the dictionary that is found on page 455′. This subversive approach to the assignment, was quite clever in my mind at the time and still is today. Even though my friend was not technically doing the assignment correctly in the eyes of the teacher, he was thinking of different ways in which he could use a word out of context in a sentence. His approach to learning the “official knowledge” was different and didn’t fit into the teaching curriculum of the teacher. Today, my friend is a plumber, and rarely reads and has not looked up a word in the dictionary in quite some time. My reminiscence of this story came into mind as I was reflecting on the curricular interests held by different members of the U.S. society today. It’s not that I think my friend’s decision to become a plumber and not let’s say a lawyer were influenced by this particular activity, but it definitely didn’t encourage him to seek out more than a two year post-secondary degree.
So, whose interests were being served in this scenario? Or for that matter, any educational setting in the country today? As I began reading about The Struggle for the American Curriculum, a picture began to be painted of the beginnings of curriculum in this country, and implicitly, the role of education in our society today. As the title of this op-ed piece states, there were many pendulum swings and precautionary/reactionary responses to how we should educate our children. No one interest group exists in isolation of another, and as one weakens, another may take force as a reaction to a national scare.1 As discussions in class were progressing, I continually felt, along with others in the class, that the issues that we face in education today (globalism, 21st century skills, standards-based, STEM, and the like) were all issues that we’ve dealt with in some capacity in the past. The interest groups who would attempt to swing the nation’s curriculum in one direction or the other would ultimately feel that their “solution” to the problem would be one that would solve all problems. Their interests, would be potentially served, if citizens were educating in particular way. These interest groups, the humanists, social developmentalists, social efficiency educators, and experience curriculum individuals all seemed to have their own interests, rather than that of the learner in mind.
The one voice that resonated with me was Dewey. He may have been ahead of his time, as he seemed to bump up against the contextual nature of the educational system, but he appeared to have the interest of the learner in mind. This, rather than producing schools that were say “efficient” and factory-like. This brings me back to my friend. Very little thought about his experiences were taken into account in the assignment described above. There was a type of knowledge that was deemed official, and he was to inhale it and take it as the dominant way in which knowledge worked. The other notion that continually came up in class and discussion was the gap between theory and practice. I’ll admit that at times what occurs in my own classroom is not directly related to the standards, but in the big scheme of things, the powers that be have an impact on the content that is taught in my classroom. How could they not? My students will be tested on the content every year, if a question arises about the “legitimacy” of my curriculum, a standard must be referenced to account for my curriculum, and the whole process gives me a very “top-down” feeling in affecting what happens in my classroom with my students. This type of curriculum puts an awful taste in my mouth and the realization of whose interests were being perpetuated became even more evident after reading Michael Apple’s Official Knowledge: Democratic Education in a Conservative Age.
Why is it, that conservative issues hold such a grip on educational practice in this country today in some folks’ minds? As Apple describes, “-in an economy that is increasingly conditioned by lowered wages, unemployment, capital flight, and insecurity-rightist discourse connects with the experiences of many working-class and lower-middle-class people.”2 Evidently, this type of discourse again puts the interests of others in the place of the interests of learners. In order to secure stability and security, it’s best that students of today are taught very similar to how those a generation ago were taught. This in spite of the changing contexts in which the learner exists, the information paradigm that has become evident in most students’ lives, and the lack of guarantee of a job that exists at the end of this dark and dreary education of mindless facts tunnel. How is it that politically correct, multi-cultural, and social justice related education can lead to such upheaval? A word in which I was unfamiliar with, “balkanization” came up in discussion and to my surprise is considered a threat of some sorts if students are taught in a manner that is considered “progressive”. Similar themes to patriotism and unity along with the religious interests were also discussed as being potentially threatened if education becomes more progressive. My only question is, is this threat legitimate? What is it based on and whose interests are being served by presenting this type of propaganda in the media? And when the media is presented in schools in formats such as Channel One, how does this impact the ability of students to critically examine the society in which they live? This “official knowledge” has many implications for teachers in the classrooms as well as for those deciding which curriculum should be taught. After all, aren’t “All ‘academics’…first and foremost educators, teachers. What do we do in our own practices, to follow through on our commitments?”2 This quote from Official Knowledge struck a cord with me. What do I do in my own classroom to allow for my students to become inquisitive, life-long learners, who can form opinions, critically evaluate, and critique each others work, while at the same time realize that the world in which they live is evolving into an entirely new landscape where problems that don’t exist today will need solutions in the future? Let’s just say very little (but I’m getting there), and it is eating me up inside. I occasionally feel deskilled in my classroom as I’m asked to teach my students content that I can vaguely see the point in learning, let alone them. I’m also stuck in a world where I see Web 2.0 technologies as solutions to many, not all, issues in my classroom. However, I am not able to create learning environments in these types of worlds due to the pen and paper nature of school and of course textbooks.
Textbooks, textbook publishers, political interest groups, and politicians have a stranglehold on a lot of what happens in classrooms today, if not at least the drape that hangs over them. I have a textbook for my biology class that incorporates many of the state standards that were adopted in this state, and I am told by my administration that the textbook is to be read and particular attention needs to be paid vocabulary words to create rigor in my course. In reading about the struggle for the national standards in Whose History? it was scary to realize the media’s influence, and particularly those with access to the media, on educational policy in this country. The reactionary responses that were brought about due to reports such as A Nation at Risk and others are eerily similar to those we are beginning to hear today. Just as the powers that be were attempting to take down department of education in the 1980’s3, so to are attacks on teachers and public education occurring today. Blog posts such as, Oh No! The Chinese are beating us!, scores on international tests in science and math as evident on assessments form the Programme for International Student Assessment, and documentary films such as Waiting for Superman are sounding the alarm that a reaction to public education mishaps needs to take place. That reaction, needs to come in the form of privatized public education, the creation of choice in the form of charter schools, the accountability of teachers and students, and de-regulation on who will be allowed to teach our students in the future.
I’d like to move the last piece of this into a discussion of where I think education is at right now, and where it could potentially head in the future. I’d like to look at this through a precautionary lens as I feel that too often, pendulum swings in education are reactionary, as discussed above. I always like to state that this is where I’m at right now. I feel I’m on a journey and my ideas and opinions are continually being influenced and changing as new knowledge enters the arena that is my brain. So, let’s briefly start out with my view of learners. All children are naturally inquisitive and thus learners. When placed in an environment that fosters learning, the need for standards and official knowledge is not needed. Every learner brings certain experiences to the learning environment. Let’s just call these “chips” for simplicity sake. So as children, with their “chips”, who are born with creativity and are intrinsically motivated to learn, are placed in an environment where learning is valued and harbored, the role of the teacher can be dramatically be changed from content dispenser, to content navigator. This new role, creates teachers who can become individual artisans who can truly become masters of their craft. How are teachers and learners currently viewed in schools today, well I think I can sum this up in a few sentences. Teachers are not content experts so someone else must determine what content in necessary/standard/official. This is influenced by the media in which a majority of the society is exposed to and it is increasingly becoming more politicized. Students are buckets to be filled with content, must be made to realize the false importance of test, be testing on content, and view compliance in school as means to a justified ends (i.e. a job and money). So how do I envision this a new role for teachers and students becoming possible? Well, it needs to begin with giving students the same tools that teachers use and other working professionals use to navigate their way through the world, laptops.
You need to give students the power to harness the creativity that comes with being able to produce something in the digital age. Allow students to bring in their own experiences and knowledge and let them put their ideas out into the world. From here, students can do so much. Collaboration, autonomy, community, criticism, engagement and so much more are made available to students. No longer are they passive observers of their own learning, but rather they are an integral part. Meaning, something I myself struggle to find in my curriculum at times, will be transformed as students and groups of students become meaning makers. And while I view this transformation in classrooms as being revolutionary, it is already happening in schools throughout the world. For a recent example take a look at Digital Media: New Learners of the 21st Century or many of the blogs I have on my blog roll. These types of classrooms are out there, and it drives me up the wall that mine is not one of them!
In creating these new learning environments, there are some obvious problems that need some innovative perspectives to consider before hailing technology as the all-mighty answer to our problems. First and foremost, teachers need to be prepared differently. Too often, as Dan Lortie in Schoolteacher noted, we teach how we were taught. This change in itself is obviously a move towards a more “progressive” education, but it is one that I feel we must embrace if we are to prepare our children for the future. I read about classrooms that solve real community problems, grapple with real-world data from agencies like the department of natural resources, and create solutions to problems in their own lives as well as their friends. I’d rather foster these types of learners than the ones I see far too often in schools today. Students who “play school” for the day to get good grades. Students who “sit, get, spit, and forget” the content they are learning. Students who are ventriloquist dummies as they mindless navigate their way through a math problem. I want an educational system that incorporates the aspects of human motivation as described in books like Dan Pink’s Drive and that allow for individual autonomy and learning that isn’t necessarily that of the dominant culture. Are they all going to learn the same thing? No! That’s not possible as everyone interprets knowledge differently, but perhaps they will come to appreciate knowledge and figure out why certain types of knowledge have value to some groups and others not so much. This is the type of skeptical citizen I want to see.
What type of citizens will this type of pendulum swing create and what are the realistic repercussions if it does occur? I feel that if we as educators don’t embrace this shift, it’s going to happen without our influence. Rather than having the influence of educators who are in it for the learners, you will see a generation of students who are influenced by this new technologically-savvy society that consumer agencies are attempting to create. If students are continually turned away from school and forced to use their creativity in other, sometimes not always the most productive ways, our ‘buy this and we’ll make you happy’ culture will provide them with an outlet. On the other hand, if teachers are allowed to create these types of learning environments for students and allowed to guide and help them navigate a world that is ever-changing, a much more informed and sustainable society will prevail. Will it be one with varying views of what is means to be an American, or one that views our nations history through different and sometimes critical lenses, absolutely, but this society is one that will develop with or without us on board. My question is, do we want to be involved or not? I’d hope yes, and that when we do we take a precautionary look at where we are heading, we can put aside partisan politics, thoughts of fear, and create schools that students run to get into, as fast as they currently run to get out of each day (and hopefully one that doesn’t make them look up words in the dictionary just for the sake of looking up words in the dictionary).
1- The Struggle for the American Curriculum: 1893-1958, Herbert M. Kleibard (1994)
2- Official Knowledge, Michael W. Apple (2007)
3- Whose History?: The Struggle for National Standards in American Classrooms, Lisa Symcox (2002)