I have to strongly disagree with your view of education and the necessity of a uniform "core" curriculum. Your present your ideas through you writing but only the benefits, well at least as you see it. The one argument that I can truly agree with you is that a "core" curriculum can help the child who has to move around during the school year.
But I urge you to consider the child who "gets the facts" immediately. What will they do as the teacher tries tirelessly to get the all of the students at the same level? From my experience, this student often presents a challenge in many forms (as does the child who takes a long time to understand). They need a more progressive method to challenge their personal abilities.
You suggest repeated practice and memorization. However, what if what the students are learning is not correct? This would be a wasted effort. My point being, memorization of facts does not promote intelligent citizens but the development of ideas around facts does. On your "A" list you list AC/DC. I don't want to have a conversation with a person who will simply recite facts about the band and form no opinions. I can find that information on my own. I want to converse about opinions about the band and ideas about what they have done throughout their career. This is intelligent conversation.
There is another point that I can agree with you about and that is the need to master simple elements before complex elements of content material. I also think this a "DUH" understanding though. You couldn't build the Great Pyramids without building the base first. How can we expect students to perform higher level math skill if they don't understand number values? However, the way students understand this will vary from child to child because they are all very different individuals.
Plain and Simple: We all learn in different ways. Repetition and memorization may work with some but not for all. As educators we have taken a pledge for all students to have the opportunity to learn.
Dear Sean:
ReplyDeleteIt was very interesting to read your letter, in which you are expressing a criticism of my ideas. From the content of the letter it appears that you learned of my books and my philosophy from the article of Professor Walter Feinberg and from a certain website www.engines4ed.org. I wouldn’t presume it to be good and objective sources, sufficient to form an opinion about a subject, but as you wrote “we all learn in different ways.”
Let me first suggest that before you so aggressively attack my beliefs, maybe you should learn a little more about what they are (not what Pr. Feinberg says they are).
To answer your first sentence, you would definitely survive without knowing who the 11th President of the United States was. You might do well or poorly, be happy of miserable, sick or healthy; your life and well being surely don’t depend on the knowledge of trivial facts. Such facts, as well as the list quoted on www.engines4ed.org do not determine a person’s success or happiness. The list is just an example of how broad a spectrum of different subjects an educated person would be familiar with.
My belief in the importance of certain “content, that all students need to learn, and that this content should be appropriately sequenced and uniformly paced” is dictated by the demands of our society. If we try to teach solely by addressing each students “personal abilities” (as you put it), we risk placing those students whose abilities we perceive to be different (or inferior) at a disadvantage compared to those who are believed to be more capable. Who would be determining those “abilities”? In the movie Gattaca (1997), a man labeled as genetically inferior embarks on a mission to deceive the authorities and realize his dream of traveling into space. May I suggest that you watch the movie? I believe that any student’s potential is vast. I also believe that it has to be developed to manifest itself. Repetitive practice and rote memorization are just two of the numerous exercises and techniques to help a student realize this potential. Yes, it is a challenge for a teacher to attempt for all students to reach the same target standards. It is much easier to defend a student’s lack of knowledge or basic skills by saying that the student is working at his level of ability.
To develop intelligent “ideas around facts” you have to know the facts, first. There is no getting away from it. Furthermore, for historical events, it is very hard (I would say – impossible) to determine what is a correct and what is an incorrect interpretation. Teachers are human, as are book writers, who interpret historical events. From that point of view, it is safer to just teach facts and let the students form their own opinions, based on their research of numerous sources.
“Plain and Simple: We all learn in different ways. Repetition and memorization may work with some but not for all.” For some students, you would need to develop a personal approach to help them master basic skills, and repetition and rote memorization…