What I am talking about is not a federally-provided lesson plan that would remove flexibility and creativity from the classroom. Rather, I advocate a national curriculum that acts as a sort of map, providing landmarks that teachers must visit throughout a given school year.
I'm not advocating we tell teachers how to teach. That can be done at the local level with inevitably mixed results. I'm saying we need to give them a broad outline for what they will teach in a given school year so that a kid can leave a school in Nebraska and move to a school in California and not miss a beat..and so a cultural institution can share it's collections with kids all over the country. I'm also suggesting that by creating broad markers instead of micro markers for education, maybe the complaint of 'teaching for the test' will go away.
I'm not trying to replicate either so it's a moot point. While there wasn't any central control in the past, there was also a lot less difference between curriculum in Idaho verses curriculum in Maine. In the case of schools a diversified teaching model has been problematic in a number of areas.
** That was a generic 'you' and bad grammar on my part. It should have read, "I think we should operate under the assumption that everyone will go to college..."
How can you focus on improving teaching methods when everyone is teaching completely different things? The problem is that curriculums differ so much from sitrict to district it's extremely hard to find solutions that can be broadly applied.
I think that a traditional curriculum is going to prepare students for just about anything the world throws at them. Most people would agree that most job-specific knowledge is acquired through work, not through study.
I would say both. In the past kids were much more well-rounded and had a beter basic knowledge of a a variety of subjects. Civics and goegraphy received much better coverage than they do no, for example.
In other areas we are doing better. Kids today are well-versed on computers and have access to better technology. Also, there is a better understanding of learning abilities and some allowances are made for that.
I think our goal is roughly in-line with your second description. In short, well-rounded, good citizens.
A national curriculum is meant to address a few needs:
1) A basic standardization of what is taught to facilitate student mobility and to encourage cooperative education.
2) To raise the standards nationally for subjects and create a educational outcome that is more about how hard you worked than what school district you lived in.
3) To dovetail with national testing to facilitate improvements in teaching methods and to hold school systems, administrators and teachers accountable for the success of their students.
I don't like the idea of math and science being the base. I prefer a traditional curriculum with a few electives. I think you operate under the assumption that everyone will go to college and create a basic college prep program. If kids don't go to college, they still have a good foundation of skills.
I guess also with a national curriculum, I'm less worried about what subjects are taught than I am about making sure those classes cover the same basic material.
I think 3 would be completely reasonable and curriculum could address that.
It's also not so much a matter of what is taught, as to the speed for a lot of kids. It's not like slower kids can't comprehend astronomy or physics, they usually just need it to be at a slower pace.
Are they realy in flux? Aren't they primarily 'in flux' because no one is bothering to standardize them?
And I don't know that I agree completely with you that the teaching methods are the culprit for failing schools. I would point much more to factors at home, socio-economic issues, a lack of exclusivity, etc.
But suppose you are corect and teachign methods are to blame. A national curriculum could in fact change those methods by giving teachers more flexibility and a more simple format to follow.
One component I didn't mention in the post is that I would like to see a very diverse group of people overseeing this curriculum, a lot of them not actually being teachers. I'd like to see NASA help with an astronomy curriculae. I'd like to see David McCullough help with the history curriculum. Etc, etc.
I would point out that a national curriculum would not be designed to tell people how to teach. It would simply say, all students at this level are going to study these specific subjects in the course of the year...and maybe throw in a test at the end to see how well they understood things. So teaching methods are still subject to scrutiny at the school, district, state or national level. If students were taught all about basic algebra in 5th grade, and they can't pass a test designed to cover exactly what they were taught...then obviously someone needs to ask why.
We self-produced a bluegrass album in my brother's basement over the course of a year on cheap software with rented equipment and a couple of decent computers. The only cost was editing and there are a lot of people here that will do it on the cheap. Granted, Louisville has a huge music scene, but with technology going the way it is, it's easy to pull these things off as a DIY project.
I think the case against ID is much more convincing coming from scientists and educators than atheists. If those scientists and educators happen to be atheists, good for them. But 'atheists as defenders of science' is a joke. It's mostly 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. They aren't in the fight nearly as much to keep science pure as they are to keep religion out.
I’m a huge supporter of “local control” for school districts. I understand if parents want to outsource the raising of their children to government workers from age 4ish through 17ish. That’s totally cool. I just think that they ought to have the main voice in what gets taught.
If parents are going to decide on the curriculum then they should teach their kids at home. While I'm no fan of evolution being some kind of equivelant of the Lord's Prayer for atheists, ID in public schools is just ridiculous. That's what happens when you put curriculum in the hands of local jurisdiction.
With PZ I tend to think more of an overlap between 'dick' and 'atheist'. Quoting him is like quoting Pat Robertson for the moderate Christian perspective.
I'm not saying that the instrusion of religion into the classroom shouldn't be fought...I'm just suggesting that a group with a less partisan agenda should be mounting the defense. When atheists get on board one wonders if they are really pro-science or just anti-religion.
Why is it OK for religious groups to proselytize, recruit and advertise, but as soon as atheists do it there’s something suspect, they’re “new” and different and bad?
So you're saying you like those aspects of Christianity?
I think in the past I've referred to the 'new atheists' as militant or evangelical atheists. They are just satisfied with being atheists themselves, they see it as their mission to persuade everyone else to believe (or not believe) the same way.
My biggestbeef is the way they have become the 'defenders of science'. Admittedly it's the fault of the ID folks who are pushing for religious intrustion into science, but that doesn't mean atheists are the defenders of science by default.
Here's the weird thing: While I love The League and enjoy all the posts, I almost never like the music you guys share. I don't mean that as an insult, it's just a matter of tastes. But man, I thought I was a pretty eclectic guy, but you all take it to a whole other level. And not in a way that pleases my ears.
Oh well...just keep writing great stuff and i'll forgive the tunes.
Here's what I've been having trouble with the last few days:
Sarah Palin ran for VP and was therefore running to be one-heatbeat-away from the Presidency. She was/has been/will be scrutinized to the 10th degree and much of it is premised on the office she was running for and the office which many believe she would like someday. So her intelligence, policy knowledge, etc was questioned. Fair enough...
Joe Biden really IS a heartbeat-away from the Presidency, is a complete boob, a blowhard, an ego maniac and has demonstrated an uncanny ability to be wrong on every major foreign policy issue he has ever commented on. Yeah, he went to law school and yeah, people say he's a nice guy. But one cannot help but wonder why the holy heck he gets a pass? I really think liberals just see him as comic relief and would prefer he be treated as such.
Maybe Palin is an evil, creationist, book-burning, idiot fembot...but is that somehow more dangerous than having a complete joke in the current VP spot?
But criticizing unions for not pushing more people up and out of their own unions seems a bit like criticizing them for not doing to enough to stop baldness...
If you're not part of the solution...
There are plenty of businesses built on high turnover rate. The UPS hub here in Louisville has a very high turnover rate because it's demanding work and tough hours, but they build turnover into their business model and pay well so they always have people applying for jobs. I would think a inter-union training program would be attractive to low-skilled workers straight out of high school.
I will agree that many types of union jobs are low-skilled and as a result those workers are most vulnerable to exploitation. But as we know that is a two-way street. I consider the unions to be more complicit than the employers because rather than being honest with their members and telling them to develop more marketable skills, they encourage them to fight for a 'living wage'. The dirty little secret is that they know a family four will never be able to get by on the paycheck of an low-skilled laborer. But these employees are convinced and stay in these jobs rather than moving on. The unions keep their dues and the workers stagnate.
I have advocated for a long time that low-skilled unions should partner with trade unions and colleges to funnel employees to them. The low-skiled unions can protect the workers when they are most vulnerable and the trade unions give them training and then (hopefully) better jobs.
Right now unions catering to low-skilled workers are prolonging their stay at the bottom of the workforce, not helping them move up.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “A National Curriculum”
Let me share a quote from the post above:
What I am talking about is not a federally-provided lesson plan that would remove flexibility and creativity from the classroom. Rather, I advocate a national curriculum that acts as a sort of map, providing landmarks that teachers must visit throughout a given school year.
I'm not advocating we tell teachers how to teach. That can be done at the local level with inevitably mixed results. I'm saying we need to give them a broad outline for what they will teach in a given school year so that a kid can leave a school in Nebraska and move to a school in California and not miss a beat..and so a cultural institution can share it's collections with kids all over the country. I'm also suggesting that by creating broad markers instead of micro markers for education, maybe the complaint of 'teaching for the test' will go away.
"
I'm not trying to replicate either so it's a moot point. While there wasn't any central control in the past, there was also a lot less difference between curriculum in Idaho verses curriculum in Maine. In the case of schools a diversified teaching model has been problematic in a number of areas.
"
** That was a generic 'you' and bad grammar on my part. It should have read, "I think we should operate under the assumption that everyone will go to college..."
How can you focus on improving teaching methods when everyone is teaching completely different things? The problem is that curriculums differ so much from sitrict to district it's extremely hard to find solutions that can be broadly applied.
I think that a traditional curriculum is going to prepare students for just about anything the world throws at them. Most people would agree that most job-specific knowledge is acquired through work, not through study.
"
I would say both. In the past kids were much more well-rounded and had a beter basic knowledge of a a variety of subjects. Civics and goegraphy received much better coverage than they do no, for example.
In other areas we are doing better. Kids today are well-versed on computers and have access to better technology. Also, there is a better understanding of learning abilities and some allowances are made for that.
"
I think our goal is roughly in-line with your second description. In short, well-rounded, good citizens.
A national curriculum is meant to address a few needs:
1) A basic standardization of what is taught to facilitate student mobility and to encourage cooperative education.
2) To raise the standards nationally for subjects and create a educational outcome that is more about how hard you worked than what school district you lived in.
3) To dovetail with national testing to facilitate improvements in teaching methods and to hold school systems, administrators and teachers accountable for the success of their students.
"
I don't like the idea of math and science being the base. I prefer a traditional curriculum with a few electives. I think you operate under the assumption that everyone will go to college and create a basic college prep program. If kids don't go to college, they still have a good foundation of skills.
I guess also with a national curriculum, I'm less worried about what subjects are taught than I am about making sure those classes cover the same basic material.
"
I think 3 would be completely reasonable and curriculum could address that.
It's also not so much a matter of what is taught, as to the speed for a lot of kids. It's not like slower kids can't comprehend astronomy or physics, they usually just need it to be at a slower pace.
"
Are they realy in flux? Aren't they primarily 'in flux' because no one is bothering to standardize them?
And I don't know that I agree completely with you that the teaching methods are the culprit for failing schools. I would point much more to factors at home, socio-economic issues, a lack of exclusivity, etc.
But suppose you are corect and teachign methods are to blame. A national curriculum could in fact change those methods by giving teachers more flexibility and a more simple format to follow.
"
One component I didn't mention in the post is that I would like to see a very diverse group of people overseeing this curriculum, a lot of them not actually being teachers. I'd like to see NASA help with an astronomy curriculae. I'd like to see David McCullough help with the history curriculum. Etc, etc.
"
I would point out that a national curriculum would not be designed to tell people how to teach. It would simply say, all students at this level are going to study these specific subjects in the course of the year...and maybe throw in a test at the end to see how well they understood things. So teaching methods are still subject to scrutiny at the school, district, state or national level. If students were taught all about basic algebra in 5th grade, and they can't pass a test designed to cover exactly what they were taught...then obviously someone needs to ask why.
On “musician’s cooperative”
We self-produced a bluegrass album in my brother's basement over the course of a year on cheap software with rented equipment and a couple of decent computers. The only cost was editing and there are a lot of people here that will do it on the cheap. Granted, Louisville has a huge music scene, but with technology going the way it is, it's easy to pull these things off as a DIY project.
On “on new atheism”
I think the case against ID is much more convincing coming from scientists and educators than atheists. If those scientists and educators happen to be atheists, good for them. But 'atheists as defenders of science' is a joke. It's mostly 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. They aren't in the fight nearly as much to keep science pure as they are to keep religion out.
"
From Jaybird:
I’m a huge supporter of “local control” for school districts. I understand if parents want to outsource the raising of their children to government workers from age 4ish through 17ish. That’s totally cool. I just think that they ought to have the main voice in what gets taught.
If parents are going to decide on the curriculum then they should teach their kids at home. While I'm no fan of evolution being some kind of equivelant of the Lord's Prayer for atheists, ID in public schools is just ridiculous. That's what happens when you put curriculum in the hands of local jurisdiction.
"
With PZ I tend to think more of an overlap between 'dick' and 'atheist'. Quoting him is like quoting Pat Robertson for the moderate Christian perspective.
I'm not saying that the instrusion of religion into the classroom shouldn't be fought...I'm just suggesting that a group with a less partisan agenda should be mounting the defense. When atheists get on board one wonders if they are really pro-science or just anti-religion.
"
I think it's completely relevant since you seem to be operating in a two-wrongs-make-a-right scenario.
It's the job of scientist and educators to defend the classroom...not atheists.
"
Why is it OK for religious groups to proselytize, recruit and advertise, but as soon as atheists do it there’s something suspect, they’re “new” and different and bad?
So you're saying you like those aspects of Christianity?
"
Which point?
"
I think in the past I've referred to the 'new atheists' as militant or evangelical atheists. They are just satisfied with being atheists themselves, they see it as their mission to persuade everyone else to believe (or not believe) the same way.
My biggestbeef is the way they have become the 'defenders of science'. Admittedly it's the fault of the ID folks who are pushing for religious intrustion into science, but that doesn't mean atheists are the defenders of science by default.
On “Friday Night Jukebox: Random Rules Edition”
Here's the weird thing: While I love The League and enjoy all the posts, I almost never like the music you guys share. I don't mean that as an insult, it's just a matter of tastes. But man, I thought I was a pretty eclectic guy, but you all take it to a whole other level. And not in a way that pleases my ears.
Oh well...just keep writing great stuff and i'll forgive the tunes.
On “Begetting Worse Politicians”
Here's what I've been having trouble with the last few days:
Sarah Palin ran for VP and was therefore running to be one-heatbeat-away from the Presidency. She was/has been/will be scrutinized to the 10th degree and much of it is premised on the office she was running for and the office which many believe she would like someday. So her intelligence, policy knowledge, etc was questioned. Fair enough...
Joe Biden really IS a heartbeat-away from the Presidency, is a complete boob, a blowhard, an ego maniac and has demonstrated an uncanny ability to be wrong on every major foreign policy issue he has ever commented on. Yeah, he went to law school and yeah, people say he's a nice guy. But one cannot help but wonder why the holy heck he gets a pass? I really think liberals just see him as comic relief and would prefer he be treated as such.
Maybe Palin is an evil, creationist, book-burning, idiot fembot...but is that somehow more dangerous than having a complete joke in the current VP spot?
On “I bet you don’t think this post is about you, do you?”
And just when I thought my bruised ego was getting better. Cr*p...more therapy.
On “quote for the morning”
Ouch!
On “no manning”
Cogs in the wheel. And that's really what ALL low-skilled workers are, whether we want to admit it or not.
"
But criticizing unions for not pushing more people up and out of their own unions seems a bit like criticizing them for not doing to enough to stop baldness...
If you're not part of the solution...
There are plenty of businesses built on high turnover rate. The UPS hub here in Louisville has a very high turnover rate because it's demanding work and tough hours, but they build turnover into their business model and pay well so they always have people applying for jobs. I would think a inter-union training program would be attractive to low-skilled workers straight out of high school.
"
I will agree that many types of union jobs are low-skilled and as a result those workers are most vulnerable to exploitation. But as we know that is a two-way street. I consider the unions to be more complicit than the employers because rather than being honest with their members and telling them to develop more marketable skills, they encourage them to fight for a 'living wage'. The dirty little secret is that they know a family four will never be able to get by on the paycheck of an low-skilled laborer. But these employees are convinced and stay in these jobs rather than moving on. The unions keep their dues and the workers stagnate.
I have advocated for a long time that low-skilled unions should partner with trade unions and colleges to funnel employees to them. The low-skiled unions can protect the workers when they are most vulnerable and the trade unions give them training and then (hopefully) better jobs.
Right now unions catering to low-skilled workers are prolonging their stay at the bottom of the workforce, not helping them move up.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.