Cycle Four: How should curriculum be generated?

Cycle four and the related readings have brought a lot of issues to the surface for me as an educator. I am not sure that it’s as easy to answer how should curriculum be generated? as one might think after reading the Tyler piece. Nor do I think that many people outside of the realm of education understand the politics that play into curricular decisions as exposed by Shorto.  Nonetheless, as an educator, it’s easy to see Ralph Tyler’s influence on education today, as well the almost unfathomable amount of political maneuvering involved in designing curriculum.

When I think about the question how should curriculum be generated? I automatically think about who should be involved in generating curriculum. For me, the Shorto article was an illustration not only of what to avoid when generating or creating curriculum standards, but also that there are a lot of people who want their views and opinions to be expressed through public education. I was angered that the Texas State School Board was so transparently biased. While I would never argue that making curriculum decisions can be completely devoid of bias, it concerns me that a politically slanted and narrow agenda is being endorsed by the most influential school board in the country.

I have had the opportunity to teach in Texas as well as in Michigan. Reading the Shorto article this week made me sad for public education across America. When I began teaching in Houston almost eight years ago, I didn’t realize the incredible possibilities there were relating to curriculum. I was simply handed teachers manuals for math, reading, science, and social studies and told to follow the manuals. It wasn’t until I moved to Michigan that I realized how flexible, responsive, and better curriculum could be when teachers, administrators, community members and even students are all an integral part of generating curriculum.

Unfortunately, I feel like the pendulum in Michigan is swinging more towards the direction that Texas has gone. Rather than people that actually work in the classroom being part of developing curriculum, individuals far removed from the realities of the classroom are making decisions without teacher input. Many school districts throughout mid-Michigan have been forced or strongly encouraged to become part of the MiBLSi (Michigan Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative) grant. This grant essentially forces districts to use a “Core Reading Program” as well as adopt some sort of literacy screener like the DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) or AIMSweb which offer little to no incite into how to meet student needs. While large publishing companies like Pearson say that their programs and “screeners” are “research based,” reading researchers like Richard Allington call these “screeners” examples of educational malpractice!

In the almost four years that I have been in Michigan, I have seen districts abandon their teaching for programs like Scott Foresman’s Reading Street or consider programs like Open Court, a scripted reading program used in many Houston public schools. I realize that there are numerous areas that are in dire need of improvement throughout education. I am incredibly concerned however when many states, Michigan included, are taking advice from a state like Texas. Perhaps in generating curriculum and in regenerating curriculum, we should realize we don’t necessarily need to abandon everything. But instead, we should look at the weaknesses as well as the strengths in our current curriculums and use our strengths to help improve our areas of weakness.

In the end, I am not sure that I agree with everything Ralph Tyler said throughout the chapters we read. I wouldn’t say that I disagree with Tyler, as much as I would say that I think that Tyler was writing about curriculum development at a time when testing hadn’t yet become such a driving force, when teachers felt a greater sense of autonomy in their classrooms, and when students were coming to school with a different skill set.

Ultimately, I thought Tyler was arguing that the curriculum should develop thinking skills, social attitude, interests, and help students acquire information. With that in mind, I think the most effective way to achieve these goals is to develop curriculum at a more local or district level.  If we strictly create national curriculums that cannot possibly tap into every student’s various experiences and needs, there will be many children left behind. As the Shorto article highlights, when people far removed from the classroom make curricular decisions, the results can be devastating not only for one state’s students, but potentially for many students across the country. I think that it is teachers in the classroom and community member that interact with students in their everyday lives that are ultimately the ones that are most capable of designing curriculum that aligns with core standards and meets student needs. 

Cycle 3: Controversial Curriculum

It wasn’t so long ago that having integrated schools as opposed to segregated schools was controversial.  I considered this reality as I read through this week’s articles and thought about the guiding question, should the curriculum address controversial issues? I found myself quick to respond.  Absolutely, without a doubt, curriculum should address controversial issues. If we look at our country’s history or even the history of other parts of the world, we will find that controversial issues are continually being addressed within society. For example, slavery, women’s suffrage, Jim Crow laws, rock n’ roll, eugenics, medical marijuana, sex education vs abstinence education, homosexuality, Islam, the list is endless!

One could argue that many of these controversial issues are already being addressed by way of the excluded curriculum. But, is that really how we want to address controversy in our classrooms? I think excluding controversial issues from our classrooms makes them taboo or can make them seem unimportant or irrelevant. As educators, anytime we make something unimportant or irrelevant in our classrooms, we run the risk of making our students feel unimportant or irrelevant. Perhaps they are gay, lesbian, or bisexual or have a family member who is. Maybe they have AIDS, HIV, or some other illness. Maybe they are Muslim, Jewish, Jehovah’s Witness, or atheist.

Even if our students manage to elude controversy in their own lives, in all likelihood there will come a time when our students encounter someone with HIV or AIDS, or someone who has two moms or two dads, perhaps even someone who is lesbian, gay, or bisexual themselves. If we don’t address these issues in the classroom, our students will be left to navigate these encounters on their own, sometimes with devastating consequences.

So, for me the question this week was not so much should we address controversial issues but how should we or how can we address controversial issues with our students? I think that the excerpt out of John Silin’s book Sex, Death, and the Education of Children: Our Passion for Ignorance in the Age of AIDS as well as the Thornton article, Silence on Gays and Lesbians in Social Studies Curriculum really helped me think about this question. My personal opinion is that as teachers we need to be prepared to have discussions with our students about controversial issues. But, we need to be able to have these discussions within the context of other aspects of their learning.

If there are times when the Social Studies lesson for the day could also include a discussion about homosexuality or religious freedom, teachers should consider these opportunities teachable moments. As a first grade teacher, my discussion would obviously be very different from that of a middle or high school teacher. Rather than being a discussion on the role of homosexuality in Greek art, my age-appropriate lesson might be a discussion about similarities and differences, which would allow me to focus on different types of families, or different traditions and customs and being tolerant of different types of families or different traditions and customs.

Nonetheless, I think that teachers often avoid controversial or difficult topics in their classrooms. It’s understandable when you consider that teachers are supposed to remain unbiased or neutral. They must consider the ramifications of dealing with such issues not only for students, but also for parents, families, administration, and themselves. For me, I know that when I talk about anything that could be controversial, even something like presidential elections, I worry my students will make assumptions about my beliefs. In the end, my goal is only to expose them to the fact that there is a world beyond their community, not to tell them who is the better candidate, or what kind of family is the best, or what religion they should be, or who they should love. I hope my students leave my classroom feeling respected and confident about who they are in a way that allows them to respect others who may be different.

Within the past seven years, I have taught in three vastly different schools, one urban and low-income, one suburban higher-income, and now in a school that is rural with both low and high income students. Having taught in these different environments has reiterated the importance of making learning relevant to student lives. That does not mean that I don’t expose them to things outside of their communities. It just means that I have found that my students are most open as learners if I can relate the learning to their lives and experiences. If we prescribe curriculum to teach children about things like homosexuality, illness, death, religion, politics, or any other controversial issues, I think we run the risk of neglecting our students’ experiences and backgrounds. Instead, I think that when teaching anything, especially when teaching about issues that can be polarizing, it is within the context of our students’ unique experiences and backgrounds that they are best able to form new or better understandings.

Cycle 2: What should the content of curriculum be?

I’d first like to say that I have really enjoyed that our reading has been a mix of philosophical / scholarly work coupled with at least one article that brings the guiding questions back into the reality in which many of us work.  The Donovan article during Cycle One and the Quest to Learn article this week have really allowed me to consider my own teaching experiences and how they relate to each topic.

As we’ve just begun to consider what curriculum is, it is undoubtedly important to think and consider what the content of curriculum should be.  What should we be teaching our students? Should we determine specific skills at each grade level? Should these skills be standardized, locally, statewide, or nationally? How should we go about teaching the curriculum? I think these are already questions that good educators think about, but reading this week’s articles encouraged me to look at the content of curriculum in a new light.

It seems like we read about two different extremes in curriculum and education overall. E.D. Hirsch’s ideas concern me in many ways. Although I think there are basic skills, ideas, and concepts that students should know, I am not sure that books like What Your ____ Needs to Know can articulate all of those things in effective ways. Does every child, regardless of their cultural background or community need to learn the same things? I looked into E.D. Hirsch more after reading the chapter from his book and quickly found that he seems to be a strong proponent of initiatives to create common core standards based on his development of The Core Knowledge Foundation .  While I think that initiatives like this have good intentions, I worry that they promote a “one-size fits all” mentality when it comes to education. That being said, I do applaud Hirsch for stating that he felt like, although there should be common goals, there should be differences in the ways in which we meet those goals.

With that idea in mind, it seemed to me that based on the NY Times article, Quest to Learn is on the opposite end of the spectrum. The curriculum that the school uses seems to be based on methods that indulge the interests of the students regardless of whether that is the most effective and/or appropriate way of educating students. Hirsch’s ideas concern me because I am not sure that anyone or any group of people could determine what every child in America needs to know and whether all knowledge is relevant to every community throughout the country. However, the concept of a school like Quest to Learn concerns me because I believe that as much as we want our students to enjoy school and love learning, there are times when they will be accountable for tasks and assignments that are not based on games or things they like to do.

Everyone has a favorite subject and frequently a least favorite subject. Unfortunately, you often have do things you don’t enjoy, in order to be able to continue to do the things you do enjoy. School athletics is a perfect example. There are plenty of high school students that love sports over math, science, social studies, English, etc. but those students can’t just say, I think I’ll go to my football practice but not to my chemistry class. Those students must show some degree of proficiency in their academics in order to play extracurricular sports. Is Quest to Learn really teaching their students how to navigate these challenges or are they instead showing their students how to avoid these challenges?

As I said before, as an educator, I want my students to love school, love learning, and be engaged in their learning. However, I recognize that there will be times in their lives when they might not get to select the type of project they will complete, and I want them to be adequately prepared in such situations. As I read the NY Times article, I questioned, Is writing a video review of your classmates game design the best opportunity to teach children how to write? I think schools like Quest to Learn are so focused on engaging students in activities that they enjoy that students are not learning about how to be successful in environments that don’t cater to their every whim.

I am certainly not saying that I am completely opposed to using game based play in order to engage my students in learning goals. I just question if there is a better, more appropriate form of technology integration that could meet the same goals in a more effective and appropriate way than video games?

For me, John Dewey, seems to encourage finding a balance between the two aforementioned extremes. I think Dewey wants children to learn in a way that allows them to relate their knowledge to the real world and I agree with Dewey: children must have content presented in ways that allow them to relate to the topic. As a first grade teacher, I find incredible joy in those moments when my students say things like, “Mrs. Robertson, this book reminds me of a time when I was playing out in the snow just like Peter is playing in the snow during The Snowy Day. When I was playing in the snow I made a snow angel. Maybe Peter will make a snow angel too!” Those moments show me that my students are seeing the parallels between what they are learning and their world outside of the classroom. In reading, these parallels allow them to make predictions, connections, inferences, and so much more.

The bottom-line is that Dewey, Hirsch and Quest to Learn all have pros and cons. How can we ensure that students are mastering basic skills, while still letting them be active members in their learning all the while having fun? As educators, I think we must find a balance between engaging our students in their learning of the content while at the same time preparing them for the world. I am not sure that Dewey, Hirsch, or the faculty at Quest to Learn would agree, but my ultimate goal as an educator is to prepare my students not only for the next grade, but for the world in which we all live. I personally think this is done in environments where students are actively involved in their learning, learning about things that interest them, and sometimes learning how to successfully cope with learning content that may not be a easy or enjoyable for them.

Cycle One Post

What is curriculum? What is its purpose?

This is an interesting time to discuss curriculum and its meaning. My school district and many/all school districts in Michigan are looking at aligning their current curriculum with the Common Core Standards that have been adopted by many states, Michigan included. I think that for school districts it’s difficult to discuss the Common Core Standards without thinking about the curriculums that the district has in place or the curriculums that may need to be replaced as a result of redefining the standards and expectations for each grade level.

A simple definition of curriculum would be the methods and techniques we use to get students from point A to point B. Methods and techniques are part of curriculum but a larger, more important aspect of curriculum is content. What should I teach? Why should I teach it? How should I teach it? And when should I teach it? Every state, school district, etc. has goals for what the students will learn at key stages in their education, I see curriculum as a tool to help students meet those milestones. One district might use EveryDay Mathematics to get their students to master the grade level math objectives while another district might opt to use Math Trailblazers. I think that curriculum guides educators in how to teach and scaffold skills for students.  

However, that’s just a simple definition for a very simple concept, basic curriculum. Curriculum becomes harder to define when you consider things like implied curriculum, intended curriculum, excluded curriculum, etc. Although I do think that it is important to consider and reflect on the lessons that we are teaching our students with the supported curriculum, I think it’s equally, if not more, important to think about the lessons we are teaching our students based off of the excluded curriculum or the hidden curriculum that we may be teaching unintentionally.  

Although I teach in a general education classroom, I have a number of students in my classroom that have identified special needs, including one student with autism.

For me, any discussion of curriculum leads me to think about that student and several others. The answers to the questions I posed above change when I consider my autistic student or my other students who are cognitively impaired, otherwise health impaired, or even speech and language impaired.  The Donovan article this week reinforced those thoughts and feelings for me. What was most striking for me with regard to the Donovan article was my sense that the article was not only exposing the world of educating individuals with multiple impairments but asking questions like, What should we teach these students? How can we measure mastery? Should we involve families as we develop not only IEPs but also curriculum?  Although I think it would be fantastic to have parents involved in curriculum decisions for their child or children, my classroom experience leads me the other direction. How can we involve parents and families in those decisions and still meet the needs of all students? The Donovan article demonstrated quite clearly that one parent might feel that their child would benefit from a more “academic” curriculum while another parent might feel a more “functional” curriculum would be the best use of time for their child.

If we extend the discussion to general education students who are “typically developing,” the question remains difficult to answer. Is it possible to involve parents in meaningful ways when some parents think a product-based classroom is more important than a classroom that attempts to create more authentic learning opportunities? As a classroom teacher, I also ask myself how do we hold teachers accountable to curriculum when it may look different for every student in the classroom. I think that teachers already struggle to learn and adapt their curriculums as necessary based on who their students are as learners. If you add parents to the mix of students, administrators, state guidelines, and more, I think that teachers will feel even more overwhelmed.

In the end, as a first grade teacher I am acutely aware that children learn just as much, if not more, by watching and observing those around them.  Children also make connections and inferences based on what they observe or fail to observe. For these reasons I think that it is imperative that educators think about what curriculum they are teaching both intentionally and unintentionally. If I tell my students I am really excited about a certain book, math concept, or topic they too become excited. Conversely, if I tell my students that I think a certain book, topic, or concept is irrelevant or unimportant; they will put little stock into it. What I am trying to say is that as educators we teach our students many things outside of the prescribed curriculum. I personally think that many of these lessons are good lessons however; I do think there are some lessons that we teach unintentionally that cause our children to leave our classrooms with false notions, stereotypes, misinformation, and perhaps most devastatingly a lesser sense of self-worth.  So needless to say, having a discussion about what curriculum is and who should be involved in developing curriculum for students is important and will continue to be important in the future, regardless of government mandates and Common Core Standards.

Welcome to My Blog!

Hi Everyone!

My name is Karla Robertson. I am really excited about TE818. I have taken other classes at MSU through Angel and none of them have included creating a blog so this should be new and exciting!

A Little Bit About Me...

I graduated from the University of Utah with a degree in Political Science and French. I originally went to the University of Vermont to study early childhood education but subsequently changed my major and university. Little did I know where I would be less than ten years later!

After completing my undergraduate degree, I thought about graduate school but then was asked to apply to Teach for America. I applied and was accepted to  started teaching almost seven years ago as a Teach for America corps member. I taught in inner-city Houston, Texas for three years. For two of those years I taught kindergarten and one in Pre-Kindergarten. Although Teach for America is only a two year commitment I quickly discovered that I loved teaching especially young learners.

While in Houston, I met my husband Josh (who is also in this class). After three years, we decided to move from Houston to Michigan to be closer to family. Josh went to high school in Michigan and attended MSU for his undergraduate degree and I am originally from the northern suburbs of Chicago so Michigan was substantially closer to both of our families.

During our first year in Michigan I had to substitute teach but the following year I got a job teaching first grade in Haslett. After teaching for a year I was laid off as a result of budget cuts, but I was able to get a job teaching kindergarten in Mason. After a year teaching kindergarten I had the opportunity to move with half of my students to first grade.

I love teaching in Mason. The school where I teach is literally in the middle of a cornfield which is very different from the school where I taught in Houston. Nonetheless, Mason still gives me the opportunity to teach low income and at-risk students which is something I think is really important and an opportunity I missed while teaching in Haslett.

Since my husband is also a teacher we both spend a lot of time in our classrooms. Outside of the classroom I really like cooking/baking. As a graduate student at MSU I am hoping to learn more about teaching and specifically teaching literacy. Right now I would say my area of teaching expertise is early childhood education. Having taught Pre-K, K, and 1 has allowed me to learn a lot about young children. However, I still have a lot to learn about teaching and am looking forward to what this class has to offer.