A couple recent classes I've taken for my administrative certificate have given me an expanded idea of the role of education -- for democracy, for the economy, for the pursuit of happiness, for the "expansion of the spectrum of knowledge." My educational law class, especially, has given me a renewed sense of the -- literally -- exemplary role of teachers. Teachers can get fired for shoplifting or sleeping around, if either of those things negatively affects the teacher's effectiveness in the classroom. Teachers are held to a more stringent "standard of care" that Joe Q. Public when supervising kids. Teachers -- really -- must be models.
But my rejuvenated sense of the importance of education and of teachers hasn't helped me know what I should teach in class. Just in English, there is a polite brawl involving several professional Englishy groups who each pretend to be the heavyweight. There are Illinois State Standards in English, there are standards constructed by the National Council of English, and the International Reading Association; there's the National Performance Standards, the ACT College Readiness standards.... And that says nothing about local best practices, district standards, and whatever-worksheets-I-used-last-year.
As you might guess, there's no consensus among those factions, very little common language even. To a new teacher, or a parent, what might be helpful is a clear, jargon-free listing of "what a student should know, understand, or be able to do" when she or he leaves freshman year, sophomore year, etc.
One high school that I know of, Jones College Prep, in Chicago has done something like this. Jones' principal, Don Freund, worked with his staff to produce the "Profile of the Ideal Graduate of Jones College Prep at Graduation," or "grad at grad" standards. On this list, you'll see goals like that graduates will be "able to question the information around him or her ".
Another path to the definition of what should be taught is through litigation about school financing. In "Twenty-five years after Rodriquez: What have we Learned," William Koski and Henry Levin review William Clune's work in defining what an "adequate" education might be. "Adequate," in Clune's work in trying to ensure financial equity in school law cases, is defined as "high minimum outcomes for all students."
"We can think of educational adequacy in relation to the competencies that
adults require to be productive thinkers, workers, citizens, and parents."
"But which subjects should be required in the curriculum and what level of
competency is adequate? It is clear that we do not know precisely which
educational competencies are strong predictors of adults performance, and there
is almost no data base of validation studies to assist us.... At the very least
we might expect to look for competencies in communication such as reading,
writing, speaking, and listening (interpretation of what is being said). Beyond
this, there are a variety of subjects in mathematics, sciences, social studies,
... Then there is a knowledge of the arts, artistic expression, literature, and
culture. Even these do not include the interpersonal skills necessary for
effective functioning."
This leaves me double minded. It makes me roll up my sleeves right now and establish those "competencies in communication." It makes me want to begin thinking about what the "knowledge of the arts, artistic expression, literature, and culture" would look like if it were written down. At the same time I'd predict that ten teachers would come up with ten different versions of what that means.
Personally, I feel like I've been reinventing teaching too long. I want to help create the "Bill of Educational Rights" for students with the best thinking that we can muster right now, and then create "amendments" when necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment