Some bloggers find it easy to take one aspect of something that another blogger says and then launch into a tirade about it, and even insult the writer or speaker based on that one idea. I can’t do that. However, sometimes someone says something that causes such an itch along my spine, that I just have to backup against a tree and scratch.
The other day, I got back on my soapbox, and railed against our mantra, “Integrate Technology” — preferring instead, to integrate contemporary literacy. Two writers came on with comments agreeing with what I had said, and I agree with both of them wholeheartedly. One, Kelly Dumont, said that information skills seems to be resonating better with teachers than cool technologies. The other, Andrew Pass, came on talking about literacy and the standards, and that if we connect contemporary literacy skills with standards based education, then we will connect with teachers.
I agree with this, wholeheartedly and enthusiastically as well. If we do not teach the standards through contemporary literacies and within the context of today’s information environment, then the standards become merely academic and quite nearly useless, in my opinion.
What I want to take this opportunity to do is to say that it isn’t the standards that I want to resonate with. Certainly we need standards. Certainly we need basics. But when we go “back to the basics,” aren’t we going backward. If we limit our teaching, our curriculum to the standards, aren’t we just producing standard students, and is that what we really want or need today?
I would be much happier if we called them the “foundations.” Because that’s what they are. If we over emphasize the standards, which I believe we have been over the past few years, and equate education with the standards, then we’re saying that its the entire house. Standards, I believe, are the foundation, upon which we build a house, and the building of that house takes a lifetime.
I applaud Andrew for his focus on the standards, and I plan to continue conversations with him along these lines. However, it isn’t the part of the teacher who teaches to the standards that I want to resonate with, because that educator will continue to teach that there are nine planets, because that’s what the answer will be on the standards test.
I want to resonate with that part of the teacher that teaches that there are eight planets. No! I want to resonate with the part of the teacher who wants to explore with the class why astronomers decided that Pluto should no longer be considered a planet. No! I want to resonate with the part of the teacher who asks the class, “How would you classify a planet?” and then ask the class to describe their classification scheme in their writing and then post it as a comment on the blog of some astronomer.
Am I wrong?
Image Citation:
Experience LA, “The Standard Room Wall Decor.” ExperienceLA’s Photostream. 18 Feb 2006. 30 Aug 2006 <http://flickr.com/photos/experiencela/101265264/>.
Technorati Tags: education, lifelonglearning, literacy, warlick
I hate the term back to the basics! I want to hear someone tell their doctor or dentist to go back to the basics and stop staying it to us teachers. Image you are with Plato as he argues that writing will change teaching. Now you are in the 21st Century and we are saying technology (or literacy) will change teaching. We are right! Teaching will change, Yay! We got over the wonder of the new technology of writing and there is light at the end of the tunnel and we will get through the wonder of this new technology until it becomes as fundamental to our lives as writing. That\’s my 2 cents worth :-).
No, you are not wrong. You are just revolutionary which is what the teaching profession needs. What other profession allows you to use methods that are outdated or that were effective 25 or 50 years ago? Even my brother-in-law who has a bread delivery route has been using technology (hand held devices) for the past 8 years! As Karl Fisch said in his excellent PPT – “Shift Happens” and teacher should be on the cutting edge of information literacies. I would love to see teachers model life-long learning by their own willingness to learn these new skills and literacies themselve. I would love it if my kids teachers started this new school year seeing literacy with a new definition.
No, you are not wrong. Using new technologies to teach Foundations is just good teaching. Brain research from cast.org and Universal Design for Learning stresses the importance of multiple methods of representation, engagement and expression. Technology taps into those areas of the brain that make learning and instruction more effective. How do we learn? We learn what we are engaged by! Some kids learn no matter what methods the classroom teacher uses. But more students learn when UDL methods are employed in the classroom. Technology removes the obstacles to learning for many students and engages them in new ways. Keep preaching the message!
Please forgive my typos. I did not edit this well.
I lost my first comment…so I will try an abbreviated version hoping that as the conversation continues to enter it again.
Fist this is an important conversation and love the concept of contemporary literacy.
As for standards based education I want to share a couple of thoughts ..
First- I understand as part of the private sector I have more freedom than some because we do not have the same high stakes testing
Many (All?) of the educators in my area have been educated in a 20th century textbook driven environment. Their role models for the most part started on page one followed the text and the directions therein and ended on page 225..
Now when I interview and throughout the year we stress that the textbook is NOT the curriculum…the teacher is in charge of the curriculum and the sources of information with the standards as a guide and foundation…it is a huge shift in thinking. It takes time to move out of a comfort zone but at least for us the standards are driving a change in thinking and approach. This year there is much more discussion and use of primary sources and some teachers have even told their students their texts are “references” books- which then leads to critical evaluation of information from a variety of sources.
I agree with you that it is about moving beyond and asking questions. We (especially administrators and curriculum coordinators) have a choice – do standards measure what is good enough or do they point us toward reshaping our curriculum and considering new information and new sources?
You write, “Some bloggers find it easy to take one aspect of something that another blogger says and then launch into a tirade about it, and even insult the writer or speaker based on that one idea. I can’t do that.”
Sure you can. How else would one read this first sentence in your article?
The difference is not one of capacity. It is one of clarity.
Of course, you are right! My apologies to all.
— dave —
In Saskatchewan we use “foundational objectives” I don’t believe standards are ever mentioned.
David: First, I’m honored to engage in this discussion with you. I think that it’s important to define our terms because I agree with much of what you are writing. I too don’t think that teachers should teach that there are nine planets. Nor do I think that teachers need to spend much time teaching that there are eight standards. Instead, teachers should teach students to consider why astronomers decided that Pluto would no longer be a planet. However, standards should specify that teachers should teach this. Standards should specify what teachers should teach and what students should learn, and deep critical thought and high quality writing should be included in the standards. Standards don’t need to be the foundation – indeed, they can be the optimal expectations. I simply don’t think that teachers are doing their job if they are not teaching students to think critically about important ideas – this should be a standard expectation.
David, standards are far more entrenched in educational parlance than blogs, podcasts and vodcasts. Today, I asked a room full of teachers, with whom I was conducting an inservice, if any of them had ever been on a blog and not one of them had. Most didn’t even know what a blog was. Many teachers aren’t going to use blogs because they are the tools of communication. Like people in general, many teachers still think that sending letters through the U.S. mail is the optimal means of communication. The way to get teachers to think seriously about blogs, podcasts and vodcasts is to demonstrate that they can help teachers do their job as defined by their employers, teach the standards. (I suspect that as teachers learn to use blogs more frequently, as essential components of their curriculum, they will simultaneously ratchet up the amount of critical thinking and problem solving that they require their students to do.) I’m trying to think from a marketing perspective, a perspective that will help to infuse Twenty First Century technology into our schools. Am I wrong to do this?
Every morning I post a current event on my blog and provide lesson ideas that go with it. Every one of my lesson ideas connects to standards and yet at the same time I think that many of these lesson ideas also promote deep and critical thinking. I really do think that we are saying the same thing in different ways. I just think that if we speak in the language that teachers commonly use we’ll be more successful in accomplishing our objectives.
I’m going to post a link on my own blog to this discussion.
Andrew Pass
http://www.Pass-Ed.com/blogger.html
Thanks, Andrew, for the continued conversation. I have struggled with the idea that you voice in your comment. Can standards be the curriculum, in its entirety? I think that we can believe that it can. However, as much as I admire and respect the people who work tirelessly in our departments of education, and against sometimes ridiculous barriers, I am not convinced that they can define all that children need to be learning to be ready for a rapidly changing world. I believe that part of it must come from educators who are paying attention to our world and adapting what and how they teach to that changing world.
I get your point about most teachers not being familiar with blogs and other new web applications. ..and even though there is EVERY reason to understand why they do not know what a blog is, I do not forgive them. They still think of snail-mail as the center of communication because it comes out of their past. Yet, it is their responsibility to prepare their children for the future, and because of these children, snail-mail will have almost no place in their time.
Again, I can not blame teachers, because the institution is designed not to change, to perpetuate the old — and a big part of education should do this. But the institution should also empower teachers with the freedom and the confidence to adapt, and adapting should be an explicit part of the job.