Response for 9/29

What responsibility do teachers have in being active contributors to the debates, development, and implementation of policies that impact curriculum and classroom practice?

This question can really be broken down into two separate parts. What responsibility do teachers have in the creation of classroom standards or curriculums and what responsibility do teachers have in those standards implementation in the classroom? It is definitely two different questions!

In regards to the first question, I believe teachers should take a much larger responsibility for what is being decided in regards to the standards and curriculum changes that are being made. Unfortunately, the way that the standards system is set up in this country right now, as evident by Ross's article, do not leave room for teachers' opinions in the planning process. This is unacceptable. Who better to help plan curriculum changes in this country than the teachers who are going to be teaching those curriculums. Teachers are the ones with the experience of being in the classroom and teaching the children. They know what the kids will and won't respond to, and they have seen what has had the strongest impact on the students and how it has affected them. It is clear through his writing that Ross agrees with this. He states that, "...curriculum reform efforts must tackle head-on the conditions of teaching and learning in schools and must embrace, rather than marginalize, teachers as the key element in any transformation of curriculum." (221) This is not to say that the government officials, historians, and researchers should not play any part in the curricular planning process. I do see how they are very helpful in their knowledge of the current educational trends and the bigger educational picture, but not including the opinion of teachers whatsoever downplays their role in the classroom to that of "implementer."

In regards to the second question, I believe the teachers should hold the majority of the responsibility of how the curriculums are implemented in the classroom. It is their classrooms after all and I don't believe it should be the right of anyone to tell a teacher "how" they should teach. On the other hand, I do believe that there are a few other who deserve some say in the matter as well. The school administrators should be given some say in that, just as it is the teacher's classroom, it is the administrators' school. In the end, the learning that is or is not going on in that school ultimately falls onto their shoulders. The other party that I think should have some say is the parents of the children who are being taught. They are paying money (whether it be through tuition or taxes) to give their children the education they think they deserve and therefore should have some say in the matter. While I believe the majority of the responsibility should most definitely lay with the teachers, these other groups should have some say.

though these are valid questions, the current system we are in does not allow for the use of their answers. As much as I may believe that teachers should have a say in the planning and implementation of new curriculums, it does not do much good if the system is pushing in the opposite direction. The system is going to have to change before we can put the answers to these questions into practice!!!

Response for 9/22

The layout of Ronald Evans' book Social Studies Wars: What should we teach the children? is very useful in that as the different centuries go by, different camps from the social studies "war" have their day in the spotlight. Starting with the late 1800's, the reader is given a layout of the establishment of the study of traditional history. At this point in time, the goal behind this curriculum was to help students understand their past and appreciate classical literature. This aim was strengthened by the reports of the Committee of Ten and the Committee of Seven. But even this early, debate and criticism of the traditional history curriculum had started to surface. the first reorganization of the the social studies curriculum came with the 1916 Report of the Social Studies Committee of the NEA Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education. This report was the expression of the progressive educational movement already underway under the leadership of John Dewey. The progressives believed education should focus much more on the student individual under the the leadership of the teacher. The 1916 Report also created a new class that would stay with the social studies curriculum for years to come, Problems of Democracy. This class was set up to focus on social problems and their solutions. Around this time, there was also a growing debate around the study of the social sciences within schools and what part it should play in relation to history and the over all social studies curriculum. This argument was solidified in the social studies "war" with the founding of the National Council for the Social Studies. The NCSS was an influential group all through the social studies "war", and still is today. Another leading progressive educator of the time was Harold Rugg, who was influential all the way through the progressive fight into the battle of the reconstructionist. During the 1930's, Rugg and other progressive leaders had their most influence. With the Great Depression and other social problems of this time period, the reconstructionist attention to social issues and problems really gained ground. Leaders like Rugg and George Counts advocated the study of social issues and believed that students should examine the country's society and try to figure out how they could change it. It was the belief of the reconstructionists that schools and teachers should be the leaders of social change in American society. As the country moved into the 1940's and World War II, the goal of social studies in many American minds shifted. Because of the state of the country at war, history and social sciences were no longer viewed as opened ended and experimental. The war brought back a call for more traditional values in education, geared towards preparing the students "to give their lives for democracy." (70) It was a controversial time for progressives and reconstructionalists, with Rugg again at the forefront as the greater public began attacking him and his textbooks! Social studies also came under fire through a long-running war between Allan Nevins and and Erling Hunt over the state of American history within the social studies curriculum and whether or not it was being taught often enough or well enough. Moving into the 1950's brought even more controversy as World War II ended and the Cold War began. During an era of fear and mistrust, the progressive supporters were targeted harshly, sometimes even red-listed, because of the country fear and paranoia of Communism. This social climate led to an even more right-swinging curriculum in the schools where social studies was concerned. The main thought in education was discrediting un-American viewpoints and bolstering faith and support in the American democracy. Groups like Allen Zoll's National Council for American Education and government groups like the House Committee on Un-American Activities made life for progressive educators and supporters very difficult. Though some, like Archibald W. Anderson, stepped up to defend the current school systems and any progressive leanings that might have been found, it was of little use. The move into the 1960's and 70's brought along a huge shift in the educational theory. With the emergence of what has been called new social studies, the focus was moved more towards the study of the individual disciplines and less on the idea of integrated social studies with the support of people like Jerome Bruner and charles Keller. This movement was highlighted by Project Social Studies, a government program that gave funds for research projects, curriculum study centers, and conferences and seminars. It was an era of research and discovery that contributed to the "creation of a rich and multifaceted explosion of curriculum development the likes of which may never be seen again." (127) There was also the growth of what has been called newer social studies. This movement focused on the social climate of the time and its relevance to the students' lives. Newer social studies had the most visual impact in course offerings, contributing to the growth in high schools offering minicourses in subjects like Black History, Native American History, and Women's History. One of the major players of this movement was Gerald Leinwand. More modern educational history, from the mid-1970s to the present, has been characterized by the movement of standard reform. This movement is spotlighted by a dramatic move to the right in social studies curriculum, also known as the back-to-basics movement. This movement was characterized by the focus on the essentials of education and a return to focus on the basic educational skills. This movement was surprisingly supported by the NCSS. As no other reform movement stepped up to take the place of the dying new social studies movement, the more progressive camp was left at a loss for what to do. This led to a strong revival of the traditional history support. Diane Ravitch was the main leader of this camp and started a pointed fight against social studies, blaming it for the decline in the study of history. This was also the time of the growing interest in government educational standards. As the national government attempted to step in to create a national standard of education, it became apparent that this was just too complicated and difficult to implement. It was then decided that each state and local government would come up with its own set of standards for their education system. This is more of less the system that is in use today.

Response for 9/15

Review of Educational Research and Democracy and Diversity: Principles and Concepts for Educating Citizens in a Global Age

Each point made within the writing of Banks et. al. could correspond with at least one, if not more, of the different theories presented in the writing by Knight Abowitz and Harnish. Right away with the first point, feminist, cultural, reconstructionist, and queer citizenship theories seem to fit right in. The idea of pushing educators to teach their students about the different forms of diversity throughout our world and country, and the unity that is inherently needed because of this diversity fits perfectly into all four of these discourses. Of the two main discourses discussed in the first reading, the first point more clearly links to the civic republican discourse, but still only lightly. The only connection between the civic republican discourse and the first point on diversity and unity is the mention and discussion of unity. Civic republican citizenship theories are very strongly based on the citizenship of the "country" and the love and honor a citizen holds as a member of their country. This leads to a small, but still relevant discussion about unity. The other main discourse, the liberal citizenship discourse, is even more loosely related in that it is very much based on individuality and personal rights and responsibilities. Therefore, the idea of unity is not mentioned at all, and diversity in only one sentence. The second point in the Banks reading is most obviously connected to the discourse on transnationalism. By stating that students should learn about more than their own country, but also how their country is affected and affects the countries and world around them, this point is stepping directly into the realm of transnational citizenship. This discourse is centered around teaching and preparing students to become local, national, AND global citizens. The third point, focusing on the teaching of human-rights in the classroom, if much more connected to the liberal citizenship discourse than the civic republican discourse. In liberal citizenship education, the focus is put directly on the individual and individuals rights, which would include what are considered now to be the basic human rights. Civic republican citizenship is too concerned about the group to delve too deeply into something so inherent in the individual. In truth, all of the critical discourse fit into this point in one way or another because they are all focusing on the ideas of focusing citizenship education on a specific group or subject and the rights that go along with it. Whether it be women in the feminist discourse or the poor in the reconstructionist discourse, each of the critical discourse discusses the education of basic human rights in some way. This also include the transnationalist discourse, perhaps more so, because it is focusing on the citizenship of the world and the basic human rights that should be afforded to every member of the global citizenship, not just in the more developed countries. The final point in the reading definitely fits most clearly into the liberal discourse of citizenship because the liberal theory if very focused on the individual and the job of educators to help students decide for themselves what their individual opinions and beliefs are. This is found most readily through the practical use of the knowledge they are being taught. Through their experience with democracy and the running of their own schools, they begin to form opinions about how the country is run and whether or not they agree as individuals with what is happening in their local, national, and global governments.