Let me start off by saying that I firmly believe that each individual teacher should have complete and total control of the curriculum they teach. I really liked learning about teachers as "curriculum gatekeepers" last cycle, and I think this is how it should be. Having said that, I know that this cycle is supposed to be from a wider angle, focusing on the nation as a whole. I do know that students do move, as I have gained and lost several over the years to moves, so for this reason I can see the need for a greater level of consistency throughout the nation. However, where our country and public education is currently at - with national standards that are so very specific, and standardized tests, takes this consistency too far.
Perhaps, it is only because of my perspective in the education field that I have these views. As a private violin teacher, I hold all of my students to basic standards - posture, intonation, rhythm, and theory. There are established ways you play a stringed instrument, and that is the way it is done. The wrist must be straight, not only for proper playing, but to prevent carpal tunnel and tendinitis. Established notes, what western music is based around, must be mastered. Rhythms, again, what western music is based upon, must also be mastered and played correctly. The ways that music fits together, what signs and symbols mean, must all be learned. When you think about it, there is quite a lot that I have to teach. However, beyond that, I have absolutely no restrictions at all. I am self employed, so have no bosses telling me to teach in a certain way. I can use whatever methods, music, or techniques I want. I can set up my studio in a way that works for me and my students, and I can choose what style I want to teach (classical, fiddle, rock, jazz, etc). Since I also teach one student at a time, I am also able to tailor each lesson to the specific student, rather than forcing an entire class to learn the same thing. Indeed, I am always looking for new ways to teach, and find myself going through cycles of how I teach, which helps to keep me fresh, and provide a more well-rounded education for my students.
All of that explained, I believe that should be the way that all of education is handled. There should be some set standards that all students reach, nationwide, to help give students consistency as they go from teacher to teacher, school to school, or even across the country in moves. However, beyond these basic set standards, teachers should have the authority to dictate how they will teach. We need to trust our professionals to do their jobs. When I hire a technician to fix my hot water heater, I don't try to tell him how to do his job. Similarly, I do not feel it is our place to tell teachers how to do theirs.
But, these basic set standards, how are they to be decided? Certainly not like they are by the State Board of Education in Texas. While reading this article, I found several objections to how they do things. First of all, the members of the board were otherwise completely unrelated to education or children. What place do a dentist, a Christian activist, law professor, and an insurance salesman have deciding what our nation's children (or even just their state's children) should know? And while educators carefully wrote out the document, the board went through and changed it to the point where the writers felt they had weakened a once strong document. The board has the authority to add things as well as remove things, making the hard work the teachers put into drafting the standards null. Further, I strongly feel that the TEKS are just too specific. Dictating that all children should learn about Thurgood Marshall, Billy Graham, Newt Gingrich, William F Buckley Jr, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, but not Bill Martin Jr. or Edward Kennedy. Being this specific does not allow individual teachers the ability to follow their own interests or strengths, let alone their students'.
While knowing how NOT to do things can be very powerful and informative, it is not enough. How should we do things? I found the Ralph Tyler reading to be an interesting set of ideas on curriculum construction, however, I objected to his criticism of specialists determining what students should know. His argument was that these specialists were assuming that all students would go on to further study their fields, so expected too much of every day students. He argued for a more general education, without assuming that students would continue on to specialize in a field. I would rather assume that every child will specialize in every subject than assume that none of them will specialize in any of them. Because then you are left without any specialists, which is what I think makes our society function. Kids never know what they will do when they grow up. I always knew, and here I find myself in a completely different field than I "knew" I would be in my entire childhood!
Rather, deciding on set subjects every child should have a working knowledge of (history, English, science, and math are the current "core" subjects and a great starting point), then deciding what each child should be able to know and do in each, seems to be the way to go. However, unlike current standards, which are very specific, I think they should be much more general. For example, rather than having standards at each grade level, having standards for graduation I think is sufficient. And these standards, I believe, should be things that every person should be able to do, rather than overly specific. For example, for history and English, students could be required to be able to write a persuasive or informative essay or paper on the causes and effects of a particular event (their choice) in history. That way, students can follow their interests, and choose whether to learn about the civil war, American revolution, the civil rights movement, World War I or II, or anything else. But they would be learning how events are related and how to find these connections, which I think is more important than memorizing what some one has determined are the 6 causes of the Revolutionary War. Standards that are this general will be worked on throughout the school years, as all teachers will have their minds partially on them, and if students were to keep portfolios of their work throughout their years, rather than take tests, they could better show their mastery of these basic standards.
For my resources, I thought I would include curricula from the homeschooling standpoint, as it is more relevant to me, and with the way our education system is set up, I find those resources to be less than helpful. However, I found the same problems with the various homeschool curricula. They mostly seemed to be public school at home, with the same busy work and design to meet standards. However, this research was informative - it brought home the point that I will need to develop my children's curricula myself, based on their needs and interests, as I had originally planned to do. As a teacher, I don't feel at all intimidated about teaching my own children.
The one exception to the homeschool curricula that are public schools at home, that I found, was the Robinson Curriculum. However, this had such a high degree of religious references that I would not feel comfortable using it. In addition, it completely de-emphasized the role of the parent as teacher, as it is a self-education program. I can see the value in it, but I also feel that an important part of education is interaction with a teacher. Perhaps this comes from my bias as a private teacher, but one of my problems with public education is the limited interaction students get with their teachers. I would hardly want to worsen what I see as a problem.
Other homeschool curriculum websites I explored included the Rainbow Resource Center, the Calvert School, Pearson Homeschool, Time4Learning, and Core Curriculum. I think the curriculum I was happiest with was actually the Khan Academy, which I explored after watching the TED talk. When my children and I run into problems learning something, we'll definitely be checking out Khan Academy, and it's been bookmarked on my browser.
A great resource that I've been using as I've been learning about homeschooling here in Washington State is WHO: Washington Homeschool Organization. They have all the legalities (which, in my opinion, are minimal), as well as homeschoolers' rights. Such as, there are no curriculum requirements, no lesson plans that have to be declared, and while annual assessments are required, the only people that need ever see those are the person proctoring the assessment and the family. The only way I'll have to provide those to the school district is if I later decide to enroll one of my children in the public school. I love that I will have complete freedom and ability to tailor my children's education to their needs and interests. Other websites that summarize the ins and outs of homeschooling in Washington state include Barb Shelton's website and the OSPI website, though neither of these is as informative as WHO.
