There has been a growing amount of federal influence in education. Whether through incentives or curriculum legislation, the federal government has become too central in education. The problem doesn’t lie within the intentions of the government, but the curriculum that is being promoted by it. First and foremost, curriculum should be decided at the local and state level. This allows students the best opportunity because the curriculum they are provided with is catered to them.
As a country, we typically follow a general curriculum set out by national guidelines. This can be good in the sense that we know as a nation, every child is getting the same education (although that doesn’t incorporate the actual amount of learning occurring in the classroom). However, this national guideline often conflicts with the interests of the students. We must engage students in order to encourage learning. On March 5th, the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) agreed to a new a state law that mandates black history be taught in all public schools. This not only extends a history that isn’t taught enough to students, but allows students who are African-American to relate to the curriculum being taught. Instead of talking only about African-American history during brief periods of American history or during Black History month, students will have an opportunity to learn about their ancestors and their past.
In large Latin American regions, I personally think school districts should encompass a Latin American history class for Latin American students and those interested to learn about the history of Latin American people. What we often forget about in the social studies curriculum is that America isn’t just made of Europeans, however students only learn about the white America in textbooks. There is a lot of diversity throughout the states, and I think students so be given an opportunity to study it.
In regards to math, science, and English, it would be within a local school district’s best interest to access the amount of time needed in these subject areas based on the demographic and results on tests (although the tests I propose is something similar to a previous post of mine Truth Behind Testing). Schools that don’t need to spend additional time in these subjects can allow their students to take classes outside the core requirements, and those schools that access that their students need more time in these subjects should do so without pressure federally.
As for testing, a national test is ideal in that everyone is assessed equally, however I see potential pitfalls in that area. The standards regardless being set locally or federally should challenge the students, but be held as simply an ideal benchmark. There needs to be testing to understand where students could use extra work and apply these results to the school curriculum.
Overall, a curriculum in the hands of a local government allows schools to be more flexible the way they teach, and can cater towards students needs and desires. There is a slight need for federal assistance in the economics of education, however with regard to setting curriculum they need to take a step back.
Related articles
- The Truth Behind Testing (moderndaychris.wordpress.com)
- CPS will teach more African American studies in the fall (wbez.org)
- Breaking: Center School Race and Gender Curriculum Reinstated – Mostly (slog.thestranger.com)
- Curriculum must be designed to motivate (mysanantonio.com)
- Changing Lives, Changing Communities (about.taylorwimpey.co.uk)
Nice post, Chris. History and social studies could definitely benefit from being more expansive and inclusive. Personally, I think learning about some of the key leaders in American history, regardless of race, would be beneficial. I’m talking about more than just Washington’s cherry tree and Lincoln’s stove-pipe hat filing system. We need to be teaching and learning about who these people were and what they did.
What do you think about grouping students by age and not by learning ability?
in response to your question about grouping students, i feel it is a touchy subject that i have not exactly found my answer to yet. i was part of a ‘tracked’ middle school and high school and see the benefits of students being with kids that are intellectually similar. however, i struggle in seeing those that are placed to not succeed or misplaced. some of these kids don’t have the same opportunity of those placed in ‘higher’ tracks. i plan on writing about this subject once i can reach my own decision about the subject. is there anything you could add to the subject? thanks for your comment!
There is a sort of safety in having kids grouped by age, where everyone hopefully averages out, but I worry that we sacrifice advancement in the name of safety. Does that make sense? The topic is something I’ve heard in education reform discussions and it seems like we shouldn’t just group students by age, that some other factors should be considered to find the best fit. To me it is another example of how as a society we label and group arbitrarily and don’t consider the individual. I think classes should be organized differently. Rather than start at 5 and move up based on age, have individual tracks for each student where they move up when they have mastered a skill. Of course this would require a lot more management from teaching faculty, unless some form of automated curriculum was available via computer. I don’t have a viable answer, just interest, and I’m interested to read your thoughts on the topic in the future. Thanks!
Pingback: Creating a Local Curriculum: The Beginning of Education Reform | Educational Leadership and Technology | Scoop.it·
As I read this, I could not help but smile. Chris, your comment, “As a country, we typically follow a general curriculum set out by national guidelines” reflects your age. The national guideline approach is actually quite new in the grand scheme. Education was NEVER meant to be a national program. Education is NOT MENTIONED in the Constitution. It falls under the 10th Amendment which essentially states that anything not mentioned in the Constitution is the under the domain of the states.
Not until President Carter created the Dept of Ed did national education policies – and all that has followed – come into being. Were you aware that the original standardized tests were NEVER to be used to compare one student or one school or one state to another?? They were only supposed to be used to discover where a student was in his education, NOT to start the comparison madness that has taken over education.
The Founders believed that each community was better prepared to determine what should be taught in their schools. I can already hear the shouts of, “but the world has changed” and “we now have a world-wide economy.”
Do you really think that community leaders are not aware of that?
Just like the example of teaching black history in Chicago makes sense. Not teaching black history in Palm Springs also makes sense – both LOCAL decisions. Educators do not need the nannies in DC to tell them what to teach.
Thanks for the information RKPSMITH12. I haven’t studied the history of education, but was aware that the system has changed over the years. From some of the books I’ve read about the Founders it seemed like there was a basic recommendation for what should be taught in schools that certainly wasn’t what we see today. Though not mentioned in the Constitution, education was seen as a catalyst for a strong nation, but just like you said, run locally, with States at liberty to do what was best in their region.
Chris, nice post. Very astute observation about the lack of appreciation for the contribution of other cultures. Our classrooms reinforce the insignificance of other cultures by making the standards based on the dominant culture. A Latino student living in a predominantly Latin neighborhood would relate more to Latin history than the typical Anglo-Saxon history. Further, such cultural matching of textbooks to the community would go a long way toward helping disadvantaged children regain some sense of pride and self- esteem.
Pingback: Where is World Education in The American Curriculum? | moderndaychris·
We absolutely love your blog and find nearly all of your post’s to be exactly what I’m looking for.
Would you offer guest writers to write content for
yourself? I wouldn’t mind creating a post or elaborating on a number of the subjects you write concerning here. Again, awesome web site!
Hi there, I enjoy reading all of your article. I like to write a little comment to support you.
Hey there! Would you mind if I share your blog with my facebook group?
There’s a lot of folks that I think would really appreciate your content. Please let me know. Cheers
Yeah! No problem!
The conversation here is as interesting as the post itself! To the notion of localizing content – it just makes sense in a way that the “common core” directive just doesn’t. That, in part, is the impetus behind public charter school, which is another controversial topic. Solutions to one issue often cause new problems, in the case of charters, the problem being diverting funds away from the traditional publics in the respective district. Right now, in my community, I’ve elected to keep my daughter in a private Montessori school, though if I were to go public, I would probably elect to apply for the local charter school, precisely because under their charter they have the flexibility to localize their curriculum. And that comment leads me to the other thread here – about how to group students. Often there is a gap between research, theory, and practice, but on the research/theory side of things, there’s evidence suggesting much value to mixed-age, mixed-ability classrooms. Tracking by ability can cause harm in psycho-social and interpersonal ways (something I discussion in two posts of my own (http://cognitioneducation.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/labels-on-the-brain/ and http://cognitioneducation.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/labeling-in-the-name-of-progress/). In mixed age & ability classrooms, students learn to work together with peers who differ from them and everyone wins. That’s the beauty of the Montessori method where students progress in their work at an individual level, but work in a classroom with peers at varying levels and ages. The local charter school in my area has loosely adopted this approach as well by having all multiage classrooms where students stay in the same classroom two years running, which is why I see it as a reasonable alternative should we decide to go public. Personalizing lessons so students advance at their own pace is a monumentally difficult challenge for public schools to even consider, though I think it would be time well spent should someone feel up to the challenge of creating a model that would work in today’s classrooms.
Reblogged this on Failure to Listen and commented:
Reblog from modernDaychris whose exceptional blog on Education is filled with gems of knowledge and ideas. This reblog is part Education Reform: A Glimpse at Many Sides (Series). Here is a view that highlights one of the many flaws in our school curriculum- – it ignores context, teach irrelevant non-engaging material in many communities that would like to learn more about their culture– a point repeated in many previous posts. Why is so much time devoted to teaching half-truths about our country (and I love this country).
After checking out a handful of the articles on your blog,
I honestly appreciate your way of blogging. I saved as a favorite it to my bookmark site list and will be checking
back soon. Please visit my web site as well and tell me your opinion.