Bobbitt

I found Bobbitt's article, "The Scientific Method in Curriculum Making", an interesting read. There are a few ideas that the article presented that I would like to address. I found his statement, "A program never designed for the present day has been inherited" (pg. 9), thought provoking. I do agree that education must change with the times but many of the basic skills (reading, writing, and arithmetic) that we teach remain the same over centuries. Bobbitt's belief that we should teach to the shortcoming of pupils is a practical one but does this approach leave room for development of critical thought by the individual? Critically questioning our society is the first step to implementing social change.

Weekend in North Battleford

There was plenty of interesting discussion during our weekend in N.B. I found the explanation of Schwab's article particularly insightful. Honestly, the language of the article was so confusing that I could not get through it in my first attempt. Now that I have a basic understanding of it I am going to try again. I also found the debate on the new curriculum interesting. Although I am a relatively new teacher, I think less prescriptive guides are a step in the right direction. I am an educated person and should enjoy more academic freedom.

Meganism - Take 1

Meganism is a traditional educational model which has the ultimate goal of producing caring and productive citizens. It will begin with mastering the 3 R's and then evolve to developing critical thought. It will promote an interest in local and world events. Curriculum guides will be no more than 20 pages in length and be less prescriptive then they currently are. This will allow teachers some time to teach what they are passionate about. This model discourages teachers from "bandwagon jumping" and believes that only fundamental problems in education need to be addressed. The job of the teacher is leader and role model. While it is the teacher's duty to maintain order and a structured environment, students must also view them as approachable. The role of the student is to master basic skills and then investigate their surroundings to develop a worldview. There will only be one school system so all children are unified in their experience.

Counts

From a historical perspective George S. Counts' article, "Dare the School To Build a New Social Order?" is very interesting. At first I thought it was written in modern times but then it became glaringly obvious it was written during the Great Depression. It discusses the impact of industrialization on the nation. It also states the importance that the role of the teacher and the education system have in regard to implementing societal change. Many of his suggestions are "Utopian" and looking forward into the future, they have yet to be implemented. His writing style is full of imagery but long winded at times.

P.S. If I would have looked at the heading of section 1, "Looking Back: A Prologue to Curriculum Studies", there would have been no doubt in my mind that this article was not modern.

Addams

I enjoyed reading Jane Addams' article, "The Public School and the Immigrant Child". The best part about it was its brevity. It did raise a few interesting points that made me look at the education of immigrant children in a different way. It has never occurred to me that American education is widening the gap between immigrant children and their parents. Another interesting statement was, " We bring the young to see Italy, but we do not utilize Italy when it lies about the school house." (pg. 27) There are so many times when we can bring culture into our school by inviting certain community members into our classroom, but it is something that is often overlooked.

Tyler

I enjoyed reading Tyler's article, "Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction". His style is clear and concise. The article caused me to reflect on why the objectives that I teach to my students are important. I am not totally convinced that everything I do teach is applicable or relevant to my pupils. Tyler raises this concern when he discusses the limitations of objectives that are too advanced and technical, leading many students unable to see how they could apply to their lives. Like Tyler, I do agree that objectives must not be static. There are some objectives that were of importance 50 years ago (handwriting) that are not particularly relevant today, although there are some broad objectives (reading, writing, and arithmetic) which remain the same. I like that Tyler states the importance of the interest of the individual child when determining objectives. It is interesting that this article was written in 1949 but is still relevant today.

Dewey - Part 2

John Dewey's Article Two in "My Pedagogic Creed", raises some interesting points about the social nature of the school. He views the school as an extension of the social community in which the child exists. I agree with this in principle but there are a few limitations of this theory. Dewey assumes that home is a place of moral training and it is the job of the school to strengthen the values of the home. In most situations this is the case but every year I run into students that have not had the privilege of having a positive adult role model to teach them right and wrong. Some of my students are more or less raising themselves and are not coming to school with appropriate social values. Is it my duty as an educator to teach them what I think is ethical? What if education is not overtly valued in my community? I can not in good conscience, as a teacher, endorse this belief. I try to the best of my ability to endorse the values of my community but I still bring my preconceived ideas to my profession.

Dewey- Part 1

Something struck me as I was reading "My Pedagogic Creed", by John Dewey, that I have been meaning to address for some time. On pg. 18 he addresses preparing children for the future, which I think is the primary aim of education, and how it is impossible to do so because the ever changing nature of society. Although his creed was written in 1929, this is a similar view expressed in the clips we watched in Turtleford. While I agree that technology is rapidly changing our society, it is ridiculous to assume that virtually nothing will remain the same. It will still be essential that students learn the 3 Rs (reading, writing, and arithmetic). They will still need to have social skills. The videoclips that we watched in Turtleford expressed that educators are inadequately preparing students for the future, and how can they because they do not know what it holds? This is a cop out. Are we supposed to sit by and teach nothing because the jobs students will be working at probably do not exist today? If I look back at my limited 27 years on earth I do not believe that the world has changed to such a degree that some are suggesting.

There is an interesting video on Youtube called Viral Education 2.0. Here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX8LTMf_c8Q. It expresses a similar sentiment to the videos we watched in Turtleford.