Excellent talk. I tottally agree with you. In chapter 2 of my doctorate thesis (Amato, 2001) at Oxford Universty, I wrote: Saviani (1993) argues for a pedagogy of liberation that places great emphasis on the acquisition of the cultural content in the school curriculum: “the oppressed does not become liberated if s(he) does not master all that the oppressors master. Therefore, to master what the oppressors master is a condition for liberation” (p. 66). In a similar way, Delpit (1995) argues that teachers should help poor students and African-American students “to learn the discourse which would otherwise be used to exclude them from participating in and transforming the mainstream” (p. 165). Freire (1998) has also discussed the social importance of helping underprivileged students to learn more formal Portuguese (educated norm): “so that they gain a fundamental tool for the fight they must wage against the injustice and discrimination targeted at them” (p. 74). Therefore, student teachers and school students must understand and be fluent in both: (a) the mathematics present in their communities and (b) the more formal mathematics included in the school curriculum.
From E.D. Hirsch's "The Schools We Need" (1996) "It is never a healthy circumstance when people who are held in low esteem exercise dominant influence in an important sphere. The conjunction of power with resentment is deadly. The educational community’s identification of knowledge with “elitism”-a theme that long antedated the recent addition of “Eurocentrism” to the antiknowledge armory-is a strategy born more of hostility than of rational principle. Professors of education, surrounded in the university by prestigious colleagues whose strong suit is thought to be knowledge, have translated resentment against this elite cadre into resentment against the knowledge from which it draws its prestige. This displaced antagonism has expressed itself rhetorically as populist antielitism, which, added to endemic anti-intellectual-ism, further derogates traditional book learning." (p. 136)
The foundational basis behind the premise is solid and should be implemented by school systems. The big issue I have is using Baltimore City Schools as an example of ANYTHING successful. This is issue is the least of the problems over there. Also it is sad that public school systems are clearly wasting away teacher professional days on fluff instead of properly preparing the teachers to actually teach!
It doesn’t seem to me like American public high schools are prioritizing skill over content. It seems more like the students just aren’t engaged in learning and don’t remember much material beyond the day of the test. They have learned that what matters most is grades and test scores, so learning the material is only for that goal, not for personal enrichment or interest.
The question is: "why do discussions of education in the U.S. of often get boiled down to silly dichotomies like skills vs. knowledge?" What political, economic and cultural factors drive discussions of education in such a direction? Neil Postman addresses the issue in his _The End of Education_ (1995) when laments a misplaced focus on the "engineering" of education. There is a complex interdependence between "knowledge" and the acquisition of "skills." Communicating and understanding that interdependence is the root of good teaching and learning.
Interesting talk. This might explain something I find when interacting with some young Americans. They claim to not need to know anything, because modern technology allows them to look up anything as needed. When you try to discuss most things with them they know so little they can't interact. They often know so little they don't even know how to form a meaningful search for knowledge.
When people say this is an equity issue, it gives the impression that affluent kids don't really need knowledge based curricula, and often don't need things like phonics to learn to read. True?
You cannot properly use the tool of language without the skills to use that tool. So, if you aim teach more than just tools, then you could, for example, discuss how understanding why that particular language was used in the declaration then contrasting that to how it might be worded in modern times to expand knowledge in ELA. Ask critical thinking questions: What synonyms could be used and how might that change the meaning? How might that change the perceived meaning? Are people more likely or less likely to infer the wrong meaning? Is misinterpretation a result of ambiguous wording? Could it be made succinct? What if we restructure the sentence? Does that change the meaning? Etc. When and why the declaration was made is more of a civics or history topic. Having the knowledge of when and why is then applied to the thinking process of how you answer all of the questions posed in ELA. . Content rich is a good thing, but you have to have tools to process the content. Be careful though because interjecting ideology and philosophy can both enhance and detract from critical thinking.
Excellent talk. I tottally agree with you. In chapter 2 of my doctorate thesis (Amato, 2001) at Oxford Universty, I wrote:
Saviani (1993) argues for a pedagogy of liberation that places great
emphasis on the acquisition of the cultural content in the school
curriculum: “the oppressed does not become liberated if s(he) does not
master all that the oppressors master. Therefore, to master what the
oppressors master is a condition for liberation” (p. 66). In a similar
way, Delpit (1995) argues that teachers should help poor students and
African-American students “to learn the discourse which would
otherwise be used to exclude them from participating in and
transforming the mainstream” (p. 165).
Freire (1998) has also
discussed the social importance of helping underprivileged students to
learn more formal Portuguese (educated norm): “so that they gain a fundamental tool for the fight they must wage against the injustice and discrimination targeted at them” (p. 74). Therefore, student
teachers and school students must understand and be fluent in both:
(a) the mathematics present in their communities and (b) the more
formal mathematics included in the school curriculum.
From E.D. Hirsch's "The Schools We Need" (1996)
"It is never a healthy circumstance when people who are held in low esteem exercise dominant influence in an important sphere. The conjunction of power with resentment is deadly. The educational community’s identification of knowledge with “elitism”-a theme that long antedated the recent addition of “Eurocentrism” to the antiknowledge armory-is a strategy born more of hostility than of rational principle. Professors of education, surrounded in the university by prestigious colleagues whose strong suit is thought to be knowledge, have translated resentment against this elite cadre into resentment against the knowledge from which it draws its prestige. This displaced antagonism has expressed itself rhetorically as populist antielitism, which, added to endemic anti-intellectual-ism, further derogates traditional book learning." (p. 136)
Thank you.
The foundational basis behind the premise is solid and should be implemented by school systems. The big issue I have is using Baltimore City Schools as an example of ANYTHING successful. This is issue is the least of the problems over there. Also it is sad that public school systems are clearly wasting away teacher professional days on fluff instead of properly preparing the teachers to actually teach!
It doesn’t seem to me like American public high schools are prioritizing skill over content. It seems more like the students just aren’t engaged in learning and don’t remember much material beyond the day of the test. They have learned that what matters most is grades and test scores, so learning the material is only for that goal, not for personal enrichment or interest.
The question is: "why do discussions of education in the U.S. of often get boiled down to silly dichotomies like skills vs. knowledge?" What political, economic and cultural factors drive discussions of education in such a direction? Neil Postman addresses the issue in his _The End of Education_ (1995) when laments a misplaced focus on the "engineering" of education.
There is a complex interdependence between "knowledge" and the acquisition of "skills." Communicating and understanding that interdependence is the root of good teaching and learning.
Interesting talk. This might explain something I find when interacting with some young Americans. They claim to not need to know anything, because modern technology allows them to look up anything as needed. When you try to discuss most things with them they know so little they can't interact. They often know so little they don't even know how to form a meaningful search for knowledge.
When people say this is an equity issue, it gives the impression that affluent kids don't really need knowledge based curricula, and often don't need things like phonics to learn to read. True?
You cannot properly use the tool of language without the skills to use that tool. So, if you aim teach more than just tools, then you could, for example, discuss how understanding why that particular language was used in the declaration then contrasting that to how it might be worded in modern times to expand knowledge in ELA. Ask critical thinking questions: What synonyms could be used and how might that change the meaning? How might that change the perceived meaning? Are people more likely or less likely to infer the wrong meaning? Is misinterpretation a result of ambiguous wording? Could it be made succinct? What if we restructure the sentence? Does that change the meaning? Etc. When and why the declaration was made is more of a civics or history topic. Having the knowledge of when and why is then applied to the thinking process of how you answer all of the questions posed in ELA.
.
Content rich is a good thing, but you have to have tools to process the content. Be careful though because interjecting ideology and philosophy can both enhance and detract from critical thinking.