I am a product of the American system of education. I can read and write. I can solve for x. I can critically analyze
information on an array of intellectual topics. I'm very grateful for these skills! I cannot, however, play an instrument, paint,
sing, sculpt, or draw very well. I remember
being very interested in these things as a child. Sir Ken Robinson makes me question why I did
not continue to do these activities -
Did I lose interest, or did I stop because these activities were not valued,
supported, and allowed to flourish? Every
once in a while, I’ll do something that my girlfriend thinks is extraordinary
(create a drawing or painting, build something with my hands, or maybe
freestyle a hip hop song), and she’ll tell me my creativity has been suppressed. I often fantasize about being able to explore
my creativity, and what I might be able to achieve if I were able to apply
myself to other disciplines. Alas, I
have chosen to go the safe route and my free time is instead spent earning my
master’s degree.
As the Critical Reconstructionist explains in the Schubert
(1996) article, my education has become “a game of finding out what teachers
and other authorities want and providing it”, whether I care about the topic or
not (p. 175). I believe this experience
to be that of the majority of U.S. students.
We value schooling over education. It’s not so much about what you learn in
school and how you can apply it as much as it is about what sitting in a
classroom will get you: the gold star, the extra time at recess, the grade, the
praise, the diploma, the opportunity, the job, the money. Those are the motivators. We value schooling, not learning. I am intrinsically motivated to learn and
become a better educator, but I am not paying tens of thousands to earning my
graduate degree based on that. I’m
increasing my debt and giving up my nights and weekends because of what it might
get me.
In 1957, the Russians sent Sputnik into space. It was a sobering experience for the
post-WWII Americans who were living high on their economic prosperity and
feeling unthreatened by the rest of the world.
With the Russian satellite in orbit, Americans became paranoid that the
Russians would use the satellite for espionage.
They also became competitive. The
Americans ramped up the science and math curricula, and the effects of that are
still felt today: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14829195
A new Sputnik has been launched: the high standardized test
scores of many European and Asian countries.
Once again, we Americans feel threatened and competitive and we are
directing those emotions at the curricula in our schools. Sir Ken Robinson asked why we don’t teach dance
as much as math. In the U.S., more arts
and more electives are being cut to make way for increased reading and math
instruction so our students can earn higher test scores on standardized tests.
Interestingly, economic power is not actually related to
test scores. That’s to say that we
cannot predict a country’s success by studying its test scores. My view of curriculum was forever changed by
a book entitled Catching Up or Leading
the Way: American Education in the Age of Globalization by Dr. Yong Zhao (former
Michigan State University professor and current University of Oregon College of
Education Presidential Chair and Associate Dean for Global Education). http://www.amazon.com/Catching-Leading-Way-Education-Globalization/dp/1416608737
Dr. Zhao, who was born in China, set out to explain why the Chinese system of
education is superior to that of the Americans.
In the midst of his research, he discovered that the Chinese were
attempting to reform education to make it more like the education system in the
U.S., which fosters leadership, creativity, entrepreneurship and strong social
skills (attributes the average Chinese student lacks). He found that the Chinese place an incredible
amount of emphasis on high-stakes standardized testing, which drives a
curriculum of rote memorization and takes an incredible toll on the students. Students spend years memorizing information in
order to earn a high score on the gaokao,
the annual national test. It leads
to alarming rates of suicides, ulcers, depression, and stress among the
students, and it does little for economic success. Dr. Zhao argues that we need not focus on
test scores, but instead on equipping students with the skills that will make
them successful in the age of globalization:
After this week’s readings, I realize that my point of view
of curriculum draws mostly from the beliefs of Social Behaviorists, and I’m
interested in seeing how that might change over the course of the
semester.
