This was so funny. It was like reading "Who Moved My Cheese?" by Spencer Johnson M.D. all about resistance to change. Whether it be cavemen or mice, the fear of change was portrayed very lighthearted so as to make us realize that change is not as devastating as it is made out to be.
The very interesting part of the article was that the major component of testing was not in the story. I believe all of us would love to change based on the changing world but if the state is going to test you and your students at the end of the year on "catching fish" you better be teaching "catching fish". The people that don't teach (state ed. depts) are telling us that "catching fish" is important. We know it is not important.
I dont think the article portays teachers as much as it portrays the NJ Dept of Education. We are in the profession of change and movement, they are in the profession of testing and money.
7 comments:
You could be right, it probably is referring to the people who don't teach. But do the teachers have the ability to change curriculum. Even if they are measuring how to catch fish, should we change the way we measure? I'm not sure that's feasible, but in reality I would like to think that it may be a possiblity if enough people try to change the measurement. It was a tongue-in-cheek article. It was an extended metaphor to today's education world.
That curriculum relates to many aspects of education including those that you mentioned. It goes back to the principle that no matter what, there are things that we have to be prepared for that only severe situations will allow us to really know what we have. I can see it from the point of the resistant educator who refuses to use technology in the classroom and from the view of the test makers who have no idea what it is to be in the classroom. The only external stakeholders that I believe can be essential are the business affiliations that we make with universities and highschools to train our students. They really know what the students need when they leave the educational zone and are into the real-life arena.
The state might want you to catch the fish, but I think it up to the teacher to show the student why catching the fish is important. Students understand the concepts if they are able to have a real world connection to the subject matter. While I agree that the State Department of Education might be slow in aligning the curriculum with the real world, it is our responsibility as teachers to give student the basic knowledge that students need in a relevant manner.
You make a good point when you said that this article doesn't portray teachers as much as it portrays the NJ Dept. of Education. I really didn't think of that until you said it. I agree with you with the fact about testing. We tend to teach some things that are not that important because as an educator we know it will show up on a test, but I feel we need to act as if it is imporant and try to make a connection for the children so that they view the concept as an important one. If we can make that connection then the children might contiune to make their own connections.
I agree with you that in order for teachers to truly be able to focus on what is important as our society changes, the "higher ups" in education need to have the same focus. With all of the emphasis on test taking in our schools, it seems that anything outside of this focus is viewed as unimportant and non-essential teaching.
You're right about the fear of change and how slow we are to make changes. Hey, we are still "catching fish" and the way we do it, has not changed much, and the way we teach has not changed much either. I had the opportunity to review a math book that was written in the 1890's, and the material was very similar to a present textbook. The only difference were the examples referenced ,they were farming situations. Preparing our students to develop into responsible citizens and helping them to develop the skills necessary for the role that they play in our society should be our priority, not test scores.
FEAR is the major word. Is it at all possible that the reason we fear change is due to the fact that change involves more work? Moreover, we are inherently lazy and prefer not to work more to initiate a change that may not guarantee improvement.
Post a Comment