|
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
 |
New Teaching
Standards: Compartmentalize or “think” deeply?
That’s My Opinion
By Bob Robinson
“The goal is to go from ‘knowing’ something to ‘deeply understanding’
something… it is a totally different way of teaching.”
I found that statement fascinating. Dave Shelhaas used it when he told
Darke County Chamber of Commerce board members recently about the new
standards and accountability set to kick in for Ohio Schools in 2014.
Color me naive (again). While I appreciated the heads up that Shelhaas
provided for us, I was floored. I thought that’s what education did.
Teach knowing with understanding. If you don’t understand it or at
least its usefulness as a building block, what good is it?
Great for a trivia game, I guess, but this is about preparing our kids
for the future.
Shelhaas said that school districts were going to take a beating when
the new standards kick in, noting that many districts were crying
“foul”… they no sooner meet one set of standards when the state throws
a more rigorous set at them.
He added however that, just as they did before, the districts will
measure up. It just takes time. He hopes the community – both business
and individual – will understand that and support their local schools.
Two points in these new standards are pertinent: deeply understanding,
and taking the tests online.
Jon McGreevey, GSD’s Director of Administrative Services, said that
while the District is addressing the academic issues, his own concern
was the online testing.
“We don’t have the computers and it’s going to take a while to work
them into our budget,” he said, adding that the online part was going
to be tough.
The new standards affect all grade levels, from K to 12.
Most of my sub assignments so far this year have been at K-6 levels.
“Deeply understanding” is not a new concept for them. For two weeks
teachers at Woodland have not only been telling students about
Thanksgiving, but also about the reason for it… the meaning behind it.
When any topic is covered, there is always a discussion about what it
means and why it’s important.
Earlier this year we had discussions regarding the issues of slavery
and freedom… something I didn’t get in school until the higher grade
levels. Last year I talked to junior high civics students about the
size of government… can it be too big, too small or should it be
somewhere in between? They needed to understand and weigh what each one
meant.
What I never knew as a sub was whether or not the discussions would
“stick” in their minds, or who would “get it” and who wouldn’t.
But I’m discovering it in my college classes.
The first half of the semester in my Communications classes (Public
Speaking) was getting students comfortable speaking in front of groups.
The topics were typically those with which the students were familiar,
or at least had some interest. The second half focused more on content…
thoroughly understanding a research topic.
I remember studying the Constitution “in-depth” in a junior high civics
class. My teacher, Mr. Stith, required us to dissect the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights. I understood the why’s and wherefore’s of the
documents and their reasons for being.
What better research and discussion topic for a college level class
today than the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill
of Rights and the balance of the 27 amendments? The documents that gave
birth to, and govern our nation?
Most of my students told me they knew little or nothing about them.
They had been touched on in some cases but seldom discussed in detail.
A couple students told me “they were boring.”
The assignment was broken into three parts: Why the forefathers
included a particular phrase or concept; what it means to you and,
finally, a critical analysis on how it is being addressed today.
The assignment requires the students to “know” the topic, “deeply
understand” it, then think critically about it. One student makes the
presentation; class members are required to critique it.
The jury’s still out, but I’m beginning to see resistance from some,
while others are digging in.
The new state standards will address math, literacy, science and social
studies. Considering our educational status in today’s global
environment, somebody’s got to do something… but government? Pardon me
if I don’t have a tremendous amount of faith in another government
standard.
Unfortunately, it’s happening because many districts have evidently
dropped the ball. I believe that our local districts will fare well
once they get all the details. However, four things concern me.
Social studies is a broad topic. What will the standards focus on? The
founding documents of our nation, adapting to a new world order or
somewhere in between? It could be good or it could be scary; the devil
is in the details.
If, in fact, some districts are simply glossing over more in-depth
information in order to reach the totality of today’s standards, how
are they supposed to go into the type of detail required to “deeply
understand” something? What, if anything, will be taken off the table,
or do we – once again – sacrifice quality for quantity?
Third, how much additional paperwork is going to be required to tell
our “leaders” what many of our teachers are already doing? Required
government paperwork is the bane of most of today’s quality teachers.
Finally, I’m concerned about the same thing I’ve always been concerned
about with “standardized tests”: the one-size-fits-all approach to
learning, especially in the higher levels.
We may be equal in God’s eyes and under the law, but we aren’t the
same. We don’t have the same talents, the same capabilities, the same
interests or the same goals. I can see those differences in every grade
for which I’ve subbed, and every college class I’ve taught. What some
will “embrace” others will consider “boring” or “unnecessary.”
Should a talented artist or musician be held to the same math and
science standards as a future engineer? Should a mentally challenged
student, or slow learner, be held to the same standards as his or her
peers? The list of “should” questions is nearly endless.
But even more important, will the standardized testing acknowledge that
there is a step beyond knowing and understanding. Will it “require”
students to think for themselves… learn it, understand it, then look
beyond - and possibly challenge - currently accepted solutions or
opinions?
Will we be compartmentalizing young people; or teaching them to think
“outside the box” deeply?
That remains to be seen.
That’s My Opinion. What’s Yours?
|
|
|
|
