(Page 29) “What good is a curriculum that is a mile wide and an inch deep? What good is it if a student can point out the symbolism found in Lord of the Flies if this same student leaves my class unable to write well enough for college admission or to secure worthwhile employment?...don’t we have a responsibility that reaches far beyond simply covering our courses’ content? Shouldn’t we concern ourselves a little less with getting students to recite facts and figures and concern ourselves more with helping them develop these cornerstone skills they will need to lead literate lives?”
My apologies for pulling a long quote here, but it’s a key one from this chapter for me. Courses have so many standards to cover these days, it’s about impossible to teach them all well. Or should I just leave out the word “about” there? Is it more important to go over (and sometimes that all time allows) every single point to be able to say we went over it in class, or would it be more beneficial for students if we spent more time going in depth on fewer topics? I know, I know what everyone’s thinking: But we have the end of course tests! I saw Ellin Keene speak a few years ago (she wrote Mosaic of Thought), and she made the point that students who think well test well. I don’t know why that was such an epiphany for me—it seems like common sense. Who typically does well on standardized tests? Honors kids. And who do we always tend to worry about when EOC and HSAP roll around? Our special ed and lower level students. Perhaps we would better serve our students if we taught them how to think rather than just to spit information back to us. Which will be of more service to students ten years down the road?
My apologies for pulling a long quote here, but it’s a key one from this chapter for me. Courses have so many standards to cover these days, it’s about impossible to teach them all well. Or should I just leave out the word “about” there? Is it more important to go over (and sometimes that all time allows) every single point to be able to say we went over it in class, or would it be more beneficial for students if we spent more time going in depth on fewer topics? I know, I know what everyone’s thinking: But we have the end of course tests! I saw Ellin Keene speak a few years ago (she wrote Mosaic of Thought), and she made the point that students who think well test well. I don’t know why that was such an epiphany for me—it seems like common sense. Who typically does well on standardized tests? Honors kids. And who do we always tend to worry about when EOC and HSAP roll around? Our special ed and lower level students. Perhaps we would better serve our students if we taught them how to think rather than just to spit information back to us. Which will be of more service to students ten years down the road?
It's very ironic that you mention this quote at the time when we're teaching waves. This standard is definitely a mile wide and an inch deep. It's a lot of everything but not much of any one thing. Or as Heather better said it, it's like brushing your teeth but not flossing.
ReplyDeleteI struggle with this. I am legally obligated to present them with the information, but the state has developed these standards that include a hodgepodge of things that happen to fall under the category of "waves". Example: today we’re doing lenses. They only need to know what convex and concave lenses are and what it does to the light – nothing else. Really, what’s the point?
I struggle with is it worth it to spend more time on stuff that I know will definitely be tested, get them to really learn the more important stuff in depth and sacrifice the other stuff? However, I'm responsible if I don't teach them the stuff.