Is what ways is today's public school curriculum suitable for the times?Similarily, in what ways do you view today's public school curriculum as not suitable for the times?
I feel that our curriculum is very subjective. I only really know and feel comfortable discussing of the Kindergarten curriculum that I use daily. I feel that our curriculum is mostly suitable for the times. We teach children the never ending basic skills of the letter recognition, letter sounds, number recognition and various basic skills. I feel that our curriculum is so basic it would be hard to make it not suitable. Our social studies and science portion has changed some to make it more suitable. We have worked to combine certain skills like communtiy helpers and our community units. We have also worked to learn about events that have happened recently in our times to update the curriculum. I think you have to look at the curriculum which is the basic portion and you have to add things on your own that have happened recently and are significant for the children to know.
Public school curriculum offers kids exposure to subjects they will benefit from and use in their everyday lives(math, reading, science, geography, keyboarding). It also provides some disservice to kids by not requiring three years of Spanish(for example). Whether they like it or not, by the time kids in Kindergarten graduate, hispanics will be the largest minority in the country. Curriculum developers need to keep society in mind when planning. Curriculum develops also need to exercise a "vision."
In today's public school, curriculum is not suitable for the times because it does not reflect the rapid change needed to keep up with society such as technology and cultural influences. Curriculum planning is not as collaborative as it should be; it should bring in members of the communinity which are greatly effected by the educational system (hiring, funding, and economic development.) By ommitting this key element of curriculum development our educational system fails to address the varying needs of the community. Unfortunately, curriculum planning is similiar to education in that all too often it is an entity by itself.
I feel there are a number of holes in my counties curriculum. Foreign language is not taught until high school. Studies show that there is a great benefit to starting a foreign language at a much earlier age. As our county continues to grow with people who speak Spanish instead of English I think this will need to be address. There has been a push to increase the technology component of our curriculum but this is difficult when the schools can not support the newer products available. It is also hard to meet the students technology needs when teachers refuse to become acquainted with new ways of instructing. I also feel that while in 2nd and 3rd grade studying Egypt, Greece, Mali and Rome are fun, they are not age appropriate. I once had a student tell me their father went to Egypt. I asked how they got there she said, “I think he drove a truck.” I feel that students need a true understanding about their community and have a stronger ability to process space and time before ancient civilizations are introduced.
I believe parts of the Standards of Learning are suitable for the times. In regards to math and English, they cover the basic fundamentals, with the possibility to expand on the learning. The science standards cover a wide variety of topics, however, some of the topics have the tendency to repeat themselves throughout each grade level. I believe some of the Social Studies standards, particulary in the 2nd and 3rd grades, aren't necessarily with the times. It is difficult to teach such an abstract concept to students who are just beginning to explore beyond themselves and their own community.
I think your perspective on suitable curriculum depends on what you teach. When I taught ESL students, we were mainly working on English acquisition so that was suitable for them. They didn't focus on Social Studies since language was an issue but, like Patricia said, much of the 3rd grade content wasn't necessarily the most relevant to them. There definitely needs to be more focus on technology and on second language acquisition in the elementary schools as students in the US are already lagging behind other countries. We have adapted and changed to keep up bit we are often so slow to come around that our students are being left behind.
The SOL's are a basic curriculum that we all know must be adhered to;however, I see educators in my school who cannot move beyond those objectives. After all, they say, "that's what they have to know for the test". We cannot forget that as educators we are responsible to each child to prepare them for success at all levels. This must include going beyond the SOL's when we develop our curriculum. In a good plan, appropriate instruction will follow.
I agree with most replies to curriculum here. I feel that no curriculum is going to be perfect; it is always a work in progress. I look at it like when you are going to buy a new computer, when you bring it home it is already out dated because a newer, faster, better one has already been produced. I also feel that the curriculums of today do not allow for a well rounded education. We feel like we have to concentrate solely on the SOL's, sadly, Sol's are the lone measuring tool to decide how well a school, teacher, and student is advancing. Thus leaving out many educational opportunities that our curriculum doesn’t think is relevant. Clay Moran
I think that today's curriculum is suitable because it provides students with exposure to a variety of different subject matters that are going to aid them in the future. It covers many basics that will be useful later on in life. Sometimes though the basics are not enough and are often repeated when other things could be covered. The basics are not often suitable for our ever changing world. The world is evolving and growing and our schools are not changing fast enough. One example that I agree with several other is language. And the idea of what a language is. Students have limited availability to common languages as it is but what about some languages that are not commom. THe other thing is technology. While it seems that more often then not students are more technologically savvy then I am but are we teaching them to be cautious with things uch as online predators and identity theft. These are concerns that need to be thoroughly addressed but do not see being addressed in today's curriculum to the degree that they should be covered.
I believe that we drastically underserve our students because the public school curricula, especially at the high school level, exhibits two of the most problematic examples of "Wooly Mammoth Syndrome": - it ill equips learners to find and hold employment when they finish school; - it leaves out the practical knowledge and skills necessary for survival and success in a complex technological society.
After graduating with a bachelor's degree, only 1 in 4 students winds up working in the same field as their major field of study, and employers have come to accept that they will need to retrain the majority of their new hires. From a K-16 perspective, that does not strike me as a curriculum that's doing its job. We need to restructure our high school programs so that a high school diploma has some value outside of being a ticket to college, and increase the number of career/tech. ed. opportunities available to students.
I sometimes feel that our curriculum is more in line with what students "can" learn than with what students "should" learn. I agree with Terri, when a teacher is satisfied with teaching to the SOL minimums, they are not only limiting the student's learning experience, they are inadvertenly teaching that student to be satisfied with that minimal degree of knowledge, which is in itself an even greater disservice. Curriculum developers need to raise the bar and set forth higher expectations for our students. We can no longer afford to graduate students who are only minimally prepared in even the most basic and fundamental skills.
I agree with Denise about the rapid changes that are occuring with technology and cultural influences. Overall, I don't think public school curriculum has kept up with these changes. I do see the potential of vitual classes for public school students. I am hopeful that more of these courses and options will fill a void for the students whos needs are not being met in a regular classroom setting. So it it the curriculum that isn't suitable, or is the delivery of instruction that is no longer suitable?
Axiom 2 says a school curriculum not only reflects but also is a product of its time. Unfortunately, changes in curriculum do not always result at the same speed as changes in society. Perhaps part of the problem is we do not consistently include representatives from outside the educational circle in our curriculum development process.
I think that I have to agree with both statements. I feel that public school curriculum is good for some teachers because it gives them a focus of what to teach and what their kids need to achieve. However, I don't think that all kids can keep up with the pace of our curriculum and there is not enough time or repetition from year to year to catch them up to where they need to be. Instead of no child left behind, we leave many behind and frustrated in our classrooms.
Curriculum in our elementary schools seems suitable in the areas of writing and mathematics. The students learn the basic skills, and are being pushed to learn more abstract concepts at earlier ages. In the areas of foreign language, sciences, and social studies, I believe that our schools are not properly serving the students at the elementary level.
Students are expected to learn and understand about ancient foreign cultures, when they do not yet grasp the concept of last year, or how large Virginia really is. Children are not being exposed to foreign languages until high school level in a world which is so quickly becoming interconnected though the technology of the day. Although schools try to keep up with the latest technology, the funding they receive simply does not support the hands on learning with the latest technology the students need.
The problem with the curriculum is that we as teachers are sometimes forced to teach the minimum because of the stress and fear of testing. We often don't get to get in those "teachable moments" because of the amount of material that we are forced to teach to prepare our students. For example, the 8th grade science test is a coprehensive test of everything students have learned in the last 3 years. If a student asks a question about something out of the reach of that curriculum, it's hard to justify reviewing it because of the amount that "needs" to get covered.
I might be a little off topic, so I also want to say that I agree with a lot of you that say that our curriculum is behind in the times because our world in constantly changing. The majority of the jobs that our students will one day have havn't even been created yet. It's important for our curriculum to not just keep up with the times, but to try to stay ahead of it.
I feel that our public school curriculum is a good base for skills and knowledge that students should have but it doesn’t really create a “well-rounded” learner because it is lacking in many areas. As a foreign language teacher, I would love it if we began teaching world languages at an earlier age. Foreign language does not appear to be a priority in our schools and even at times gives the impression that it is a class only for college bound students but research has shown the benefits to other content areas such as math and language arts due to early foreign language instruction. Not to mention the increasing global need to be bilingual. I understand the need to focus on the curriculum in the core areas due to school accreditation but there are many ways to enhance that basic curriculum to help students achieve even greater success.
I also agree with Jonathan that public schools are graduating students who are ill-equipped to succeed in the real world. We should have a stronger focus on technical components of our curriculum. I also think that we could serve our students better by providing apprenticeship programs in fields where they could gain true knowledge of the profession of their choice. I believe that there must be a better way to educate students about career choices/options. I am tired of seeing former graduates who have given up on college because either they can’t decide what they want to do or they don’t have the necessary skills to be successful in a larger setting. Life is a really big setting and we should be preparing students to be successful in life, not just in high school or even worse, only on a test.
Our current public school curriculum is the result of political and bureaucratic decision making. While I do feel that the SOLs are suitably designed to teach the basic knowledge and skills, I believe that the political nature of the public school curriculum also makes it difficult to quickly make the changes that are needed reflect the changes taking place in society.
The SOLs are a result of political influence in curriculum, however standards are an inevitable and needed part of education. The SOLs address specific content knowledge and do little to address building skills need to successfully grasp increasingly abstract concepts.
Change is inevitable and the system must be more responsive to change and continuing to push for high standards for student success
In the times of standardized testing a curriculum that follows hand in hand with the tests promotes the schools, divisions, and states success. This is apparent even in the creation of textbooks that correlate directly with the state standardized tests. Having a curriculum that all teachers are expected to follow also “levels the playing field” for all students regardless of that school they attend. A standardized curriculum does cover the “meat and taters” of the subject. In this way public school curriculum is suitable for the times. However these same concepts make it unsuitable for the times. A statewide curriculum or in some cases a nationwide curriculum does not allow for niche areas and communities. Student needs vary greatly across a state and nation. We preach individualized instruction but a state based curriculum is slowly killing this concept. Even if students start to fall behind there is no time to slow down because you still have to make it though three more standards before the end of the week so that you can cover all 119 of them by the test day.
I feel it unfortunate to add myself to the list of those finding the required curriculum for k-12 to not be "with the times." As mentioned in several posts, foreign language exposure is a valuable asset to offer students in the public schools. If only public schools and the government's education agencies had the resources to truly invest in the development of a functional and applicable curriculum...
Today's curriculum is suitable for the times in that school curriculum leaders have over time either recognized or abandoned many practices based on needs such as team teaching, open-space education, cooperative education or whole language. Sometimes however, I feel these changes may come without creating a comprehensive process and the planning process becomes fragmented. You end up with a more piecemeal approach where additions, omissions or revisions are made in certain areas of the curriculum without considering it's impact on the curriculum as a whole.
I feel the curiiculum is suitable to meet basic needs set forth by the standards of learning. However, school curriculums viewed the context of the times and progress of the world lag way behind. Students are not receiving enough "real world" opportunities to learn. Our children's inability to problem solve and think critically has put our learners at a great disadvantage.
I think that some parts of our curriculum may be outdated by today's standards. For example, there may not be enough technology in use at the high school or middle school level, so when our students get to college or into the "real world" they will find that they can't communicate as well as others.
Also, I recognize that English classes teach English that is 400 years old! Wouldn't you think that it may be time to teach the current American language instead of English? Also, what low performing student in English class wants (or even understands) a language that is 400 years old?
Of course, science never changes (sarcasm!), and yet we teach stuff that is no longer current just because we taught it 40 years ago. In Physics, I still teach about resistors, and have them do labs with 50 year old resistors that bare no resemblance to resistors used in modern technology. I feel that I need to change this part of my curriculum, but how should I go about that? And the old resistors work so well in the labs!
I agree with the many comments posted that speak to the need of foreign language becoming an integral part of our education system. I feel that we are not preparing our students for the future to the best of our ability without providing this instruction. I think one area which deserves continued focus and is not suitable for the times is the use of technology in schools. Often students whose parents make more money are given more access to technology and thus become more prepared for the work force. We live in a technology rich time and for students to be successful in the future we must develop a curriculum that is focused on the integration of technology in daily learning. (I know... I know.. its all about money:)
I agree with most of the posts here which state that our current curriculum does not provide students with the skills or knowledge they will need after graduation. However, I wonder if schools will ever accomplish that goal. We should try to prepare our kids for perpetual learning so that they understand it is their responsibility to seek new skills. The world our students enter is rapidly changing. Teaching our students to keep up or stay ahead would be the most valuable lesson.
I believe that our job is to continually update our curriculum but to be aware (and to make our students aware) that we are always chasing newer and better skills/iformation/technology.
Whereas, I do believe that our curriculum gives the very basics needed for survival I believe our students miss out on some much other content and skills that could enrich their lives. I don't necessarily see that the curriculum is not meeting the needs of our children but that many of our teachers are skipping big chunks of information because they do not necessarily enjoy teaching that content. This is very true in the elementary environment where those teachers that feel more comfortable teaching reading as opposed to mathematics will skip specific areas to the detriment of our students. Oftentimes, our teachers are not buying into the importance of specific concepts because they do not understand the big picture. Such as how patterns can later be transformed into algebraic reasoning.
I agree that the SOLs are a result of a political influence on public school curriculum. They do address specific content knowledge and skills. However, I do not always feel as though they address more abstract concepts that encourage independent thinking and development. In our schools, I also agree that we struggle in offering our students the best skills, knowledge, tools in the areas of foreign language and technology.
I believe that we all attempt to do our best to teach our students the best way we know how to and that the SOL’s are somewhat of a roadmap. We need to have something to go by in order to get to the best possible results. I agree with other comments that state that we leave some students behind, but that will unfortunately always be the case. We should and most do strive to teach every student as best we can, but there are a variety of reasons some cannot keep up. There are so many pressures on some children, for example the traditional family is different that it was even twenty years ago. That alone is difficult for some students to deal with and then you add in you add in the stresses of passing a test that a person does not even teach children says he/she has to pass. That is only one example of many of the outside stresses that children/adolescence have to face. We need to consistently revise and look for every opportunity to help our students every way that we can.
As someone who holds teaching endorsements in 2, believe me when I say, Virginia is well ahead of the pack when it comes to technology literacy of their students. The resources and guidelines that VDOE and the state gov’t have provided really are phenomenal. Just like everyone else who has posted, we need foreign language before students get to high school. It would also to have writing teachers and reading teacher (in middle schools). Having one class with two curriculums and 2 tests, allows for something to be ignored half of the time.
I feel the curriculum is a one size fits all model. Is it appropriate for the times? That is a good question that is easy to answer. I believe we could enhance the curriculum at the high and middle levels to better prepare students for the workforce and for college. I say this because High School curriculums ill equip learners to find and hold employment when they finish school and leave out the practical skills and knowledge necessacry for survival and success ina complex technilogical society.
I feel our curriculum in Virginia is constantly evolving to fit the needs of today's students. Technology is one example of this. The technology curriculum is constantly changes as the field itself changes. The curriculum cannot change as rapidly due to the time required for such a process, but constant changes are happening. Another technology related change to the curriculum based upon our society is the internet safety curriculum. This addition to the curriculum is a direct result of things which have happened in our society. NCLB has also dictated many changes in our curriculum. Tara's comment about foreign language requirements is very valid, and an example of how our curriculum hasn't changed enough over time to keep up with the global world we live in. I detest the constant comparisons with the rest of the world because they are unfair comparisons, but we do lag behind most of the rest of the world in our knowledge and ability to speak other languages (I must admit - I'm guilty of this one).
Today's public school curriculum is suitable for today's times in a number of ways. I do think that the public school curriculum allows students to experience a wide variety of subjects. I also think in most cases the curriculum is constantly evolving to meet the needs of the students. (Technology) Our school is now trying to implement a keyboarding "class" for our fourth graders. I also agree with Jonathon, to me one of the most glaring deficits of our public school curriculum is preparing students for the work force. I would love for my county to have an elaborate CTE program.
Public school curriculum is a guide for teachers to know WHAT they must teach. Curriculum at our school is developed by aligning the subject to the VA SOL test. This method of designing curriculum leaves out material that we once thought was important. For example, in Algebra II we no longer teach completing the square. This skill is not taught until Math Analysis. In our core classes we are teaching less material than in the past, but we feel like we are always going to run out of time. The feeling probably occurs because we need to be finished with our curriculum before the SOL testing window in May. Sometimes I feel as though we are only teaching children to pass the SOL test instead of preparing them for a successful mathematics career. I agree with Terri Bright when she said, “In a good plan, appropriate instruction will follow.”
Speaking from a history teacher perspective, today’s curriculum allows students to better critique our county’s past by retelling our history from multiple perspectives. This allows students to better learn from past mistakes (it’s not perfect but better than it was 25 years ago). Our curriculum seems to be lacking in the ability to prepare students to compete in a global market, especially in the fields of math and science.
I think today's public school curriculum is suitable for the times in a number of ways: - students benefit from a variety of course offerings - students are using and are exposed to technology on a daily basis (in many classes) - students are learning in more differentiated environments than ever (in many classes, hopefully in all soon!) - curriculum has changed in subtle but effective ways in the past 10-20 years For the times, over time...I do think some curriculum standards such as some math SOLs have become more strenuous at the lower levels compared to 15 years ago. Also, within smaller school systems or those without as many resources, some students don't receive as many curriculum benefits such as technology, foreign language (before secondary), tech ed (before highschool), pys ed, etc.
In my current school division there are some holes in the curriculum as others have mentioned. We do not have a middle school and I believe those kids are missing out on other classes such as a computer science class, agriculture class, etc... that some traditional middle schools have to offer.
Our school system is trying to change with the times by intergrating technology skills that children are going to need. We have smartboards, wireless labs, computer labs, digital cameras, etc... that our students are able to be exposed to.
37 comments:
I feel that our curriculum is very subjective. I only really know and feel comfortable discussing of the Kindergarten curriculum that I use daily. I feel that our curriculum is mostly suitable for the times. We teach children the never ending basic skills of the letter recognition, letter sounds, number recognition and various basic skills. I feel that our curriculum is so basic it would be hard to make it not suitable. Our social studies and science portion has changed some to make it more suitable. We have worked to combine certain skills like communtiy helpers and our community units. We have also worked to learn about events that have happened recently in our times to update the curriculum. I think you have to look at the curriculum which is the basic portion and you have to add things on your own that have happened recently and are significant for the children to know.
Public school curriculum offers kids exposure to subjects they will benefit from and use in their everyday lives(math, reading, science, geography, keyboarding). It also provides some disservice to kids by not requiring three years of Spanish(for example). Whether they like it or not, by the time kids
in Kindergarten graduate, hispanics will be the largest minority in the country. Curriculum developers need to keep society in mind when planning. Curriculum develops also need to exercise a "vision."
In today's public school, curriculum is not suitable for the times because it does not reflect the rapid change needed to keep up with society such as technology and cultural influences. Curriculum planning is not as collaborative as it should be; it should bring in members of the communinity which are greatly effected by the educational system (hiring, funding, and economic development.) By ommitting this key element of curriculum development our educational system fails to address the varying needs of the community. Unfortunately, curriculum planning is similiar to education in that all too often it is an entity by itself.
I feel there are a number of holes in my counties curriculum. Foreign language is not taught until high school. Studies show that there is a great benefit to starting a foreign language at a much earlier age. As our county continues to grow with people who speak Spanish instead of English I think this will need to be address. There has been a push to increase the technology component of our curriculum but this is difficult when the schools can not support the newer products available. It is also hard to meet the students technology needs when teachers refuse to become acquainted with new ways of instructing. I also feel that while in 2nd and 3rd grade studying Egypt, Greece, Mali and Rome are fun, they are not age appropriate. I once had a student tell me their father went to Egypt. I asked how they got there she said, “I think he drove a truck.” I feel that students need a true understanding about their community and have a stronger ability to process space and time before ancient civilizations are introduced.
I believe parts of the Standards of Learning are suitable for the times. In regards to math and English, they cover the basic fundamentals, with the possibility to expand on the learning. The science standards cover a wide variety of topics, however, some of the topics have the tendency to repeat themselves throughout each grade level.
I believe some of the Social Studies standards, particulary in the 2nd and 3rd grades, aren't necessarily with the times. It is difficult to teach such an abstract concept to students who are just beginning to explore beyond themselves and their own community.
I think your perspective on suitable curriculum depends on what you teach. When I taught ESL students, we were mainly working on English acquisition so that was suitable for them. They didn't focus on Social Studies since language was an issue but, like Patricia said, much of the 3rd grade content wasn't necessarily the most relevant to them. There definitely needs to be more focus on technology and on second language acquisition in the elementary schools as students in the US are already lagging behind other countries. We have adapted and changed to keep up bit we are often so slow to come around that our students are being left behind.
The SOL's are a basic curriculum that we all know must be adhered to;however, I see educators in my school who cannot move beyond those objectives. After all, they say, "that's what they have to know for the test". We cannot forget that as educators we are responsible to each child to prepare them for success at all levels. This must include going beyond the SOL's when we develop our curriculum. In a good plan, appropriate instruction will follow.
I agree with most replies to curriculum here. I feel that no curriculum is going to be perfect; it is always a work in progress. I look at it like when you are going to buy a new computer, when you bring it home it is already out dated because a newer, faster, better one has already been produced.
I also feel that the curriculums of today do not allow for a well rounded education. We feel like we have to concentrate solely on the SOL's, sadly, Sol's are the lone measuring tool to decide how well a school, teacher, and student is advancing. Thus leaving out many educational opportunities that our curriculum doesn’t think is relevant.
Clay Moran
I think that today's curriculum is suitable because it provides students with exposure to a variety of different subject matters that are going to aid them in the future. It covers many basics that will be useful later on in life. Sometimes though the basics are not enough and are often repeated when other things could be covered. The basics are not often suitable for our ever changing world. The world is evolving and growing and our schools are not changing fast enough. One example that I agree with several other is language. And the idea of what a language is. Students have limited availability to common languages as it is but what about some languages that are not commom. THe other thing is technology. While it seems that more often then not students are more technologically savvy then I am but are we teaching them to be cautious with things uch as online predators and identity theft. These are concerns that need to be thoroughly addressed but do not see being addressed in today's curriculum to the degree that they should be covered.
I believe that we drastically underserve our students because the public school curricula, especially at the high school level, exhibits two of the most problematic examples of "Wooly Mammoth Syndrome":
- it ill equips learners to find and hold employment when they finish school;
- it leaves out the practical knowledge and skills necessary for survival and success in a complex technological society.
After graduating with a bachelor's degree, only 1 in 4 students winds up working in the same field as their major field of study, and employers have come to accept that they will need to retrain the majority of their new hires. From a K-16 perspective, that does not strike me as a curriculum that's doing its job. We need to restructure our high school programs so that a high school diploma has some value outside of being a ticket to college, and increase the number of career/tech. ed. opportunities available to students.
I sometimes feel that our curriculum is more in line with what students "can" learn than with what students "should" learn. I agree with Terri, when a teacher is satisfied with teaching to the SOL minimums, they are not only limiting the student's learning experience, they are inadvertenly teaching that student to be satisfied with that minimal degree of knowledge, which is in itself an even greater disservice. Curriculum developers need to raise the bar and set forth higher expectations for our students. We can no longer afford to graduate students who are only minimally prepared in even the most basic and fundamental skills.
I agree with Denise about the rapid changes that are occuring with technology and cultural influences. Overall, I don't think public school curriculum has kept up with these changes. I do see the potential of vitual classes for public school students. I am hopeful that more of these courses and options will fill a void for the students whos needs are not being met in a regular classroom setting. So it it the curriculum that isn't suitable, or is the delivery of instruction that is no longer suitable?
Axiom 2 says a school curriculum not only reflects but also is a product of its time. Unfortunately, changes in curriculum do not always result at the same speed as changes in society. Perhaps part of the problem is we do not consistently include representatives from outside the educational circle in our curriculum development process.
I think that I have to agree with both statements. I feel that public school curriculum is good for some teachers because it gives them a focus of what to teach and what their kids need to achieve. However, I don't think that all kids can keep up with the pace of our curriculum and there is not enough time or repetition from year to year to catch them up to where they need to be. Instead of no child left behind, we leave many behind and frustrated in our classrooms.
Curriculum in our elementary schools seems suitable in the areas of writing and mathematics. The students learn the basic skills, and are being pushed to learn more abstract concepts at earlier ages. In the areas of foreign language, sciences, and social studies, I believe that our schools are not properly serving the students at the elementary level.
Students are expected to learn and understand about ancient foreign cultures, when they do not yet grasp the concept of last year, or how large Virginia really is. Children are not being exposed to foreign languages until high school level in a world which is so quickly becoming interconnected though the technology of the day. Although schools try to keep up with the latest technology, the funding they receive simply does not support the hands on learning with the latest technology the students need.
The problem with the curriculum is that we as teachers are sometimes forced to teach the minimum because of the stress and fear of testing. We often don't get to get in those "teachable moments" because of the amount of material that we are forced to teach to prepare our students. For example, the 8th grade science test is a coprehensive test of everything students have learned in the last 3 years. If a student asks a question about something out of the reach of that curriculum, it's hard to justify reviewing it because of the amount that "needs" to get covered.
I might be a little off topic, so I also want to say that I agree with a lot of you that say that our curriculum is behind in the times because our world in constantly changing. The majority of the jobs that our students will one day have havn't even been created yet. It's important for our curriculum to not just keep up with the times, but to try to stay ahead of it.
I feel that our public school curriculum is a good base for skills and knowledge that students should have but it doesn’t really create a “well-rounded” learner because it is lacking in many areas. As a foreign language teacher, I would love it if we began teaching world languages at an earlier age. Foreign language does not appear to be a priority in our schools and even at times gives the impression that it is a class only for college bound students but research has shown the benefits to other content areas such as math and language arts due to early foreign language instruction. Not to mention the increasing global need to be bilingual. I understand the need to focus on the curriculum in the core areas due to school accreditation but there are many ways to enhance that basic curriculum to help students achieve even greater success.
I also agree with Jonathan that public schools are graduating students who are ill-equipped to succeed in the real world. We should have a stronger focus on technical components of our curriculum. I also think that we could serve our students better by providing apprenticeship programs in fields where they could gain true knowledge of the profession of their choice. I believe that there must be a better way to educate students about career choices/options. I am tired of seeing former graduates who have given up on college because either they can’t decide what they want to do or they don’t have the necessary skills to be successful in a larger setting. Life is a really big setting and we should be preparing students to be successful in life, not just in high school or even worse, only on a test.
Our current public school curriculum is the result of political and bureaucratic decision making. While I do feel that the SOLs are suitably designed to teach the basic knowledge and skills, I believe that the political nature of the public school curriculum also makes it difficult to quickly make the changes that are needed reflect the changes taking place in society.
The SOLs are a result of political influence in curriculum, however standards are an inevitable and needed part of education. The SOLs address specific content knowledge and do little to address building skills need to successfully grasp increasingly abstract concepts.
Change is inevitable and the system must be more responsive to change and continuing to push for high standards for student success
In the times of standardized testing a curriculum that follows hand in hand with the tests promotes the schools, divisions, and states success. This is apparent even in the creation of textbooks that correlate directly with the state standardized tests. Having a curriculum that all teachers are expected to follow also “levels the playing field” for all students regardless of that school they attend. A standardized curriculum does cover the “meat and taters” of the subject. In this way public school curriculum is suitable for the times. However these same concepts make it unsuitable for the times. A statewide curriculum or in some cases a nationwide curriculum does not allow for niche areas and communities. Student needs vary greatly across a state and nation. We preach individualized instruction but a state based curriculum is slowly killing this concept. Even if students start to fall behind there is no time to slow down because you still have to make it though three more standards before the end of the week so that you can cover all 119 of them by the test day.
I feel it unfortunate to add myself to the list of those finding the required curriculum for k-12 to not be "with the times." As mentioned in several posts, foreign language exposure is a valuable asset to offer students in the public schools. If only public schools and the government's education agencies had the resources to truly invest in the development of a functional and applicable curriculum...
Today's curriculum is suitable for the times in that school curriculum leaders have over time either recognized or abandoned many practices based on needs such as team teaching, open-space education, cooperative education or whole language. Sometimes however, I feel these changes may come without creating a comprehensive process and the planning process becomes fragmented. You end up with a more piecemeal approach where additions, omissions or revisions are made in certain areas of the curriculum without considering it's impact on the curriculum as a whole.
I feel the curiiculum is suitable to meet basic needs set forth by the standards of learning. However, school curriculums viewed the context of the times and progress of the world lag way behind. Students are not receiving enough "real world" opportunities to learn. Our children's inability to problem solve and think critically has put our learners at a great disadvantage.
I think that some parts of our curriculum may be outdated by today's standards. For example, there may not be enough technology in use at the high school or middle school level, so when our students get to college or into the "real world" they will find that they can't communicate as well as others.
Also, I recognize that English classes teach English that is 400 years old! Wouldn't you think that it may be time to teach the current American language instead of English? Also, what low performing student in English class wants (or even understands) a language that is 400 years old?
Of course, science never changes (sarcasm!), and yet we teach stuff that is no longer current just because we taught it 40 years ago. In Physics, I still teach about resistors, and have them do labs with 50 year old resistors that bare no resemblance to resistors used in modern technology. I feel that I need to change this part of my curriculum, but how should I go about that? And the old resistors work so well in the labs!
I agree with the many comments posted that speak to the need of foreign language becoming an integral part of our education system. I feel that we are not preparing our students for the future to the best of our ability without providing this instruction.
I think one area which deserves continued focus and is not suitable for the times is the use of technology in schools. Often students whose parents make more money are given more access to technology and thus become more prepared for the work force. We live in a technology rich time and for students to be successful in the future we must develop a curriculum that is focused on the integration of technology in daily learning. (I know... I know.. its all about money:)
I agree with most of the posts here which state that our current curriculum does not provide students with the skills or knowledge they will need after graduation. However, I wonder if schools will ever accomplish that goal. We should try to prepare our kids for perpetual learning so that they understand it is their responsibility to seek new skills. The world our students enter is rapidly changing. Teaching our students to keep up or stay ahead would be the most valuable lesson.
I believe that our job is to continually update our curriculum but to be aware (and to make our students aware) that we are always chasing newer and better skills/iformation/technology.
Whereas, I do believe that our curriculum gives the very basics needed for survival I believe our students miss out on some much other content and skills that could enrich their lives. I don't necessarily see that the curriculum is not meeting the needs of our children but that many of our teachers are skipping big chunks of information because they do not necessarily enjoy teaching that content. This is very true in the elementary environment where those teachers that feel more comfortable teaching reading as opposed to mathematics will skip specific areas to the detriment of our students. Oftentimes, our teachers are not buying into the importance of specific concepts because they do not understand the big picture. Such as how patterns can later be transformed into algebraic reasoning.
I agree that the SOLs are a result of a political influence on public school curriculum. They do address specific content knowledge and skills. However, I do not always feel as though they address more abstract concepts that encourage independent thinking and development. In our schools, I also agree that we struggle in offering our students the best skills, knowledge, tools in the areas of foreign language and technology.
I believe that we all attempt to do our best to teach our students the best way we know how to and that the SOL’s are somewhat of a roadmap. We need to have something to go by in order to get to the best possible results. I agree with other comments that state that we leave some students behind, but that will unfortunately always be the case. We should and most do strive to teach every student as best we can, but there are a variety of reasons some cannot keep up. There are so many pressures on some children, for example the traditional family is different that it was even twenty years ago. That alone is difficult for some students to deal with and then you add in you add in the stresses of passing a test that a person does not even teach children says he/she has to pass. That is only one example of many of the outside stresses that children/adolescence have to face. We need to consistently revise and look for every opportunity to help our students every way that we can.
As someone who holds teaching endorsements in 2, believe me when I say, Virginia is well ahead of the pack when it comes to technology literacy of their students. The resources and guidelines that VDOE and the state gov’t have provided really are phenomenal.
Just like everyone else who has posted, we need foreign language before students get to high school. It would also to have writing teachers and reading teacher (in middle schools). Having one class with two curriculums and 2 tests, allows for something to be ignored half of the time.
I feel the curriculum is a one size fits all model. Is it appropriate for the times? That is a good question that is easy to answer. I believe we could enhance the curriculum at the high and middle levels to better prepare students for the workforce and for college. I say this because High School curriculums ill equip learners to find and hold employment when they finish school
and leave out the practical skills and knowledge necessacry for survival and success ina complex technilogical society.
I feel our curriculum in Virginia is constantly evolving to fit the needs of today's students. Technology is one example of this. The technology curriculum is constantly changes as the field itself changes. The curriculum cannot change as rapidly due to the time required for such a process, but constant changes are happening. Another technology related change to the curriculum based upon our society is the internet safety curriculum. This addition to the curriculum is a direct result of things which have happened in our society. NCLB has also dictated many changes in our curriculum. Tara's comment about foreign language requirements is very valid, and an example of how our curriculum hasn't changed enough over time to keep up with the global world we live in. I detest the constant comparisons with the rest of the world because they are unfair comparisons, but we do lag behind most of the rest of the world in our knowledge and ability to speak other languages (I must admit - I'm guilty of this one).
Today's public school curriculum is suitable for today's times in a number of ways. I do think that the public school curriculum allows students to experience a wide variety of subjects. I also think in most cases the curriculum is constantly evolving to meet the needs of the students. (Technology) Our school is now trying to implement a keyboarding "class" for our fourth graders. I also agree with Jonathon, to me one of the most glaring deficits of our public school curriculum is preparing students for the work force. I would love for my county to have an elaborate CTE program.
Public school curriculum is a guide for teachers to know WHAT they must teach. Curriculum at our school is developed by aligning the subject to the VA SOL test. This method of designing curriculum leaves out material that we once thought was important. For example, in Algebra II we no longer teach completing the square. This skill is not taught until Math Analysis. In our core classes we are teaching less material than in the past, but we feel like we are always going to run out of time. The feeling probably occurs because we need to be finished with our curriculum before the SOL testing window in May. Sometimes I feel as though we are only teaching children to pass the SOL test instead of preparing them for a successful mathematics career. I agree with Terri Bright when she said, “In a good plan, appropriate instruction will follow.”
Speaking from a history teacher perspective, today’s curriculum allows students to better critique our county’s past by retelling our history from multiple perspectives. This allows students to better learn from past mistakes (it’s not perfect but better than it was 25 years ago). Our curriculum seems to be lacking in the ability to prepare students to compete in a global market, especially in the fields of math and science.
I think today's public school curriculum is suitable for the times in a number of ways:
- students benefit from a variety of course offerings
- students are using and are exposed to technology on a daily basis (in many classes)
- students are learning in more differentiated environments than ever (in many classes, hopefully in all soon!)
- curriculum has changed in subtle but effective ways in the past 10-20 years
For the times, over time...I do think some curriculum standards such as some math SOLs have become more strenuous at the lower levels compared to 15 years ago.
Also, within smaller school systems or those without as many resources, some students don't receive as many curriculum benefits such as technology, foreign language (before secondary), tech ed (before highschool), pys ed, etc.
In my current school division there are some holes in the curriculum as others have mentioned. We do not have a middle school and I believe those kids are missing out on other classes such as a computer science class, agriculture class, etc... that some traditional middle schools have to offer.
Our school system is trying to change with the times by intergrating technology skills that children are going to need. We have smartboards, wireless labs, computer labs, digital cameras, etc... that our students are able to be exposed to.
Post a Comment