http://plpnetwork.com/2012/09/04/rethinking-content/
via Julie on fb
love Patti's thinking/changing of her classroom.. we do need to be doing that. today. so bravo and thank you for sharing.
i do however think this is the heart of the matter (choice).. and perhaps in the heat of the topic, we're not really being understood by each other (gb shaw)
disclaimer - this coming from someone who doesn't believe hs as is will be around for much longer.. not even beyond a year or two..
there's no reason for it (hs as is) .. the only reason it's carrying on now, is that we have people believing there is no other legal way to do public ed.
we've gotten good about glossing over legalities, what it means to be human and alive, so that most people are bots, doing what they're told... [paying bills that are optional, believing they can't homeschool, because they would have to pay the district $3000 to do it]
so perhaps, we redefine public ed..
public - concerning all the people
ed - one of the fundamental aspects of being human - learning is natural
having followed roger's work, he's not advocating we don't have drs, that we don't go deep, he's advocating choice.. just in time learning.
k.. i'll stop talking for him.. cause i'm sure i'll mis-talk.
this is me.
we don't need more drs, esp if we start being healthier - by letting people be themselves. suicide rate at 1 per 40 seconds.. we need to take better care of ourselves rather than mandating everyone prep with algebra - just in case they become a dr.
malpractice rates are high.. many drs are there because other people wanted them to be drs.. they didn't.
and more - in regard to the piece below -
you don't find a person's passion by force feeding.
perhaps some might find it..
but if we did public ed better..
everyone is known by someone
talk to yourself daily
we could truly facilitate curiosities within each person.
it is doable today.
which does indeed take us all deeper, once we believe there is no catch. that people value us right now.. and want to know what we are curious about. that they want to facilitate our curiosities.
that is a much better way to find the thing(s) a person can't not do.
in hs as is (in most places) not only do we disrespect people (students, teachers, parents, admin, custodians, community, et al, all people) .. we are disrespecting math (fill in your topic/content), mathematical thinking.
mathematical thinking to a depth that matters, doesn't show up, can't be experienced, in a classroom with 30 people, many, who would rather be elsewhere, on a thursday at 11. knowing that on the following tuesday you will be tested on specific details you encounter as content.
requirements are keeping us from brilliance.
learning is not linear.
pyramids have a foundation. but pyramids are linear.
networks have no foundation.
no basics.
start anywhere, follow it everywhere.
cool thing..
as educators, this might freak us out... oh. .. the chaos.
but how many of us now, spend way more time on prep and grading than on swimming with kids in the passion of your topic/discipline/whatever.
did we really go to school for classroom management? does anybody do that?
we do need a dialogue.
one of and, not either or.
one of choice.
but we need it now. we need to disrupt ourselves.
disruption is coming.
let's disrupt ourselves first.. no?
My first question is this – How “deep” into a subject such as Algebra, Biology, Chemistry, or Physics do we need to go for students to identify a passion for the subject? If we stopped teaching them all together, would we have as many doctors and engineers? At what point do we allow a student to say, “This is neither a strength nor a passion for me. I don’t care to pursue this subject further”?
Schank’s “throw it all out” position to me does more harm than good. I think we DO need to consider whether students should be required to take upper level Math and Science courses in high school, but I feel his post does not encourage conversation about curriculum reform and passion-based learning. It is extremist and calls what we do “ridiculous” and “beyond silly.” That confrontational language will not encourage the dialogue that is so desperately needed to bring about a truly student-centered, interest-driven education system.
